Infiltrator Water…

Infiltrator Water Technologies
Comments on the Proposed Changes to Sewage Systems and Energy Efficiency
for the Next Edition of Ontario’s Building Code

Infiltrator Water Technologies (Infiltrator) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Ontario Building Code (Code). Infiltrator manufactures three combined treatment and dispersal (CTD) systems, one of which (ATL) is authorized for use in Ontario by the BMEC. Our company’s involvement with the use of ATL in the Province, including the marketing of the system under its BMEC authorization, training of system designers and installers with the appropriate use of ATL, as well as oversight of system sampling and reporting affords us with a perspective on the potential impact of the proposed changes on provincial stakeholders.

Taken section by section, we respectfully submit the following comments. Our proposed changes and associated comments are provided in underlined text.

B-08-06-02 Division B / 8.6.2.2.(2) To address a combined treatment and dispersal bed system in the Code and harmonize its requirements with those of other Class 4 systems by requiring their certification to CAN/BNQ 3680-600.

Justification/Explanation
The proponent states that this proposal aims at codifying a combined treatment and dispersal system into the Building Code and harmonizing its requirements with those of other Class 4 systems including:

1.certification under the CAN/BNQ 3680-600 of the “treatment component”, which is composed of pipes, modules, or conduits used in conjunction with a layer of specified systems, and;

2.language for the design and construction of the “dispersal bed” component, which ensures consistency with the requirements with other Class 4 Sewage Systems.

Cost/Benefit Implications

The proponent claims that costs and greenhouse gas emissions would not be changed or be marginally increased. This change will improve the performance, reliability, and quality assurance of combined treatment and dispersal systems by requiring CAN/BNQ 3680-600 certification and harmonizes inconsistent requirements with other Building Code Class 4 Sewage Systems.

General Comments

We agree with the intent of item #1, which requires certification of combined treatment and dispersal (CTD) systems to CAN/BNQ 3680-600. It is technically justifiable to require all treatment systems in the Code that achieve Level IV treatment – not only electro-mechanical treatment systems but any technology, including CTD systems - to be held to the same industry-accepted treatment performance standard(s).

However, items #1 and #2 separate what is in fact the core innovation that a CTD system provides – the unit processes of treatment and dispersal combined in one integrated system footprint, thereby eliminating the need for a separately constructed bed area dedicated to the dispersal unit process. There is no technical justification for separating the proprietary manufactured media in a CTD system – as described in the proposed text as the “treatment component” - from the system sand, which envelopes this proprietary media.

Requiring a dispersal bed for a CTD system, which is specifically designed to both treat and disperse effluent, adds an unnecessary redundant and expensive component that serves no useful purpose. An analogy would be requiring a secondary treatment reactor for an electromechanical treatment system, a duplicative addition that repeats a process already designed into the system.

In addition, while a CTD is in fact a treatment system, it lacks several of the critical features of a dispersal bed (stone aggregate, for example), and should in no way be held to construction requirements that address these system types. CTD systems are purposefully designed without a separate dispersal bed. The proposed Code changes include an entire section on construction requirements for this specific technology, which are unconditionally unwarranted because BMEC-authorized CTD systems include the integrated capability to disperse treated effluent. The construction requirements included in the BMEC authorization should transition directly into the Code, without the addition of system components that have never previously been included in BMEC-authorized CTD systems.

With respect to the section titled “Cost/Benefit Implications”, we submit that the claim of “costs and greenhouse gas emissions would not be changed or be marginally increased” is both unsupported and inaccurate. The cost of installing a CTD system in accordance with the Code change language as proposed will significantly increase (see detailed comments below) with the addition of a fully redundant dispersal bed. BMEC-authorized CTD systems do not have dispersal beds today but would require a dispersal bed in the future as proposed, significantly increasing system construction cost. The cost to mine and transport sand and rock for the proposed dispersal bed would also increase greenhouse gas emissions compared to today’s baseline levels. In addition, from a competitive standpoint, increased costs of CTD systems will directly and immediately increase the use of electro-mechanical treatment systems, which: 1) are considerably more expensive to the property owner than CTD systems due to the cost of electricity to power the aeration system; 2) use electricity that exerts addition load on the provincial generation capacity and produces more greenhouse gas; and 3) includes annual costs relating to operation and maintenance of moving parts and electro-mechanical control systems.

It appears that the Code-change proponent has submitted no supporting materials to justify the claim that “costs and greenhouse gas emissions would not be changed or be marginally increased”, when in fact sizeable cost and measurable greenhouse gas increases will occur if this Code change is implemented as proposed. If this is the case, we suggest that this raises the question of the legitimacy of the entire initiative of adding CTD systems to the Code. It also begs the question: “Why would the proponent(s) NOT be a manufacturer - or all the manufacturers - of CTD technologies? If the Code-change proponent does not manufacture a CTD system, and the proposed changes serve to increase cost and thereby reduce the competitive position of CTD systems relative to electro-mechanical systems, then the proposed change is purely competitive and lacks virtue.

Furthermore, the proponent is requesting changes “which ensures consistency with the requirements with other Class 4 Sewage Systems”. In many aspects, which we detail below, CTD systems are totally inconsistent with “other Class 4 Sewage Systems” and making them so will result in unjustified increases in costs of these systems to the property owner. Driving CTD systems into the set structure of either treatment or dispersal does not recognize that CTD technology is a recent disruptive entrant into the onsite wastewater treatment system marketplace because these systems achieve two functions in a single footprint. CTD technology represents an innovation that residents of the province can benefit from when the systems are designed as intended, but not when unnecessary, duplicative, and expensive requirements are imposed on their designs by manufacturers of competing technologies.

Section-specific Comments:

Section 8.6.2.2(2): A CTD system is not a “combined treatment and dispersal bed”. Separating the proprietary treatment and dispersal media from the integrated system sand bed is technically unjustifiable. As stated above, CTD systems combine treatment and dispersal in one system, which is absolutely unique and represents the innovation of the technology. Making it two separate entities – in this instance a “treatment unit” and a “combined treatment and dispersal bed” – completely removes the innovative principle of the design concept.

We submit that if CTD systems are transitioned into the Code, throughout the Code, CTD systems should be described as “combined treatment and dispersal systems”, as opposed to “combined treatment and dispersal beds”.

We agree with the objective of the subsection. However, we submit that the proposed wording is technically unsound and unsupportable.

We submit that the following re-write achieves the same objective (“does not exceed the maximum concentrations set out opposite a Level IV treatment unit in Columns 2 and 3 of Table 8.6.2.2.”), and coincidentally addresses this concern:

(2) A treatment unit that is used in conjunction with a leaching bed constructed as a shallow buried trench, Type A dispersal bed, or Type B dispersal bed or combined treatment and dispersal bed shall be designed such that the effluent from the treatment unit does not exceed the maximum concentrations set out opposite a Level IV treatment unit in Columns 2 and 3 of Table 8.6.2.2. A combined treatment and dispersal system shall be designed such that the effluent from the system does not exceed the maximum concentrations set out opposite a Level IV treatment unit in Columns 2 and 3 of Table 8.6.2.2.

B-08-07-09 Division B / 8.7.9. (new) Introduction of combined treatment and dispersal beds systems in the Building Code under new Subsection 8.7.9.

General Comments
CTD technologies are not “beds”, they are “systems”. They are widely designed and installed in trench configurations in many other jurisdictions. This needs to be corrected throughout all sections if CTD technology is in fact added to the Code, including the following in subsection 8.7.9.1.:

8.7.9 Combined Treatment and Dispersal Beds Systems

8.7.9.1. Construction Requirements

(1) The treatment unit used in conjunction with a leaching bed constructed as a combined treatment and dispersal bed system shall provide an effluent quality that does not exceed the maximum concentrations set out opposite a Level IV treatment unit in Columns 2 and 3 of Table 8.6.2.2.

2) A combined treatment and dispersal bed system shall be backfilled with leaching bed fill so as to ensure that, after the leaching bed fill settles, the surface of the leaching bed will not form any depressions.

(3)The contact area of the dispersal surface shall be rectangular in shape with the long dimension parallel to the site contours and the treatment unit system shall be protected in the manner described in Sentence 8.7.3.3.(2) or as per the manufacturer’s instructions.

(4) A layer of The sand shall be installed directly beneath the treatment system unit that shall,

(a) be comprised of a sand that has,
(I) a percolation time of at least 6 and not more than 10 min, and
(ii) not more that 5% fines passing through a 0.074 mm (No. 200) sieve,

(b) have a minimum thickness of 300 mm, and

(c) have an area that is not less than the area determined by the formula:
A = QT/400 where, A = the area of contact in square metres between the base of the sand layer and the underlying soil or sand,
Q = the total daily design sanitary sewage flow in litres, and
T = the lesser of 50 and the percolation time of the underlying soil, and

(d) be constructed such that the bottom of the treatment unit is at least 600 mm above the high ground water table, rock or soil with a percolation time of 1 min or less or greater than 50 min.

(5) Either imported sand meeting the specification of 8.7.9.1.(4)(a) or specified system sand or other filtering medium used in the treatment unit system shall be used to fill in the area between the assembly of pipes, modules, or conduits.

(6) The effluent shall be evenly distributed within the specified system sand layer to within 300 mm of the perimeter of the sand layer as described in Sentence (4).

(7) The perimeter of the treatment unit pipes, modules, or conduits shall not be located closer than the minimum horizontal distances set out in Table 8.2.1.6.B. and these distances shall be increased when required by Sentence 8.7.4.2.(11).

(8) The combined treatment and dispersal bed system shall not be installed in an area where the original ground has a slope in excess of 25%.

Combined Treatment and Dispersal Unit System, means a type of treatment unit system consisting of a series of pipes, modules, conduits, or other proprietary unit, which when combined encased within a layer of system sand, provides a specific degree of sanitary sewage treatment to which meets CAN-BNQ 3680-600 requirements reduce the contaminant load from that of sanitary sewage to a given effluent quality.

Dispersal Surface, means the layer of soil or leaching bed fill, constructed wholly in ground or raised or partly raised above ground, as required by local conditions, to which effluent from a Combined Treatment and Dispersal Unit System is applied.

The following definition of Treatment Unit would need to be revised:
Treatment unit means a device that, when designed, installed and operated in accordance with its design specifications, provides a specific degree of sanitary sewage treatment to reduce the contaminant load from that of sanitary sewage toa given effluent quality, and includes a Combined Treatment and Dispersal Unit Systems.

Justification/Explanation
The proponent states that new Subsection 8.7.9. would set out and describe the requirements for Combined Treatment and Dispersal Systems. Updated definitions would be required to support this new Subsection.

General Comments
We commend the proposer for using the term “systems” instead of units”, which is the appropriate way to describe CTD technology.

We find the proposed language in 8.7.9.1.(4)(b) to be extremely problematical. From the perspective of a CTD manufacturer, these recommendations speak directly to how flawed this initiative is with respect to changing the Code to allow use of CTD systems. As written, this section will significantly increase the cost of CTD systems without providing any reciprocal benefits to CTD users.

The text in 8.7.9.1.(4)(b) proposes to require an additional sand layer of 300 mm below CTD systems. This is contrary to all CTD BMEC authorizations, which means contradictory to the manner in which these systems have been designed and installed for many years in Ontario. Has the proposer provided any technical support for this new requirement? Independent third-party testing of all BMEC-authorized CTD systems has proven that the treatment of TSS and BOD5 is well within required parameters with the use of 300 mm of sand below the proprietary media.

Installation of CTD systems with an additional 300 mm of sand doubles the amount of sand required below the manufactured media. Our calculations indicate that this will result in an increase of more than 25% in the cost to construct the system, including delivery-related costs, compared to how a BMEC-authorized CTD system is installed today. Labor costs will be impacted as well for obtaining and placing the additional sand. We submit that the proponent’s claim that “No cost impact is expected” is unfounded on its face. Anyone who buys groceries at the supermarket knows that when you buy twice as many goods, the cost of the order goes up, and the effect from this proposed Code change is no different – twice as much sand as what is required per today’s BMEC authorizations equates to twice as much sand cost.

The proposed language in 8.7.9.1.(4)(d) is a significant change to the manner in which CTD systems are designed and installed under their BMEC authorizations. Under existing Code language, Type A treatment units need a 600 mm vertical separation over only the stone bed area (Q/B), while the rest of the QT/400 area is not required to provide any vertical separation. As proposed, the Code will require CTD systems to have this 600 mm over the entire basal area (QT/400). This is problematical in a number of ways: it does not mate with the manner in which CTD systems are designed and installed under their BMEC authorizations; it will be very difficult to achieve on many sites; and if available for design on a given site will require a significant amount of additional imported soil – which results in significantly increased costs to the property owner. In summary, this change makes CTD systems more expensive/less competitive, more difficult to site and install, and more demanding of required construction materials, while returning nothing in terms of improved performance or added protectiveness.

If the Code is to be changed to require BMEC-authorized treatment systems that are certified to produce Level IV effluent to include an additional 300 mm of sand below the system, it is imperative that MMAH requires the proponent to establish that these current-day CTD system designs are either malfunctioning or failing to treat the wastewater to Level IV standards. Again, from what we are able to review, the proponent has provided no materials to support these claims of need. In the absence of such, we submit that the change is arbitrary and unnecessary.

B-08-09-01 Division B / 8.9.2.4.(1) To include a requirement to take effluent samples for proposed combined treatment and dispersal bed systems.

8.9.2.4. Sampling of Treatment Units

(1) Every person operating a treatment unit that is used in conjunction with a leaching bed constructed as a shallow buried trench, Type A dispersal bed, or Type B dispersal bed or combined treatment and dispersal bed shall,
(a) take a grab sample of the effluent to determine the level of CBOD5and suspended solids in the effluent,
(b) carry out the sampling required by Clause (1)(a) in accordance with the methods described in the APHA/AWWA/WEF, “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater”, and
(c) promptly submit the results of the sampling required by Clause (a) to the chief building official.

General Comments
We submit that there is no compelling need to require sampling of CTD systems. As the proposer states in various sections of their submittal, CTD systems have been approved for use in Ontario since 2013. One product has had its BMEC authorization renewed two times and is in the process of applying for its third authorization. These reauthorizations are a result of the applicant providing sampling data from operating systems to the BMEC that proves that the CTD system is producing effluent under real life, field conditions that meets the Level IV requirements of Section 8 of the Code.

It is critical to understand that CTD systems are passive treatment systems. They do not require the use of power (electricity). They have no moving parts. There is nothing that can malfunction or break that will cause the system to produce less than fully treated effluent.

Passive CTD systems are to a great degree “fail safe”. Their unique feature is that they provide treatment and dispersal in one system, one footprint, without the use of electricity or moving parts. When an electro-mechanical “advanced treatment system” malfunctions – be it by loss of power, worn or broken component, or some other issue, the system can allow wastewater to continue flowing through the unit while producing untreated or partially treated effluent. In effect, under worse-case conditions, the treatment tank becomes no more than a septic tank providing primary treatment. The drainfield, which includes a number of features that result from the fact that it is processing “treated” effluent – such as a reduces basal area, reduced vertical and horizontal setbacks, for example – is no longer receiving treated effluent but rather common septic tank effluent. As a result, the drainfield is undersized and too close to vertical and horizontal areas protected by the Code.

Cost/Benefit Implications

The proponent claims that this would provide the same level of protection for the environment and public health and safety between advanced treatment systems and conventional systems.

General Comments
As detailed above, passive, non-mechanical, non-electrical CTD systems will provide “the same level of protection for the environment and public health and safety” as electro-mechanical treatment systems, and no amount of maintenance or sampling will change that fact.

Cost Comparison Details

We provide for your consideration the following system cost comparisons.
For comparison purposes we make the following specification assumptions:

Q = 2000 lpd T = 15 Level site
No water table restrictions.
Prices reflect cost-to-the-contractor in Canadian dollars.

System #1: Electro-mechanical treatment unit with gravity flow to a filter bed (E-M)
System #2: Combined treatment and dispersal system – as presently allowed under BMEC authorization (CTD)
System #3: Combined treatment and dispersal system – with proposed Code changes in effect (CTD 2024)

System #1: E-M
• 2-tank system
o tanks and assessor equipment = $23,000

• 27 m2 filter bed
o 90-ton Filter Sand @ $16.00/ton (picked up) = $1440
o 30-ton ¾” washed septic stone @ $12.00/ton (picked up) = $360
o 30 m2 Filter Fabric = $38.00
o 100 ft 4” CSA PVC Perf pipe @ $2.60/ft = $260
o 60 ft 4” CSA PVC Solid pipe @ $2.80/ft = $168
o 10 4” fittings (90, 45 & 22 elbows and tees) @ $11.00/ea = $110

• operator and labor
o 1 excavator and operator 24 hours @ $175/hour = $4200
o 1 laborer 24 hours @ $28/hour = $672
o Triaxle Dump Truck & driver – 5 trips @ $320 x 2 hours round trip = $1600
o Topsoil, seed and cleanup = $1500
Total cost to installer = $33,348

System #2: CTD
• septic tank = $1800

• 75 m2 CTD bed
o 28 CTD conduits @ $205/each = $5740
o 1 lysimeter and sample well kit = $160
o 76.32-ton ASTM-C33 System Sand @ $14.00/ton (picked up) = $1070
o 4 Adapter couplings @ 11.00/each = $44
o 4 CTD plugs @ $4.00/each = $16
o 24 CTD insert couplings @ $5.50/each = $132
o 1 6-hole distribution box = $75
o 100 ft 4” CSA PVC Solid pipe @ $2.80/ft = $280
o 10 4” fittings (90, 45 & 22 elbows and tees) @ $11.00/ea = $110

• operator and labor
o 1 excavator and operator 16 hours @ $175/hour = $2800
o 1 laborer 16 hours @ $28/hour = $448
o Triaxle Dump Truck & driver – 4 trips @ $320 x 2 hours round trip = $1280
o Topsoil, seed and cleanup = $1500
Total cost to installer = $15,455

System #3: CTD 2024
CTD system if the design required 300mm of sand as opposed to 115mm as presently authorized with BMEC authorization approved
600/230 = 2.6 times additional system sand from System #2
o 76.32 ton x 2.6 = 198.43 ton ASTM-C33 System Sand @ $14.00/ton (picked up) = $2,778
o 1 excavator and operator 20 hours @ $175/hour = $3500
o 1 laborer 20 hours @ $28/hour = $560
o Triaxle Dump Truck & driver – 9 trips @ $320 x 2 hours round trip = $2880
o Plus, all similar costs from above example
Total Cost to installer = $19,575

E-M CTD CTD under revised Code
Cost to Contractor 33,400 15,500 19,500 26% increase

50% markup 50,300 23,250 29,250 26% increase
Differential E-M to CTD 27,000 (116%) 21,000 (72%)

Takeaways:
• Under the Code today:
o CTD is $23,250 E-M is $50,300
 E-M is $27,000 more expensive than a CTD to the property owner
• This is an increase in cost of 116%

• Under the Code if the proposed changes are implemented:
o CTD becomes $29,250 E-M remains at $50,300
 CTD system costs increase $6,000
• This is an 26% increase in the cost of CTD systems
 E-M becomes only $21,000 more expensive than a CTD to the property owner
• This is an increase in cost of “only” 72%
o The incentive to select CTD as opposed to E-M is reduced
 E-M cost doesn’t change; however the difference between the two system types has decreased by 44%

Closing Comments

The process of moving proven technologies from the BMEC authorization process into the Code has been consistent over time: the product/system/technology performs under its BMEC authorization as the manufacturer claims and the product/system/technology transitions into the Code as it was used under the BMEC authorization. Several aspects of the proposed Code changes in this instance result in substantive differences in the way CTD systems will be designed and installed as compared to the BMEC-authorized configuration. This is contrary to the history of this technology’s use in the province. Furthermore, the Code change proponent’s claim that “costs and greenhouse gas emissions would not be changed or be marginally increased” is erroneous and misleading. Code changes need to be made on sound rationale, rather than misguided statements. Doubling the sand thickness doubles the sand cost and increases the overall system cost by approximately 40%. Making CTD systems less competitive results in more electro-mechanical systems being installed, with every one of those systems drawing power from the provincial electrical grid, resulting in increased greenhouse has generation. The proponent’s statements do not align with the impact of the proposed code changes.

Misleading claims within the proposed Code change, combined with the fact that all of the differences make CTD systems more expensive to install and less competitive with electro-mechanical systems, indicate that this proposed Code change has been put forth to advance one class of technology and demote a competing class of technology. The province should be a proponent of innovation that is proven to function properly. Having an incumbent technology’s status elevated at the expense of a competitive, disruptive technology through a change to the Code is unfair and unjust and lacks all merit. From our perspective, this proposed Code change in its entirety should be allowed only if there is significant data or information to indicate that CTD technology must be managed in a different way than it is managed through the BMEC authorization process. If such a situation exists, we submit that this is an indication that the technology under its BMEC authorization has not in fact earned the opportunity to make this transition.

List of additional locations in the proposed changes in the Code where “combined treatment and dispersal bed” should be changed to “combined treatment and dispersal system”:

8.6.2.2.(2)
8.7.1.2.(1)