Proposed Changes to Sewage Systems (and Energy Efficiency) for the Next Edition of Ontario’s Building Code

• 14 proposals were submitted by members of Ontario’s onsite wastewater industry. MMAH did not analyze or modify the 14 proposals before posting on the ERO and received significant comments from stakeholders and the industry.
• Having reviewed the comments, as well as hearing directly from key stakeholders (i.e., emails and meetings), it became clear that further discussions and additional consultations would be required with the sector. 
• To assist MMAH with the consideration of the 14 proposals, a 17-member Technical Committee (which met twice in the Spring of 2023) was comprised of industry experts, and was established to provide additional input, feedback, and to further consult with the sector. The purpose of the Technical Committee was:

1. to review the proposed changes,
2. to review the comments submitted during public consultation, and 
3. for the Technical Committee to share findings and provide feedback to MMAH.

The following summaries actions taken in respect of the 14 proposals.

Three proposals (1, 2, and 3 below) of the 14 proposals were included in the 2024 edition of the Building Code. 

1. Septic Tanks 

• The updated standard may slightly increase the cost of a septic tank, but it also increases safety. 
  • Most manufacturers are already complying with the updated standard. 
  • Comments received from consultation were supportive.
  • The Technical Committee was fully supportive. 

2. Filter Beds 

• The change created clarity and certainty, resulting in efficiencies in the design and review of these systems.
  • Those systems that use the existing soil would save the cost of importing sand or leaching bed fill.
  • A large majority Technical Committee support this proposal. The same support was indicated through the consultation. 

3. Area Beds

• There were issues raised during consultation that the proposal may eliminate the need for a fully-sized mantle, which could lead to sewage system failures. Failed systems can be hazardous to human health and the environment.
• Several arguments and opinions were submitted in support of this proposal but no new information, testing, or research was included in the proposal. 
• The proposal could reduce the amount of soils (sand and/or leaching bed fill) required to be transported and, in turn, be a cost saving to owners.
• The manufacturers of Type A and B beds submitted this proposal but the request may be viewed by others in the industry as providing an advantage.
• A slight majority of Technical Committee members supported the change.

Two (4 and 5 below) of the 14 proposals were developed into “Appendix Notes” and added to Building Code Compendium. While Appendix Notes are not regulation, they offer additional information (e.g., drawings, explanations, intent), which is helpful to the sector in the design and construction of onsite sewage systems. 

4. Grey Water Systems - to allow for increased flexibility in the design of Class 2 greywater systems that would allow for trench-like designs.

• There was some support for the proposal during the consultation. Concerns were raised about the lack of definitions for pit or trench in the Building Code, and the calculations used to determine the length of the trench for greywater systems.
• The Technical Committee noted that some municipalities already permit the greywater systems to be designed as trenches.
• The Technical Committee was unanimous in its support to develop an Appendix Note.

5. Filter Beds - to align Building Code requirements for filter bed mantles with other leaching bed systems.

• The Technical Committee explained that the intent of the proposal was not to include additional Code requirements, but instead clarify the existing requirements.
• There was some support for the proposal received through the consultation.
• A significant majority of the Technical Committee did not support the proposal as a regulation change, but instead recommended that an Appendix Note be developed to clarify this requirement. 

The remaining six of the 14 proposals were not included in the 2024 Building Code or the Appendix Notes to the Building Code.

6. , 7., and 8. (Three similar proposals, one for each chamber of low-profile size) Chamber Systems - to allow for the use of three low-profile chambers sizes (i.e., LP 1, 2, & 3).

• There was a mix of comments received from the consultation.
• The Technical Committee also had a mix of comments, with approximately 50% support for the three LPs chambers.
• There were unresolved concerns, including the reduction in the storage volume of wastewater, design requirements (e.g., vertical separation, coverage) and the calculation used appeared to be an alternative formular/method not in the Building Code.
• The addition of three new and low-profile chamber types in the Code could add design flexibility, increasing options for consumers. 
• The Technical Committee and the comments received during consultation noted the lack of supporting information for the LP chambers products and the lack of details about the LP chambers’ design and installation.

9.  Chamber Systems - to remove the requirement for a distribution pipe in a 

     chamber system 150 m and longer.

• The purpose of the pipe to help distribute the effluent throughout the leaching bed, when the system is large (more than 150 m long) or when the sewage system requires pumping because it is above the ground or at a distance from the treatment units (e.g., primary, or tertiary).
• If distribution pipes in chambers more than 150 m long were to be removed it would pose risks of system failure, human health, safety, and the environment.
• Concerns were expressed about system failures (e.g., ponding, scouring of soils, pumping/dosing). 
• The removal of distribution pipes in chamber systems could save consumers a negligible amount.
• Concerns were expressed that the proposal had an unresolved issue that was linked to calculation and design.     
• There was little support overall from the Technical Committee and during consultations for this proposal. 

10., 11., 12. and 13. (four interconnected proposals for the Combined Treatment and Dispersal Systems/Units) A new Leaching Bed Type - to add the requirements related to the design and construction of Combined Treatment and Dispersal Systems/Units, including provisions related to certification, sampling, and competency criteria into the Building Code.

• During consultations and at the Technical Committee, issues were raised about the description of the proposed leaching bed and whether it is considered a “system” that preformed both treatment and disposal functions, or if it is a “unit” that only provides treatment, for which an extra disposal area would be required.
• The validity of the four proposals came into question, as it appeared there was a need for further development, input, and agreement on the scope of the proposal.
• The Technical Committee understood that the four proposals required major modifications.  
• A significant majority of the Technical Committee did not support the four proposals, but instead recommended that the four proposals undergo further development for future consideration.

14. Horizontal Distances for Type A Beds - to modify the way Type A Bed horizontal clearance distances are measured from the open bottom treatment unit, where the level IV treated wastewater enters the leaching bed.

• The manufacturers of these systems stated that the design and construction of Type A Beds would be smaller (possibly cheaper) and fit on difficult lots. 
• Several opinions were submitted in support of this proposal, but no new information, testing, or research was presented to modify existing minimum health and safety requirements.
• Risks to health, safety, environment were expressed.

A narrow majority of Technical Committee members supported the change.