2014 Septic Re-Inspection Annual Report

Project No. 131-13046-00 January 2015 Distribution: 2 c Client 1 c File – WSP Canada Inc. 126 Don Hillock Drive, Unit 2 Aurora, Ontario L4G 0G9 Phone: +1 905-750-3080 Fax: +1 905-727-0463 www.wspgroup.com

TOWN OF SOUTH BRUCE PENINSULA SEPTIC RE-INSPECTION PROGRAM 2014 ANNUAL REPORT Town of South Bruce Peninsula

WSP Canada Inc. 311 Goderich Street P.O. Box 1600 Port Elgin, Ontario N0H 2C0 www.wspgroup.com

H:\Proj\13\13046-00\103 Annual Reports\0414011 Annual Reporting 2014\Wp\MHV-R 2014 Re-Inspection Report.docm

January 5, 2015 Tim Murawsky, Chief Building Official Town of South Bruce Peninsula 315 George Street, Box 310 Wiarton, Ontario N0H 2T0 Re: Town of South Bruce Peninsula

Septic Re-Inspection Program 2014 Annual Report Project No. 131-13046-00

Dear Mr. Murawsky:

We are pleased to forward our report for the above noted program. The report was prepared in accordance with the terms of our contract as detailed in Section 4.7.4 of WSP’s (formerly GENIVAR Inc.) work proposal dated October 24, 2012.

This report provides the results of the 2014 septic re-inspection program, and summarizes the activities that occurred and the certificates and remedial actions that were issued. Information is also included with respect to risk categorization of the systems inspected. The report contains a discussion of the results along with our conclusions and recommendations.

The findings are contained in the executive summary while details of the results are provided in the subsequent sections.

We thank you for the opportunity to work on this study.

Yours truly, WSP Canada Inc. Michael H. Varty, P.Eng. Director Environment, GTA MHV:nah

i

Town of South Bruce Peninsula Septic Re-Inspection Program WSP Town of South Bruce Peninsula No 131-13046-00 January 2015

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y The Town of South Bruce Peninsula’s Septic Re-Inspection Program is a proactive strategy to help protect and preserve the ecological and environmental integrity within this unique and sensitive area. The program was designed as a physical endeavor to help ensure the long term health of the natural environment. The main objective is to inspect existing on-site sewage systems for malfunction, deterioration, erosion and overall compliance to Section 8.9 of the Ontario Building Code (OBC).

The Town of South Bruce Peninsula spans an area of approximately 54,000 hectares, with a population of approximately 8,500 residents (2011 census profile). As of April 2013, WSP determined that there were 4,665 parcels of land with known septic systems throughout the Town, and an additional 1,249 parcels of land with possible on-site septic systems. Between 4,665 and 5,914 parcels of land will be inspected during the program mandate (2013 to 2016).

Soils across the Town are variable and are associated with three distinct physiographic regions. In the central-east and north/northeast portion of the Town, in areas such as Wiarton, Mallory Beach, Mar, Purple Valley, etc., the soil is predominately noted as a thin layer of Breypen soils overlaying bedrock. Along the western edge, along the shoreline of Lake Huron, and into the south central portion of the Town the shallow soil type is predominately noted to be sand and sandy loam. This includes areas such as Howdenvale, Red Bay, Oliphant, Sauble, and from Sauble east to Hepworth. To the South, in areas surrounding Chesley Lake, Allenford, and north of Allenford the shallow soils are defined as diamicton till deposits, with some isolated silt and muck pockets.

Town of South Bruce Peninsula includes a significant number of water bodies including frontages on Georgian Bay and Lake Huron and inland lakes such as Berford Lake, Sky Lake, Isaac Lake, Spry Lake, Boat Lake, Gould Lake, Chesley Lake, Beattie Lake, Mud Lake, Carson Lake, Maryville Lake and Silver Lake.

The 2014 component of the program generally consisted of septic re-inspections within Zone E based on the revised inspection zone map (May, 2013). A total of 1,586 parcels of land were evaluated throughout this zone, generally beginning in April, and coming to completion in October 2014. Of the properties evaluated in Zone E, 1,233 properties were re-inspected with the remainder of the properties either being deferred, deemed vacant, or not completed due to unresponsiveness. This equated to 93% participation in the program.

Where there were indications of a Code contravention under Section 8.9 of the Ontario Building Code, WSP issued a remedial action letter describing the visual deficiencies observed by the inspector. The letter linked the observed septic system conditions with specific provisions in the Ontario Building Code for the improper operation and maintenance of a private sewage system. In total there were 270 remedial action letters issued; the percentage of properties inspected receiving remedial action letters was 20% within Zone E.

ii

WSP Town of South Bruce Peninsula Septic Re-Inspection Program 2014 Annual Report No 131-13046-00 Town of South Bruce Peninsula January 2015

One of the limiting factors when completing a septic re-inspection program is that some systems may not be exhibiting signs or symptoms of failure however may still be of concern due to other factors. Examples of these systems may be ones near wells, surface water features, or in areas with significant tree cover or landscaping. WSP analyzed the data collected from the field inspection and has assessed each system based on eight (8) risk factors. Based on this analysis, 25 systems were classified as “Higher Risk”, 338 as “Moderate Risk”, and 956 as “Lower Risk”.

Based on the risk analysis, much of the Zone E inspection area is categorized as “lower” risk. There was one (1) specific area identified as having a higher concentration of moderate to higher risk systems, that being the Red Bay community.

iii

Town of South Bruce Peninsula Septic Re-Inspection Program 2014 Annual Report WSP Town of South Bruce Peninsula No 131-13046-00 January 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 1

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE .................................................................................. 4

1.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY ........................................................................................ 5

1.4 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 5

1.4.1 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION ....................................................................................... 6

1.4.2 SCHEDULING ....................................................................................................... 6

1.4.3 MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS ........................................................................... 7 1.4.3.1 QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 9 1.4.3.2 INSPECTIONS .................................................................................................................... 9 1.4.4 INSPECTION REPORTS .................................................................................... 11

1.5 OVERVIEW OF ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS ................................................ 12

2 PHYSICAL SETTING ................................................................... 14

2.1 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 14

2.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY OF THE 2014 RE-INSPECTION ZONE ................................ 20

2.3 SURFACE WATER FEATURES ......................................................................... 21

3 RESULTS ..................................................................................... 21

3.1 2014 PROGRAM OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 21

3.2 SCHEDULING ..................................................................................................... 22

3.3 INSPECTION RESULTS ..................................................................................... 22

3.3.1 CLASS 1 SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 23

3.3.2 CLASS 2 SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 24

3.3.3 CLASS 3 SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 25

3.3.4 CLASS 4 SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 25 3.3.4.1 SEPTIC TANKS ................................................................................................................ 26 3.3.4.2 LEACHING BEDS ............................................................................................................. 27 3.3.4.3 TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND OTHER SYSTEM COMPONENTS .................................. 28 3.3.5 CLASS 5 SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 29

3.3.6 ALL SYSTEMS .................................................................................................... 30

iv


3.4 RISK CATEGORIZATION ................................................................................... 30

3.4.1 SEPTIC TANK SIZE ............................................................................................ 31

3.4.2 NUMBER OF SEPTIC TANK COMPARTMENTS ............................................... 31

3.4.3 SEPTIC TANK CONDITION ................................................................................ 32

3.4.4 SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT LEVEL ..................................................................... 33

3.4.5 LEACHING BED SIZE ......................................................................................... 33

3.4.6 LEACHING BED CONDITION ............................................................................. 34

3.4.7 DISTANCE TO DRINKING WATER SOURCE ................................................... 35

3.4.8 DISTANCE TO SURFACE WATER SOURCE .................................................... 36

3.4.9 OVERALL RISK ................................................................................................... 36

4 DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 37

4.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................. 37

4.2 EDUCATION ........................................................................................................ 38

4.3 RE-INSPECTION RESULTS ............................................................................... 38

4.3.1 CLASS 1 AND 2 SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 38

4.3.2 CLASS 5 SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 39

4.3.3 CLASS 4 SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 39

4.4 REMEDIAL ACTIONS ......................................................................................... 40

4.5 RISK CATEGORIZATION ................................................................................... 41

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 42

v

Town of South Bruce Peninsula Septic Re-Inspection Program WSP Town of South Bruce Peninsula No 131-13046-00 January 2015

T A B L E S TABLE 1-1 INSPECTION PROCESS SUMMARY

TABLE 3-1 SERVICING TYPE OF RE-INSPECTED PROPERTIES (ZONES A THROUGH E)

TABLE 3-2 TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF RE-INSPECTIONS

TABLE 3-3 DISTRIBUTION OF RE-INSPECTIONS BY CLASS OF SYSTEM

TABLE 3-4 CLASS 1 SYSTEM OBSERVATIONS

TABLE 3-5 CLASS 1 SYSTEM CERTIFICATES AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS



TABLE 3-8 SEPTIC TANK CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

TABLE 3-9 SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT FILTER

TABLE 3-10 SLUDGE AND SCUM DEPTH

TABLE 3-11 CLASS 4 SYSTEM CERTIFICATES AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS (SEPTIC TANKS)

TABLE 3-12 TYPE OF LEACHING BED FOR CLASS 4 SYSTEMS

TABLE 3-13 CLASS 4 SYSTEM CERTIFICATES AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS (LEACHING BEDS)

TABLE 3-14 TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND OTHER COMPONENTS



TABLE 3-17 CERTIFICATES AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS ALL SYSTEMS

TABLE 3-18 SEPTIC TANK SIZE RISK CHARACTERIZATION

TABLE 3-19 SEPTIC TANK COMPARTMENTS RISK CHARACTERIZATION

TABLE 3-20 TANK CONDITION RISK CHARACTERIZATION

TABLE 3-21 SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT LEVEL RISK CHARACTERIZATION

TABLE 3-22 LEACHING BED SIZE RISK CHARACTERIZATION

TABLE 3-23 LEACHING BED CONDITION RISK CHARACERIZATION

TABLE 3-24 DISTANCE TO DRINKING WATER SOURCE RISK CHARACTERIZATION

TABLE 3-25 DISTANCE TO SURFACE WATER SOURCE RISK CHARACTERIZATION

TABLE 3-26 OVERALL RISK CHARACTERIZATION

vi


F I G U R E S FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 2 RE-INSPECTION ZONES

FIGURE 3 REGIONAL PHYSIOGRAPHY MAP

FIGURE 4 SHALLOWS SOILS

FIGURE 5 SHALLOW SOILS (OMAFRA)

FIGURE 6 SURFICIAL TOPOGRAPHY

FIGURE 7 BEDROCK GEOLOGY

FIGURE 8 BEDROCK TOPOGRAPHY

A P P E N D I C E S APPENDIX A SEPTIC SMART HANDOUT

APPENDIX B TOWN BY-LAW 52-2013

APPENDIX C PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

APPENDIX D SCHEDULING

APPENDIX E GENERAL PHOTOS FROM 2014

1


1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND

The Town of South Bruce Peninsula spans an area of approximately 54,000 hectares, with a population of approximately 8,500 residents (2011 census profile). The geographic boundaries of the Town are illustrated in Figure 1. Communities within the Town include Adamsville, Colpoy's Bay, Hepworth, Hope Bay, Howdenvale, Mar, McIvor, Oliphant, Park Head, Purple Valley, Red Bay, Sauble Beach, Sauble Beach North, Sauble Beach South, Sauble Falls, Skipness, and Wiarton.

The Town also includes a significant number of water bodies including frontages on Georgian Bay and Lake Huron and inland lakes such as Berford Lake, Sky Lake, Isaac Lake, Spry Lake, Boat Lake, Gould Lake, Chesley Lake, Beattie Lake, Mud Lake, Carson Lake, Maryville Lake and Silver Lake.

The Town of South Bruce Peninsula’s Septic Re-Inspection Program is a proactive strategy to help protect and preserve the ecological and environmental integrity within the Town. The program was designed as a physical endeavor to help ensure the long term health of the natural environment. The main objective is to inspect existing on-site septic systems for malfunction, deterioration, erosion and overall compliance with Section 8.9 of the Ontario Building Code (OBC). WSP Canada Inc. (formerly GENIVAR), as a third party consultant, is administering the Septic Re-Inspection Program on behalf of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.

The OBC was amended (O.Reg. 315/10) to establish and govern mandatory onsite sewage system maintenance inspection programs, to be administered in certain areas by local enforcement bodies. The amendments to the OBC also govern discretionary onsite sewage system maintenance inspection programs established by local enforcement bodies.

As of April 2013 it was determined that there were 4,665 parcels of land with known septic systems throughout the Town, and an additional 1,249 parcels of land with possible onsite septic system servicing. Between 4,665 and 5,914 parcels of land are expected to be inspected during the program mandate (2013 to 2016).

Historic septic system permits were obtained from the Town of South Bruce Peninsula to aid in the administration of this program. Permits included those that were downloaded to the Town from upper tier Health Units such as the Grey Bruce Health Unit, the Bruce County Health Unit, and the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Health Unit. Although WSP has access to historic permits, not all properties with a septic system have a historic permit available/associated with it.

The main focus of the program in the future will be determined by Town Council, subject to Provincial mandates. Until such time, the Town has established discretionary areas on a map and originally categorized them by a hierarchy of inspection start times with an adjustment made by Council. The areas are classified by Zone, “A” through “H”, and inspections will proceed alphabetically through the Zones until the completion of the program. The Zone boundaries are illustrated in Figure 2.

Lake Huron

Georgian Bay

OwenSound

Orangeville

Collingwood

Hanover

COUNTY OFBRUCE

COUNTY OFGREY

COUNTY OFDUFFERIN

COUNTY OFSIMCOE

Highway 10

Hig

hw

ay 6

Highway 26

Highway 9

Highway 89

2014 ANNUAL REPORT

TOWN OF SOUTH BRUCE PENINSULA

SEPTIC SYSTEM RE-INSPECTION PROGRAM

For Town of South Bruce Peninsula

LOCATION MAP

1

FILE. NO.:131-13046-00F1PROJECT: 131-13046-00

DATE: DECEMBER 2014

FIGURE

5,000 0 5,0002,500 Metres

.1:750000SCALE:

Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources,Ontario Base Mapping, July 2012.

LEGEND


Lake Huron

Colpoys B

ay

H

F

G

E

B

C

A

D

C

H

HIG

HW

AY

6

GREY R

OAD 1

GREY ROAD 17

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 9

HIGHWAY 21

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

4

GR

EY

RO

AD

3

GREY ROAD 18

BRUCE ROAD 13

BRUCE ROAD 8

GREY ROAD 170

GREY ROAD 5

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

0

HIG

HW

AY

6 &

10

3R

D A

VE

NU

E E

AS

THIGH STREET

GREY ROAD 17A

BRUCE ROAD 5

GREY ROAD 17B

BR

UC

E R

OA

D

9T

H A

VE

NU

E E

AS

T

HIGHWAY 6

B

RU

CE

RO

AD

13

HIG

HW

AY

6

HIGHWAY 6

HIGHWAY 21

GREY ROAD 5

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

0

GR

EY

RO

AD

1

GREY ROAD 5

2014 ANNUAL REPORT




RE-INSPECTION ZONES

2

FILE. NO.:131-13046-00F2PROJECT: 131-13046-00

DATE: DECEMBER 2014

FIGURE

2,000 0 2,0001,000 Metres

.1:250000SCALE:

Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping,July 2012.

LEGEND


FIRST NATIONS

4


1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

Sewage system maintenance inspections are generally intended to determine whether a sewage system is in substantial compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements outlined in Section 8.9. of Division B of the OBC or, in the case of discretionary programs, with the requirements enforced by the program. These inspections are undertaken by inspectors appointed by Principal Authorities in respect of maintenance inspection programs:

Required under Article 1.10.2.3. of Division C of the Building Code (“Mandatory Programs”); and

Established by Principal Authorities under by‐laws, resolutions or regulations under clause 7(1)(b.1) of the Building Code Act, 1992 (“Discretionary Programs”).

In the case of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, the Septic Re-Inspection Program was developed based on the re-inspection guidelines provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, consultation with the Town of South Bruce Peninsula Building Division, and in conjunction with by-laws approved by the Town of South Bruce Peninsula Council. In general, the Septic Re-Inspection Program consists of non-intrusive inspections of all private on-site sewage systems (Class 1 - Class 5) within the Town inclusive of the interior of septic and holding tanks, where applicable.

Specifically, the scope of the program is as follows;

To provide notification to property owners within the Town of South Bruce Peninsula regarding the re-inspection program;

To host an information session for residents to explain the details of the program prior to commencement of the program in 2013;

To schedule a septic system re-inspection for each parcel of land within the Town that relies on a Class 1 to Class 5 on-site sewage system;

To complete a septic system re-inspection, in the presence of the property owner or representative, for each parcel of land that relies on a Class 1 to Class 5 on-site sewage system;

To issue inspection reports, certificates, and remedial action letters to property owners (copying the Town) based on the results of the septic system re-inspections;

To collate and review the septic system re-inspection data;

To complete a statistical analysis of the results of the program; and

To prepare an annual report to document the study findings.

The long term health and success of a Town-wide Septic Re-inspection Program will rely on property owners who are educated and aware of the how their system functions and proper operation and maintenance practices. This level of awareness will translate into higher compliance rates and will promote property owners being proactive, rather than reactive, when it comes to the health of their on-site sewage system. This will translate into a healthier environment going forward.

One of the primary objectives of this program was to help educate the property owners, as such, each inspection was scheduled to take approximately one (1) hour to complete and it was mandatory that the property owner, or a representative over the age of 18, be present during the inspection process. This allowed for sufficient time for WSP to provide helpful advice, answer questions and provide additional resources. A government produced Septic Smart handout was provided to each home owner/representative during their inspection. A copy of the handout is provided in Appendix A.

5


1.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY

Due to the large number of properties included in this re-inspection program, the amount of travel between sites, and the physical nature of the work being performed, all WSP staff were thoroughly trained on the health and safety aspects of completing such a program, and the inspection process itself was designed with safety in mind.

WSP believes that opening the septic tank or holding tank for inspection, where applicable, is required for the re-inspection program to be meaningful. The status of the septic or holding tank and the liquid levels within it can provide a significant amount of information regarding the overall condition of a septic system. Given the private nature of the properties, health and safety concerns exist relating to digging up tank lids as it is possible homeowners have run secondary power lines in these areas. Ontario One-Call (public locating service) does not locate secondary power lines and as such it was the responsibility of the property owner to have their tank(s) located and lids unearthed prior to WSP arriving at the site.

WSP inspectors are regularly trained in health and safety aspects of field work programs and understand the potential dangers associated with sewer gases and confined spaces. In some cases it may not have been possible to see inlets and outlets of septic tanks as the field inspectors were not permitted to have their head/face enter the tank in any manner.

Metal tanks were not thoroughly inspected as there is the potential that the tank could be rusted to the point that additional human weight above it could cause the tank to collapse. All metal tanks were required to be removed due to their susceptibility to corrosion. As such, the program was not inhibited by the cursory inspection of these tanks.

1.4 METHODOLOGY

WSP has developed the Septic Re-Inspection Program based on the re-inspection guidelines provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), consultation with the Town of South Bruce Peninsula Building Division, and in conjunction with by-laws approved by the Town of South Bruce Peninsula Council. In general, the Septic Re-Inspection Program consisted of non-intrusive inspections of private on-site sewage systems within the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. Although the investigations were completed in a non-intrusive manner, WSP inspected the inside of septic tanks and holding tanks at each property, where applicable.

A copy of By-Law 52-2013 (May 21, 2013), providing authority for this program, is attached in Appendix B.

The Septic System Re-Inspection program involves the following primary tasks:

Public Notification

Scheduling

Re-Inspections

Inspection Reporting

Annual Reporting

The subsequent subsections provide a detailed methodology for the work completed in 2014 within each task.

6


1.4.1 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

At the onset of the program, during the Spring of 2013, public notification was completed through multiple forms of media to ensure that property owners and citizens were aware of the program, and had an opportunity to have their questions, comments, or concerns addressed.

The first method of public notification was through direct mailings to each property owner who had, or potentially had, a septic system within the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. Property addresses were provided by the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. The letter provided to each resident, dated April 24, 2013 (attached in Appendix C), introduced the WSP (formerly GENIVAR) project team, outlined the scope and goals of the program, and invited them to attend the May 11, 2013, information session.

The second method of public notification was through advertisements in the Wiarton Echo and the Owen Sound Sun Times for the time period of April 26 to May 7, 2013. A copy of the advertisement is provided in Appendix C. In general the advertisements provided notification to the residents regarding the upcoming information session, including the date, time, location and purpose of the meeting.

The third method of public notification was through the Town’s website. Notification was provided in the Community Life Calendar with respect to the May 11, 2013 information session, including the date, time, location and purpose of the meeting. A section of the Building webpage also provides information with respect to septic re-inspections.

An information session was held on May 11, 2013 at the Wiarton Arena (526 Taylor St., Wiarton, ON) from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm. The information session included two (identical) 30 minute presentations by WSP outlining the scope, purpose, and anticipated outcomes of the re-inspection program. The morning presentation was completed at 10:30 am while the afternoon presentation was completed at 12:30 pm. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is provided in Appendix C. The remaining time was to be structured as an informal open house where residents could speak one-on-one with WSP staff, however this format was altered at the request of the residents who attended, with agreement from both the Town and WSP, to be a group question and answer period.

For the 2014 inspection year, homeowners who had properties within Zone E, based on By-Law 52-2013, were mailed an Inspection Information Package to notify that their property would be inspected before the end of the year. The Inspection Information Package included a covering letter detailing the purpose and individual cost of the inspection program, instructions explaining the inspection process, and a questionnaire for the residents to fill out in preparation for the inspection. A copy of the Inspection Information Package that was issued to residents within Zone E is provided in Appendix D.

1.4.2 SCHEDULING

Property owners scheduled to be inspected during 2014 were sent an Inspection Information Package, on March 28, 2014, notifying them of their upcoming inspection. The information package also included a questionnaire about the property’s septic system to provide WSP with a better understanding of the system prior to completing the inspection and to identify those systems that were eligible to defer their inspection as per By-Law 52-2013. A copy of the Inspection Information Package and questionnaire are provided in Appendix D.

The Inspection Information Package clearly outlined the scheduling process and provided contact information for the Project Coordinator and Scheduling Assistant. Homeowners were directed to contact the Project Coordinator or Scheduling Assistant prior to June 1, 2014, to book their preferred inspection date and time block. Inspection times were available between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm, Monday through

7


Saturday from July 2, 2014 until October 31, 2014, inclusive. The inspection times were booked during three (3) hour windows.

For property owners that did not book an inspection time with WSP’s Project Coordinator or Scheduling Assistant before the June 1, 2014 deadline, WSP followed up with an additional Mandatory Inspection Notice, dated June 13th, 2014 (Appendix D), assigning an inspection date and time block. This process was completed as a means of ensuring that the properties within Zone E were inspected prior to the end of 2014. The date assigned was considered to be a “mandatory” inspection time.

The Town of South Bruce Peninsula was notified of those residents who failed to be present for their booked or mandatory inspection time.

1.4.3 MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS

As per the recommendations contained in the “On‐Site Sewage System Maintenance Inspections” document published by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), March 2011, WSP set out a progressive audit approach to the inspections. Under this approach, initial inspections were designed to be non‐intrusive tests and would generally avoid significant disturbance to the system and to the surrounding soil area.

A hybrid “Phase I” and “Phase II” maintenance inspection, as outlined in the March 2011 MMAH guidelines was inferred to be sufficient to establish general compliance with Section 8.9. of the Ontario Building Code and with the standards enforced under this discretionary program. Tabulated below is a summary of the MMAH recommendations for a Phase I and Phase II inspection as well as the program completed under this mandate for comparison purposes:

Table 1-1: Inspection Process Summary

MMAH Recommendation Included in the

WSP/TSBP Program?

Comments

Phase I Inspection

The type of occupancy to determine the source and type of the sanitary sewage.

Yes

The source of water supply (municipal, well, lake, etc.)

Yes

The approximate volume of sewage generated.

Yes

The use of special devices such as garbage grinders or water softeners. No

Specific water treatment uses within each dwelling were not inspected as the focus was on the condition of the septic system components.

The general nature of the system (class, components, type, layout, etc.)

Yes

The location of the system’s components with respect to wells, surface water, and other environmental features.

Yes

8



WSP/TSBP Program?

Comments

The approximate level of ground water.

No

Site specific intrusive testing (boreholes, test pits) was not completed for cost, health and safety, and efficiency considerations, although more regional data is available electronically.

The size, material and the condition of the septic tank, or the holding tank.

Yes

The frequency of tank pump‐out and the last time the tank was cleaned.

Yes

Any indication of sewage system failure.

Yes

Documentation of previous effluent sampling test results where required.

No

Historic sampling results for treatment units were not obtained. These results should already be forwarded to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula for their review to comply with the OBC.

Phase II Inspection

The depth of the sludge layer and the distance from the top of the sludge layer and the outlet tee.

Yes

The thickness of the scum layers. Yes

The distance between the bottom of the scum/grease layer and the bottom of the outlet Tee.

Yes

The physical condition of the inlet and outlet.

Yes

The condition of the effluent filter, if utilized.

Yes

The existence of a maintenance agreement and the date of latest servicing for treatment systems.

No Maintenance agreements should already be forwarded to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula for their review to comply with the OBC.

The test results of a new round of effluent sampling

No

New sampling was not completed for treatment units. Historic results should already be forwarded to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula for their review to comply with the OBC.

Operational problems or system malfunction before or, at the time of inspection

Yes

Soil type and its permeability

No

Site specific intrusive testing (boreholes, test pits) was not completed for cost, health and safety, and efficiency considerations, although more regional data is available electronically as documented in Section 2.2 of this report.

Additional sources of hydraulic loading (e.g. surface discharge, roof drains)

Yes

Evidence of ponding Yes

9



WSP/TSBP Program?

Comments

Encroachments into the leaching bed area (e.g. building additions, patios, driveways, pools)

Yes

Trees and deep rooting shrubs in the vicinity of the bed

Yes

Evaluation of in‐home plumbing and estimates of water usage

No WSP did not enter the dwelling.

Conducting a leak diagnostics No WSP did not enter the dwelling.

Conducting a flow trial No WSP did not enter the dwelling.

Conducting a dye tracing test Available*

Dye testing can take days to complete and as such is not typically cost effective.

Excavating a cross section of the leaching bed

No Not completed for cost, efficiency, and liability considerations

* Dye testing is available at the discretion of the Town and WSP

1.4.3.1 QUALIFICATIONS

WSP, as a third party consultant, administrated the Septic Re-Inspection Program on behalf of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula in 2014. WSP is an engineering consulting firm with an active Certificate of Authorization with the Professional Engineers of Ontario and the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario, and also holds a Building Code Identification Number with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing relating to sewage system design and inspection.

All field personnel who completed inspections held a valid personal Building Code Identification Number (BCIN) with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing relating to sewage system design and inspection, and were covered under the WSP corporate Building Code Identification Number.

1.4.3.2 INSPECTIONS

WSP first met with the property owner (or representative) in order to ensure a consistent understanding as to the construction characteristics of their system. This also allowed for any questions regarding the program or the septic system to be answered prior to the completion of the inspection. WSP then reviewed pertinent background information such as: septic system questionnaire (if completed), type of occupancy, source of water, daily water and sewage use, etc.

Field inspectors then proceeded to identify the location of the sewage system components such as the leaching bed (if a Class 4 system) and septic tank. Once the components of the sewage system were located, a visual inspection of the components were completed

Provided below is an overview of the inspection process for the different classes of sewage systems:

For Class 1 systems, field inspectors completed a visual inspection of the privy/composting toilet to document:

Type of Class 1 system;

Condition of superstructure structure (vented, vermin proof, etc.);

10


Signs of leakage/overflow onto the ground;

Construction details of pit (if present); and,

Wastewater sources.

For Class 2 systems, field inspectors completed a visual inspection of the greywater pit to document:

Construction details of pit (if visible);

Pit access;

Signs of leakage/overflow onto the ground; and,

Wastewater sources.

For Class 3 systems, field inspectors completed a visual inspection of the cesspool pit to document:

Construction details of pit (if visible);

Signs of leakage/overflow onto the ground; and,

Wastewater sources.

For Class 4 systems, field inspectors opened (property owners were required to uncover the lids) and inspected the inside of the septic tank to document:

Construction materials;

Number of compartments;

Sludge and scum volume;

Tank volume;

Presence of an effluent filter;

Information regarding pump-outs;

Effluent liquid level;

Effluent characteristics;

Evidence of leakage; and,

Presence of other tankage and treatment units.

The sludge and scum layer depths were measured through the use of a Tru Core Sampler bailer apparatus. The volume of the septic tank was estimated based on the size and depth of the tank, or through information provided by the homeowner.

This inspection of the septic tank was followed by a visual inspection of the leaching bed to assess the presence or absence of obvious signs/symptoms of leaching bed stress. Documented leaching bed details included:

The type of leaching bed;

Approximate area;

Relative elevation;

11


Cover conditions;

Evidence of failure; and,

Distance of disposal system to water supply source/surface water bodies.

For Class 5 systems, field inspectors opened (property owners were required to uncover the lids) and inspected the inside of the holding tank to document:

Construction materials;

Presence/absence of high liquid level alarms;

Liquid height;

Tank volume;

Information regarding pump-outs; and,

Evidence of leakage.

Photos of the sewage system components were taken of the system inspected. Samples of select photographs are provided in Appendix E, and have been altered to remove property indicators.

Once the inspection process was completed, WSP again ensured that all questions the property owners/representative had were answered and the inspection form was reviewed in conjunction with the property owner for accuracy and completeness. Both the WSP field inspector and the property owner/representative signed the inspection report. A Septic Smart handout was left with the property owner/representative at the end of the inspection to provide additional information regarding the components of various septic systems and proper operational/maintenance procedures.

The inspection results were electronically gathered and stored on WSP’s secure EcoField program, and transmitted, along with the photographs, to our main server for review, analysis, and generation of the inspection reports.

1.4.4 INSPECTION REPORTS

WSP prepared and submitted re-inspection reports to the property owner (by mail) and to the Town (electronically) for each property inspected.

When there were no visible indications of a Code Contravention under Section 8.9 of the Ontario Building Code (as identified by the program) WSP issued a certificate (in an approved format from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing) documenting that a visual surficial inspection of the sewage system was conducted, and at that time there was no indication of Code Contravention. These certificates were mailed to the property owner, and sent electronically to the Town.

Where there were visible indications of a Code Contravention under Section 8.9 of the Ontario Building Code (as identified by the program) WSP issued a remedial action letter describing the visual deficiencies observed by the inspector. This letter included the Town of South Bruce Peninsula contact information for property owners to contact and discuss their intentions to remedy the noted deficiencies. The letter linked the observed septic system deficiencies with specific provisions in the Ontario Building Code for the improper operation and maintenance of a private septic system. This letter also outlined the expected timeframe for correspondence with the Town. Remedial action letters were mailed to the property owners, and sent electronically to the Town.

12


1.5 OVERVIEW OF ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS

Many rural properties rely upon on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (septic systems) to treat and dispose of wastewater. Typical systems used across Ontario have two main components: a septic tank and a leaching bed. These types of systems are generally classified as “Class 4” sewage systems.

Other systems such as privy’s, greywater pits, holding tanks, and cesspools are also found across Ontario to a lesser extent.

Conventional “Class 4” systems operate by treating sewage effluent to primary treatment levels, at minimum, within a septic tank, prior to discharge to the sub-surface. The effluent flows through septic tank where the heavy solids settle and the buoyant materials float to the top as scum. Baffles within the septic tank keep this scum layer from escaping the tank and flowing into the leaching bed.

From the septic tank, effluent typically enters into perforated distribution pipes laid in stone-filled trenches (or in a common stone layer). The surrounding soil provides a filter to further treat and renovate the wastewater effluent through physical filtration and biological processes prior to it reaching a sensitive receiver (groundwater, surface water, etc.).

In some cases, where the soil is relatively impermeable, or where there is shallow bedrock or groundwater, the leaching bed may be raised above native grade. This involves importing appropriate sand fill onto the site to create a leaching bed which is high enough above the water table or bedrock to provide sufficient treatment of the effluent.

On small lots, or for larger applications, secondary and tertiary sewage systems provide treatment to the wastewater prior to discharging it to the natural environment. Treatment is typically for parameters such as Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS); treating these parameters allows for the ability to load the subsurface soil at greater rates due to the reduced strength of the wastewater, thus resulting in smaller leaching bed areas. It is noted that although some systems provide the additional benefit of some level of nitrate or phosphorous treatment, most systems are not designed or intended for nitrate or phosphorous reduction and as such these systems can still contribute to groundwater and surface water pollution.

With proper and regular maintenance, traditional septic system designs can be a viable long term servicing option for many areas and communities. Many septic system re-inspection programs exist throughout Ontario at this time (both mandatory and discretionary) to help further protect the natural environment and human health by finding and repairing/replacing systems that are deemed to be “failing”.

The Septic Smart handout given to the property owners from the inspectors (Appendix A) provides additional details with respect to the construction and function of common on-site sewage systems.

Lake Huron

Colpoys

Bay

Bruce Peninsula

HuronFringe

ArranDrumlin

Field

CapeRich

Steps

HIG

HW

AY

6

GREY R

OAD 1

GREY ROAD 17

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 9

HIGHWAY 21

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

4

GREY ROAD 18

GR

EY

RO

AD

3

BRUCE ROAD 13

SA

UB

LE

FA

LL

SP

AR

KW

AY

GREY ROAD 170

GREY ROAD 5

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

0

HIG

HW

AY

6 &

10

PURPLE VALLEY ROAD

HIGH STREET

GREY ROAD 17A

MAIN STREET

GREY ROAD 17B

BE

RF

OR

D S

TR

EE

T

BR

UC

E R

OA

D

HIGHWAY 6

B

RU

CE

RO

AD

13

GR

EY

RO

AD

1

HIGHWAY 21

GREY ROAD 5

HIG

HW

AY

6

HIGHWAY 6

GREY ROAD 5

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

0

2014 ANNUAL REPORT




REGIONAL PHYSIOGRAPHY MAP

3

FILE. NO.:131-13046-00F3PROJECT: 131-13046-00

DATE: DECEMBER 2014

FIGURE

2,000 0 2,0001,000 Metres

.1:250000SCALE:

Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping,July 2012. Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. 2007. Physiographyof southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, MiscellaneousRelease— Data 228.

LEGEND

PEAT AND MUCK

BEACHES

ESKERS

CLAY PLAINS

SAND PLAINS

SHALE PLAINS

LIMESTONE PLAINS

DRUMLINS

TILL PLAINS (DRUMLINIZED)

KAME MORAINES

TILL MORAINES

ESCARPMENTS

PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONBOUNDARY

FIRST NATIONS

TOWN OF SOUTHBRUCE PENINSULA

14


2 PHYSICAL SETTING 2.1 OVERVIEW

The Town of South Bruce Peninsula is generally bordered to the South by Highway 21, the shoreline of Lake Huron to the West, Hope Bay across to Pike Bay to the North, and the coast of Georgian Bay and Highway 6/Bruce Road 10 to the East. The peninsula is a mixture of Huron Fringe, Arran Drumlin Field and Bruce Peninsula Physiographic regions as described by the Ontario Geological Survey (Chapman and Putnam, 1984) and illustrated on Figure 3. The Huron Fringe region is characterized by a majority of sand plains with some gravel beaches on the coastal areas. The Arran Drumlin Field consists of long narrow drumlins with the area between them filled with lacustrine clay. The Bruce Peninsula region that makes up the majority of the South Bruce Peninsula, is mainly limestone bedrock plains with little overburden and scattered pockets of swamp and lakes.

Surficial soils across the Town are variable and are associated with the three distinct physiographic regions described above, see Figure 4 and 5.

In the central-east and north/northeast portion of the Town, in areas such as Wiarton, Mallory Beach, Mar, Purple Valley, etc., the soil is predominately noted as a thin layer of Breypen soils overlaying bedrock. Breypen soils are very stony with small pockets of soil and muck associated with them. The Breypen soil series is not associated with any particular soil type. There are some isolated pockets of till, silt and sand throughout the area as well, however thin drift thickness and shallow bedrock dominates this area.

Along the western edge, the shoreline of Lake Huron, and into the south central portion of the Town the shallow soil type is noted to be sand and sandy loam. This includes areas such as Howdenvale, Red Bay, Oliphant, Sauble, and from Sauble east to Hepworth. There are some isolated till deposits, and areas of shallow bedrock, however the vast majority of this area is characterized by sand and gravel deposits.

To the south, in areas surrounding Chesley Lake, Allenford, and north of Allenford the shallow soils are defined as diamicton till deposits, with some isolated silt and muck pockets.

The Town of South Bruce Peninsula is relatively flat with the majority of topographic elevations ranging between 200 to 220 meters above sea level, see Figure 6.

Bedrock within the Town of South Bruce Peninsula is predominately associated with tan to brown dolostone of the Guelph formation. As noted on Figure 7, from the Wiarton area north to Hope Bay and east to Georgian Bay the bedrock is associated with blue-grey dolostones of the Amabel Formation. A small portion of the Town, in the extreme southwest sits atop dolostones and shales of the Salina Formation. The bedrock topography elevations are within 10 m of the surficial topography across the northern portion of the Town (Figure 8), indicating that the bedrock is located near or at the surface in these areas. The bedrock deepens to the south relative to the surficial topography and in some areas to the south west there may be up to 80 metres of drift thickness.

Lake Huron

Colpoys

Bay

GREY R

OAD

1

HIG

HW

AY

6

GR

EY

RO

AD

17

A LINE

AL

LE

NF

OR

D R

OA

D

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

4

SI D

ER

OA

D 5

CONCESSION 14

SIDEROAD 6

SID

ER

OA

D 1

5

EL

SIN

OR

E R

OA

D

SILVER LAKE ROAD

ZIO

N C

HU

RC

H R

OA

D

FR

EN

CHBAY

RO

AD

GR

EY

RO

AD

3

HU

RO

N R

OA

D

WE

ST

RO

AD

CONCESSION 17

BRUCE ROAD 13

TH

E B

UR

Y R

OA

D

GREY ROAD 18

B L

INE

BRUCE ROAD 8

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 9

SIDEROAD 9

GREY ROAD 170

LINDENWOOD ROAD

ELM ROAD

RED

BA

Y

ROAD

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 1

1

SPRING CREEK ROAD

KE

MB

LE

RO

CK

RO

AD

CONCESSION 21

CONCESSION 16

D L

INE

CONCESSION 10 EAST ARRAN

PU

RP

LE

VA

LLE

Y R

OA

D

GR

EY

BR

UC

E L

INE

SIDEROAD 10

MAR SIDEROAD

SU

NS

ET

DR

IVE

H OPE

BAY ROAD

C L

I NE

NO

RT

HA

CR

ES

RO

AD

MU

NI C

I PA

L R

OA

D

PAR K ROAD

CONCESSION 3 KEPPEL

GIRL GUIDE ROAD

CENTRE DIAGONAL

CE

NT

RE

RO

AD

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

0

WAUGHS ROAD

CAPE ROADM

ALLO

RY BEACH

RO

AD

BR

YA

NT

ST

RE

ET

FIELDSIDE ROAD

BE

RF

OR

D L

AK

E R

OA

D

BA

Y S

TR

EE

T

DA

DD

YW

E

IRRO

AD

CONCESSION 24

ELM STREET

BOAT L AKE ROAD

DAWSON ROAD

HIGHWAY 21

CO

RO

NA

TIO

NS

TR

EE

T

BA

LM

Y B

EA

CH

RO

AD

2N

DA

VE

N

UE

SO

UT

H

MA

ND

AW

OU

BR

OA

D

SA

UB

LE

FA

LL

S P

AR

KW

AY

SI D

ER

OA

D C

OL

ES

SIDEROAD 12

GREY ROAD 5

COUNTRY ROAD

WE

ST

ST

RE

ET

PO

RT E

LGIN

RO

AD

3R

D A

VE

NU

E E

AS

T

NORTH DIAGONAL

SC

OT

CH

SE

TT

LE

ME

NT

RO

AD

HIGH STREET

BE

LL D

RIV

ES

TO

NE

SC

HO

OL

RO

AD

COLPOYS RANGE ROAD

GREY ROAD 17A

PR

AIR

IER

OAD

RANKINBRIDGE ROAD

SO

ME

RS

ST

RE

ET

PLEASANTVIEW ROAD

HEA ROAD

CONCESSION 13 WEST ARRAN

LIMBERLOST ROAD

GREIGSETTLEM

EN T ROAD

K

ING

SC

RESCENT

JA

CK

SO

N R

OA

D

SUMMER AVENUE

MAPLE D

RIVE

BR

UC

E R

OA

DWEIRS ROAD

SHOULDICE BLOCK ROAD

CONCESSION 1 SCD

SID

ER

OA

D 1

15

GL

EA

SO

N L

AK

E R

OA

D

SID

ER

OA

D B

UR

GE

SS

CONCESSION 10

BE

CK

ON

S L

AN

E

OR

CH

AR

D D

RIV

E

LE

GIO

N R

OA

D

PRIVATE LANE

GREY ROAD 5

HIG

HW

AY

6

HIGHWAY 21

GR

EY

RO

AD

1

HIGHWAY 6

GREY ROAD 5

HIG

HW

AY

6

GREY ROAD 17

HIGHWAY 6

BR

UC

ER

OA

D1

3

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 9

CONCESSION 24B

RU

CE

RO

AD

10

GREY ROAD 17

2014 ANNUAL REPORT




SHALLOW SOILS

4

FILE. NO.:131-13046-00F4PROJECT: 131-13046-00

DATE: DECEMBER 2014

FIGURE

2,000 0 2,0001,000 Metres

.1:250000SCALE:

Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources,Ontario Base Mapping, July 2012.Surficial Geology of Southern Ontario, MRD 128,Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

LEGEND

PALEOZOIC BEDROCK

DIAMICTON

GRAVEL

ORGANIC DEPOSITS

SAND

SILT


FIRST NATIONS

Lake Huron

Colpoys

Bay

GREY R

OAD

1

HIG

HW

AY

6

GR

EY

RO

AD

17

A LINE

AL

LE

NF

OR

D R

OA

D

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

4

SI D

ER

OA

D 5

CONCESSION 14

SIDEROAD 6

SID

ER

OA

D 1

5

EL

SIN

OR

E R

OA

D

SILVER LAKE ROAD

ZIO

N C

HU

RC

H R

OA

D

FR

EN

CHBAY

RO

AD

GR

EY

RO

AD

3

HU

RO

N R

OA

D

WE

ST

RO

AD

CONCESSION 17

BRUCE ROAD 13

TH

E B

UR

Y R

OA

D

GREY ROAD 18

B L

INE

BRUCE ROAD 8

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 9

SIDEROAD 9

GREY ROAD 170

LINDENWOOD ROAD

ELM ROAD

RED

BA

Y

ROAD

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 1

1

SPRING CREEK ROAD

KE

MB

LE

RO

CK

RO

AD

CONCESSION 21

CONCESSION 16

D L

INE


PU

RP

LE

VA

LLE

Y R

OA

D

GR

EY

BR

UC

E L

INE

SIDEROAD 10

MAR SIDEROAD

SU

NS

ET

DR

IVE

H OPE

BAY ROAD

C L

I NE

NO

RT

HA

CR

ES

RO

AD

MU

NI C

I PA

L R

OA

D

PAR K ROAD

CONCESSION 3 KEPPEL

GIRL GUIDE ROAD

CENTRE DIAGONAL

CE

NT

RE

RO

AD

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

0

WAUGHS ROAD

CAPE ROADM

ALLO

RY BEACH

RO

AD

BR

YA

NT

ST

RE

ET

FIELDSIDE ROAD

BE

RF

OR

D L

AK

E R

OA

D

BA

Y S

TR

EE

T

DA

DD

YW

E

IRRO

AD

CONCESSION 24

ELM STREET

BOAT L AKE ROAD

DAWSON ROAD

HIGHWAY 21

CO

RO

NA

TIO

NS

TR

EE

T

BA

LM

Y B

EA

CH

RO

AD

2N

DA

VE

N

UE

SO

UT

H

MA

ND

AW

OU

BR

OA

D

SA

UB

LE

FA

LL

S P

AR

KW

AY

SI D

ER

OA

D C

OL

ES

SIDEROAD 12

GREY ROAD 5

COUNTRY ROAD

WE

ST

ST

RE

ET

PO

RT E

LGIN

RO

AD

3R

D A

VE

NU

E E

AS

T

NORTH DIAGONAL

SC

OT

CH

SE

TT

LE

ME

NT

RO

AD

HIGH STREET

BE

LL D

RIV

ES

TO

NE

SC

HO

OL

RO

AD

COLPOYS RANGE ROAD

GREY ROAD 17A

PR

AIR

IER

OAD

RANKINBRIDGE ROAD

SO

ME

RS

ST

RE

ET

PLEASANTVIEW ROAD

HEA ROAD


LIMBERLOST ROAD

GREIGSETTLEM

EN T ROAD

K

ING

SC

RESCENT

JA

CK

SO

N R

OA

D

SUMMER AVENUE

MAPLE D

RIVE

BR

UC

E R

OA

DWEIRS ROAD


CONCESSION 1 SCD

SID

ER

OA

D 1

15

GL

EA

SO

N L

AK

E R

OA

D

SID

ER

OA

D B

UR

GE

SS

CONCESSION 10

BE

CK

ON

S L

AN

E

OR

CH

AR

D D

RIV

E

LE

GIO

N R

OA

D

PRIVATE LANE

GREY ROAD 5

HIG

HW

AY

6

HIGHWAY 21

GR

EY

RO

AD

1

HIGHWAY 6

GREY ROAD 5

HIG

HW

AY

6

GREY ROAD 17

HIGHWAY 6

BR

UC

ER

OA

D1

3

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 9

CONCESSION 24B

RU

CE

RO

AD

10

GREY ROAD 17

2014 ANNUAL REPORT




SHALLOW SOILS (OMAFRA)

5

FILE. NO.:131-13046-00F5PROJECT: 131-13046-00

DATE: DECEMBER 2014

FIGURE

2,000 0 2,0001,000 Metres

.1:250000SCALE:

Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources,Ontario Base Mapping, July 2012.Soils, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food,Ontario Ministry of Rural Affairs and Agri-Food Canada.

LEGEND

SILT LOAM

SILTY CLAY

CLAY LOAM

CLAY

LOAM

SAND

SANDY LOAM

GRAVEL

BOTTOM LAND

BREYPEN

BREYPEN VARIABLE

MARL

MARSH

MUCK

WATER

TOWN OF SOUTHBRUCE PENINSULA

FIRST NATIONS

Lake Huron

Colpoys

Bay

220

180

200

240

260

280

240

200

22

0

200

240

260

220

200

240

200

240

220

18

0

260

180

240

240

240

240

22

0

220

220

24

0200

200

240

220

200

200

220

240

240

220

200

180240

240

220

240

200

200

200

200

240

240

180

220

260

180

240

220

220

240

220

240

220

200

200

240

240

240

240

240

200

220

220

200

220

240

200

260

22

0

240

240

240

240

22

024

0

18

0

200

240

200

200

200

200

220

260

220

220

220

220

200

240

180

240

200

240

220

220

240

200

200

240

240

200

220

200

200

220

240

240

240

240

200

220

220

20

0

200

220

240

200

240

240

240

200

200

240

240

180

200

220

240

18

0

200

260

200

240

240

200

240

240

200

200

240

240

20

0

200

180

220

220

200

220

240

240

240

240

240 240

22

0

200

180

260

280 300

320

240

240

24

0

280200

240240

24

0

300

240

240

240

240

260

240

26

0

240

180

260

260

200

220

26

0

280

260

24

0240

24

0

240

240

240

200

240

28

0

26

0

260

260

240

28

0

220

280

240

260

240

28

0

220

260

260

220

180

240

240

240

280

260

180

280

280

280

240

30

0

240

260

240

240

260

220

24

0

260

260

240

260

280

26

0

240

260

260

220

240

240

260

240

260

240

240

240

260

280

240

220 240

260

240

240

240

260

260

240

240

GREY R

OAD 1

HIG

HW

AY

6

GR

EY

RO

AD

17

A LINE

AL

LE

NF

OR

D R

OA

D

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

4

SID

ER

OA

D5

SIDEROAD 6

SID

ER

OA

D 1

5

SILVER LAKE ROAD

GREY ROAD 18

ZIO

N C

HU

RC

H R

OA

DF

RE

N

CHB

AY

RO

AD

TH

E B

UR

Y R

OA

D

HU

RO

N R

OA

D

CONCESSION 17

BRUCEROAD 13

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 9

GR

EY

RO

AD

3

BRUCE ROAD 8

PIKE BAY ROAD

GREY ROAD 170

BLIND LINE

ELM ROAD

SPRING CREEKROAD

SIDEROAD 10

CONCESSION 21

D L

INE

MAR SIDEROAD

SU

NS

ET

DR

IVE

H OPE

BAY ROAD

GR

EY

BR

UC

E L

INE

PA RK ROAD

CENTRE DIAGONAL

CE

NT

RE

RO

AD

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

0

GREY ROAD 5

BA

Y S

TR

EE

T

CONCESSION 24

BOAT L AKE ROAD

DAWSON ROAD

HIGHWAY 21

CO

RO

NA

TIO

NS

TR

EE

T2N

DA

VE

N

UE

SO

UT

H

MA

ND

AW

OU

BR

OA

D

SIDEROAD 12

WE

ST

ST

RE

ET

3R

D A

VE

NU

E E

AS

T

NORTH DIAGONAL

BE

LL D

RIV

E

PR

AIR

IE R

OAD

RANKINBRIDGE ROAD

SO

ME

RS

ST

RE

ET

GREIGSETTLEM ENT ROAD

K

ING

SC

RESCENT

CONCESSION 20OLIPHANT WAY

SUMMER AVENUE

SID

ER

OA

D C

AV

EL

L

ROUSE ROAD

SID

ER

OAD

WIL

CO

X

ON

JA

GA

H B

O R

OA

D

GL

EA

SO

N L

AK

E R

OA

D

CONCESSION 10

PRIVATE LANE

ICE HUT LANE

GR

EY

RO

AD

1

BR

UC

ER

OA

D1

3

CE

NT

RE

RO

AD

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

3

SID

ER

OA

D 1

0

GREY ROAD 17

HI G

HW

AY

6

HIGHWAY 21

GR EYR

OA

D1

HIG

HW

AY

6

2014 ANNUAL REPORT




SURFICIAL TOPOGRAPHY

6

FILE. NO.:131-13046-00F6PROJECT: 131-13046-00

DATE: DECEMBER 2014

FIGURE

2,000 0 2,0001,000 Metres

.1:250000SCALE:

Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources,Ontario Base Mapping, July 2012.

LEGEND


FIRST NATIONS

TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS (MASL) (20 M INTERVALS)

Lake Huron

Colpoy

s Bay

GREY R

OAD 1

HIG

HW

AY

6

GR

EY

RO

AD

17

A LINE

AL

LE

NF

OR

D R

OA

D

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

4

SI D

ER

OA

D 5

CONCESSION 14

SIDEROAD 6

SID

ER

OA

D 1

5

EL

SIN

OR

E R

OA

D

SILVER LAKE ROAD

WE

ST

RO

AD

ZIO

N C

HU

RC

H R

OA

D

FR

EN

CHBAY

RO

AD

TH

E B

UR

Y R

OA

D

HU

RO

N R

OA

D

CONCESSION 17

BRUCE ROAD 13

GR

EY

RO

AD

3

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 9

GREY ROAD 18

BRUCE ROAD 8

SIDEROAD 9

GREY ROAD 170

LINDENWOOD ROAD

ELM ROAD

RED

BA

Y

ROAD

SPRING CREEK ROAD

B L

INE

KE

MB

LE

RO

CK

RO

AD

SIDEROAD 10

CONCESSION 21

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N 1

1

CONCESSION 16D

LIN

E

PU

RP

LE

VA

LLE

Y R

OA

D

MAR SIDEROAD

SU

NS

ET

DR

IVE

H OPE

BAY ROAD

C L

I NE

GR

EY

BR

UC

E L

INE

NO

RT

HA

CR

ES

RO

AD

MU

NI C

I PA

L R

OA

D

PAR K ROAD

CONCESSION 3 KEPPEL

GIRL GUIDE ROAD

CENTRE DIAGONAL


CE

NT

RE

RO

AD

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

0

WAUGHS ROAD

CAPE ROADM

ALLO

RY BEACH

RO

AD

BR

YA

NT

ST

RE

ET

FIELDSIDE ROAD

BE

RF

OR

D L

AK

E R

OA

D

BA

Y S

TR

EE

T

DA

DD

YW

E

IRRO

AD

CONCESSION 24

ELM STREET

BOAT L AKE ROAD

DAWSON ROAD

HIGHWAY 21

CO

RO

NA

TIO

NS

TR

EE

T

BA

LM

Y B

EA

CH

RO

AD

2N

DA

VE

N

UE

SO

UT

H

MA

ND

AW

OU

BR

OA

D

SA

UB

LE

FA

LL

S P

AR

KW

AY

SI D

ER

OA

D C

OL

ES

SIDEROAD 12

COUNTRY ROAD

WE

ST

ST

RE

ET

PO

RT E

LGIN

RO

AD

3R

D A

VE

NU

E E

AS

T

NORTH DIAGONAL

SC

OT

CH

SE

TT

LE

ME

NT

RO

AD

GREY ROAD 5

BE

LL D

RIV

ES

TO

NE

SC

HO

OL

RO

AD

COLPOYS RANGE ROAD

GREY ROAD 17A

PR

AIR

IE R

OAD

RANKINB RIDGE ROAD

SO

ME

RS

ST

RE

ET

PLEASANTVIEW ROAD

HEA ROAD


LIMBERLOST ROAD

GREIGSETTLEM

EN T ROAD

K

ING

SCR

ESCENT

JA

CK

SO

N R

OA

D

SUMMER AVENUE

MAPLE D

RIVE

BR

UC

E R

OA

DWEIRS ROAD


CONCESSION 1 SCD

SID

ER

OA

D 1

15

GL

EA

SO

N L

AK

E R

OA

D

SID

ER

OA

D B

UR

GE

SS

CONCESSION 10

BE

CK

ON

S L

AN

E

OR

CH

AR

D D

RIV

E

LE

GIO

N R

OA

D

PRIVATE LANE

GREY ROAD 5

HIGHWAY 6

GR

EY

RO

AD

1

HIG

HW

AY

6

BR

UC

ER

OA

D1

3

HIG

HW

AY

6

GREY ROAD 17

HIGHWAY 6

HIGHWAY 21

CONCESSION 24B

RU

CE

RO

AD

9B

RU

CE

RO

AD

10

GREY ROAD 17

GREY ROAD 5

2014 ANNUAL REPORT




BEDROCK GEOLOGY

7

FILE. NO.:131-13046-00F7PROJECT: 131-13046-00

DATE: DECEMBER 2014

FIGURE

2,000 0 2,0001,000 Metres

.

1:250000SCALE:

LEGEND


FIRST NATIONS

SALINA FORMATION

GUELPH FORMATION

AMABEL FORMATION

CLINTON-CATARACT GROUP

QUEENSTON FORMATION

GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION

Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources,Ontario Base Mapping, July 2012.Paleozoic Geology of Southern Ontario, MRD 219,Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

Lake Huron

Colpoy

s Bay

18

0

190

20

0

210

22

0

230

240

17

0

250

16

0

15

0

260

27

0

14

0

28

0

130

29

0

12

0

110

300

100

310

31

0

190

220

240

24

0

220

24

0

24

0

180

170

21

0

17

0

240

180

20

0

240

27

0

190

200

200

23

0

280

23

0

280

210

230

230

250

290

18

0

240

180

210

280

230

22

0

210

260

26

0

25

0

250

220

19

0

230

220

230

240

190

190

280

2302

30

230

18

0

190

250

220

200

18

0

18019

0

24

0

26026

0

18

0

190

220

280

200

240

250

260

170

25

0

240

220

190

18

0

210

200

170

200

280

180

210

280

170

22

0

210

180

240

160

26

0

190

16

0

190

220

25

0

240

240

260

210

150

25

0

250

260

25

0

180

240

200

230

260

220

260

17

0

270

240

27

0

18

0

14

0

170

270

240

200

27

0

190

24

0

230

230

25

0

23

0

23

0

180

230

240

220

260

24

0

250

21

0

2402

80

140

250

240

290

240

250

270

190

170

250

26

0

220

21

0

270

200

270

270

180

250

19

0

190

230

23

0

22

0

230

190

21

0

220

240

240

260

200

210

240

22

0

25

0

19

0

160

GREY ROAD 1

HIG

HW

AY

6

GR

EY

RO

AD

17

A LINE

AL

LE

NF

OR

D R

OA

D

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

4

SI D

ER

OA

D 5

SIDEROAD 6

SID

ER

OA

D 1

5

EL

SIN

OR

E R

OA

D

SILVER LAKE ROAD

WE

ST

RO

AD

ZIO

N C

HU

RC

H R

OA

D

FR

E

NCHBA

YR

OA

D

HU

RO

N R

OA

D

CONCESSION 17

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

3 GR

EY

RO

AD

3

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 9

GREY ROAD 18

BRUCE ROAD 8

SIDEROAD 9

GREY ROAD 170

B L

INE

LINDENWOOD ROAD

ELM ROAD

SPRING CREEK ROAD

SID

ER

OA

D 1

0

CONCESSION 21

CONCESSION 16D

LIN

E

MAR SIDEROAD

H OPE

BAY ROAD

C L

I NE


CE

NT

RE

RO

AD

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

0

WAUGHS ROAD

CAPE ROADM

ALLO

RY BEACH

RO

AD

BR

YA

NT

ST

RE

ET

FIELDSIDE ROAD

BE

RF

OR

D L

AK

E R

OA

D

BA

Y S

TR

EE

T

CONCESSION 24

ELM STREET

DAWSON ROAD

HIGHWAY 21

BA

LM

Y B

EA

CH

RO

AD

2N

DA

VE

N

UE

SO

UT

H

SIDEROAD 12

GREY ROAD 5

COUNTRY ROAD

3R

D A

VE

NU

E E

AS

T

NORTH DIAGONAL

HOWDENVALE ROAD

GREY ROAD 17A

PR

AIR

IE R

OAD

RANKINBRIDGE ROAD

SO

ME

RS

ST

RE

ET

PLEASANTVIEW ROAD

HEA ROAD

QU

AR

RY

RO

AD


SUTTER ROAD

CONCESSION 20

SIDEROAD TAYLOR

GL

EA

SO

N L

AK

E R

OA

D

GEORGE STREET

OR

CH

AR

D D

RIV

E

LE

GIO

N R

OA

D

PRIVATE LANE

HIG

HW

AY

6

BR

UC

E R

OA

D 1

0

GREY ROAD 17

GREY ROAD 5

SID

ER

OA

D 5

SIDEROAD 12

BR

UC

ER

OA

D1

3

HIGHWAY 6

GREY ROAD 17

2014 ANNUAL REPORT




BEDROCK TOPOGRAPHY

8

FILE. NO.:131-13046-00F8PROJECT: 131-13046-00

DATE: DECEMBER 2014

FIGURE

2,000 0 2,0001,000 Metres

.

1:250000SCALE:

LEGEND


FIRST NATIONS

BEDROCK ELEVATION (MASL) (10M INTERVAL)

Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources,Ontario Base Mapping, July 2012.Bedrock Topography and Overburden ThicknessMapping, Southern Ontario, MRD 207,Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

20


2.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY OF THE 2014 RE-INSPECTION ZONE

Some of the more predominate regions located in Zone E are:

Oliphant area;

Howdenvale area;

Red Bay area; and

The Lake Huron Islands.

Oliphant is a residential/recreational hamlet bordered by Lake Huron to the west and Spry and Boat Lake to the east. Ministry of Natural Resources mapping of this area indicates that the shallow soils in this area are predominantly sand/ sandy loam, with marsh areas abutting Lake Huron (see Figures 4 and 5). These surficial soils are approximately 10 to 20 m thick overlying Limestone bedrock of the Guelph Bedrock formation based on available mapping (see Figure 6, 7, and 8). Upon review of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) water well records in the Oliphant area, the average depth to bedrock is approximately 5.5 m, while the soil stratigraphy general consists of a sand layer, atop limestone bedrock. There are some silt and clay pockets noted under the sand layer; and in some circumstances replace the sand entirely and extend to the surface.

Howdenvale is a small residential/cottage hamlet located in the northwestern portion of the Township along the shore of Lake Huron, atop Howdenvale Bay. Ministry of Natural Resources mapping of this area indicates that the shallow soils in this area are predominantly sand and sandy loam (see Figures 4 and 5). These surficial soils are up to approximately 10 m thick with some bedrock outcroppings towards the westerly portion of the hamlet along Lake Huron based on available mapping (see Figures 6 and 8). The thin overburden layer in this area overlies the Limestone bedrock of the Guelph Bedrock formation based on available mapping (see Figure 7). Upon review of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) water well records in the Howdenvale area, the average depth to bedrock is approximately 4.6 m, while the soil stratigraphy general consists of varying amounts of sand and/or gravel atop limestone bedrock. There are some silt and clay pockets noted under the sand layer; and in some circumstances the surfical soils are non-existent and bedrock is exposed at grade.

The community of Red Bay is located near the shore of Lake Huron, between Howdenvale and Oliphant. Ministry of Natural Resources mapping of this area indicates that the shallow soils in this area are predominantly sand with localized muck deposits (see Figures 4 and 5). These surficial soils are up to approximately 10 m thick with some bedrock outcroppings towards the southwesterly portion of the community along Lake Huron based on available mapping (see Figures 6 and 8). The overburden layer in this area overlies the Limestone bedrock of the Guelph Bedrock formation based on available mapping (see Figure 7). Upon review of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) water well records in the Red Bay area, the average depth to bedrock is approximately 7 m, while the soil stratigraphy general consists of varying amounts of sand and/or gravel, followed by a layer of silt/clay, atop limestone bedrock. In some circumstances the surfical soils are non-existent and bedrock is exposed at grade.

The Islands properties are located off the shores of Lake Huron, west of Oliphant and Red Bay. Ministry of Natural Resources mapping of this area indicates that the shallow soils in this area are predominantly exposed bedrock with some localized sand deposits (see Figures 4). These surficial soils, where present, are inferred to be thin; the overburden layer (where present) in this area overlies the Limestone bedrock of the Guelph Bedrock formation based on available mapping (see Figure 7).

21


2.3 SURFACE WATER FEATURES

As previously noted the Town of South Bruce Peninsula includes a significant number of water bodies including frontages on Georgian Bay and Lake Huron and inland lakes such as Berford Lake, Sky Lake, Isaac Lake, Spry Lake, Boat Lake, Gould Lake, Chesley Lake, Beattie Lake, Mud Lake, Carson Lake, Maryville Lake and Silver Lake.

The 2014 re-inspection program included a portion of the Lake Huron shoreline as well as areas surrounding a few inland lakes such as Spry Lake, Patterson Lake, and Hodgins Lake.

3 RESULTS 3.1 2014 PROGRAM OVERVIEW

In 2014, WSP completed re-inspections of on-site septic systems located within Zone E based on the revised inspection zone map (May 2013). WSP reviewed tax roll information to determine the type of wastewater servicing at each property. Based on the information reviewed prior to the start of the program for Zone E it was understood that there were approximately:

No properties with municipal sewage servicing;

796 vacant parcels of land;

1298 parcels of land with known septic systems; and

195 parcels with unknown servicing.

Parcels with unknown servicing were ones in which the tax information reviewed did not provide the servicing type, however the property was also not noted to be vacant. Of interest to the septic re-inspection program were the 1,298 known septic systems and 195 lots with unknown servicing, a total of 1,493 properties.

Upon completion of the 2014 program a total of 1,586 properties have been evaluated/re-inspected within Zone E. As noted in the 2013 Annual Report, systems within Zones A, B, C and D that were not completed in 2013 due to unresponsiveness were to be inspected in the Spring of 2014. Provided in Table 3-1 is a breakdown of the servicing type for the properties that have been assessed in Zones A through E to date.

Table 3-1: Servicing Type of Re-Inspected Properties (Zones A through E)

Zones Parcels with Re-Inspected

Septic Systems

Vacant Parcels

Parcels with Deferred Septic System Re-

Inspections Not Completed Not Required*

Total Parcels

A, B, C, D 927 74 113 12 17 1,143

E 1,233 91 138 86 32 1,586

Total 2,160 165 251 98 49 2,729

* Not required includes sites that are regulated by the MOE

As noted above, there were more properties evaluated in Zone E (1,586) than originally anticipated (1,493). The discrepancy in these numbers was likely due to inaccurate/outdated information from the tax roll

22


database. Systems that were not completed due to unresponsiveness will be inspected in the Spring of 2015 pending scheduling with the property owner.

3.2 SCHEDULING

Information packages were sent to affected residents within Zone E on March 28, 2014. Between the time of mailing this package and June 1, 2014, WSP had received 1,101 responses. This equates to approximately 69% of the affected residents within a 64 day time period.

After June 1st, 2014, inspection dates were assigned to the remaining 485 properties in an effort to ensure that the program could be completed within the required timeframe. The inspection dates assigned were generally between the months of July and October, 2014. Of the 1,319 residents that were assigned an inspection date (either by booking or through the mandatory inspection times), 1,233 were present for the inspection which equates to 93% compliance.

A list of properties that were non-participatory in the re-inspection program were provided to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. As per the meeting between the Town and WSP prior to the 2014 re-inspection program, the Town will contact the non-participatory residents directly and the residents are to then contact WSP to schedule their re-inspection for Spring of 2015.

Temporally, the inspections were distributed between the months of June and November as detailed in Table 3-2:

Table 3-2: Temporal Distribution of Re-Inspections

Month Approximate Number of Properties Inspected

Zone E Zones A, B, C, D

Prior to June 2014 6 911

June 352 3

July 374 1

August 306 8

September 156 2

October 45 2

November 0 0

Total 1,233 927

A total of 2,160 properties have been inspected during the 2013 to 2014 program years.

3.3 INSPECTION RESULTS

WSP completed non-intrusive inspections of private on-site sewage systems (Class 1 - Class 5) within the Town inclusive of the interior of septic and holding tanks, where applicable. A tabulation of the number of systems within each septic system Class for Zone E is provided in Table 3-3.

23


Table 3-3: Distribution of Re-Inspections by Class of System (Zone E)

System Class Number of Systems in Zone E

Percentage of Zone E Systems

Running Percentage for all Inspected Systems (Zones A through E)

Class 1 Systems 84 6% 5%



Class 4 Systems 1,152 87% 89%


In total there were 1,319 systems re-inspected within the 1,233 properties associated with Zone E; the variation between the number of inspections and the number of properties is attributed to some properties containing multiple types of systems (i.e. both a Class 1 and a Class 2 system).

Each of these different types of systems would undergo different re-inspection process with different potential outcomes as detailed in Section 1.4.3.2. A summary of the results for each class of system is provided in the section below.

3.3.1 CLASS 1 SYSTEMS

Class 1 systems include chemical, incinerating, recirculating, composting, and self-contained toilets, as well as all forms of privy’s. Each of these systems were inspected for vermin protection, structural integrity, ventilation, screening, and mounding. The privy pit was also inspected to ensure that one was present and that it was competent.

As noted previously, a total of 84 Class 1 type systems were inspected within Zone E. A tabulation of the observations made for these systems is provided in Table 3-4 below:

Table 3-4: Class 1 System Observations

Observation Number of Class 1 Systems Percentage of Class 1 Systems

Inspected

No structure present 1 1%

Not vented 16 19%

Not vermin proof 18 21%

Structure in disrepair 4 5%

Vented without Screen 5 6%

No concerns noted 57 68%

As noted above, of the 84 Class 1 systems inspected, 32% were observed to have some level of deficiency. The percentage of deficiencies observed for Class 1 systems in Zone E (32%) is less than the number of deficiencies identified within the previous Zones (A through D; 92%).

When there were no visible indications of a Code contravention under Section 8.9 of the Ontario Building Code WSP issued a certificate documenting that a visual inspection of the sewage system was conducted, and at that time, there was no indication of a remedial action requirement. The issuance of a certificate does not necessarily mean that the system is operating as intended, nor does it mean that there are no risk factors associated with the system (See Section 3.4 for Risk Categorization results).

24


Where there were visible indications of a Code contravention, WSP issued a remedial action letter describing the visual deficiencies observed by the inspector. The letter linked the observed septic system conditions with specific provisions in the Ontario Building Code for the improper operation and maintenance of a private sewage disposal system.

Documented in Table 3-5 below are the numbers of certificates and remedial action letters issued for Class 1 systems.

Table 3-5: Class 1 System Certificates and Remedial Actions

Correspondence Issued Number of

Class 1 Systems in Zone E

Percentage of Class 1 Systems Inspected in

Zone E

Percentage of Class 1 Systems

Inspected in Zones A through

D

Total Percentage for all Class 1

Systems (Zones A through E)

Certificate letter issued 60 71% 92% 76%

Remedial action letter issued

24 29% 8% 24%

Total 84 100% 100% 100%

As noted in Table 3-5, remedial actions were issued to 24 Class 1 systems, which represent 29% of the total number of Class 1 systems inspected. The percentage of deficiencies that were noted in Zone E resulted in a greater number of remedial action requirements (on a percentage basis) when compared to previous Zones. A discussion pertaining to the significance of these results is provided in Section 4.


Class 2 systems include grey water disposal systems. Each of these systems was inspected for surficial symptoms of failure (spongy grass, depressions, etc.), access lids, and for any illegal discharges to the system (such as blackwater, or direct surface discharge).

A noted previously, a total of 52 Class 2 systems were inspected in Zone E. A tabulation of the observations made for these systems is provided in Table 3-6 below:


Observation Number of Class 2 Systems in

Zone E Percentage of Class 2 Systems

Inspected in Zone E

Access to pit is sealed with lockable lid and/or buried

11 21%

Topographic depression 1 2%

Spongy ground 2 4%

Receives blackwater 1 2%

Discharge to surface 6 12%

Missing lid(s) 1 2%

Illegal discharge 9 17%

System not functioning in intended manner

6 12%


25


As noted above, of the 52 Class 2 systems inspected, 50% were noted to have some level of deficiency. The percentage of deficiencies observed for Class 2 systems in Zone E (50%) is greater than the number of deficiencies identified within the previous Zones (A through D) (23%).

When there were no visible indications of a Code contravention under Section 8.9 of the Ontario Building Code WSP issued a certificate documenting that a visual surface inspection of the sewage system was conducted, and at that time there was no indication of a remedial action requirement. The issuance of a certificate does not necessarily mean that the system is operating as intended, nor does it mean that there are no risk factors associated with the system (See Section 3.4 for Risk Categorization results).




Correspondence Issued Number of Class

2 Systems in Zone E

Percentage of Class 2 Systems Inspected

in Zone E



D





19 37% 23% 34%

Total 52 100% 100% 100%

Of the 52 Class 2 systems inspected, 19 remedial action letters were issued equating to 37% of the Class 2 systems. . The percentage of the deficiencies noted in Zone E resulted in a greater number of remedial action requirements (on a percentage basis) when compared to previous Zones. A discussion pertaining to the significance of these results is provided in Section 4.


Class 3 systems include cesspools. There were no cesspools noted in Zone E of the re-inspection program. To date, there have been no cesspools identified as part of the program.


Class 4 systems include in ground and raised leaching beds, area beds, filter beds, shallow buried trenches and all other leaching bed systems. At minimum, each Class 4 systems includes both a septic tank/pre-treatment chamber and a disposal bed, while some systems will include pumping tanks, treatment units, distribution boxes, and other components.

26


3.3.4.1 SEPTIC TANKS

Septic tanks were inspected for structural soundness, tank materials, approximate volume, sludge and scum depths, presence of an effluent filter, liquid levels within the tank, and any evidence of illegal discharges or other concerns. Tables 3-8, 3-9 and 3-10 provide a tabulation of the tank materials, sludge and scum levels, and use of effluent filters, respectively, while Section 3.4 provides a detailed summary of risk factors associated with structural soundness and liquid levels within the tank.

Table 3-8: Septic Tank Construction Material

Observation Number of Septic Tanks in Zone E Percentage of Septic Tanks

Inspected in Zone E

Metal tank 9 1%

Fiberglass/Plastic Tank 21 2%

Concrete Tank 1,122 97%

Total 1,152 100%

Table 3-9: Septic Tank Effluent Filter


Inspected in Zone E

Effluent filter present 115 10%

No effluent filter 1,037 90%

Total 1,152 100%

Table 3-10: Sludge and Scum Depth


Inspected in Zone E

Greater than 33% sludge and scum 166 14%

33% sludge and scum 99 9%

Less than 33% sludge and scum 887 77%

Total 1,152 100%

As noted above, of the 1,152 septic tanks inspected and associated with Class 4 systems, the vast majority (97%) were concrete, while 2% were Fiberglass/Plastic, and 1% were metal. These results are similar to the results from the previous Zones.

Effluent filters were introduced as mandatory requirements on septic tanks associated with Class 4 systems when the 2006 Ontario Building Code was introduced. As noted in Table 3-9, only about 10% of Class 4 systems were observed to have effluent filters present, likely due to the fact that most systems were installed prior to the introduction of the 2006 OBC. These results are similar to the results from the previous Zones.

Table 3-10 illustrates that approximately 14% of properties were poorly maintained, with greater than 1/3 of the septic tank occupied by the scum and sludge layers. An additional 9% of properties were noted to have approximately 1/3 of the tank occupied by the scum and sludge layers and in need of pumping in the near future. These results are similar to the results from the previous Zones.

27


When there were no visible indications of a Code contravention under Section 8.9 of the Ontario Building Code WSP issued a certificate documenting that a visual surface inspection of the sewage system was conducted, and at that time there was no indication of a remedial action requirement. The issuance of a certificate does not necessarily mean that the system is operating as intended, nor does it mean that there are not risk factors associated with the system (See Section 3.4 for Risk Categorization results).


Documented in Table 3-11, below, are the numbers of certificates and remedial action letters issued, relating to the septic tank for Class 4 systems.

Table 3-11: Class 4 System Certificates and Remedial Actions (Septic Tanks)


Septic Tanks in Zone E

Percentage of Septic Tanks

Inspected in Zone E

Percentage of Septic Tanks Inspected in Zones A through D

Total Percentage for all Septic

Tanks (Zones A through E)



196 17% 16% 17%

Total 1,152 100% 100% 100%

As noted in Table 3-11, approximately 17% of all the septic tanks associated with Class 4 systems that were inspected required remedial action. These results are similar to the results from the previous Zones. The majority of these remedial actions (85%) were associated with poorly maintained systems that required pumping. A discussion pertaining to the significance of these results is provided in Section 4.

3.3.4.2 LEACHING BEDS

Leaching beds were inspected for type, approximate size, elevation, surficial conditions, distances to wells and surface water, and evidence of failure or other concerns. Table 3-12 provide a tabulation of the leaching bed type, while Section 4 provides a detailed summary of risk factors associated with leaching bed size, proximity to wells and surface water, and surficial conditions.

Table 3-12: Type of Leaching Bed for Class 4 Systems

Observation Number of Leaching Beds in

Zone E Percentage of Leaching Beds

Inspected in Zone E

Conventional leaching bed 955 83%

Filter bed 170 15%

Area bed 7 1%

Shallow buried trench 1 0%

Chamber System 19 2%

Total 1,152 100%

28


As displayed in Table 3-12, the majority of leaching beds were inferred to be conventional in construction. As the inspections were not intrusive the accuracy of these results are limited, as the determination of the leaching bed construction type is subjective based on the inspector’s observations and information provided by the owner/representative. Although these results may be limited in their accuracy, they are reasonable given the age of many of the systems in the area and the limited number of pump tanks or treatment units observed (See Section 3.3.4.3)

When there were no visible indications of a Code contravention under Section 8.9 of the Ontario Building Code WSP issued a certificate documenting that a visual inspection of the sewage system was conducted, and at that time there was no indication of a remedial action requirement. The issuance of a certificate does not necessarily mean that the system is operating as intended, nor does it mean that there are not risk factors associated with the system (See Section 3.4 for Risk Categorization results).


Documented in Table 3-13 below are the numbers of certificates and remedial action letters issued, relating to the leaching bed, for Class 4 systems.

Table 3-13: Class 4 System Certificates and Remedial Actions (Leaching Beds)


Leaching Beds in Zone E

Percentage of Leaching Beds

Inspected in Zone E

Percentage of Leaching Beds


D

Total Percentage for all Leaching Beds (Zones A

through E)

Certificate letter issued 1,123 97% 99.6% 98%


29 3% 0.4% 2%

Total 1,152 100% 100% 100%

As noted in Table 3-13, few leaching beds were observed to require remedial action. The number of leaching beds requiring a remedial action in Zone E is higher (on a percentage basis) when compared to previous Zones. A discussion pertaining to the significance of these results is provided in Section 4.

3.3.4.3 TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND OTHER SYSTEM COMPONENTS

Each Class 4 system was also reviewed for other sewage treatment and disposal system components, and these components were evaluated to determine if they were operating as intended. Other Class 4 system components included items such as: treatment systems (secondary and tertiary), distribution boxes, and pumping tanks. A tabulation of the observations made for these systems is provided in Table 3-14 below:

Table 3-14: Treatment Systems and Other Components



Inspected in Zone E

Treatment Systems 24 2%

Distribution Boxes 354 31%

Pumping Tanks 141 12%

29


As noted above, of the 1,152 Class 4 sewage systems inspected, only a small percentage (2%) use a sewage treatment system prior to disposal.


Class 5 systems include holding tanks. Each holding tank was inspected for structural soundness and any evidence of illegal discharges or leakage.

As noted previously, a total of 31 Class 5 systems were inspected in Zone E. A tabulation of the observations made for these systems is provided in Table 3-15 below:




Inspected in Zone E

No access 1 3%

No high level alarm 17 55%

Evidence of overflow 2 7%

Evidence of subsurface leakage 1 3%


As noted above, of the 31 Class 5 systems inspected 58% were noted to have some level of deficiency. The percentage of deficiencies observed for Class 5 systems in Zone E (58%) is greater than the number of deficiencies identified within the previous Zones (A through D) (15%).

When there were no visible indications of a Code contravention under Section 8.9 of the Ontario Building Code WSP issued a certificate documenting that a visual inspection of the sewage system was conducted, and at that time there was no indication of a remedial action requirement. The issuance of a certificate does not necessarily mean that the system is operating as intended, nor does it mean that there are not risk factors associated with the system (See Section 3.4 for Risk Categorization results).




Correspondence Issued Number of Class

5 Systems in Zone E


Inspected in Zone E


Inspected in Zones A through D





2 6% 12% 9%

Total 31 100% 100% 100%

30


Of the 31 Class 5 systems inspected, 2 remedial action letters were issued equating to 6% of the Class 5 systems. The percentage of deficiencies that were noted in Zone E resulted in fewer remedial action requirements (on a percentage basis)when compared to previous Zones. A discussion pertaining to the significance of these results is provided in Section 4.

3.3.6 ALL SYSTEMS

By grouping all Class 1 to 5 systems together, it is possible to determine the total number of Certificates and Remedial Action letters issued, as noted in Table 3-17 below.

Table 3-17: Certificates and Remedial Actions All Systems

Correspondence Issued Number of Systems in Zone E

Percentage of Systems in Zone E

Percentage of Systems in Zone

A-D

Running Percentage for all Systems

(Zones A through E)

Certificate letter issued 1,049 80% 83% 81%


270 20% 17% 19%

Total 1,319 100% 100% 100%

In total 270 remedial action letters were issued, representing 20% of the properties inspected in Zone E. There were slightly more remedial action requirements that resulted from the Zone E inspections (on a percentage basis) when compared to Zones A through D.

3.4 RISK CATEGORIZATION

One of the limiting factors when completing a sewage system re-inspection program is that some systems may not be exhibiting signs or symptoms of failure however may still be of concern. Examples of these systems may be ones near to wells, surface water features, or in areas with significant tree cover or landscaping.

In the original Request for Proposal, the Town had provided a classification for High, Medium, and Low risk systems. This classification was entirely dependent on the age of the sewage disposal system with older systems being of high risk. Given the significant data gaps that exist with respect to the historical information, and that this style of risk assessment proposed did not provide consideration for the condition of the system, WSP has created a risk categorization method based on the visual observations made during the field inspections.

WSP has analyzed the data collected from the field inspection and has assessed each property based on eight (8) risk factors:

1. Is the septic tank undersized? 2. Does the septic tank have more than one compartment? 3. Does the septic tank show evidence of spalling/deterioration? 4. Is the effluent level slightly below or slightly above the invert of the septic tank outlet pipe? 5. Is the leaching bed undersized? 6. Is there vegetation or structures near/on the leaching bed that would impair the systems

functionality? 7. Is the leaching bed near to a drinking water source? 8. Is the leaching bed near to a surface water feature?

The sub-sections below provide an analysis of each of these risk factors.

31


3.4.1 SEPTIC TANK SIZE

The role of a septic tank is to remove many of the settleable solids, oils, greases and debris from the wastewater prior to the effluent exiting the septic tank through the sedimentation and floatation process. In order to achieve this separation it is important to ensure that quiescent conditions are present in the septic tank. The geometry of the tank and the amount of sludge and scum present may affect the residence time of the effluent; however as a general rule, septic tanks in Ontario are typically sized for a minimum of 48 hours storage capacity.

Tanks with adequate residence time can achieve 60 to 80 percent removal of solids. Inadequate removal of these solids can shorten the lifespan of the downstream components and the leaching bed, and thus septic tanks that are not sized to allow for proper solids separation have been classified as a risk factor for the purposes of this re-inspection program. Septic tanks that were inferred to have less than 48 hours residence time (based on the tank volume and inferred daily sewage flow) or that had a total volume of less than 3,600 L (minimum tank size based on the Ontario Building Code) were deemed to be “at risk”. Results from Zone E are summarized in Table 3-18 below:

Table 3-18: Septic Tank Size Risk Characterization

Risk Characterization Number of Septic Tanks in Zone E

Percentage of Septic Tanks Inspected in Zone E

Running Percentage for all Septic Tanks (Zones A through E)

Septic tanks “at risk” based on volume

412 36% 33%

Non “at risk” septic tanks based on volume

740 64% 67%

Total 1,152 100% 100%

As displayed in Table 3-18, 412, or 33%, of the septic tanks inspected are inferred to be undersized and thus categorized as contributing risk to the septic system. This is a higher percentage than was noted in the previous zones. The significance of these results is discussed in Section 4.

3.4.2 NUMBER OF SEPTIC TANK COMPARTMENTS

Compartmentalized tanks provide better settleable solids removal than single compartment tanks. This is due to the segregation of gas generation from the first compartment to the second, increased travel distances for the effluent, and a reduction in short circuiting within the tank.

As was noted with respect to the septic tank sizing, inadequate removal of these solids can shorten the lifespan of the downstream leaching bed and thus septic tanks with only one compartment have been classified as a risk factor for the purposes of this re-inspection program.

Results from Zone E of the re-inspection program are summarized in Table 3-19 below:

32


Table 3-19: Septic Tank Compartments Risk Characterization

Risk Characterization Number of Septic Tanks

in Zone E Percentage of Septic

Tanks Inspected in Zone E


Septic tanks “at risk” based on number of compartments

307 27% 28%

Non “At Risk” septic tanks based on number of compartments

845 73% 72%

Total 1,152 100% 100%

As displayed in Table 3-19, 307, or 27%, of the septic tanks inspected were noted to only have a single compartment configuration and thus categorized as contributing risk to the septic system. This is a lower percentage than was observed in previous zones. The significance of these results is discussed in Section 4.

3.4.3 SEPTIC TANK CONDITION

Pitting, spalling, delamination, cracks and holes are all indications of a deterioration in the structural integrity of the septic tank. Tanks can deteriorate over time due to numerous factors including acidic wastewater concentrations, hydrogen sulphide gases, over loading at the surface, poor manufacturing, and incorrect installation among other things. As septic tanks deteriorate they become more likely to allow exfiltration to the surrounding environment, and/or become safety concerns due to structural instability.

Tanks that were noted to have visible deterioration have been classified as a risk factor for the purposes of this re-inspection program. Tanks that were obviously structurally unsound were issued remedial action letters as discussed in Section 3.3.3.


Table 3-20: Septic Tank Condition Risk Characterization

Risk Characterization Number of Septic Tanks

in Zone E Percentage of Septic



Tanks “at risk” based on structural integrity

297 25% 20%

Non “At Risk” tanks based on structural integrity

886 75% 80%

Total 1,183 100% 100%

As displayed in Table 3-20, 297, or 25%, of the septic or holding tanks inspected were noted to have evidence of structural deterioration. This is a higher percentage than was noted in the previous zones. The significance of these results is discussed in Section 4.

33


3.4.4 SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT LEVEL

The water tightness of a septic tank can be checked by observing the liquid level within the tank at the time of inspection. The liquid level should be at the outlet invert in watertight tanks. If the liquid level is below the invert of the tank, exfiltration may be occurring into the surrounding subsurface. If the liquid level is above the outlet invert, the outlet pipe may be obstructed and/or the leaching bed may be hydraulically overloaded.

Liquid levels that were slightly above or below the outlet invert may be an early indicator of system failure, and as such have been classified as a risk factor for the purposes of this re-inspection program. It is possible that the outlet pipe may be slightly out of level, or that the tank has not filled entirely since a recent pump out and as such, only in situations where it was apparent that the tank was exfiltrating/leaking, or that the leaching bed was overloaded/malfunctioning, was a remedial action letter was issued.


Table 3-21: Septic Tank Effluent Level Risk Characterization

Risk Characterization Number of Septic Tanks Percentage of Septic



Septic tanks “at risk” based on effluent level

235 20% 19%

Non “at risk” septic tanks based on effluent level

917 80% 81%

Total 1,152 100% 100%

As displayed in Table 3-21, 235, or 20%, of the septic tanks inspected were noted to have effluent levels that were not exactly at the base of the outlet pipe. This is a slightly higher percentage than was noted in the previous zones. The significance of these results is discussed in Section 4.

3.4.5 LEACHING BED SIZE

The minimum leaching bed size is typically a function of the daily design sewage flow and the loading limitations of the soil in which the effluent will be disposed. Each native soil type has the ability to be loaded with a specific maximum hydraulic and organic loading rate; basic loading rates can be found in the Ontario Building Code while a more comprehensive set of loading criteria can be found in the 2008 Design Guidelines for Sewage Works (MOE).

As the leaching bed sizing is a function of the site specific soil characteristics, it is not possible to accurately determine if a specific leaching bed is appropriately sized without first conducting on site soil classification and testing. More detailed evaluations of the exact construction characteristics and dimension of each leaching bed would also be required.

For the purposes of this re-inspection program, it is however possible to provide an estimation of the number of systems that may be “at risk” based on leaching bed sizing considerations. Based on the information provided by the homeowners, WSP has roughly calculated the design sewage flow, and has estimated the soil type from the information documented in Section 2.2 of this report.

As noted in Section 2.2 the native shallow soil type across much of Zone E are sand deposits. WSP has inferred a maximum loading rate to the soil of 16 L/m2 based on the recommendations provided in the 2008 Design Guidelines for Sewage Works (MOE). A loading rate of 16 L/m2 is associated with fine to very fine

34


sands. The Ontario Building Code recommends a maximum loading rate to the soil of 10 L/m2 for raised systems constructed in sandy soil, however as it is inferred that the majority of systems are constructed in ground, this loading rate would likely overestimate the required leaching bed areas.

WSP measured the approximate area of each leaching bed during the inspection process. Systems that did not meet the minimum required area for new construction were classified as “at risk” for the purposes of this re-inspection program. As noted above, the number of “at risk” systems is sensitive to actual soil types at each property; therefore the results below are based on available information and our best estimations.


Table 3-22: Leaching Bed Size Risk Characterization

Risk Characterization Number of Leaching

Beds in Zone E Percentage of Leaching

Beds Inspected in Zone E

Running Percentage for all Leaching Beds (Zones A through E)

Leaching beds “at risk” based on size

865 75% 83%

Non “at risk” leaching beds based on size

287 25% 17%

Total 1,152 100% 100%

As displayed in Table 3-22, 865, or 75%, of the leaching beds inspected were inferred to be undersized. This is a significantly lower percentage than was noted in the previous zones. The significance of these results is discussed in Section 4.

3.4.6 LEACHING BED CONDITION

Leaching beds are required to be maintained in a fashion that will not cause damage to, or impair, their functionality. Leaching beds require oxygen transfer from the surface to the stone layer to provide aerobic conditions for further renovation and treatment of the sewage by microorganisms in the subsurface. Activities at the surface can limit or restrict this oxygen transfer, thus impair the leaching bed’s functionality. Additionally tree roots, shrubs and long grasses can both inhibit the leaching bed’s functionality by reducing the potential for evapotranspiration, and can also damage the system due to root penetration into the stone layer and distribution lines.

WSP inspected each leaching bed to determine if there were surficial features that could be impairing the functionality of the system. Impairments included items such as trees, long grasses, decks, driveways, sheds, patios, etc. Given that in many cases homeowners do not know exactly where the leaching bed is, and historic data may no longer exist, WSP used best efforts to identify the inferred leaching bed location and to assess the potential for impairment. Systems with a reasonable probability of being impaired due to a landscaping or structural feature in the vicinity of the inferred leaching bed area have been classified as “at risk” for the purposes of this re-inspection program.


35


Table 3-23: Leaching Bed Condition Risk Characterization

Risk Characterization Number of Leaching

Beds in Zone E Percentage of Leaching

Beds Inspected in Zone E

Running Percentage for all Leaching Beds (Zones A through E)

Leaching beds “at risk” based on surrounding conditions

351 30% 21%

Non “at risk” leaching beds based on surrounding conditions

801 70% 79%

Total 1,152 100% 100%

As displayed in Table 3-23, 351, or 30%, of the leaching beds inspected were noted to have surrounding topographic conditions that put the leaching bed at a greater risk of failure. This is a higher percentage than was noted in the previous zones. The significance of these results is discussed in Section 4.

3.4.7 DISTANCE TO DRINKING WATER SOURCE

On-site sewage disposal systems can lead to the potential for degradation of groundwater quality. The Ontario Building Code defines the minimum acceptable separation distance from a leaching bed to a well as 15 metres for drilled wells with a watertight casing extending 6 metres below grade, and 30 m for any other well; these distances are thought to be sufficient for the filtration, dilution, and renovation of sewage effluent prior to reaching the water well. Minimum required separation distances are also noted in the OBC for treatment systems (including septic tanks) as well as other classes of systems. It is noted that these separation distances apply for new construction, and as, such many older sites may not meet this criteria.

WSP measured the approximate distance from the septic system to the on-site drinking water source during the inspection process. Systems that did not meet the minimum separation distances that would be required for new construction were classified as “at risk” for the purposes of this re-inspection program.


Table 3-24: Distance to Drinking Water Source Risk Characterization

Risk Characterization Number of Systems in

Zone E Percentage of Systems

Inspected in Zone E

Running Percentage for all Systems (Zones

A through E)

Water wells “at risk” based on leaching bed location

405 31% 29%

Non “at risk” water wells based on leaching bed location

914 69% 71%

Total 1,319 100% 100%

As displayed in Table 3-24, 405, or 31%, of the sewage systems inspected were noted to be too close to a water source based on the 2006 Ontario Building Code requirements. This is a higher percentage than was noted in the previous zones. The significance of these results is discussed in Section 4.

36


3.4.8 DISTANCE TO SURFACE WATER SOURCE

On-site sewage disposal systems can lead to the potential for degradation of nearby surface water quality. The Ontario Building Code defines the minimum acceptable separation distance from a leaching bed to a surface water feature as 15 metres; this distance is thought to be sufficient to limit appreciable effects on the surface water quality for some effluent parameters. Minimum required separation distances are also noted in the OBC for treatment systems (including septic tanks) as well as other classes of systems. It is noted that this separation distances applies for new construction, and as such many older sites may not meet this criteria.

WSP measured the approximate distance from the leaching bed to the nearest surface water feature during the inspection process. Systems that did not meet the minimum separation distances that would be required for new construction were classified as “at risk” for the purposes of this re-inspection program.


Table 3-25: Distance to Surface Water Source Risk Characterization



Inspected in Zone E


A through E)

Surface water features “at risk” based on leaching bed location

24 2% 10%

Non “at risk” surface water features based on leaching bed location

1,295 98% 90%

Total 1,319 100% 100%

As displayed in Table 3-25, 24, or 2%, of the systems inspected were noted to be too close to a surface water feature based on the 2006 Ontario Building Code requirements. This is a significantly lower percentage than was noted in the previous zones. The significance of these results is discussed in Section 4.

3.4.9 OVERALL RISK

In an effort to understand the overall risk of each system, the results of the eight (8) risk factors were summed to determine a total risk score for each property. Each risk factor was given a score of 0 or 1, depending on if there was risk identified (value of 1) or no risk identified (value of 0); the exception to this was the leaching bed condition, which was given a score of 0 or 2. The leaching bed condition was a more heavily weighted factor as WSP feels that this risk can impact the overall viability of the sewage system more severely and directly than the other factors.

As noted above the total risk score for the each property was summed, giving each property a value of between 0 and 9.

Risk scores of 0, 1, 2, or 3 were inferred to represent “lower risk” systems, as most of the components of the system would be sized properly, in general good repair, and not pose an elevated risk to drinking water or surface water.

Risk scores of 4, 5, or 6 were inferred to represent “medium risk” systems, as numerous risk factors are present which may contribute to shortened system lifecycles, or a greater potential for drinking water or surface water degradation.

37


Risk scores of 7, 8, or 9 were inferred to represent “higher risk” systems, as nearly all risk factors are present. These systems most likely require remedial actions at this time, however based on the results of the inspection there may have been no outward signs of failure. These systems pose the greatest risk of failure in the near future.

Table 3-26: Overall Risk Characterization



Inspected in Zone E


A through E)

Lower Risk Systems 956 72% 74%

Medium Risk Systems 338 26% 25%

Higher Risk Systems 25 2% 1%

Total 1,319 100% 100%

As indicated in Table 3-26, 956 systems (72%) of the inspected systems in Zone E were determined to be lower risk, 338 systems (26%) were determined to be medium risk, and 25 systems (2%) were determined to be higher risk systems. These results are similar to the results from the previous Zones. A discussion relating to the relevance of these results is discussed in Section 4.

The total of the low, medium, and high risk systems exceeds the total number of properties inspected by 86 as there were properties with multiple sewage systems located on them.

WSP notes that the designation of lower, medium and higher does not reflect how imminently a system may fail. The risk categorization has simply grouped risk factors together to create a total risk score. Failure of a system is dependent on more factors than the re-inspection program has been designed to capture and as such the use of the results noted above must be kept in context. WSP has provided a detailed analysis of systems that may be lower, medium, or higher risk systems to supplement the Town’s classification system (which was by age of system only).

4 DISCUSSION 4.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

One of the driving factors in the success of a community wide septic system re-inspection program is public participation. Based on the results of the information session held in May, 2013, as well as the scheduling process early in the re-inspection program (June and July 2013), public participation and interest in the program was high upon project commencement. As noted in the 2013 Annual Report, public participation began to wane through July 2013, continuing to be lower for the remainder of that year.

Public participation was strong again in the Spring of 2014, with WSP receiving communication from approximately 69% (1,101 properties) of the Zone E residents within a 64 day period. This resulted in the need to schedule mandatory inspection blocks for approximately 485 properties. The mandatory inspections generally began in July and continued through October, 2014.

Response to the first round of inspections was positive with approximately 1,233 property owners present during their booked/assigned inspection period. This equates to about 93% participation for the inspection program. This level of participation is about 8% higher than the levels achieved in 2013.

38


As discussed in the 2013 Annual Monitoring Report, continued booking and attendance at follow up inspections for those property owners that were not present during their original booked/assigned appointment drains significant resources for this program. As such it was discussed, and agreed upon, with the Town that a list of non-participatory properties would be provided to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula; follow up communication with these property owners would come directly from the Town instructing the property owners to contact WSP to schedule their re-inspection for Spring of 2015.

Given that participation levels were around 93% in Zone E, WSP does not recommend any significant changes to the scheduling process at this time.

4.2 EDUCATION

One of the primary goals of the septic system re-inspection program is to provide educational opportunities to each property owner. Knowledgeable property owners include those who understand the implications of unsafe systems and thus are more likely to prevent unsafe conditions from occurring in the first place. The long term health and success of the Town-wide re-inspection program will rely on property owners who are educated and aware. This level of awareness will translate into higher compliance rates and will promote property owners being proactive, rather than reactive, when it comes to the health of their on-site sewage system.

To this end WSP’s field inspectors spent a considerable amount of time during each inspection discussing what they were observing, answering any questions the owner may have had, and discussing general strategies for promoting a healthy septic system. WSP staff also left a copy of the Septic Smart handout (Appendix A) with each property owner as a long term reference and resource.

Education to this point has primarily been focused specifically on the owner’s individual system. This “tailored” approach helps property owners to be more aware of the way their system functions, and the do’s and don’ts related to it.

Additional educational opportunities may exist at the Town level to inform property owners of the results of this program; however it may be appropriate to wait until all zones have been completed to develop these strategies.

4.3 RE-INSPECTION RESULTS

A total of 1,319 systems were inspected, across 1,233 properties, within Zone E. As would be expected, predominantly the servicing type across the properties was Class 4 septic systems with 87% of all systems being this type. The remainder of the systems inspected were Class 1, 2 or 5.

4.3.1 CLASS 1 AND 2 SYSTEMS

Class 1 and 2 systems are not typically intended for permanent residential use however may be more common for cottage properties and remote sites. The results from the re-inspection program correlate to this general guidance with only 10% (combined) of all systems being of these types. It is noted that the percentage of properties using Class 1 and 2 in Zone E was approximately 2.5 times greater than was observed in Zones A through D; it is inferred that this is due to the presence of the island properties and the limited ability to provide servicing by means of a Class 4 system to these sites.

Typically these systems are associated more with rustic properties that may see little use, or as auxiliary servicing for larger properties. In Zone E however, many of these systems were the primary means of servicing for the remote island properties and as such more care was provided to them. This resulted in

39


fewer deficiencies (on a percentage basis) than in the previous zones; however the deficiencies that were noted resulted in a greater percentage of remedial actions.

A visual inspection of Class 1 systems could be completed in very thorough and complete manner due to the exposed nature of these systems, while an inspection of Class 2 systems was more restricted. As noted in Section 3.3.1, 32% of all Class 1 systems within Zone E had some level of deficiency noted. Many of the deficiencies noted related to proper venting and vermin proofing of the structure.

Due to the inferred limited use of these systems, in combination with the nature of the deficiencies noted and the low number of total Class 1 and Class 2 systems (134) located throughout Zone E, the potential for environmental impact of Class 1 and 2 systems is inferred to be minimal.


Class 5 systems are typically intended for limited seasonal, or rustic, sites due to the high operating costs associated with pumping and disposing of the effluent via licensed sewage haulers on a regular basis. They may also be used on sites where space is restricted to the point that no other form of sewage servicing will fit on the property. Holding tanks are not intended to release sewage effluent to the environment, and as such, the only methods for environmental concern associated with Class 5 systems are a leaking tank or illegal discharges/overflows.

In Zone E, only 31 Class 5 systems were noted which on a percentage basis is less than the percentage servicing zones A through D.

The inspection of Class 5 systems was readily completed given that the inspectors had access to the inside of the tank to assess the liquid levels, tank materials, and structural competency among other observations. Based on the inspection results, approximately 3% of Class 5 systems were leaking into the environment and were issued remedial action letters. Understanding that these system have been/will be upgraded, the only remaining mechanism for environmental concern associated with Class 5 systems in Zone E are illegal discharges (illegal drainage, overflows, etc.); as such the potential for environmental impact has been minimized as much as possible.


Class 4 systems are the typical servicing method for most permanent and seasonal dwellings and typically consist of at least two distinct components; the septic tank and the leaching bed. Class 4 systems are intended to treat and dispose of sewage effluent in a safe and sustainable manner to the natural environment.

The inspection of the septic tank was readily completed given that the inspectors had access to the inside of the tank to assess the liquid levels, measure scum and sludge volumes, tank materials, and structural competency among other observations. As documented in Section 3.3.4, 166 of the 1,152 septic tanks inspected (14%) of all systems had greater than 1/3 of the septic tank occupied by scum and sludge. An additional 99 systems (9%), has scum and sludge level noted to be at 33%. Overall, nearly 23% of all septic tanks inspected were in need of immediate pumping, or pumping in the near future. These results are in line with the results recorded from Zones A through D.

With approximately a quarter of all septic tanks in need of pumping it is evident that many individuals were not aware, or educated, regarding the facts of septic system maintenance. During the inspection process, WSP observed that a significant number of individuals either did not know how frequently a septic tank should be pumped out, or were not aware of the location of their septic tank prior to this re-inspection program.

40


As a properly maintained septic tank is a key feature in the proper, and safe, operation of a Class 4 septic system it is inferred that at least 14% to 23% of residents operating Class 4 systems have been provided fundamental education that they may not have already possessed in this regard.

The construction material of a septic tank is also fundamental to the safety of the system, from both an environmental and safety perspective. Metal tanks can rapidly corrode due to the gasses formed by septic effluent, leading to leaks and structure instability. Leaking tanks deposit sewage directly into the subsurface without the benefit of proper distribution, renovation, or biological treatment, while they also pose a risk to humans at the surface as structural instability can cause a collapse of the tank itself.

As noted in Section 3.3.4, only 9 of the 1,152 septic tanks inspected (1%) were noted to be metal. As all of these tanks received remedial action letters, it can be inferred that these tanks will be replaced in the near future. Overall 17 metal tanks have been discovered throughout Zone A through E.

Effluent filters are required for new systems designed under the 2006 Ontario Building Code or later. Effluent filters are typically fitted into the outlet tee-baffle of the septic tank and are comprised of either mesh, slotted screens, or stacked plates with openings of approximately 3 mm to less than 1 mm. Effluent filters can provide a low cost safe guard for the downstream leaching bed against some types of suspended solids. Over time, effluent filters clog with the suspended particulate that they are designed to keep out of the downstream leaching bed. This can lead to partial or full obstruction of the septic tank outlet if not maintained properly. As such, it is mandatory for these filters to be properly cleaned on an annual basis, or as needed, in order to ensure that they are functioning as intended.

Although only about 10% of all septic tanks were equipped with effluent filters, WSP observed that a large number of these effluent filters were poorly maintained. As septic tanks are replaced as needed throughout the Town in the future, effluent filters will become more common. As such, it is important in the future for residents to be aware of, and complete, the maintenance that effluent filters require.

The inspection of the leaching bed was more limited in scope, due to the surficial, non-intrusive, nature of it. WSP relied heavily on observations made while completing the re-inspections to determine the location, state of repair, and if there were any unsafe conditions associated with the leaching bed.

Given the physiography noted in Section 2.2 of the Town, in combination with the seasonal nature of many of the properties, WSP infers that some systems, although not exhibiting outward sign/symptoms of failure, may have functionality issues associated with them none the less. The seasonality of many of the properties will allow for the systems to go through periods of rest, then use, followed by rest again. This cyclical use pattern for seasonal properties can mask some of the functionality issues that systems may have (i.e. undersized, crushed pipes, etc.) that would become apparent should a property be used on a continuous basis. This is because during the periods of rest, the leaching field may be allowed time to drain, and the septic tank effluent levels may return from high to normal state; creating a buffer for the periods of use.

The shallow bedrock and sandy soils may also allow for areas of quick drainage, thus limiting the surficial evidence of system failure; however, the systems themselves may be located too close to bedrock fractures or fissures to allow for adequate treatment of the sewage prior to entering the groundwater or joining with surface water.

4.4 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

A total of 270 remedial action letters were issued throughout Zone E. This represented 20% of all properties inspected. Based on early discussions with the Town, results from the 2013 inspection program, and through a review of other completed and ongoing re-inspection programs, this number of remedial

41


action letters falls within the expected range for an area that is completing a re-inspection program for the first time.

As documented in Section 3.3 the majority of remedial actions were associated with poorly maintained systems. Opening the septic tanks and completing measurements and analysis allows for a technical assessment of whether an on-site sewage system meets the requirements of Section 8.9 of the Ontario Building Code. As Section 8.9 of the Building Code is designed to provide guidance with respect to the long term maintenance of a system, it also makes sense that the majority of remedial actions are associated with maintenance.

Fewer remedial actions were associated with the leaching beds themselves. The limited number of remedial actions related to the leaching beds is inferred to be due the fact that the leaching bed assessment is a qualitative assessment rather than a quantitative assessment, and thus the symptoms of failure need to be obvious for a remedial action to be issued. Given the non-intrusive nature of the leaching bed inspection, it is not always possible to determine if many of the code requirements are being contravened relating to the leaching bed, such as if the sewage is seeping into groundwater in a manner that it is not specifically designed to do, or if components are not operating in their intended manner.

4.5 RISK CATEGORIZATION

One of the limiting factors when completing a sewage system re-inspection program is that some systems may not be exhibiting signs or symptoms of failure however may be of concern none the less. Examples of these systems may be ones near to wells, surface water features, or in areas with significant tree cover or landscaping.

WSP understands that nearly the entire area covered by Zone E has been classified as having a “High” Intrinsic Susceptibility Index (ISI) as well as being located on a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer (HVA) based on the results of the Source Water Protection Report prepared for the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority. It also includes substantial lands that are classified as “Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas”

In the original Request for Proposal, the Town had provided a classification for High, Medium, and Low risk systems. This classification was entirely dependent on the age of the sewage disposal system with older systems being of high risk. Given the significant data gaps that exist with respect to the historical information, and that the style of risk assessment proposed did not provide consideration for the condition of the system, a risk categorization method has been created based on the technical observations made during the field inspections.

As noted in Section 3, WSP analyzed the data collected from the field inspections and assessed each property based on eight (8) risk factors. Through the combination all of the separate risk factors it is possible to determine an overall risk for each system.

An analysis of the spatial distribution of higher, medium and lower risk septic systems was conducted. The cluster analysis was completed in an ArcGIS environment using the spatial analyst tool – Kernel Density. This tool fits a smoothly curved surface over each point and then the density is calculated by summing the “kernel surfaces” that overlay the raster cell centre. Some variables are subjective to user interpretation which includes the search radius and point location weighting.

In this analysis, each point was weighted by its risk score. Less emphasis in the cluster analysis was placed on locations with a low risk score and greater emphasis was placed on the locations with a higher risk score.

42


The search radius is the distance to which the density is calculated. Generally, for a smaller search radius the cluster output will be smaller and tighter. For a larger search radius the cluster output becomes more circular and generalized. The analysis was conducted using search radius of 100 m, 200 m, 500 m, 750 m and 1000 m. The search radius of 200 m was selected as an appropriate cluster tolerance as individual locations were not highlighted nor was the clustering too generalized to pinpoint hot spots or areas of interest.

Based on the risk analysis, much of the Zone E inspection area is categorized as “lower” risk.

There was one location within Zone E noted to have an elevated concentration of moderate to higher risk systems, that being the Red Bay community. Logically this area would be expected to have a greater risk score due to its proximity to surface water features, smaller lot sizes typical of this area, and the increased lot density. It is noted that although the communities of Oliphant and Howdenvale have similar lot sizes and lot densities, the associated concentration of moderate to higher risk systems was lower in those areas.

WSP again notes that the designation of lower, medium and higher does not reflect how imminently a system may fail. The risk categorization has simply grouped risk factors together to create a total risk score. Failure of a system is dependent on more factors than the re-inspection program has been designed to capture and as such the use of the results noted above must be kept in context. WSP has provided a detailed analysis of systems that may be lower, medium, or higher risk systems to supplement the Town’s classification system (which was by age of system only).

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the study findings, we conclude the following:

The 2014 component of the re-inspection program focused on Zone E based on the revised inspection zone map (April 2013);

The soil type within Zone E was predominately noted as a layer of sand overlaying bedrock. There are some isolated pockets of silt, clay and till, as well as some areas of exposed bedrock at surface;

In total 1,586 properties were evaluated throughout Zone E beginning in April, and coming to completion in October 2014;

Of the properties evaluated in Zone E, 1,233 were inspected with the remainder of the properties either being deferred, deemed vacant, or not completed due to unresponsiveness;

In total, approximately 93% of the properties within Zone E have been completed to date;

In total 270 remedial action letters were issued, representing 20% of the properties inspected Zone E;

Based on an analysis of eight (8) risk factors associated with each sewage system, 25 were classified as “Higher Risk”, 338 as “Moderate Risk”, and 956 as “Lower Risk”;

43


Based on the risk analysis, much of the Zone E inspection area is categorized as “lower” risk;

Based on the risk analysis, one (1) specific area was identified as having an elevated concentration of moderate to higher risk systems, that being the Red Bay community.

Report Prepared by, WSP Canada Inc. Michael H. Varty, P.Eng. Director Environment, GTA

Appendices

Appendix A

SEPTIC SMART HANDOUT

SepticSmart!U n d e r s t a n d i n g Y o u r H o m e ’ s S e p t i c S y s t e m

Canada

55598_Eng:2008 Septic Smart 8/25/08 12:32 PM Page 1

How Does It Work?

If you live in a rural area or a small community or if you have a cottage, chances are youhave a septic system. Septic systems are onsite treatment units that eliminate the needfor municipal sewers in rural areas. Anything that goes down the drain — every showerdrip and every toilet flush — flows to the septic system. Septic systems are comprised ofa tank, a network of pipes and billions of organisms that process your waste.

This booklet will help you become familiar with how your system works and how to keepit working properly. It is important to know that you are responsible for your septic systemand that it is in your best interest to take good care of it — from a health, financial andenvironmental perspective.

S e p t i c S m a r t — U n d e r s t a n d i n g Y o u r H o m e ’ s S e p t i c S y s t e m

2

What Is A Septic System?Septic systems are also known as:• on-lot systems• onsite systems• individual sewage disposal

systems• onsite sewage disposal systems• onsite wastewater

treatment systems• sediment tank and treatment

trench systems

The most common septic system consists of a septic tank andleaching bed — all of which is hidden beneath the soil.

All household wastewater exits your home through anunderground pipe that leads to the buried septic tank. The wasteflows to the first compartment of the tank where the heavy solidssettle and the lighter materials (fats, oils and grease) float to thetop as scum. Baffles and screens (see illustration on page 3) keepthis scum layer from escaping the tank and flowing to theleaching bed. This scum is removed when the tank is pumpedduring regular maintenance (see Why Should I Maintain My SepticSystem? on page 8).

In the second compartment of the tank, finer particles settle tothe bottom. Organic materials break down in the tank. On newersystems, any remaining organic material is trapped anddecomposes on a screen called the effluent filter located at theoutlet of the tank. As of January 2007, effluent filters becamemandatory on all new installations and upgrades in Ontario.

From the tank, the effluent moves to a leaching bed made up ofa network of perforated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) drain pipes.Stone and a layer of unsaturated native soil or imported sandsurround these pipes. The effluent flows to the leaching bedeither by gravity or a pump depending on site conditions. The

Leaching beds have also been known as:• sub-surface

disposal fields• tile beds• septic beds• trench beds• conventional beds• disposal beds• treatment trenches• weeping beds

septictank

wellleaching bed


3

leaching bed’s perforated PVC drain pipes disperse the effluent, allowing theliquid to seep into the ground where bacteria and other organisms process thewastewater further. Soils below the stone in the trench bottom act as abiological, chemical, and physical filter to remove most remaining organic andbiological contaminants.

In Ontario, the Ontario Building Code (OBC) governs nearly all rural septicsystems. If you are installing, repairing, upgrading or replacing such a system,you must contact your local regulatory agency. It may be your municipality,health unit or conservation authority that inspects systems, issues permits,maintains records and enforces Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code.

Parts Of The Septic Tank

Effluent filter in septic tank. Septic tank and leaching bed.

Did You Know?

The soil under the stone in the trench bottom of aproperly working system canremove 99 percent of theE.coli for every 30 centimetres (12 inches) of unsaturated soil. ?

accessriser

housesewer pipe

dischargetoleachingbed

accessriser

scum

inletbaffle

compartment 1

heavy solids finer particles

compartment 2

scum

effluentfilter



4

Your Class 4 Rural Septic System

Most rural homes use a Class 4 septic system asrecommended in the Ontario Building Code. A Class 4septic system uses a septic tank along with a leaching bed or a filter bed. The same bed types can look verydifferent from site to site as the specific design is based on flow volumes from the house, space available in theyard, topography, soil material and depth to bedrockand/or other issues related to the property such asproximity to surface water and groundwater.

Types of SystemsIn Ontario, the Building Code contains five classes of systems:• Class 1 — all forms of privies, composting toilets, chemical toilets,

incinerating toilets, re-circulating toilets and self-contained portable toilets

• Class 2 — greywater system• Class 3 — cesspool• Class 4 — leaching bed systems• Class 5 — holding tank

Leaching bed with gravelless trench technology.

Filter media bed.Leaching bed with perforated PVC drain pipes.

Did You Know?

Gravelless trench technology can beused instead of stone and perforatedPVC drain pipes.?


5

groundwater table/bedrock/impervious soil

existing grade

grasstopsoil sand mantle

15 m

900 mm

1.6 m

may be up to 1.5msand fill

swale

existing soil

grasstopsoil

swale


900 mm

existing grade1.6 m

existingnative

soil approved filter sand

porous backfill

grasstopsoilswale swale

750 mm


900 mm

existing grademax 1.2 m

sand mantle

approved filter sand sand fill

grasstopsoil


15 m

750 mm 900 mmexisting grade

max 1.2 m

Leaching Bed — in-ground leaching bed or raised leaching bed*

Description:• a series of trenches with stone on the trench bottom and

perforated PVC drain pipes above• stone and geotextile fabric cover the drain pipes• backfilled with sand and topsoil• the length and number of absorption trenches depends on

percolation rate of the native soil and daily sewage design flow

Advantages:• less expensive because you can use native soil as backfill• usually a gravity-fed system where no pumps are required

Disadvantages:• space may be an issue on smaller lots• may be hard to find good quality stone for absorption trenches• raised leaching beds are more expensive than the

in-ground type because imported sand is required to construct the trenches

• raised leaching beds require increased separation distances

* Raised leaching beds are the same as in-ground leaching beds except

they are above existing grade. Raised beds are built above grade

because regulations require certain separation distances between the

bottom of the absorption trenches and high groundwater levels,

bedrock or impervious soils.

Filter Bed — in-ground filter bed or raised filter bed**

Description:• no trenches, one large bed• the bed is prepared with a special “filter sand” that is a

specified grain size to allow for optimum percolation whiletreating the effluent

• perforated PVC drain pipes are laid on a continuous stonelayer over the filter media sand

Advantages:• the system is smaller making it ideal for small lots where

separation distances may be an issue

Disadvantages:• filter sand is costly because it is hard to find and in most

cases needs to be processed to a specific criteria• can’t process heavy flows as effectively as a conventional bed • raised filter beds are more expensive than the in-ground type

because imported sand is required to construct the bed• raised filter beds require increased separation distances

** Raised filter beds are the same as in-ground filter beds except they

are above existing grade. Raised beds are built above grade

because regulations require certain separation distances between

the bottom of the absorption trenches and high groundwater

levels, bedrock or impervious soils.

150 mm

50 mm

75 mm – 100 mm

600 mm to900 mm

325 mm to 625 mm (for 75 mm dia.)300 mm to 600 mm (for 100 mm dia.)

In-ground Leaching Bed

AbsorptionTrenchEnd view cross-section.

Absorption TrenchLongitudinal cross-sectional view.

Raised Leaching Bed Raised Filter Bed

In-ground Filter Bed

topsoil

sandgeotextile

stone

perforated PVCdrain pipe


groundwater table

septictank

leaching bed

treatment zonedug well

bedrock — deep aquifer

percolation

saturated soil


6

You could have some very old technology working for you. In the past, steel tanks, cinderblock tanks or poured-in-placeconcrete tanks were used. Septic system technology isconstantly changing and improving. Today, septic tanks are either pre-fabricated concrete or plastic.

Since the mid-1970s, septic tanks are required to have twocompartments. Old tanks may only have one compartment.

Today’s pipes used in leaching beds are plastic, but in the pastclay tiles, asbestos pipes and non-corrode pipes were used.Today’s spacing for leaching bed pipes is 1.6 metres (5.25 feet),but you may find only 0.9 metre (3 feet) spacing in older systems.

If you find these older features, it doesn’t mean your systemisn’t functioning properly, but it certainly indicates its age andthat it may not be working to today’s standards.

What Could Be Hiding Underground?

Septic Systems And Your Health

There are many contaminants in wastewater that can affect your health and the environment. They include bacteria, viruses, parasites and nitrate. If contaminants reach your drinking water supply, they can cause diseases or other health or environmental problems.

A properly functioning septic system will remove mostcontaminants to acceptable levels. However, treated wastewaterthat percolates through the soil may still contain contaminantsthat can enter the groundwater table. To reduce the risk to nearbyground or surface water supplies, the location of your septicsystem is critical.

There are legislated minimum separation distances requiredbetween your septic system and your home and well,neighbouring homes and wells and nearby bodies of water.Respecting these distances and planning your lot accordinglywill lead to a healthier, longer-lasting system.

To learn more about the basics of rural wells, pick up a PrivateWater Systems Information Package or a copy of the BestManagement Practices book Water Wells available free fromyour local health unit.

Septic systems recharge to groundwater and can impactthe quality of your drinking water. A properly functioningseptic system is part of a healthy water cycle.


7

15 m any drilled well

lot line

5 m garden

5 m pool

6 m tree

1.5 m

lot line

5 m shed

3 m lot line

30 m any dug well

creek

lot

line

septictank

lot

line

Building Code required separation distancerecommended separation distance

15 m watercourse

Raised leaching and filter beds have increased separation distances. The elevation of finished grade minus existing grade x 2 is added to the minimum separation distances.

For Example: The difference between existing grade and finished grade elevation = 1.5 metres (5 feet) 1.5 metres (5 feet) x 2 = 3 metres (10 feet) Therefore, add 3 metres (10 feet) to all separation distances i.e., 15 metres (50 feet) to drilled well now becomes 18 metres (60 feet)

5 m house/deck

in-ground leachingor filter bed

Minimum Separation Distances For Leaching Or Filter Beds

groundwater table

leachingbed

drilledwell

watercourse

bedrock — deep aquifer

septictank

saturated soil

A properly functioning septic system will minimize the impact on water qualityin lakes, rivers, wetlands, creeks and streams.



8

Why Should I Maintain My Septic System?

Did you know that septic systems are the responsibility of you the homeowner? It is up to you to keep your systemworking properly to protect your environment, your health and your investment.

When properly designed, constructed and maintained, a septicsystem should provide long-term, effective treatment of yourhousehold wastewater. If you take good care of your system,you will save yourself the time, money and worries involved in

replacing a failed system. Failed systems can be hazardous toyour health, the environment and your pocketbook. It candegrade water supplies and reduce your property value. Beloware some valuable tips to ensure the longevity of your system.

Ask To See The License!

Anyone in the business of pumping and cleaning septic tanks must belicensed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Anyone who installs, repairs or services septic tanks must be licensed bythe Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

A licensed sewage hauler or onsite sewage systemprofessional should remove the septic tank cover andinspect the system every three to five years and pumpout the solids and scum when required.

!

Don’t:• enter a tank — gases and lack of oxygen can

be fatal• put cooking oils or food waste down the drain• flush hazardous chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cigarette

butts or sanitary products• use a garbage disposal unit/garburator unless your

system has been designed for it• use special additives that are claimed to enhance

the performance of your tank or system — youdon’t need them!

• dig without knowing the location of your leaching bed• drive or park over your tank or leaching bed• pave over your leaching bed• allow livestock on the leaching bed• plant trees or shrubs too close to the septic

tank or leaching bed• connect rain gutters, storm drains, sump pumps

or allow surface water to drain into a septic system• connect leaching bed or greywater system to

agricultural field drainage• discharge water softener backwash to the septic

system unless your system has been designed for it• drain hot tub and spa water to the septic system

Do:• familiarize yourself with the location of your system• keep the tank access lid secured to the riser at

all times• keep an as built system diagram in a safe place

for reference• keep accurate records of septic system maintenance

and service calls• test your well water at least three times a year —

spring, summer and fall — for indicator bacteria• have your tank inspected for sludge and scum

buildup on a regular basis (3-5 years) and clean outwhen a third of the depth of your tank is full of sludge and scum

• have your effluent filter checked and cleaned everyyear; if you don’t have an effluent filter, consideradding one

• divert surface water away from your leaching bed• conserve water in the house to reduce the amount

of wastewater that must be treated• repair leaky plumbing fixtures• replace inefficient toilets with low-flush models• consider installing a lint filter on your washing

machine’s discharge pipe• spread the number of loads of laundry throughout

the week


Septic System Locationn Draw your septic system. Include your house, tank, drainage field and measurements.

n Knowing where your system is will help when doing maintenance checks. It will also help when planning changes to your property to ensure

proper separation distance between the system and other features such as pools, sheds, trees, gardens, etc.

N

EXAMPLE

9

How To Find Your Septic Tank

The first step in finding your septic tank is to find your records.All recent septic system approvals paperwork should contain anas built drawing that will help you find the system. If you don’thave a copy of the paperwork, a copy may be available fromyour local regulatory agency.

If you don’t have an as built drawing, start by trying to locate theseptic tank. Go to your basement and look where your sewer pipeleaves the foundation. Try to find this same spot on the outside of

the house. As a good starting point, measure out 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the house. Using a blunt metal probe, try to identifythe corners of the tank. It may take some time based on howdeep the tank is buried. Be sure to exercise proper caution — ifgas pipes or utility lines lie close by, be sure to call before you dig.

If you can’t find the septic tank using these methods, contact your licensed sewage hauler or onsite sewage systemprofessional for help.

AS BUILT DRAWING

SEPTIC PERMIT NO.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or used in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Elevations of installed system must be supplied with this report

Exact size and location of all structures, well(s) and system(s) and its components must be shown (including neighbouring lots).

Septic/Holding Tank:

L

Manufacturer:q concrete q polyethylene q other

Filter: q no q yes make

Treatment: MakeUnit: ModelDiameter of pipes

mm/inches

Make of pipes:Ends: q capped q interconnected

Number of runs:

m

Length of runs:

m

Name of owner:Installer:Installer Signature: License Number:Date of Installation:Civic Address or Legal Description of Property:

TownshipPump Systems:Volume discharge rates:

/15min

Alarm location:Dimension of Pump Chamber:Height of Float Switch:

Filter media:Amount Purchased:

kg

Date Purchased:Supplier:Grain/size analysis by:Analysis dated: Grease Interceptor:q no q yes Size:Location:

(required prior to installation inspection)

*Grain Size Analysis and weight bills must be supplied with this report.NOTE: All as built drawings must be cross-referenced to the house in two (2) locations.

SepticSystem

SepticTank

7 m

Lane

= 2 metres

10 m

8 m

9 m

House

# Runs# Metres

x2= 98.5

x3= 98.5

x1= 98.45

x4= 98.45

well

>3 m

mantle

? m

1.5 m

NOTE:Drilled well • 15 metres to septic tank• 15 – 18 metres to distribution pipes

Dug well • 15 metres septic tank• 30 – 33 metres to distribution pipes

Paperwork from the septic system’s approval andconstruction is valuable reference material alongwith pumping, maintenance and service records.


What Happens When There’s A Problem?

Septic systems have a lifespan of approximately 15-40 years. Tomaximize the lifespan of your system, follow the “Do and Don’t”list on page 8.

A malfunctioning septic system is easy to see . . . and smell. Ifyou suspect you have a problem with your septic system, it isimportant to fix the problem quickly. A malfunctioning septicsystem is a risk to your environment and your health. It canquickly contaminate groundwater and surface water used asdrinking water sources.

If failure occurs shortly after construction, it may be the result ofpoor site assessment, poor design, poor construction practicesor homeowner abuse.

If you think there’s a problem, start by having the septic systeminspected. The tank may just need a cleaning. However, if there isa problem with the leaching bed, you will want to speak to anonsite sewage system professional for their advice. Onsite sewagesystem professionals include installers, professional engineers,certified engineering technologists and registered sewage systemdesigners. A second opinion is always recommended.

If a homeowner has amalfunctioning septicsystem, the bigquestion is, “Do I haveto replace the wholesystem?” Repairs canrange from cleaning afew lines to replacingentire leaching bedsand removingcontaminated and clogged soils. An onsite sewage system professional should be retained. Their first task will be to determine the cause of the failure.

If repairs are required to correct your septic system problem,contact your local regulatory agency to obtain the appropriatepermit before proceeding. The local regulatory agency variesfrom municipality to municipality. Local grant programs may alsoexist to help you with repair costs.


10

Alternative technology for treating wastewater for individualhomes has been around since the 1970s but uptake has beenslow. Only in the late 1990s did new technologies become morereadily available thereby providing more choices for homeowners.

Sometimes alternative technology may be the only option.Conventional systems sometimes don’t work on smaller lots,waterfront properties or when replacing systems in a confined area.

Alternative technologies may be required to reduce certaincontaminants (e.g., nitrate) if your property is located in avulnerable groundwater or surface water area as identified

through local source water protection studies. Contact your localconservation authority or municipality to learn about anyprograms for cost sharing opportunities, technology upgrades or replacements.

The research and development of alternative technologies havemade it possible to produce an effluent of the same quality oreven better than some large municipal treatment plants.Homeowners should not be afraid to consider new approvedtechnology such as Aerobic Treatment Units (ATUs) and MediaFilters. Your local onsite sewage system professional can help youselect the right technology for your site.

Some Symptoms of aMalfunctioning Septic System:• household drains slow down• toilets back up• sewage smell in yard• grass over sewage system is

unusually green and/or spongy• bacteria or nitrate

contamination shows up inwell water

• surface ponding of effluent

A failed system exposed.Effluent pond on top of the leaching bed.Scum level is too high. Time to pump yourtank and inspect your leaching bed.

New Technology


Water conservation is always a good thing.When it comes to your septic system, themore a household conserves, the lesswater enters the septic system. Efficientwater use can improve the bacterialaction of the septic system and reducethe risk of failure.

• Check for leaky taps and leakingtoilets. Each small drip adds up.

• Replace your inefficient toilets with alow-flush, high-efficiency or a dual flushtoilet (up to a 50 percent reduction inwater use).

• Use faucet aerators and high-efficiency showerheads to reducewater use (up to a 30 percentreduction in water use).

• Take short showers instead of baths.• Consider purchasing a high-efficiency

washing machine (up to a 50 percentreduction in water and energy use).

• Wash full loads of laundry or use the appropriate water level or load size selection.

• Consider water-efficient models whenreplacing your dishwasher (up to a 40 percent reduction in water use).

If you have recurring potable watershortages and are building a new home,

11

Water Conservation

Other Information Sources:

• Municipal Building Department• Local Health Unit • Local Conservation Authority• Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing • Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs• Ontario Ministry of the Environment• Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre• Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation• Ontario Onsite Wastewater Association• Ontario Association of Sewage Industry Services

Greywater Recycling

toiletsink

washing machine

to septic system

greywater recovery line

grey

wat

er r

ecov

ery

line

grey

wat

er s

uppl

y lin

e

blac

k w

ater

line

greywater treatment tank

bath & shower

you may want to consider recycling your greywater. Greywaterrecycling collects wastewater from the bath, shower, dishwasherand washing machine. It is treated and reused for toilet flushing.Greywater is not to be used for drinking water or bathing. Itrequires disinfection to prevent fouling the system.

Your local onsite sewage system professional can help guide youon greywater systems suitable for your new home construction.


Funding for this booklet was provided by:• The Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the

Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem• The Canada-Ontario Environmental Farm Plan

Program, through the Agricultural Policy Framework• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada• Ontario Ministry of the Environment through Cataraqui

Source Protection Area, Mississippi-Rideau SourceProtection Region and Quinte Source Protection Region

Technical writing by: • Terry K. Davidson — Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

Plain language editing by: • Diane Downey — Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

Design and illustration by: • Laurie Dool — Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

Technical Review Committee Members:• Andrew Graham — Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association• Doug Joy — Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre• Wade Morrison — Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada• Jim Myslik — Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs• Will Robertson — University of Waterloo• James Ross — Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing • Hugh Simpson — Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs• H.J. Smith — Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs• Bob Stone — Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs• Ted Taylor — Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Cette publication est également disponible en français.


Appendix B

TOWN BY-LAW 52-2013

The Corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula

By-Law Number 53-2013

A By-Law to Implement a Sewage System Re-Inspection Program

Whereas the regulatory power to trespass on private property is given under Section 15.9 (1) "Inspection of an Unsafe Building" in the Ontario Building Code Act (OBCA);

And whereas Section 15.10.1 of the Building Code Act allows an inspector to enter upon land and into buildings at any reasonable time without a warrant for the purpose of conducting a maintenance inspection;

And whereas the authority for sewage system maintenance inspections are under the provisions of the Section 15.10.1 of the Ontario Building Code Act (OBCA);

And whereas the intention of the sewage system re-inspection program is to identify and resolve hazards associated with malfunctioning sewage systems;

And where p __ the long-term goal of this program is to achieve a way in which the Town may monitor sewage systems and prevent contamination to groundwater, watercourses, etc. and to increase owner awareness of the location and condition of their sewage system; and to increase education on the proper operation and maintenance of septic system(s);

And whereas the Council of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula deems it expedient to implement a sewage system re-inspection program in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula

Now therefore the Council of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula enacts as follows:

1. That the Building Department be authorized by the Council of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula to implement a sewage system re-inspection program in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.

2. That a Sewage System Re-inspection fee as outlined in the Fees By-Law be payable by each affected property owner. If not paid, the Town will add the cost of the sewage system inspection fee to the property owner's tax bill. This fee will be collected in the same manner as the municipal property taxes.

1

Read a first and second time this 21 st day of May, 2013.

Read a third time and finally passed this 21 st day of ?.013.

3. That the geographic areas of the Town scheduled for re-inspection be established on Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming a part of this By-law.

4. That the terms and conditions of the re-inspection program be established on Schedule "B" attached hereto and forming a part of this By-law.

5. That this By-law shall come into full force and effect upon the final passing hereof.

6. That any by-laws inconsistent with this by-law are hereby rescinded and repealed

2

Town of South Bruce Peninsula Septic Re-Inspection Program

"Discretionary Zones"

Legend

, Zone A

Zone B

Zone C

Zone D

Zone E

Zone F

Zone G

Zone H

Schedule 'A' to By-Law Number 53-2013 Location of Lands Affected by the Sewage System Re-Inspection Program

3

Schedule 'B' to By-Law Number 53-2013

Terms and Conditions of the Sewage System Re-Inspection Program

Administration of the Program A letter will be sent out to the residents of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula that will inform them of: - The potential value of the program - The scope of work that will be completed

Follow up options for those systems that exhibit deficiencies - Information regarding the public meeting that will be hosted

A public meeting will be hosted regarding the septic re-inspection program. This will be an information session for the public that will answer any questions that they may have. An ad will be placed in the Wiarton Echo for two weeks and the Owen Sound Sun Times for two weeks (once a week). It will be posted on the Town website as well. If time permits it may also be noted in the tax bill inserts.

Inspector The Town will hire inspectors to implement the Septic Re-inspection Program.

1/1_, ps ins ected? O The Mandatory Program will be the main focus once approved by the

Province. Prior to Provincial approval, the Town will focus on the Discretionary Program.

• Certain geographical areas will be inspected in alphabetical order. ® The focus of the program will be to inspect those properties deemed high

risk first then move on to moderate/low risk rated systems. ® This is not limiting inspector's to inspect high risk systems only. ® If someone calls in to book an inspection and they are not classified high

risk, the inspector will still perform the inspection. O A letter will be sent to the home owner in the targeted area for them to call

in and book an inspection. ® Someone at least 18 years old will need to be present unless permission

is given when completing the inspection.

The following are definitions for the different risk stages.

High Risk: No Record of approved sewage system or greater than 20 years old, complaints received by our office, no use permit on file or no septic permit issued.

Moderate Risk: Approved sewage system between 10 and 20 years old.

Low Risk: Approved Sewage system is less than 10 years old.

4

Cost As determined by Council, an inspection fee will be invoiced to each property owner after completion of their inspection. If this fee is not paid within 90 days, it will be added to their tax bill.

Activities in a Re-inspection • The septic inspector will review and determine high risk systems in the

proposed zone stated for inspections. • A letter will be sent to the homeowner advising who to contact to book an

inspection. • If there are no septic records in the property files, the inspector will require

the property owner to provide a diagram or septic records to the inspector prior to performing the inspection. A letter will be sent to the owner to notify them that these documents are required.

• The homeowner is required to provide access to the septic tank lid(s) (i.e. uncovering/unearthing prior to the inspection).

As per Part 8 of the Ontario Building Code the following classes of systems will be part of the septic re-inspection program.

• Class 1- Privy • Class 2- Greywater o Class 3- Cesspool o Class 4- Septic System o Class 5- Holding Tank

The inspector will complete the following steps as part of the inspection process dependent upon the class of system. o Review of the property's septic records • Identify location of system on property — may require information from the

owner o Surface inspection of bed, tank, greywater pit and/or cesspool o Examine inside of tank (estimate age of tank, size of tank, condition of

tank, if there's a divider, if there are risers and filters in it etc.) O May require a copy of a contract with a hauled sewage system operator • May examine site for any evidence of illegal discharge o Estimate tank volume o Estimate sludge depth/volume • Soil sample may be required o May examine system with appropriate equipment to find any signs of

malfunctions ® Dye test may be used on the bed • Copy of date stamped receipt of tank pump out may be required

Ins ec . Ide2(AIs

5

Ins pection Reports o An inspection report will be completed by the inspector on site during the

re-inspection. This report will be sent to the homeowner.

6 The inspector will retain -a copy for the Municipality's records. The inspection report will inform the owner that their system is either in need of remedial action or that there is no indication of an unsafe system.

6 If the system is in need of remedial action, the letter will describe the visual deficiencies observed by the inspector.

• It will inform the property owner as to who they should contact for further information regarding their intentions to remedy the deficiencies.

O The owner will also be informed that if they do not respond within a specified time frame, they may be issued an Order to Comply.

Certificate to Homeowner o A certificate that is an approved document by the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs and Housing will only be mailed out to property owners whose system is not deemed to require remedial action.

o Once any remedial action is complete and the inspection is passed, a certificate will be mailed out to the homeowner.

Enforcement • Upon receiving the inspection report, the homeowner will be given a

reasonable amount of time determined by the Chief Building Official or Inspector to remedy the deficiencies.

6 If no action is taken the Chief Building Official or inspector will issue an Order to Comply.

O Should the property owner refuse to comply with the requirements of the Septic Re-Inspection Program, enforcement may be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Building Code and/or through the Provincial Offences Act.

Deferral of Inspection Re-inspection of an existing septic system that has had any component installed and inspected within five years from the year in which the system is to be inspected under the re-inspection program may be deferred until the system is older than five years. Copies of permits and inspection records will be required in order to qualify for the deferral.

6

Appendix C

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Town of South Bruce Peninsula GENIVAR Inc. Building Department TSBP Project Team PO Box 310 311 Goderich Street 315 George Street PO Box 1600 Wiarton, Ontario Port Elgin, Ontario N0H 2T0 N0H 2C0 April 24, 2013 Re: Town of South Bruce Peninsula Septic Re-Inspection Program

Introduction Letter Dear Resident: The Town of South Bruce Peninsula has recently implemented a Septic Re-Inspection Program for its residents. The purpose of the Re-Inspection Program is to inspect existing (Class I - Class V) on-site sewage systems, as defined by the Ontario Building Code, in order to identify any operation and maintenance issues to help protect the natural environmental and human health. This mandatory Septic Re-Inspection Program has been implemented by the Town as part of an environmental/safety initiative in accordance with the amended Ontario Building Code (O. Reg. 315/10). GENIVAR Inc. (GENIVAR), as a third party consultant, is pleased to be administrating the Septic Re-Inspection Program on behalf of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. GENIVAR is an engineering consulting firm with an active Certificate of Authorization with the Professional Engineers of Ontario and the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario, as well as a Building Code Identification Number with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing relating to sewage system design and inspection. The GENIVAR project team is highly knowledgeable in rural on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems and is committed to using these past experiences to ensure that the existing private infrastructure within the Town of South Bruce Peninsula is properly maintained. The GENIVAR team members are active within the Ontario On-Site Wastewater Association (OOWA), and participate on its Board of Directors; as such, we understand that if maintained properly, on-site sewage systems are a reliable long term private infrastructure option. Although GENIVAR strongly believes that properly functioning sewage systems are a viable infrastructure solution, we also understand that improperly functioning sewage systems are public health and environmental concerns. Homeowners who have a malfunctioning sewage system have a legal responsibility to ensure their system is remediated, operated, and maintained as per the requirements of the Ontario Building Code. By identifying and remediating any improperly functioning systems, the Town of South Bruce Peninsula becomes a safer and healthier environment in which to live, vacation, work, and visit. GENIVAR has developed the Septic Re-Inspection Program based on the re-inspection guidelines provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and in conjunction with by-laws approved by the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. In general, the Re-Inspection Program will consist of non-intrusive inspections of private on-site sewage systems within the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. Although the investigations will be completed in a non-intrusive manner, GENIVAR will be inspecting the septic tanks at each property.

4/24/2013 9:59 AM H:\Proj\13\13046-00\100 Records Review and Letters\0414010 Records Review and Letters 2013\Wp\MHV-L Introduction.docx

Page 2 April 24, 2013

The approximately 4,689 inspections will be completed over four (4) years (2013 - 2016, inclusive). The inspections have been subdivided into eight (8) main inspection zones (A through H). The inspections will be completed within the zones, in alphabetical order, until approximately 1,172 inspections have been completed each year. Properties scheduled to be inspected during a specific year will be sent an information package notifying them of their upcoming inspection. The information package will include a letter outlining, how to contact GENIVAR to book an inspection date and time and an overview of what to expect during the inspection process. The information package will also include a questionnaire about your septic system that you will need to fill out and return to GENIVAR prior to the inspection. Each inspection will take approximately one (1) hour to complete and it is mandatory that the property owner, or a representative over the age of 18, be present during the inspection process. Certificate letters will be mailed to those properties that require no remedial actions. Properties that have improperly functioning systems will receive a remedial action letter outlining the deficiencies and documenting the required actions and timelines for corrective measures. The cost to the resident for the septic re-inspection is $100.00. An invoice will be mailed to the property owner after the inspection is completed; this invoice will be payable to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. GENIVAR believes that the success and effectiveness of the program is highly dependent on communication and cooperation between GENIVAR and the residents of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. As such, GENIVAR is committed to completing the program in a professional and transparent manner. In order to provide additional information and to answer questions, GENIVAR and the Town of South Bruce Peninsula are pleased to invite you to the Septic Re-Inspection Program Information Session on May 11, 2013, from 10:00 am until 2:00 pm, at the Wiarton Arena (top floor). This session is designed to introduce you to the GENIVAR project team and provide further information regarding the purpose of the inspections, the scheduling of inspections, and provide an overview of the inspection process itself. Attendance of this session is encouraged, however it is not mandatory. During the duration of the program, should you have any questions please feel free to contact:

Michael Varty, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula Re-Inspection Program

or

Kristy Gibson, B.A.Sc. Project Coordinator for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula Re-Inspection Program

at 1 (800) 263-7419, or by e-mail at [email protected] On behalf of GENIVAR, we look forward to working with you to ensure a safe, healthy, environment for years to come. Sincerely, GENIVAR Inc. Kristy Gibson, B.A.Sc. | Project Manager [email protected] | www.GENIVAR.com KAG:nah

4/24/2013 9:59 AM H:\Proj\13\13046-00\100 Records Review and Letters\0414010 Records Review and Letters 2013\Wp\MHV-L Introduction.docx

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.genivar.com/

Announcement

SEPTIC RE-INSPECTION PROGRAM INFORMATION SESSION

Date: May 11, 2013

Time: 10:00 am – 2:00 pm Location: Wiarton Arena, Top Floor (563 George Street, Wiarton, ON)

The Town of South Bruce Peninsula and GENIVAR invite you to attend an Information Session about the upcoming Septic Re-Inspection Program. This Information Session will allow residents to meet directly with the GENIVAR Project Team to familiarize themselves with the overall implementation strategy of the Program and gain information regarding the inspection process. This information session also provides GENIVAR an opportunity to address questions (on an individual basis) related to the Septic Re-Inspection Program. The Information Session will include two (identical) 30 minute presentations by GENIVAR. The morning presentation is scheduled for 10:30 am, the afternoon presentation is scheduled for 12:30 pm. The remaining time will be structured as an informal open house where residents are encouraged to meet the GENIVAR Team and ask questions. If you are unable to attend the Information Session, please note that homeowners will be provided with details of the Program in the form of an Introductory Letter, which will be mailed in April 2013. For more information, please contact the GENIVAR Project Team by e-mail at [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

Town of South Bruce Peninsula

Septic Re-Inspection Program

Information Session Prepared by GENIVAR

May 11, 2013

Welcome

Information Session Outline:

1. Introduction of GENIVAR and the project team

2. Re-Inspection Program Overview

3. Scheduling Process

4. Inspection Process

5. Frequently Asked Questions

2

Introduction to GENIVAR

GENIVAR is a Canadian engineering consulting firm with over 15,000

employees and over 300 offices.

GENIVAR has many areas of expertise (10 main business units

segmented into smaller sub-disciplines).

GENIVAR has a Certificate of Authorization with the PEO, APGO and

holds an active BCIN# with the MMAH.

GENIVAR’s Environmental Group has been retained by the Town of

South Bruce Peninsula to complete the Septic Re-Inspection Program.

3

GENIVAR’s Project Team

Senior Project Managers

• Michael Varty, P.Eng.

• Jason Murchison, P.Geo.

Project Coordinator

• Kristy Gibson, B.A.Sc., E.I.T.

Credential Summary

• Education: Environmental Engineering, Geology and Earth Sciences

• Dedicated career in wastewater and water supply servicing

• Active Ontario Onsite Wastewater Association (OOWA) members

• Registered on-site sewage system designers with MMAH

• Good standing with professional organizations (PEO and APGO)

4

GENIVAR’s Responsibilities

Implement the Septic Re-Inspection program on behalf of the Town of

South Bruce Peninsula:

• Notifying property owners about the program;

• Schedule the inspections;

• Complete the inspections;

• Issue follow-up documents based on the inspection; and

• Generate meaningful information based on the

results of the program.

5

Educate the

property owner

about their

system and the

benefits of the

program

Re-Inspection Program Overview

6

Program Objective

The Septic Re-Inspection Program has been designed to meet the

requirements as approved by Council by-law.

The program will include the inspection of all existing, on-site sewage

systems regulated under the Ontario Building Code for signs of

malfunction/disrepair

Program Goals

Help protect the surface water and groundwater quality, and human

health, from sewage related impacts; and

Provide education and learning opportunities to system owners.

Scheduling Process

7

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2011

2012 Inspection Notification

Residents will receive notification of the septic re-inspection program

(GENIVAR’s Introductory Letter issued on April 24, 2013).

Residents will receive an Information Package during the Spring

(April or May) of their designated inspection year.

The Information Package will include:

• Cover Letter

• Inspection Scheduling and Inspection Process Overview

Document

• Sewage System Questionnaire

Scheduling Process (Continued)

8

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2011

2012

Designated Inspection Years

Major inspection zones (A-H) to be

completed over a four year period

(2013-2016). Under the current by-law, each

zone will be inspected during its

designated inspection year.

Inspections will be booked by

GENIVAR on a sequential basis as we

receive responses (with an emphasis

on completing older systems first).


9

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2011

2012

Proposed Scheduling By-Law Amendments

Re-assign inspection zones (C-F) to

different geographical areas.

Remove the designated years in favour

of moving through the zones alphabetically

to achieve 1172 inspections per year.


Sewage System Questionnaire

The Questionnaire must be filled out to the best of the owners

knowledge.

The Questionnaire must be returned to GENIVAR in order to schedule

your inspection.

The Project Coordinator will attempt to contact the property owner to

schedule their inspection in the order that the Questionnaires are

received.

10


Inspection Windows

Inspections will be completed from June to October each year.

Inspection windows are four (4) hours in duration (ex. 8 am – 12 pm);

however the inspection will be approximately one (1) hour in duration.

There are a limited number of weekend and evening spots available.

These will be booked on a first come, first served basis.

11

Inspection Process

GENIVAR’s Inspection Process Includes:

Review existing septic system documentation with

owner/representative and answer any questions;

Complete visual inspection of septic or holding

tank for signs of malfunction and structural integrity

(material, sludge and liquid levels, filter, etc.);

Complete visual inspection of leaching

bed (if present) for signs of malfunction;

Complete visual inspection of grey water pit/privy/cesspool

(if present); and

Review inspection report with the owner/representative.

12

Complete

Inspection

Report

Inspection Process (Continued)

Owner (or Representative) Responsibilities:

Shall be at the property during the duration of their inspection window.

Shall have septic tank lids/ holding tank lid exposed (buried lids must be

unearthed prior to the inspection).

13


14

Examples of Visual Signs of Leaching Bed Malfunction

Pooling Sewage on top of leaching bed Breakout from Leaching Bed


15

Liquid Level above outlet pipe – sign of clogged

pipe/weeping tile

Holding tank full of sludge

Examples of Visual Signs of Failure within Tanks

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=improper+septic+tank&source=images&cd=&docid=JxzY-7HHfG4zTM&tbnid=sGXFE3ra21_V8M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.castanet.net/news/About-the-House-Hugh-Cairns/76610/Suffering-from-septic-block-&ei=-EklUZqiKcSoqQGtzIGgBg&bvm=bv.42661473,d.aWM&psig=AFQjCNH00MsGpPAOV8IWMlhFM0CWNp71zQ&ust=1361484612673654


Inspection Follow-Up:

Systems that are not exhibiting signs of failure or malfunction will be

issued an Inspection Certificate.

Systems that are exhibiting signs of failure or malfunction will be issued

a Remedial Action Letter.

• The Remedial Action Letter will be mailed to the owner after the

completion of the inspection.

• This letter will describe in full the deficiencies observed during the

inspection, recommended corrective action, and remedial time

frame.

16

Inspection Results

GENIVAR will prepare an annual report to

summarize the inspection (such as number

of properties assessed, number of

pass/fails, and number of orders

issued, etc.)

Statistical data and trends will

be summarized using charts, graphs,

and GIS mapping.

17

Summary

The Septic Re-Inspection Program has been implemented by the Town

as part of an environmental/safety initiative.

The goals of the program are to help to protect the surface water and

groundwater quality from sewage related impacts and protect human

health. There will be an emphasis on GENIVAR providing education to

all system owners.

The Town and GENIVAR are working cooperatively on this project to

meet the Town’s Strategic Plans :

• Goal 3: Sustainable Infrastructure and Built Environment

• Goal 5: Protection, Promotion and Preservation of Natural

Environment and Agricultural Lands

18

Frequently Asked Questions

I am on a holding tank, is my system exempted from the program? No.

Holding tanks can also pollute the environment if they are not regularly

pumped out, or are structurally unsound.

I have a new system that was recently installed, is my system

exempted from the program? Not under the current by-law. Surprisingly

enough even recently installed systems can fail prematurely if they are used

incorrectly (paints, heavy grease, excessive use).

An amendment to the current By-Law has been proposed which would defer

the inspection of systems less than five (5) years old (installed and

inspected) until the end of the program, or such a time that the system is

greater than five (5) years old.

19


Why do I have to dig up my own lids? Unfortunately GENIVAR cannot dig

up the lids on your tank for three reasons:

• Health and Safety (buried utilities)

• Liability issues (we do not want to damage your system with our

equipment)

• Logistics (time and cost implications)

Why isn’t the First Nations land being inspected? The Ontario Building

Code does not apply to First Nations land as it is under Federal jurisdiction.

Why do I need an inspection completed if the Health Unit already

completed an inspection a few years ago? Your septic system, like many

items that you use everyday, wears over time with use (even if you regularly

maintain your system). The condition of your system a few years ago does not

necessarily reflect its current state.

20


How do I find out when my property will be inspected?

The current by-law indicates what year you will be inspected. Under the

proposed by-law your inspection year may change.

Regardless of the proposed by-law amendment, you will be sent the

information package during the Spring of your inspection year in order to

notify you in advance.

Why is my system being inspected before others? The framework for the

inspection zones and timing was set by the Town in keeping with source water

protection parameters. It is important to understand that all the systems will be

inspected within the next 4 to 5 years. Logistically it is not possible to inspect

all the systems at once, therefore some will be before others.

21


Will the inspectors be qualified? Yes. All GENIVAR inspectors will

have passed the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s On-Site

Sewage System Designer/Legal exams and have a valid BCIN#.

What happens if I do not schedule an appointment? GENIVAR will

first attempt to follow up with you to ensure that you have received the

information package and are aware of the inspection program

requirements. Should you refuse to have an inspection completed,

GENIVAR will notify the Town about your refusal. At that time, the Town

will contact you and may choose to complete the inspection by

exercising the powers of a Regulatory Authority under the Building

Code Act.

22

THANK YOU

Appendix D

SCHEDULING

Town of South Bruce Peninsula WSP Canada Inc. Building Division TSBP Project Team

PO Box 310 311 Goderich Street 315 George Street PO Box 1600 Wiarton, Ontario Port Elgin, Ontario N0H 2T0 N0H 2C0

7/8/2014 8:14 AM H:\Proj\13\13046-00\100 Records Review and Letters\0414011 Records Review and Letters 2014\Tech\Inspection Package\KAG-L Introduction Letter (2014).docx

OWNER NAME ADDRESS LINE 1 ADDRESS LINE 2 POSTAL CODE March 26, 2014 Re: Town of South Bruce Peninsula Septic Re-Inspection Program INSPECTION PROPERTY ADDRESS

Inspection Information Package Dear Property Owner, In accordance with the Town of South Bruce Peninsula By-Law 53-2013, this letter is intended to notify you that the above noted property located in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula is scheduled to have a septic re-inspection completed during the 2014 inspection period (approximately June - October, 2014). The program is being administered by WSP Canada Inc. (formerly GENIVAR Inc.) on behalf of the Town. The purpose of the Re-Inspection Program is to inspect existing (Class I - Class V) on-site sewage systems, as defined by the Ontario Building Code (OBC), in order to identify maintenance concerns as defined under Section 8.9 of the OBC. This mandatory Septic Re-Inspection Program has been implemented by the Town as part of an environmental/safety initiative in accordance with the amended Ontario Building Code (O. Reg. 315/10). Class I, II, III, IV and V septic systems, as defined by the Ontario Building Code, must be inspected under the Program. Listed below are various types of septic systems that require an inspection:

Class I: Chemical/Composting Toilets, Portable Privy, Earth Pit Privy, Pail Privy, Privy Vault Class II: Greywater System Class III: Cesspool Class IV: Leaching Bed System (including those with advanced treatment systems) Class V: Holding Tank

Please note that if you do not have a septic system on your property, it is your responsibility to notify WSP in order to remove your property from the list of mandatory inspections. WSP will verify the servicing of your lot with the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. If your lot is serviced by a septic system(s), you must follow the instructions outlined in this document. This letter provides detailed information regarding how to schedule your inspection and the inspection process. A Septic Questionnaire, attached, has also been provided to aid in the inspection process. As outlined below, a $100.00 inspection fee will be invoiced to the property Owner by the Town following completion of the inspection.

Town of South Bruce Peninsula WSP Canada Inc. Building Division TSBP Project Team PO Box 310 311 Goderich Street 315 George Street PO Box 1600 Wiarton, Ontario Port Elgin, Ontario N0H 2T0 N0H 2C0

3/26/2014 10:10 AM H:\Proj\13\13046-00\100 Records Review and Letters\0414011 Records Review and Letters 2014\Wp\KAG-L Inspection Information Package (2014).docx

SCHEDULING & INSPECTION PROCESS Stepwise instructions on how to complete your septic inspection are provided below: STEP #1 Contact the WSP Project Coordinator or Scheduling Assistant prior to June 1, 2014, to arrange a convenient inspection date. Inspections can be completed throughout the week (Monday through Friday and select weekends and between the hours of 9:00 am to 6:00 pm. Inspections will be scheduled on a first come, first serve basis, as such weekend and evening appointments are limited. The WSP Project Coordinator/ Scheduling Assistant can be contacted by mail/email/telephone or fax. Provided below is the WSP Project Coordinator/Scheduling Assistant contact information:

Mail: WSP Canada Inc. 311 Goderich Street P.O. Box 1600 Port Elgin, ON N0H 2C0 Attention: Kristy Gibson

Telephone: 1-800-263-7419 – in Canada 1-905-750-3080 - International

Fax: 519-389-4728

E-mail: [email protected]

Office Hours: Monday – Friday (8:30 am – 4:30 pm) When you contact WSP, please have on hand the following information:

Municipal address of inspection property; A preferred inspection date and a backup inspection date; The name of the representative(s) (over the age of 18) that will present for the inspection; The type of septic system and estimated installation date;and, Current contact information of owner (mailing address, telephone number and/or email address)

Please note that if you do not contact WSP by June 1, 2014, to arrange an inspection date, WSP will assign an inspection date for your property. A Letter will be issued to you prior to June 30th, 2014, to notify you of your assigned inspection date. STEP #2 Ensure that you, as property Owner, or selected representative is aware of the following responsibilities once your inspection date and approximate inspection time has been scheduled/assigned:

3/26/2014 10:10 AM H:\Proj\13\13046-00\100 Records Review and Letters\0414011 Records Review and Letters 2014\Wp\KAG-L Inspection Information Package (2014).docx

The Owner or representative must be present at the inspection property during the scheduled/assigned inspection date and time block (3 hour window).

The Owner must unearth the lid(s) of the septic tank and/or holding tank if they are buried prior to the inspection date.

The Owner or representative is encouraged to have their Septic Questionnaire available to the WSP inspector at the time of the inspection. Please note that the Septic Questionnaire should be filled out to the best of your abilities and does not need to be completed in full (leave items blank that are unknown).

The Owner or representative must remain with the Inspector for the duration of the inspection and sign off on the Inspection Form.

Please note that if you fail to be present during your scheduled or assigned inspection date, ONE reminder letter only will be sent from the Town of South Bruce Peninsula requiring you to reschedule and provide a date by which the inspection must be completed. Failure to do so may result in an Order to Comply being issued to the property owner. STEP #3 Have your Septic System Re-Inspection completed by WSP. The inspection process is summarized below:

The inspection of your septic system components will be completed by the WSP Inspector in your presence. The Inspector will be looking for signs of maintenance/operational issues (Code Contraventions of Section 8.9 of the Ontario Building Code) as well as location of system components to surface water features and water supplies. Please note that if you have an advanced treatment unit, the WSP Inspector is not authorized to open the unit as WSP is not a registered servicing company by the supplier.

The inspection results will be recorded on an Inspection Form during the inspection process. This form will be reviewed with the Owner/representative after completion of the inspection. The Inspection Form shall be signed off by both the Inspector and the Owner/representative at that time.

A hard copy of the Inspection Form, along with either a Certificate Letter or Remedial Action Letter, will be mailed to Owner and forwarded to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula for their information.

The Owner will be invoiced an inspection fee in the amount of $100.00 by the Town of South Bruce Peninsula following completion of the inspection. Inquiries regarding the inspection fee should be directed to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.

To book your inspection, or if you have any questions regarding the inspection process, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, WSP Canada Inc. Kristy Gibson, B.A.Sc. | Project Coordinator [email protected] | www.wspgroup.com 1-800-263-7419 Attachments: Septic Questionnaire

Town of South Bruce Peninsula WSP Canada Inc. Building Division TSBP Project Team PO Box 310 311 Goderich Street 315 George Street PO Box 1600 Wiarton, Ontario Port Elgin, Ontario N0H 2T0 N0H 2C0

3/26/2014 10:13 AM H:\Proj\13\13046-00\100 Records Review and Letters\0414011 Records Review and Letters 2014\Wp\KAG-L Questionnaire(2014).docx

March 26, 2014 Re: Town of South Bruce Peninsula Septic Re-Inspection Program

Septic Questionnaire Dear Property Owner, Please complete the following Questionnaire to your best abilities (you may leave sections blank if unknown). WSP encourages you to have this Questionnaire available for review by the WSP Inspector at the time of your inspection to aid in the inspection process.

Town of South Bruce Peninsula Septic Re‐Inspection Program – Septic Questionnaire

Building Data and Occupancy Type

Residential Seasonal □ or Permanent □

Finished Floor Area _____________ Number of Bedrooms__________

Commercial □ With Residential Use □ or Without Residential Use □

Type of Occupancy: Office □ Restaurant □ Store □ Service Station □ Other__________________________ Please fill in all that apply:

Finished Floor Area: _________________ Number of Employees:_______________

Number of fuel nozzles: _________________ Number of Water Closets:_____________

Institutional □ Type of Occupancy: Church □ School/Day Care □ Hall □ Other__________________________

Please fill in all that apply:

Finished Floor Area: _________________ Number of Employees: _______________

Building capacity or usage: _________________ Number of Water Closets: _______________

Page 2 March 26, 2014


Water Supply Data

What type of water supplies exist on your property (please check all that apply):

Dug/Bored Well □ Surface Water □ Municipal □ Drilled well □ Sand Point □ Cistern □

Sewage System Data

What type of septic system(s) do you have (check all that apply):

Class I (Privy/Outhouse) □ Class II (Greywater Pit) □ Class III (Cesspool) □ Class IV (Septic Tank & Leaching Bed) □ Class V (Holding Tank) □ If known, please identify the type and size of sewage tankage (i.e. Septic Tank, Holding Tank, etc.)

Septic Tank (if present): Size/Volume ____________ Imp Gal□ Litres □ US Gal□

Holding Tank (if present): Size/Volume ____________ Imp Gal□ Litres □ US Gal□ If known, please identify other septic system components (if present):

Balancing/Pump Tank □ Distribution Box □ Advanced Treatment Unit □ Advanced Treatment Unit Type/Supplier:________________________ Servicing Company:__________________________________________

System Age

Most recent year system component(s) were installed and/or inspected by The Town of South Bruce Peninsula or the Grey Bruce Public Health Unit (up to 2008) (ex. New septic tank, 2008): Brief Description of Work Completed: ___________________________________ Year: ___________ DEFERRAL OF INSPECTION (2014 Inspection Year): In accordance with the Town of South Bruce Peninsula By-Law 53-2013, those systems which had a building permit issued and inspections done within the past five (5) years (2009-2014) will be deferred from the inspection required under the septic re-inspection program. Should this provision apply to the system on your property, please contact the WSP Project Coordinator to have your property removed from the inspection list for 2014. Please note that WSP will contact the Town of South Bruce Peninsula to obtain a copy of your permit/inspection report.

Page 3 March 26, 2014


General sketch of the property:

Please include the locations and approximate distances between septic system components (tank, bed, greywater pit), structures (house, shed, garage), surface water features, and onsite/neighbouring wells. You may supply a copy of your permit in replacement of the sketch, if available.

Town of South Bruce Peninsula WSP Canada Inc. Building Department TSBP Project Team PO Box 310 311 Goderich Street 315 George Street PO Box 1600 Wiarton, Ontario Port Elgin, Ontario N0H 2T0 N0H 2C0

3/19/2014 2:37 PM H:\Proj\13\13046-00\100 Records Review and Letters\0414011 Records Review and Letters 2014\Wp\Deferral Notice (2014) DRAFT2.docx

OWNER NAME ADDRESS LINE 1 ADDRESS LINE 2 POSTAL CODE Date Re: Town of South Bruce Peninsula Septic Re-Inspection Program INSPECTION PROPERTY ADDRESS

Notice of Inspection Deferral Dear Property Owner, The inspection of your septic system located at the above noted property address in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula was scheduled for completion in 2014 as part of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula Septic Re-Inspection Program. In accordance with the Town of South Bruce Peninsula By-Law # 53-2013, WSP Canada Inc. (formerly GENIVAR Inc.) would like to notify you that an inspection of the subject septic system is not required at this time as a building permit has been issued and/or an inspection has been completed by the Town of South Bruce Peninsula’s Building Department within the past five (5) years (2009-2014, inclusive). WSP has removed your property from the inspection program and no further action is required on your behalf. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, WSP Canada Inc. Kristy Gibson, B.A.Sc. | Project Coordinator [email protected] | www.wspgroup.com 1-800-263-7419 KAG:nah

Town of South Bruce Peninsula WSP Inc. Building Division TSBP Project Team PO Box 310 311 Goderich Street 315 George Street PO Box 1600 Wiarton, Ontario Port Elgin, Ontario N0H 2T0 N0H 2C0 519-534-1400 1-800-263-7419

12/15/2014 1:54 PM H:\Proj\13\13046-00\100 Records Review and Letters\0414011 Records Review and Letters 2014\Wp\JSW - Inspection Notification.docx

OWNER NAME ADDRESS LINE 1 ADDRESS LINE 2 POSTAL CODE June 13, 2014 Re: Town of South Bruce Peninsula Septic Re-Inspection Program

INSPECTION ADRESS Inspection Notification –Urgent Attention Required

Dear Resident: This letter is to inform you that you have not booked the inspection of the septic system(s) at the above noted address with WSP Inc. by the June 1, 2014, deadline. This letter is intended to notify you that WSP has scheduled your mandatory inspection for XXXXX XX, 2014, between the hours of XX:XX XX and XX:XX XX. Please note that this inspection is mandatory for all residences in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula that own a property with a septic system (privy/outhouse/composting toilet , greywater pit, cesspool, septic tank and leaching bed, or holding tank). The Town will be notified should you fail to be present at your property during the above noted mandatory inspection window. At that time, the Town will be in a position to issue an Order to Comply through the Ontario Building Code. Details of the inspection process can be found in WSP’s Information Package, dated March 28. In summary, your septic/holding tank lid(s), if present, must be unearthed prior to your inspection date and the owner (or chosen representative over the age of 18) must be present for the inspection (typically 45 minutes in duration). You do not need to have your tank pumped for the inspection. There is limited flexibility in the scheduling process at this time as all inspections are required to be completed prior to October 31, 2014. Under special circumstances WSP may be able to reschedule your designated inspection date. Please contact the Project Coordinator a minimum of five (5) business days in advance of your designated inspection date if you require an alternative date. The Project Coordinator can be contacted via telephone (1-800-263-7419) or alternatively by email ([email protected]). Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, WSP Canada Inc. Kristy Gibson, B.A.Sc. | Project Coordinator [email protected] | www.wspgroup.com KAG

Appendix E

GENERAL PHOTOS FROM 2014

Documents

2014 Septic Re-Inspection Annual Report