In the wake of city council members granting a hodgepodge of exemptions in recent months, the operations committee has agreed to relax the requirement to dig test maintenance holes.
In a motion passed on Monday, which still needs to be ratified by city council as a whole through associated bylaw amendments, “multi-residential” buildings will be defined as 11 units or more.
(These properties, which require test maintenance holes, are currently defined as three units or more.)
Further, staff have been asked to provide exemptions to the requirement to install a test maintenance hole for commercial establishments “which could be considered low risk, on a case-by-case basis,” as determined by the general manager of Growth and Infrastructure.
Test maintenance holes are located at the edge of properties, and serve as an access point for the city to test the contents of a specific property’s wastewater, which allows them to narrow in on where contaminants are coming from.
The city’s sewer use bylaw, which took effect in 2011, requires test maintenance holes to be dug at all commercial, institutional, industrial and multi-unit residential buildings (currently defined as buildings with three or more units).
Existing properties without test-maintenance holes are grandfathered in, with applications to city hall for such things as changes in use triggering the requirement.
Test maintenance holes cost between $10,000 to $15,000, according to a municipal report tabled for Monday’s meeting by Shawn Chretien from the city’s Water/Wastewater Treatment Compliance Division.
City council has granted various exemptions to the test maintenance hole requirement in recent months, and triggered an internal review before Ward 4 Coun. Pauline Fortin requested a public review, the results of which tabled for Monday’s meeting.
In their review, the city looked at what 21 other municipalities do, and found no consistency for the definition of “multi-residential,” and no relationship between population density and a test maintenance hole requirement.
“In terms of risk management for the wastewater system, allowing the development of 10 or fewer residential units without a test maintenance hole is considered low risk by staff,” according to Chretien’s report, adding that residential use is not considered one that typically causes the flushing of biohazardous materials or chemicals.
During Monday’s presentation, he noted that the main contaminant coming from residential units is kitchen grease, the volume of which coming from 10 units or fewer “doesn’t pose significant risk.”
The report cautioned against other exemptions, and said that variances should only be granted under “exceptional circumstances.”
It also clarified that test maintenance holes serve an important purpose.
Water treatment plants, the report notes, “will often see contaminants, such as motor oil, enter with the raw wastewater, and create serious operational issues at those plants for days. By its nature, the wastewater collection system is difficult to access, with few sampling points throughout. Follow-up investigations can prove difficult in pinpointing sources of contamination.
“A test maintenance hole is not shared with neighbouring properties, thereby providing an accurate monitoring point for the city to sample from a discrete single source.”
In one example Chretien shared on Monday that an unnamed “commercial enterprise” was found to be dumping motor oil into a sanitary sewer.
“When a contaminate enters a publicly owned asset like a pipe or a roadway, we become responsible to address that contaminant,” he said, adding that test maintenance holes allow them to do this.
Although the operations committee’s decision needs to be ratified by city council as a whole, Monday’s unanimous support points to a likelihood it will.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
