A few of the
Conclusions and Comments
 to the Third Munster Wastewater Evaluation
contributed by
Expert Witnesses, Proponents
Public, "Interested Parties", Informed Observers

November - 2002

This page contains links to a few of the informed comments and concerns submitted to the "2002 Evaluation Group", regarding Munster's wastewater treatment evaluation chaos,
to provide input to the (2002), third re-evaluation, ordered by the Ontario Municipal Board.

Here is a sampling of the inputs:

• Engineers' Statement of Agreements and Disagreements (OMB Order No. 1012 Issued July 12/2000): 
  This important document was supplied to the "Third Evaluation Group" because it represents the point where the OMB left off. Note that the Appellant's Expert Engineering Witness for the onsite treatment plant was able to directly answer every issue. After all, that is what is expected of a "Requests for Proposals" (RFP) bidder, who invests in a legitimate, qualified, bid submission. It is readily apparent, by reading this document, that the Engineering Witnesses for the RMOC (City), often failed to give full rationales for their disagreements; they just chose to "disagree". This was especially noticeable, when the engineers were ordered by the Chair of the OMB Hearing, to re-calculate the cost of rock removal, based on new rock borehole evidence which was presented at the Hearing. (The attached document [see: Sec. 4.1.8, and Sec. 4.1.11] will show how the City's consultants appeared uncooperative in dealing with the task). Furthermore, when asked to respond, with answers to issues that should have been resolved going into the "Design Build" RFP bid process, (vitally important issues such as overall costing, land use planning considerations, pipeline risks to the environment, extent of lagoon use, forcemain breakage risk protection for shallow wells, and many others), the City's consulting engineers appeared evasive and inconclusive. As a result, every difficult issue, with regard to the pipeline, remains unanswered, and would still have to be resolved at the design or construction stage, including even the pipeline sizing, the route through Richmond and, of course, its full cost. This was not what Munster and Richmond residents wanted or were led to believe would happen, nor did it conform to the spirit or the function of a properly conducted RFP process. (In regard to the RFP process, litigation is still pending, over the City and its Consultant allegedly acting in bad faith by soliciting and accepting non-compliant pipeline RFP bids, by rigging a pipeline selection through unwarranted manipulation of the compliant RFP bids, and by carrying out a flawed and overly subjective ranking of the evaluation criteria - as noted in the Evidence, and Decision of the OMB Hearing.)
  CLICK HERE
  
  
• The Friends of the Jock River:
  This is a volunteer organization. Their primary mission is the wellbeing of the Jock River watershed. For this organization to come out so strongly in favour of an on-site treatment plant for Munster, and opposed to a pipeline, speaks volumes about which alternative is better for the aquatic habitat and surrounding environment. As taxpayers, the group is also concerned about the apparent waste of taxpayers' money. The following excerpt from their Spring 2002, Newsletter was also sent to the evaluation group:  CLICK HERE
  
  

• Jeffrey White, P.Eng., President of Watertek Corp:
  A proponent of the "Snowfluent" bid, Mr. White was an expert witness at the OMB Hearing. He demonstrated superior expertise in pipeline technology, and raised many questions regarding the pipeline's inappropriate application for Munster, which could not be answered by the city's engineering consultants. Following, is the summation of his observations regarding the city's performance in this whole process: 
  CLICK HERE
  
  
• Independent Citizen's Review of the Munster Sewage Project (November, 2002):
  To view 107-page Adobe File: CLICK HERE