|
Subject:
TRAIL ROAD LEACHATE MANAGEMENT
Letters of Concern and Written Presentations
to
Planning and Environment Committee, to Council
and Letters to
the Editor
|
One observer’s perspective
of the (2004) Trail Road EA Process
(especially as it relates
to the functioning of the Public Liaison
Committee –PLC).
Councillors:
As an outside observer at the PLC meetings, all I had to do is
observe.
First of all, I was struck by the professionalism demonstrated
by all of the public members of the PLC. Any objective EA process
could not have dreamed of having a more balanced, talented and
forthright collection of engineering, statistical and
environmental expertise, combined with intelligent inquiry,
objectivity and plain common-sense. The public members of the PLC
were hard-working and considerate of all view points.
I was thoroughly shocked, however, by the disgraceful manner in
which the public members of the PLC were treated, by the
"evaluation team". They were deprived of requested information
(and still are); they were given misinformation by city staff, in
particular; they were demeaned and put down on occasion, along
with the public itself.
For example, a multi-page document was circulated by the city's
consulting engineers, Conestoga-Rovers and Associates (CRA), to
PLC members, to supposedly demonstrate complexity of on-site
treatment technology. One public PLC member asked why an
equivalent document wasn’t produced showing the technical
complexities of leachate transmission over forcemains (dealing
with sepsis control, risk management, and many other factors). The
CRA engineer replied:
"We did not produce the same level of information for
pipelines or trucking, because I assumed most of the members of
the PLC understood what a pipeline, and what a tank truck, looks
like and how it operates."
At the April 14, 2004, Open House, the public was presented
with "Comment Sheets" which led off with, " We
are interested in your opinion
on the relative importance of various Primary Criteria and Sub
Criteria"...
An enlightened public expressed --in the most unambiguous
terms-- its preference for the on-site technology, shown in the
following official numbers for each of the options:
|
Pipeline: |
11 % |
82 % |
7 % |
|
Trucking: |
11 % |
80 % |
9 % |
|
On-Site Treatment: |
78 % |
17 % |
5 % |
(As quoted from the PLC management team assessment of public
comments), the main reasons stated by the public, for their support of an
on-site solution, included:
· the ability to more
easily "isolate" any problems that might occur;
· that it involved
"more modern technology";
· there would be "less
impact on (ground)water levels";
· there would be "less
exposure to the environment";
· any "leaks would be
quicker to catch, and easier to resolve";
· the technology is
"more cost effective";
· it is the most
"environmentally safe" system;
· use of such
technology will become a "necessity in the future", so we
might as well
do it now; and;
· "willing to pay
whatever it takes to best-protect public health".
When presenting the public comments to the PLC, the evaluation
team characterized the public as "uninformed" and
"unrepresentative of the population, in terms of numbers of Open
House attendees, relative to the population as a whole", even
though it was one of the better-attended open houses in recent
memory.
The evaluation team ignored multiple requests for a risk
assessment of the pipeline and other options, saying, "We
wouldn’t know how to do one."
It appears strange to this observer that the consulting firm of
(CRA) was reluctant to talk about details of a London, Ontario,
on-site leachate treatment plant, that CRA, itself, had built. Was
the performance of that plant so bad ---or so good--- that no one
wanted to discuss it.
Also, why did the evaluation team not discuss the North Toronto
(Britannia) on-site leachate treatment plant, and the Edmonton
on-site leachate treatment plant, both of which are huge
successes?
The PLC meetings were abruptly cancelled before any meaningful
discussion of the available treatment technologies had taken
place, yet the evaluation team unilaterally chose to use the
activated sludge (AS) treatment model, (like the ROPEC plant), to
compare with the pipeline option.
The AS system happens to be one
of the highest cost options in both capital, and O&M, thus making
the on-site option show in less than optimum light. (Reference: A
Report to US Congress, as early as the mid ‘70s required that
any government-funded treatment plant proposals must be
accompanied by comparables of Rotating Biological Contactor -RBC-treatment
plant bids, before ANY
consideration of funding of activated sludge plant bids,
simply because of the significant capital and O&M savings
with the RBC treatment system, relative to the AS systems.)
Because of the premature termination of the PLC, the public
members have not had any opportunity to question the evaluation
team on dubious decisions it had unilaterally taken. This is NOT
transparency, folks! (Isn’t transparency what a PLC is supposed to
achieve?)
To sum up, the evaluation team is proposing to use a forcemain
to transport --toxic leachate—under pressure, right across the
city, without any risk assessment, and to pay an on-going fine for
non-compliance in toxic exceedences of its own Sewer Use By-Law.
That does not make any sense, at all, when a safe on-site
treatment option exists, that is fully self-contained and costs
less to build and operate.
Reference Source (in more detail):
http://www.ottawasewergatefiasco.com/TR-PLC-record.htm
Richard Bendall
Munster area resident, and Ottawa
ratepayer
From: Brian Finch, President of
The
Friends of the Jock River
The Friends of
the Jock River
A
non-profit, charitable environmental organization
managed
and supported by volunteers in the Jock River watershed
www.geocities.com/jockriver
Brian Finch
President,
The Friends of the Jock River,
Box 674
Richmond, ON
K0A 2Z0
Councillors
City of Ottawa
November 20, 2004
Dear Councillors:
Re: Trail road
Landfill Leachate and Nepean Landfill Contaminated Groundwater
I was a member of
the Public Liaison Committee (PLC) for the recently completed
Environmental Assessment of the methods to treat leachate from the
Trail Road Dump Site and contaminated groundwater from the old
Nepean Dump Site. Based on my membership on this committee and my
other experiences on environmental issues, I am able to comment
intelligently on the topic. The following also represents the
position of the Friends of the Jock River in support of on-site
treatment and in opposition to the pipeline option,
Cost:
The 60 lifecycle
cost of pipe is stated to be $17,100,000 and for on-site
$21,800,000, but the figures must be questioned. The figure for
on-site has been inflated.
1. The
groundwater from the old Nepean Dump Site is contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), specifically, chlorinated
hydrocarbons. In an on-site plant, the VOCs would be removed in a
separate, purpose-built facility and the treated water discharged
back to ground. The contaminated water is of finite amount and
scope, and would be exhausted in a period of 10-20 years, as is
typical in the treatment of closed dumpsite contaminants.
Consequently, some of the capital cost of the treatment facility
would be recoverable and, of course, operating and other related
costs would go to zero. The pipeline option would similarly
exhaust the contaminated groundwater but the capital would be
unrecoverable. The 60 year lifecycle of the on-site option would
be reduced by more than the pipe option.
2. Based on the
projected annual operating costs of on-site, an expert in leachate
treatment has indicated to me that the electricity (hydro) cost of
$112,200 shows the pricing has been based on an activated sludge
process, one of the most energy intensive techniques in current
use today. By comparison, a technology based on rotating
biological contactors would consume a quarter the amount of
electricity per year for a saving of just under $5M for 60 years.
The difference on this single factor obliterates the lifecycle
cost advantage of pipeline.
3. Two local
(Ottawa) companies have designed and installed high tech leachate
treatment plants in Canada. Neither of these companies was asked
to comment on capital, operating or lifecycle costs of their
systems. Both have indicated lower capital, operating and
lifecycle costs than those indicated in the staff report.
4. Even if the
different lifecycle costs are to be taken at face value, the $4.7M
difference over 60 years is $78K per year and $215 per day. The
difference is minor.
5. It is also of
note that the Official Plan requires the City to use other
measures besides monetary costs, notably environmental and
public safety. These other “costs” must be taken into
consideration. I would like to point out that the rationale for
advancing the O-train was based on environmental and public health
considerations, not the simple $ cost.
Environmental and Public Health:
1. An on-site
purpose-built leachate treatment facility would treat the leachate
effluent to swimming pool quality, a better quality than the water
in the Jock. Further, the contaminated ground water would be
treated in a separate purpose-built facility. By comparison,
ROPEC is a secondary sewage treatment plant that discharges water
that is worse than the water in the Ottawa River and relies on
dilution for acceptable discharge levels. ROPEC is designed to
treat only human sewage.
2. On-site
treatment will prevent the discharge of a significantly greater
proportion of the leachate pollutants into the environment than
would ROPEC. To consider just one of the main pollutants,
phosphorous (P), ROPEC would discharge 30 times more P to the
environment than would an on-site facility treating the same
amount of leachate. The other leachate components that are
partially/poorly treated or untreated by ROPEC (such as many heavy
metals) would end up in the sludge, which is then distributed on
fields, or would be discharged to the Ottawa River and then be
available to downstream communities (e.g., Montreal) that use the
Ottawa River water for drinking water.
3. The water
discharged to the Jock River would benefit the river. On-site
treatment would retain the water in the watershed and augment the
river flow in drought years. The pipeline option would steal 7
L/sec. (22M L/year) of water from the watershed.
4. A disturbing
fact about pipes is that they break, even so-called reliable
pipes! No engineer will guarantee that the pipe will not break.
Consider the Richmond - Glen-Cairn forcemain sewer pipe, which has
ruptured 6 times in the 20 years of its existence. (While the
leachate pipe would be of different material than the above sewer
pipe, the risk of rupture will remain.)
5. Forcemain
leachate pipes of the proposed length are considered by engineers
to be problematic because of the need for venting of poisonous and
corrosive H2S gas, and the requirement to control the
biologically active leachate. Also, the intermittent (stop-start)
operation (e,g., every 5-10 minutes depending on load) creates
significant transient hydraulic fluctuations, which are difficult
to control and are often the cause of ruptures.
6. The City's
electronic monitoring system (SCADA) would shut off the pipe in
the event of a rupture but it is unable to detect slow leaks.
(For example, engineering consultant investigating the fifth
breakage of the Richmond - Glen Cairn forcemain sewer said that
the pipe leaked for “weeks, possibly months” before it failed
completely.) In the event of a rupture within the on-site
facility, all of the effluent would be contained on-site and would
not pose a risk to the environment or the public.
7. Leakage of
leachate from a pipeline has the potential to contaminate shallow
and deep aquifers. Some of the many Nepean residents on or
near the proposed pipe route depend on wells for their water.
Environmental Assessment Process:
1. The City’s
consultant recommended a pipeline option because it came out
numerically higher than the on-site option (9.34 vs 8.99) but the
representation of figures with this accuracy (3 figures of
accuracy) is logically and scientifically inappropriate.
Considering the statistical aspect of the public consultation
process and the subjective nature of many of the evaluated
criteria, the final numerical values are identical. Both are 9
out of 10!
City staff knows
on-site can meet MOE’s Policy 2 requirements as it conducted a
$500,000 study several years ago of 7 different on-site options
and proved that at least 5 of the 7 would meet MOE requirements.
The Friends of the Jock River is similarly satisfied that the
technology of on-site treatment of leachate is mature and that the
facility can be operated to a high standard
The Friends of the
Jock River asks that you reject the staff recommendation of
pipeline and recommend on-site treatment.
Sincerely
Brian Finch
President
Friends of the Jock River
From: Keith Preston,
Stonebridge Resident,
Public Member of the Trail Road - PLC
(To Councillors):
My name is Keith Preston, a resident of
Stonebridge in Barrhaven for the past three years. I am a retired
research chemist with some 40 years experience in the science of
physical measurements and I am a member of the Public Liaison
Committee for the Environmental Assessment that is the basis for
the staff recommendation under discussion today.
I wish to focus Committee’s attention on a
serious issue that, in my mind, has not been satisfactorily
resolved in the current EA process, nor is it addressed in the
staff recommendation for pipeline. Yet the issue to which I
refer, namely the VOC plume at the Nepean Landfill site, is
sufficiently serious that it stalled the EA/PLC process for four
months while City staff made additional measurements and consulted
with Ontario MOE over management of this new contamination source
and its incorporation within the EA.
Let me first explain what VOCs are: In this
particular instance the Volatile Organic Compounds are chlorinated
organics, a notorious class of chemicals that invariably cause
environmental and health problems, examples of which are DDT and
PCBs. In this particular case we are dealing with a much simpler
compound, a very common degreasing and cleaning agent,
trichlorethylene, that is nonetheless a carcinogen, that is, a
cancer‑causing substance. The levels of this poison in the Nepean
Landfill groundwater are such that it is suspected that drums full
of the material, dumped at the old landfill site years ago, are
now rusting through.
Such poisons have no place in a pipeline that
is to cross the city, exposing all and sundry to a potential
health threat. MOE inform me that the acceptable limits for VOCs
in city sewers have recently become much more stringent, and there
is little doubt in my mind that these offensive materials must be
contained and extracted on-site. Indeed, City staff acknowledged
that the VOC contaminated groundwater would have to be treated
on-site at PLC meeting 3a, and in the subsequent meeting 3b, the
consultants CRA indicated, and I quote from item 2.0 of the
minutes, “the contaminated groundwater plume can be hydraulically
controlled through extraction wells and treated through an
on-site system. M. Benson indicated that City is
currently preparing a letter to the MOE that outlines the
rationale for this approach and seeks MOE concurrence.”
The Problem Definition section of the present
report to this PEC clearly acknowledges compliance of City staff
with the MOE directive of July 16 2004 to address the VOC
contamination under the current Class EA process. Yet the
pipeline management method recommended in this report fails to
address this very serious VOC issue. Indeed, in a City report of
November 9, it is clear that staff do not yet have a solution in
place. I quote from that report: “At the same time the ESR is
filed we will also request a 24-30 month extension to our current
MOE order (deadline April 30 2005) to have a management solution
in place for the contaminated groundwater (VOC) at the Nepean
Landfill site.”
Of course pipeline does not solve the VOC
problem. As I have said repeatedly, and I say it again, it does
not solve anything, it simply defers the problem, transfers it to
another neighbourhood and in so doing incurs additional problems.
If City’s intent, as it would appear to be, is to treat the VOCs
on site, as they surely will have to, then the cost of that
treatment must be added to the pipeline estimate for fair
comparison with the twin on‑site plants. In distinct contrast,
the on-site plant for contaminated groundwater will naturally
manage the VOC problem with little incremental cost, a cost that
has perhaps already been incorporated into the estimate.
In view of what I have revealed and said,
I would urge this committee and all Councillors to adopt the only
sensible and environmentally acceptable solution to this problem:
reject the staff recommendation for pipeline and vote for the
on-site alternative that scored equally in the EA evaluation.
Keith F. Preston, MA, PhD
Ottawa, November
23rd, 2004
From: Bruce Webster, Vice President
of the Richmond Village
Association
Mr. Chair;
Councillors of the committee:
I am speaking to
you today about a subject which has become repetitive but needs to
be put under your scrutiny and consideration once again.
It is the matter
of how the city staff deal with waste in liquid form. The city
has a good system for dealing with biological wastes, but it is
being stressed and utilized to dispose of materials for which it
was not designed nor is the ROPEC plant capable of treating these
leachate, contaminated groundwater and volatile organic
compounds. In fact, the Ministry of the Environment and the
city's own sewage use plan prohibits the transportation of
volatile organic compounds by sewage works. The city is prepared
to PAY a fine or Penalty in order to be allowed to break this and
other "laws". Such is the insistent desire of the city engineers
to have a pipeline.
I wish to draw to
your attention the guest column written by Jeff White for the
Ottawa Citizen, on Wednesday, November 10th, and would
ask that this article be written into the minutes as printed, in
its entirety. Some points which deserve highlighting are those of
1)
Cost. The city and consultants for Trail Road are
employing figures which their own experiences contradict.
Pipeline costs are estimated to be $3.8 million PLUS
unforeseen/unusual costs (blasting, unstable soils pumping
equipment)
2)
The real cost of the Munster/Richmond pipeline is now
approaching $17 Million for 11 KM. Trail Road is approximately 6
KM so the math says a closer "estimate" for the Trail Road project
by pipe is $8 Million. I have a document which mentions an
accepted bid for a section of the pipe alone in Richmond to be
almost one million for slightly over one KM, constructed in
previously disturbed soils, of a known content. So that in itself
should question the 3.8 "estimate" for Trail Road.
3)
The city and CRA, as consulting engineers, KNOW how much a
similar processing plant, onsite in London Ontario, cost. The
figure is at $3 Million...less than the "estimate" for pipe. This
London facility has been said to be too small to handle the flow
rates at Trail Road, but it is not the flow rates but the volume
which dictates size. The operators control how much is processed
at a given time and for either pipe or onsite. A certain storage
capacity is necessary and is already in place by virtue of the
site itself. Therefore, you do not need a facility twice as large
for twice the volume and the possibility of size increase is not
directly proportionate in cost. That is to say twice in size does
not equal twice the cost. A side note: flow rates are typically
reduced during winter and the holding capacity is therefore vastly
increased while the pipeline would possibly not have enough volume
to function, thus causing sludging and a high eminence cost.
4)
RISK: The pipeline is considered to be of what risk? No
"risk analysis" was done for this project and so the risk of
pipeline is indeterminate. The risk of onsite is known - if the
facility has a breakdown it stops or is stopped by operator
control. The result? A back up in volumes retained onsite.
Power interruption back up standby power is part of an onsite
package, and unlike ROPEC, maintains full compliance to MoE
standards under these conditions. Should a pipeline crack, it is
debatable whether SCADA, the alarm system for the city sewers,
will respond. I cite the McManus report of 2003 Richmond...break
investigation of Dec. 2001 and June 2002 wherein the conclusions
were "that these breaks existed for weeks or months before being
detected" (McManus section 5.6 ) by a catastrophic rupture. A
similar rupture occurred on Oct. 26 2004 and was discovered after
raw sewage had been flowing into a class 2 river for some time.
In Summary: The best and only acceptable
solution as demanded by public survey, conducted by the EA process
for Trail Road PLC is ONSITE. This head in the sand attitude, by
the city and consultants, must be overcome and Ottawa, as the
Capital of Canada, should look to take the lead in embracing new
innovative technology. Let us be true "Silicon Valley North" not
just an empty phrase.
Thank you for your interest in this
project and for permitting me the time to present my views.
Bruce Webster
Vice President
Richmond Village
Association
November 2004
Leachate
and Contaminated Groundwater Pipeline
Proposed for the Stonebridge
Subdivision, South Nepean
Mayor Bob
Chiarelli and Council Monday,
November 22, 2004
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1J1
Fax : 580-2509
Dear Mayor Chiarelli and Members of Council:
RE: Leachate and Contaminated
Groundwater Pipeline Proposed for the Stonebridge Subdivision,
South Nepean
Planning
and Environment Committee has before it, at its meeting tomorrow,
a proposal that staff finalize and implement an Environmental
Assessment Study that recommends transport by pipeline of the
Leachate
and contaminated groundwater from the Trail Road Landfill
and Nepean Landfill, respectively, over a distance
of 40 kilometres from the landfill to the Robert O. Pickering facility
for treatment. The pipeline route recommended by the consultants
involves the construction of a plastic pipe along a line that hugs
the west and north boundaries of the Stonebridge subdivision, on
the northerly line of which is the Jock River and the
neighbourhood of Heart’s Desire. The pipe so proposed is a
forcemain, which forces the untreated contents
under pressure
along the length of the network until they reach a new gravity
sewer (the South Nepean
Collector). Pressurization requires
venting, and so it is proposed to release the fumes of untreated leachated sewage over the residential areas, at interval
locations.
In
your review of the consultants’ report and attendant
recommendation from staff, we encourage you
to consider the
following:
v
The
Environmental Study Report favors pipeline transport of the
Leachate and contaminated groundwater by only a small margin over
the alternative of treating these substances on-site. Indeed, the
margin of difference is so small that it is dismissable by normal
statistical standards.
v
Argument
can be made that, not only do the 2 alternatives of pipeline and
on-site treatment stand as equally favored by the Study when
corrected for statistical error, but moreover, that on-site
treatment is actually the preferred alternative. This argument is
supported by adjusting for the unfortunate mistake in the
analysis, that being, the mistake of ascribing fully equal effects
on health and safety to both the pipeline and the on-site
treatment options. (Efforts by the Public Liasion Committee to
have the consultants correct this, and other errors, in their
analysis have been so far unsuccessful).
v
Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs), in this specific instance Chlorinated
Compounds, examples of which are cancer-producing PCB’s and
Drycleaning Solvents, were discovered one year ago in groundwater
monitoring wells downgradient of the Nepean Landfill site. VOC’s,
by Ministry of Environment regulation, necessitate treatment
on-site. While the Ministry has directed that this issue be
resolved within the framework on the current Environmental study
and have set a date of December 31, 2004 for proposals for
resolution, the recommendations you have before you from staff are
inexplicably muted on this matter.
v
Initial
reading of the staff report, suggests that the
costs
of the
on-site treatment option are double that of the pipeline
alternative. We draw your attention, however, to page 5 of the
staff report, and specifically to the section entitled EVALUATION
RESULTS. There, you will note, under “Second Place Alternative”,
that not one, but two,
on-site treatment facilities are specified as necessary.
Derivatively, the second facility is for
the mandatory treatment
on-site of the VOC’s discussed above
(described in the staff report as “on-site contaminated
groundwater extraction and treatment facility”).
This second facility cost is,
surely however, constant for both options, i.e. it is unlawful to
pipe untreated VOC’s. Costing for the pipeline option has
to, therefore, be corrected upwards for this apparent oversight,
arguably then neutralizing the cost difference staff have cited
between the two options.
We submit that the recommendation to approve and implement the
current Environmental Study report depends too heavily
on data that has been manipulated to support a case for pipeline
construction, and invites decisions by Council based on analyses
that are neither comprehensive nor transparent for the treatment
of
the Volatile Organic Compounds now evident in the contamination
produced by the Nepean Landfill.
As you aware, hundreds of homeowners purchased property in the
new subdivision of Stonebridge
without the benefit of disclosure
in respect to the planned Leachate pipeline.While the process that
produces
the current study no doubt intends to amend that history,
it patently fails to meet that test.
Sincerely
yours,
Patrice
Meloshe and
Elmer Tumak
Stonebridge
e-mail:
patrice@rogers.com
As a resident of the community of Stonebridge, I wish to
express my deep concern over the fact that city staff are
going to recommend to City Council that they vote for a
pipeline versus on site treatment.
I
attended the recent Open House and after hearing all the facts
and figures on cost versus risk, I fail to understand why
Council would not vote for on-site treatment as the safest,
most environmentally conscious method. You can't put a price
on public health and safety, or the environment. One break
such as the one that occurred in late October in Richmond
would leak toxic waste into the ground surrounding a community
of over three hundred homes, putting everyone at risk.
I
do hope that after hearing once again the concerns of various
individuals attending and speaking out at the Planning &
Environment Committee meeting tomorrow, that you will think
strongly of voting for on-site treatment.
Sincerely,
Wendy Duross
(Stonebridge)
Ms. Ferrari, thank you for
allowing me to email my comments I would have presented to the
Committee today. They are as follows.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee for allowing me to speak.
My name is Michael Phelan. I am a
resident of Stonebridge and the President of the Stonebridge
Community Association.
Let me say that I have heard the
presentation from city engineers and consultants .
I wish to say I am not an engineer
or a chemist or an expert on the treatment of contaminated
water.
I did work for 40 years for a
major Canadian financial institution and will briefly comment
on my views on the mathematics of the presentation in a few
moments.
When we moved to Stonebridge 3
years ago, there were about 12 houses, it has grown to over
600 and plans call for the expansion to 2500 in the future. As
a matter of interest I am led to believe that the proposed
pipeline route on Cambrian drive will be developed by a major
Toronto developer within the next year.
The proposed pipeline of 40 KM. to
the ROPEC treatment facility where there is no treatment of
the inorganic compounds of Lechate it is merely treated and
poured into the Ottawa river.
The experts tell us disposing of
Lechate via pipeline is safe,but there have been many
instances over the years where experts have told us something
was safe only to find out in later years that it poses a
serious health risk.
Ruptures do happen, as on the very
day of the final public meeting Oct.26th. a major pipeline
break occurred in Richmond. Over the last decade there have
been thousand of pipeline ruptures in Ontario many as a result
of human error.
The weightings and cost
comparisons of onsite vs. pipeline are almost equal but in my
forty years as a banker it was not unusual to see marketing
plans/budgets presented by those supporting a project to look
very favorable leaning to the preferred choice by the
presenter. Then when the actual costs were tabulated there
were significant cost overruns.
When Councillor Hume
mentioned this morning that the preferred choice was
heavily made on the basis of the lowest cost, I couldn't help
remember when Astronaut John Glen returned from one of his
missions in space a reporter asked him what he was thinking
when he was inside the spaceship. He replied that when he was
looking at all the instruments in the spaceship cabin he
thought "Oh my God all these parts were bought from the lowest
bidder."
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and
Gentlemen, we would be most grateful if you would vote
in favor of onsite treatment.
Thank you
Michael Phelan
(Stonebridge)
|
Dear
Mayor Chiarelli: |
| |
|
On Tuesday, November 23rd Ottawa's Planning and
Environment Committee will decide whether to support a
pipeline or on-site treatment to manage Trail Road's
leachate and Nepean Landfill's contaminated groundwater.
After six long years, city staff are still recommending
a pipeline as the solution.
Because I believe that a pipeline could have
significant negative effects on our health, safety,
social well-being, property values and the environment,
I SUPPORT ON SITE TREATMENT AT TRAIL ROAD AND
NEPEAN LANDFILL WITH DISCHARGE AFTER ON SITE TREATMENT
INTO THE JOCK RIVER
Yes: X
No:
Name:Imran & Shahana Mirza
Nepean
Mayor Chiarelli, we are very upset at
the city staff decision to make this recommendation
without any consideration of what the residents of this
community wish, and without any safety consideration for
this rapidly growing community.
As we registered our
concerns about the safety of the pipeline at the Public
Open House on October 26th, it would appear that City
officials were aware of yet another serious break in the
Richmond forcemain. Please see the attached photo below
for your information.
The community that suffered as a
result of carelessness on part of officials in Walkerton
Ontario is a case in point that is a tragic lesson
learned, and therefore we cannot take safety lightly.
There has been numerous incidents involving bursting of
pipelines, and your staff proposed
leachate pipeline is no exception. Frankly I am
completely at a loss as to why our elected and hired
city staff members would put our families - men, women
and children at risk by running this contaminant
carrying pipeline through a populated area in
Stonebridge. When this same event was proposed to
happen several years ago in the Barrhaven area, the
community managed to stop the pipeline. I wonder if it
had anything to do with the fact that it was going
through very closely by a prominent lawyer's house, or
was it that there were more voters in the area than
there are in Stonebridge? If the city backed off on that
decision, why are we now being subjected to this same
shameful act of putting our children and community at
risk ?
Please don't tell us or allow your
staff to tell you that you have done all the studies
and this is completely safe - this is the same type of
argument that we used to get in the old days when
tobacco companies denied smoking had any connection to
causing cancer in people. With every project involving
life and death, risks have to be evaluated, the
probability of that risk occurring has to be determined
and the IMPACT has to be assessed. Even if the staff
tell you that for some reason the risk is low that the
Pipeline will not break and contaminate our drinking
water, etc, please consider the fact that should this so
called "low" risk event occur, the impact is
irreversible - when community members, adults and
children alike die, neighborhoods are contaminated, and
our biggest investments in our personal life our legacy
in our children and community is destroyed because some bureaucrat(s)
decided that this was a cheaper solution. God Forbid,
but should something bad happen in this community like
it did in Walkerton, which city official will be blamed
for the tragedy? What good will it do after the fact?
Was the tragedy in Walkerton not enough? Where does
your responsibility end? What excuses will the staff
come up with then? And frankly, I don't want that
situation to occur, and therefore, I am urging you take
direct action in preventing this from happening.
All of our Stonebridge petitions are
being sent to Ms. Jan Harder's office for consolidation,
and I thought it was important that you were absolutely
aware of the desperate situation in our community, and
our expectation that at least our Mayor will intervene
on our behalf to put things right. We hope you can
help.
We remain yours truly,
Imran & Shahana Mirza
Stonebridge residents who will be
directly impacted by this pipeline.
CC: To Editors of Ottawa Citizen and
Ottawa Sun.
 |
[Photo at left shows a section of Richmond's sewage
pressure-forcemain which had massively ruptured on
the afternoon of the very same day (October 26,
2004) that city officials told an evening Open House
gathering of Stonebridge and Barrhaven residents
that they were not aware of any forcemain breaks in
the city, that had occurred spontaneously without
construction equipment intervention being the
sole causative factor ...a huge lie.
Not only was this the SIXTH spontaneous
rupture, just on the Richmond forcemain alone, but
the longitudinal split suggested that, (as
in the previous such incident), there may have
been gradually increasing leakage into the
groundwater for a period of weeks to months
before
the massive rupture caused the SCADA alarms to go
off. -OSF] |
|
|
Ladies and
Gentlemen:
This is to recommend to you, in
the strongest terms possible, that you collectively vote in
favour of the ON-SITE TREATMENT of leachate and contaminated
ground water from the Trail Road/Nepean landfill site at
your council meeting on November 24. Prior to this
vote, I am sure that you will have thoroughly briefed
yourselves on the issues surrounding this decision and will
vote accordingly. Having studied, as you have, the
pros and cons associated with the alternatives, they need
not be repeated here. My specific request to you is
that you respond to the wishes of your constituents.
Those who have taken the initiative to study the matter and
have had the opportunity to express their opinion, are
overwhelmingly in favour of the on-site treatment solution.
All things in balance, to vote otherwise would be
inexplicably going against the considered opinions and
wishes of voters and taxpayers.
Kind regards,
Lewis Cardin
Nepean, Ontario
PowerPoint presentation prepared by the public members of
the Public Liaison Committee (PLC), showing the valid
reasons for their support of the on-site solution: CLICK HERE
|
Please check back soon, as more documents are added... |
|