The EVALUATION MATRIX (Table F-1)

Not so, according to the F-1 Table. It correctly gave the pipeline a "10" (for worst). It gave Lagoon-Spray Irrigation a "5" (for mid-range). It gave Snowfluent a "5" (which should have been better than the Lagoon-Spray Irrigation, because the effluent treatment is superior, (perhaps a "4"). And it gave Mechanical Treatment-Direct Discharge a "10" , for worst ranking, (when it should have given it the best ranking, at "0").
If you look at the adjusted F1-Table, with only the "Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat" correctly done, CLICK HERE, you will see that, that single small adjustment, places the Mechanical Treatment system as the Preferred Option.

Added bonuses,  in the case of Mechanical Treatment, is that lagoon decommissioning and removal would, a.): create a greatly enhanced Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat, at the Jock River location ---where it's needed the most; while,  b.): reducing risks to Munster and area residents of West Nile virus exposure ...through removal of the lagoons as massive mosquito-breeding habitats. (See 'Lagoon Decommissioning': CLICK HERE.)

The Air Quality ratings appear quite skewed, if one considers the facts. The null rating of (5) was assigned to the lagoon and spray field expansion option. It could be argued, that with bigger lagoons, to produce greater generation of odours, and larger spray fields, to allow for greater wind drift, the rating could could have been a (6) or (7). The pipeline, on the other hand, was rated at (1), when it also requires the use of lagoons. While it does not have spray irrigation, it has the added problem of H2S-gas production (and release) along the 11 Km pipeline route, (See Hazeldean Forcemain H2S Problem: CLICK HERE). The Pipeline/Lagoon rating could have been more realistically scored at between (4) and (7). Mechanical Treatment, on the other hand, received a falsely rated score of (3), considering it does not employ lagoons, and the treatment units are housed in three, small, enclosed buildings that could be remotely located beside the old lagoon cells ---which would now be turned into an odour-free conservation area. Therefore, this treatment alternative should have been more accurately rated at (0) or (1) due to its superiority over the other options in this category. Snowfluent was rated as a (4), which is better than the null, and is left unchanged.

This category is badly skewed, as well. While the expanded lagoons, rated as (6), will result in more spraying, most of the activity will be away from homes, and it is assumed that only day-time spraying will be conducted. Therefore, this could probably be kept at the (6). Mechanical treatment, which was rated at (3), produces no discernable noise, and should definitely be rated at (0). Snowfluent spraying, rated at (6), has been adversely targeted because of night spraying, however, the spray nozzles, pointing skyward, make much less noise than claimed by CRA, and spraying would occur in an area away from housing. Besides, most homes have closed windows in the wintertime and residents would likely not hear any sounds. Snowfluent (even with its diesel compressors) should probably have been rated at (3) or (4), below null. The most skewed rating of all, with a (0), is the pipeline. Late evidence at the OMB hearing, pointed very strongly toward a 10-inch pipeline (instead of the proposed 8-inch). This would mean that the pumping station ---located in very close proximity to the lower Dogwood Drive homes, would require, a change from the existing 10 HP motor, to an 80 HP motor. At the increased level of noise, this could be a severe annoyance to the affected homes, (at nighttime, and through all seasons). The pipeline should, more likely be rated at between (7) and (10).

As the Munster Public Comment Sheets expressed, (View "Getting rid of the Lagoons" and "System of Choice": CLICK HERE), “Aesthetics” should refer, mainly, to public disfavour with the lagoons. Therefore, all the rankings should be quite similar, save one ---Mechanical Treatment--- which does not require lagoons. Thus, Lagoons, which were ranked (7), and should probably be kept at (7), because of Lagoon expansion. Snowfluent, which scored a (7), and the Pipeline, which scored a (1), both requiring at least one lagoon, could, probably be rated at (4). Also, consider that there has been no allowance made for the negative aesthetic impacts upon the Richmond Conservation Area, caused by Munster sewage entering the Richmond lagoons during peak flow periods. Mechanical Treatment, on the other hand, which received a scoring of (2), should be ranked at (0), since it does not require lagoons at all.

The Agricultural Land Availability is a legitimate issue, because the Expanded Lagoon / Spray Irrigation option, and the Snowfluent option both required more land space for spray area. They were ranked "8" and "7" respectively (which appear accurate, because Snowfluent requires less spray area). Mechanical Treatment is rated as "0", which seems correct, because it does not require spray area or lagoons (...it actually frees-up land). However, CRA rated the Pipeline option as "0", when in fact, it requires at least one large lagoon, and worse, it ties up the valuable road corridor space of approximately 7.5 Ha, (to Richmond): crosses a trans-Canada fiber-optic cable, risks the shallow wells (in porous soils) along the route, and causes needless risks to the Richmond Fen (see photo: CLICK HERE). Given the availability of the much more favourable communal option (i.e.: mechanical treatment), the Pipeline option represents very poor land use planning, therefore, its rating should be moved to that representing "worse" than the Lagoon Expansion (at 8), and should therefore be a "9", at least.

Rectification of this significant exclusion would, by itself, place the Mechanical Treatment Plant as the 'Preferred Option', (not the Pipeline).

The "Recreational Land Availability" sub-heading, in this case, is mere filler and should be eliminated, since none of the options "remove" passive or active recreational activities. If "Recreational Land Availability" had to be considered as a serious consideration, then the only option which would be favourable here, is the Mechanical treatment plant, because all of the currently used lands ---save 3500 square feet, could be turned into recreational toboggan/ski hill and park land.

The, above-mentioned, utility corridor issue, with its associated environmental and health risks, should really be inserted as a consideration, instead.

"Adaptability to Accommodate Future Community Growth," was the most 'politically incorrect' (and rationally dishonest) of all the questions asked on the Comment Sheet. If you took a poll in Munster, to ask residents if they preferred the community size to stay the same, the answer would be, primarily, "Yes". Since this is well known, and because the "cap" on Munster's growth is already protected by both the Official Plan and the by-laws ...the question should NOT be used by the evaluators, as a method of promoting the pipeline (which is incapable of expansion). In other words: "Inferior sewage handling capacity should NEVER be used as a means of controlling population expansion". (That is what appears to be alluded to, here.) The way the question was posed, (re: handling "expansion due to community growth", as above), makes this a 'Trojan Horse'-trick question, loaded in favour of the pipeline, due to its inability to service new construction.

If the Evaluation was to consider which system could best handle peak flow surges, due to groundwater infiltration in March-April-May, (see Chart: CLICK HERE), then the Pipeline option would have received the lowest, (10) rating, instead of (0).; the lagoon would have been pretty much the same, at (5); and the Snowfluent and RBC Mechanical treatment systems would have been closer to a (0) score, instead of the (4)-rating, they were given.

(To see the Table F-1 of the Evaluation Matrix: CLICK HERE)

This is one of the categories that the average person would have no hope of being able to understand the relative Unit Values, or be competent to rank. Since everyone would want the best features in all categories, for their community (i.e.: all-weather performance, etc.), asking the question appears only to cast unwarranted doubts, in the direction of the 'newer technologies'. Since the newer technologies ---no matter how superior they may be--- do not have the same "Demonstrated Experience of Performance" ---no matter how relatively poor that older system may be. It's a 'Catch-22" question which can only be considered as misleadingly specious. It is especially unfair, however, since the whole purpose for the Evaluation Assessment process, and the RFP, was to "consider newer, advanced technologies, that have not been adequately considered before".

Furthermore, "professionals" should be using whatever engineering expertise, they might have, to define which technologies meet (or do not meet) their proponents' technical claims  ...not the public. All the public wants, (and the Council order originally asked for, CLICK HERE),  is to have the best performance for the lowest cost, in the shortest possible time frame. (The Evaluation Matrix has 'struck-out' on all three.)

It's interesting how CRA dealt with this one. The "effluent objectives in the Request for Proposals (RFP) were very specific, and extremely stringent (To see RFP "Effluent Compliance Objectives": CLICK HERE). The pipeline is noncompliant with the RFP, in ALL respects. It does not "treat", therefore it cannot meet any of the "Compliance Objectives", for discharge to:

1. Land application (i.e., Spray Irrigation or equal).
2. Subsurface disposal to groundwater system (i.e., tile bed or equal).
3. Water course discharge (i.e., Jock River).”

The scoring on the Lagoons, at (0); Snowfluent, at (0); and and the Mechanical Treatment Plant, at (0) ...are all accurately rated, because they are all capable of meeting their respective "Effluent Compliance Objectives". However, if you look at the Table F-1 Matrix, you will see that the pipeline was slipped a (0) rating, as well, when, in fact, it cannot comply with any of the "Effluent Compliance Objectives", and should not only be scored the worst, at a (10): but, according to the RFP, it does not even qualify as an option to be considered.

Accurate rating of this one criteria, would have placed the pipeline at the bottom of the choices (or, more precisely, excluded it altogether).

See point #1 (above).
The Engineering firm of Totten Simms Hubicki (TSH), was asked to present Capital cost estimated, in February of 1998, just before the Conestoga-Rovers and Associated (CRA) evaluation. TSH gave Capital Cost estimates in the 'double-digit' ($15 million to $16 million) range, (To see estimate: CLICK HERE).

The compliant Bidders gave guaranteed price quotes for Capital Costs, O&M Costs, and Life Cycle costs. That is how RFP's work, leading to the award of contract, and includes all design build costs. The non-compliant bidders, did not give final costs ---fit for the award of contract. Instead, (contrary to the RFP rules), they were allowed to submit  ---and were selected as the preferred option--- on the basis of artificially low, 'rough guesstimates', to the edge of Richmond Village, with additional costs to be tagged on later. Significant costs covering items such as rock determinations, rock blasting, mitigation measures through Richmond Fen, route selection through Richmond, mitigation measures for damage to wells and property, Jock River pipeline crossing, Richmond pumping station upgrades, and a host of others, were completely ignored.

The RFP originally asked bidders to be prepared to operate their facility for the first three years, but this item was later retracted, by CRA, to make way for the non-compliant pipeline bids.

The Capital and O & M costs of the Mechanical Treatment System, submitted for the "Guaranteed, fixed price" requirement, were substantially lower than the pipeline/lagoon estimates done by all other engineers (except CRA).

Relative costs of the Rotating Biological Contactor- Mechanical Treatment technology, compared with the Activated Sludge Method (similar to ROPEC), is shown in the attached quote from an 'Report to Congress', in the US, where many of these systems operate: (...for good reason: CLICK HERE).

With Capital Costs for the pipeline approximately five times higher ($15 million vs. $3.2 million), than other alternatives,  and with O & M costs substantially higher for the pipeline, lifecycle costs appear to be so far out of line, as to place the pipeline option as "a distant last", at the bottom of the evaluation page (as mentioned at the opening, Point #1).