Dear Councillor,

Pursuant to a discussion yesterday with Councillor Gord Hunter, I have attached relevant documents he suggested might be considered in any review of the Munster process, by Council.

Those include a letter to Reg Andres of R.V. Anderson, dated May 22, 2003, that the corrections to their initial report were not considered in their Memorandum of April 30, 2003, on which the City Engineer’s Department based its report to Council - a pipeline recommendation; an attachment from MOE clearly stating what is involved in an amendment to the ESR, and not as presented to Committee of Council by City staff; and the submission we made to XCG on February 19,
2003, with respect to errors and omissions in the RVA report of December 16, 2002 to the City.  These documents are brief and to the point.

Costs

The costs used by the staff to prepare their report were significantlyexaggerated and thus would completely distort the 60 year cost benefit analysis.  The components of the system we proposed are virtually similar to those required by the pipeline proposal, only much less pipe and therefore much less RISK!  Therefore, no life cycle advantage, as claimed for the pipeline, exists in our opinion.

Time Schedule

The time schedule prepared by staff was done without any input from us at all, and is an exaggerated effort, which, if left unaltered, will  mislead Council .  We would be up and running with all approvals in less than 12 months from the receipt of an order to proceed.  That is to say an “approved” operating plant.

 MOE Approvals

The “difficulties” stated to gain an approval are also grossly over-exaggerated.

Feb. 19/03 Submission

All these issues were noted months ago and reported to the R.V. Anderson organization and nothing was done about it.

This is grossly unfair and damaging to us as well as to Seprotech, who have experienced the very same distortions to predicate an outcome other than that recommended by the initial RVA report, in spite of its errors and omissions.  Properly corrected and incorporated into the process, the correct data clearly shows that the on-site options are even more justified than as noted in RVA’s initial report.

Omissions Effect

The Memorandum without these amendments and staff desire, at any cost, for a pipeline, have caused major misrepresentations of our proposals, and our processes respectively.

Fairness of the Process

We concur with Septrotech that we also have no desire to fight with the City but we have the right to expect that we would be treated fairly by our own elected representatives.  This exercise has been anything but fair.  We have been put to expense of several hundred thousand dollars collectively.

I am sure you can understand our demeanor when such misrepresentations are made  in our presence, as was Mr. Newell's presentation.

This is completely unacceptable.  When the overall financial ramifications are properly taken into account, one would expect that cooler and more intelligent minds should prevail.  That is not the case to this point of time.

Munster Lagoons

Finally, when the people of Munster find out that the lagoons will be a dynamic part of the daily operation of a pipeline, I can assure all of you their comments of “misrepresentation” of the facts will not be pleasant.

Further, I should like to have the engineer, any engineer, explain to us how he/she intends to operate the pipeline system as proposed – a force main – without daily use of the lagoons into which solids will precipitate and be retained.

I would appreciate your fair consideration of the enclosed. We are available to meet and discuss this at any time.

Sincerely,
 

Jeffrey A. White, P. Eng.
President & CEO
Northern Watertek Corporation
Tel:  (613) 443-1118
Fax: (613) 443-2527
Cell: (613) 862-3518