Submitted electronically:

 by The Richmond Village Association
to:
Ottawa Council, Committee of the Environment

The Richmond Village Association (RVA) regrets that it cannot provide for the personal attendance of a Director at the deliberations of the Environmental Services Committee today. We respectfully request that the following be read into  the record as the formal position of the RVA on the matter of  Munster Hamlet wastewater treatment situation.

Harvey Snyder, P.Eng.
Vice President
Richmond Village Association Position

Presentation

Review of the R.V. Anderson report and other available documentation including the staff report under consideration today revealed that the work called up by the City made neither explicit nor implied allowance for inclusion in the study of the potential impacts of treatment alternatives on areas outside the bounds of Munster Hamlet. No consideration was given to public health, environmental or water supply concerns for residents along any potential pipeline route. These residents draw water from a shallow aquifer in the Jock River watershed between Munster Hamlet and Richmond and in the village of Richmond. Yet a study in progress, contracted by the City, identifies this corridor as a Wellhead Protection Area, to be protected from any source of contamination.


Had the City adopted a more holistic view, it would have treated the Ontario Municipal Board intervention as unique opportunity to improve its understanding of the situation. The broader issues introduced by the consideration of a forcemain pipeline option should have been addressed. Had they been, there is no doubt that the outcome of the R.V. Anderson report would have been significantly different. The City would not now be faced with the hypothetical problem of deciding whether or not to accept pipeline tenders based on artificially minimized differences in the environmental impact of the three treatment alternatives.


The Richmond Village Association (RVA) concludes that had R.V. Anderson been directed to consider public health, environmental and threat to water supply issues for rural and Richmond residents, the forcemain option would have been rejected unequivocally. Furthermore, this rejection would have been based on these factors as well as cost factors, including the high risk of significant cost over run, which was known as early as the time of the OMB hearing.


The Richmond Village Association further concludes that, given R.V. Anderson's rejection of the forcemain option despite a restricted scope of work, the City would be derelict in its responsibility to the citizens of Ottawa were it to open the tendering process in this matter to include other than the onsite treatment alternatives set out in its Statement of Work.

Recommendations

The Richmond Village Association recommends that the City accept the outcome of the R.V. Anderson Report and issue a directed RFP to the proponents of the onsite treatment alternatives set out in the R.V. Anderson Statement of Work. In our opinion, this RFP should seek a technology update including the most current performance data, and current competitive design-build price commitments.


The RVA further recommends that the City move post-haste in this initiative, seeking provincial co-operation for fast tracking environmental approvals with the objective of fielding an operational on-site plant by December 2003.

(Attached File: Richmond Village Association Observations of RV Anderson Review Report)