Solid Waste Perspectives from the Canadian North by Kenneth Johnson

Photo - Iqaluit Landfill

Solid Waste Perspectives from the Canadian North

A Compilation of Technical Papers, Presentations, and Articles by Kenneth Johnson Planner and Engineer cryofront@shaw.ca 2017 Edition

Solid Waste Perspectives from the Canadian North Technical Papers, Presentations and Articles by Ken Johnson, M.A.Sc., RPP, P.Eng. Table of Contents 1.

Aklavik, Northwest Territories â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Solid Waste Planning Study. Published in the Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (CSCE), 2017 ........................... 4

Fort Resolution Solid Waste Management Review. Unpublished paper, 2013 ............................... 13

Site Selection and Conceptual Design of Landfill in Tuktoyaktuk, NWT. Unpublished paper, 2012. .............................................................................................................................................................. 28

Norman Wells Solid Waste Master Plan. Published in the Journal of the Northern Territories Water and Waste Association (NTWWA), 2012. ............................................................................................... 38

Low Level Radioactive Material Storage at the Fort Smith Landfill. Published in the Journal of the NTWWA, 2012. ....................................................................................................................................... 41

Landfill Runoff Treatment Options for Iqaluit, Nunavut. Pulbished in the Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the CSCE, 2012. ................................................................................................. 42

Alaska Solid Waste Management. Published in the Journal of the NTWWA, 2012. ....................... 51

Opportunities and Trends in Northern Solid Waste Management. Presentation at the NTWWA Annual Conference, 2012. ...................................................................................................................... 55

Tsiigehtchic Landfill Design. Unpublished paper, 2011. ........................................................................ 66

10. Solid Waste Management in Carcross. Published in the Journal of NTWWA, 2009......................... 76 11. Sewage Sludge Composting in Iqaluit â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Black Gold. Published in the Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Western Canada Water, 2009 ....................................................................................... 80 12. The Raven Recycles in Whitehorse, Yukon. Published in the Journal of the NTWWA, 2008 .......... 91 13. Wetland System for Treatment of Landfill Runoff in Iqaluit. Published in the Proceeding of the Annual Conference of the CSCE, 2007 .................................................................................................. 95 14. Management of Sewage Biosolids - An Overview of Canadian Acts, Regulations, Guidelines, and Standards in the Context of the City of Iqaluit. Published in the Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the CSCE, 2007 ...............................................................................................................103 15. Integrated Waste Management in Iqaluit. Prepared for Consulting Engineers of Alberta Award Application, 2006. .....................................................................................................................................117 16. Application of Burning Vessels for Solid Waste in Destruction Bay, Yukon. Published in the Journal of the NTWWA, 2006 ..................................................................................................................125 17.

Hamlet of Cambridge Bay, Sewage and Solid Waste - Planning for New Waste Management Sites. Unpublished paper, 2006 ..............................................................................................................127

18. Solid Waste Management Improvements in Tsiigehtchic, NWT. Published in the Journal of the NTWWA, 2005 .............................................................................................................................................148 19. Residential Land Use Related to Landfill Sites in Cold Region Communities. Published in the Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Institute of Planning (CIP), 2003 ......151 20. Land Use Planning and Waste Management in Iqaluit, Nunavut. Published in the Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the CIP, 2001 .......................................................................................159 21. Preliminary Engineering on the Cleanup of Waste Disposal Site in Iqaluit, Nunavut. Published in Proceedings the International Symposium on Cold Region Development (ISCORD), 1999 ......162 For more information about cold region water and sanitation technology contact: Ken Johnson, M.A.Sc., RPP, P.Eng. Cryofront cryofront@shaw.ca 7890 984 9085

Leadership in Sustainable Infrastructure Leadership en Infrastructures Durables Vancouver, Canada May 31 – June 3, 2017/ Mai 31 – Juin 3, 2017

AKLAVIK, NWT – SOLID WASTE PLANNING STUDY Johnson, Ken1,4, Davignon, Jamie2 and Behrens, Fred3 1

Senior Environmental Planner and Engineer, Stantec, Edmonton, Alberta Environmental Engineer, Stantec, Whitehorse, Yukon 3 Senior Administrative Officer, Hamlet of Aklavik, Aklavik, Northwest Territories 4 kenneth.johnson@stantec.com 2

Abstract: The Hamlet of Aklavik is a 100 year old community within the Mackenzie Delta region of the Northwest Territories (NWT), and was originally was established as a fur trading post. The community’s solid waste disposal facility has been experiencing operational problems in the recent years, related to the river floods in the spring, and drainage issues. In response to these issues, the Hamlet initiated a study to identify a new solid waste site. A scoping study identified 15 potential waste sites within 16 kilometers of the community, all situated along a seasonal access road. Waste generation for the 3 community was estimated to be 200,000 m for a 40 year horizon. This volume, with a 3 to 1 compaction 3 2 ratio, produced a 66,000 m volume requirement, and was rationalized to a 66,000 m area requirement. Of the 15 original sites from the scoping study, 9 had sufficient area, which included a 50 m site buffer from the operating area to the adjacent pond areas. The estimated capital cost to develop these sites range from $11.7 million to $25.2 Million, based upon substantially long access roads, and the site development features. Based upon the planning analysis it was recommended to investigate 2 of the 9 sites further. Along with the planning analysis, a review of the existing site was completed, and it was recommended that the redevelopment of the existing site is a should be considered to obtain additional operating capacity for the facility (up to a 12 year period), improved regulatory compliance, and to achieve additional time for the implementation of a new site. Keywords: - solid waste, planning, Northwest Territories, Aklavik 1

Introduction

1.1 Community Information The Hamlet of Aklavik is located on the Peel Channel of the Mackenzie River Delta, 113 km south of the Arctic Coast, and 55 kilometers west of Inuvik. Its geographic coordinates are 68.219916 N latitude and -135.007788 W longitude. Aklavik has a population is 670 in 2015, and the majority of the residents are Inuvialuit and Gwich’in. The community falls into two different land claim settlement regions, the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) and the Gwich’in Settlement Region (GSR). The community has limited access, which is by air and barge only during the summer months, and by ice road from Inuvik during the winter months. Aklavik is within the Boreal forest zone, with vegetation that includes white spruce (upper delta) or balsam, poplar and black spruce (lower delta) on high ground, and willows, alders, marshy vegetation and muskeg in the low lying areas. Aklavik is approximately seven meters above sea level, and is subject to

4 of 173

periodic flooding. The lands which comprise the municipality fall within a Flood Risk Area under the Canada-NWT Flood Damage Reduction and Flood Risk Mapping Agreement. Aklavik is within the delta region and is characterized by alluvial deposits of fine sand, and silt, and is situated in an area of discontinuous permafrost. The climate of Aklavik is characterized by cool summers, and long, cold winters. The daily average temperature of the warmest month in Aklavik is 13.9ºC and the coldest month is -26.3ºC. The annual precipitation as rainfall is 12.8 millimeters and 136.3 centimeters of snow. 1.2 Study Background A report commissioned by the Hamlet of Aklavik in 2009 estimated that the existing solid waste site, immediately adjacent to the community, had a remaining service life of about five years. The disposal facility has also been experiencing operational problems in the recent years related to the river flooding in the spring, and runoff management issues. The 2009 report stated that “a new landfill outside of the floodplain in the area of the Richardson Mountains is the preferred option to be further evaluated by the community”. The Hamlet did not accept this recommendation, and identified their own future site within the delta; approximately 7 kilometers west of the community along the winter road to a gravel source. The identification of this alternate site prompted the Hamlet to advance a planning study to consider additional landfill sites within the delta area west of the community. The Hamlet retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. based upon a proposal that included a scoping study that identified and presented preliminary assessments of 15 potential solid waste sites. The scope of work then advanced with a screening of these 15 waste sites, and analyses to develop a short list of sites for consideration by the community. 1.3 Ground Conditions The alluvial deposits of fine sand and silt beneath Aklavik are stratified layers that extend to about 11 meters below the surface. The discontinuous permafrost has an active layer of 300 to 900 mm. Borehole information to a depth of 9.1 m below the surface identified soil stratigraphy of gravel and sand layers, layers of organics mixed with sand, over layers of silt. The gravel and sand layer is generally 600 mm thick and consists of gravel graded up to 100 mm in size and course- and fine-grained sand with some fines. The sand is brown to dark brown in color and contains small ice crystals. The organic sand below the gravel and sand is a layer about 1.5 m thick, and contains various amounts of frozen and very moist organic materials. The moisture content near surface is about 10%, increasing with depth to about 36%. The silt below the organic sand extends to at least 9 meters, and consists of some clay with trace of fine grained sand and gravel. 2

Scoping Study for Initial Site Identification

2.1 Selection and Analysis for Scoping Study Satellite imagery was used to identify the winter road access to the granular deposits to the west of the community. Along the winter road, a 2 kilometer corridor on each side of the road was identified as a reasonable limit to potential sites. Fifteen potential sites were identified (see Figure 1) for further analysis with each site having a 200 meter separation from the center of site to the adjacent open water. It was recognized from the Scoping Study that most of the sites were within the delta area, and potentially subject to flooding. Sites 1 and 2 are at the edge of the delta and would not have the same flood risk as the remainder of the sites.

5 of 173

2.2 Initial Analysis of Selected Sites from Scoping Study 2

An initial analysis of the 15 sites tabulated areas ranging from 90,000 m to over 200,000 m . Access roads to the sites were identified off the existing winter road. The access to the sites would involve a combination of an all-weather access road along the existing winter road, and a new site access road. The site access roads varied in length from less than 100 meters to 2,000 meters. The existing winter road would require upgrading to an all-weather road to accommodate site access.

Figure 1: Fifteen sites identified as part of scoping study for new landfill in Aklavik

Figure 2: Access to Site 12 from winter access road to gravel sources

6 of 173

Waste Generation

3.1 Population Projection The predicted population values were obtained from the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) Bureau of Statistics. The design horizon for solid waste management in the NWT is 40 years, which recognizes the tremendous effort required in the implementation of a new landfill site. Population projections were available up to 2031, and values were extrapolated from this date estimated the population up to 2054, with a population of 710 people. 3.2 Capacity Requirements To estimate the solid waste generation a standard GNWT waste generation rate was applied. The 3 generation rate of 0.014 m / (p*d), was applied with a one percent population growth rate and a starting population of 668. The total amount of solid waste generation over a 40 year planning horizon was 3 estimated to be 200,000 m . A waste compaction rate of 3 to 1 was applied to the waste generated in the 3 40 year planning horizon to generate an anticipated waste volume of 66,000 m . This compaction ratio is appropriate to northern landfills in consideration of the frequency of compaction and the available equipment. 4

Site Development and Area Requirements

4.1 Site Development and Sustainability The general features of the anticipated site development of a new site include areas for bulky waste, hazardous or special waste, recycled waste (waste diversion), and landfilled waste. There is no significant use of honey bags (bagged sewage), therefore a provision for a honey bag disposal area was not included. A honey bag disposal area would require special considerations because it would be a biohazardous waste. The site configuration may also include fencing, and drainage management features, for both on site drainage and off site drainage. Although provisions for recycled waste and hazardous waste will be included in the site development, this aspect of sustainability is an ongoing challenge for small northern communities. Community capacity issues associated with operational funding, and human resources makes this activity impractical, particularly due to the transportation costs associated with waste materials either to a market for recycling or a facility for hazardous waste treatment. In most cases the recycled and hazardous waste are accumulated without any long term removal plan. The operational site development for landfilled waste is cells that would have cross sections of 10 to 15 meters wide, and berms with a height of 1 to 1.5 meters on either side of the cell. The waste deposition in the working area of each cell would be accomplished in an active area that would be periodically consolidated and then compacted. Intermediate cover would be added to the compacted area, and compacted. Working areas and intermediate cover would provide the opportunity to isolate segments of the waste in order to reduce the opportunity for the contamination of on-site runoff, and fire protection to minimize the size of a potential landfill fire. 4.2 Area Requirements 3

The anticipated waste generation for a 40 year planning horizon is 200,000 m , and with a compaction 3 ratio of 3 to 1, the needed capacity of the site would be 66,000 m . In applying the waste cell configuration 3 with 66,000 m for a 1.5 meter berm height, and developing a second phase of the landfill on top of the initial phase (3.0 meters in total height) it was determined that the landfilling area for household waste 2 would be approximately 22,000 m . For the purpose of site screening, and to accommodate the area requirements for bulky waste, hazardous waste, recycled waste, and cover material, the needed landfilling area was tripled for a total area 2 requirement of 66,000 m . This area would also needs to accommodate an operator building, signage,

7 of 173

miscellaneous storage, and internal roads on the site. The tripling of the was also based upon the general observation of the current landfill operating areas that have been developed by the Hamlet, and it also adds an additional conservative factor for the site selection process. 4.3 Earth Management The soil requirements for the site will include material for an access road, material for internal roads on the site, material for berm construction, and material for intermediate cover, and ultimately final cover. Granular material is required for the site access road, and the internal roads, but granular material is not necessarily needed for berm construction and cover materials. The Hamlet has access to non-granular material from a borrow site at the east end of the community. Berms may consist solely of non-granular material, as a less expensive alternative. A well planned earth management strategy for the new landfill will reduce the need for â&#x20AC;&#x153;higher qualityâ&#x20AC;? granular material, and create an opportunity to use poor quality borrow sources that are closer to the new landfill site. 4.4 Climate Change Considerations Climate change should be considered during the development of the new solid waste facility. A report by the National Research Council (2011) confirms that the assumption of hydrological consistency and designing for this is no longer valid or practical. Deforestation, changes to wetlands, community growth, hydro projects, and other water diversions are a few examples of anthropogenic land cover changes that have a significant impact on the duration and intensity of floods and droughts. The changes highly impact downstream hydrology. This means that development within the Mackenzie River basin will have to be managed with a greater deal of uncertainty than in the past. This same perspective applies to the Hamlet of Aklavik and any new landfill located within the delta area. There is a greater uncertainty in the river flooding with respect to frequency, duration, and extent of any flooding. Landfill facilities inherently apply berm structures as part of the facility development; therefore provisions for erosion protection may be a needed improvement in the construction. Since flooding is elevation dependent, building up the landfill area above the anticipated flood level may also be a mitigation opportunity. 5

Assessment of Solid Waste Sites

5.1 Assessment Criteria The 15 sites identified in the scoping study were assessed with very limited information on terrain, geology, and the local environment to screen the sites to a short list for discussion with the community, and for future detailed evaluation based upon site reconnaissance. The evaluation criteria for the 15 sites included: available areas, geological features, topography, hydrology, and hydrogeology, setbacks, and accessibility. The available site information did not include any site specific topographic and hydrogeologic information, and therefore this information was excluded from the planning analyses. 5.2 Screening of Sites Of the 15 potential sites considered for landfill development based upon the scoping study, Sites 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, and 15 were not considered further because they do not meet the active landfill area requirements 2 of 66,000 m . This was determined by measuring the usable site area then adding a 50 m buffer to provide a considerable distance from the adjacent water bodies. In addition, Site 15 was not considered for further analysis given its proximity to the airport of less than 3 km. A separation of less than 3 kilometers presents a bird hazard to aircraft from the potential movements of birds scavenging at the waste management area. Although the Canadian Manual of Airport Bird Hazard Control developed by Transport Canada recommends that activities such as landfills and lagoons pose a hazard to aircraft if located within 8 km, the GNWT adopted a 3 km setback requirement.

8 of 173

Cost Development for Solid Waste Sites

6.1 Basis of Opinion of Probable Cost (Capital Cost) for Landfill Development The capital costs were developed from all the required components of an active landfill area. The components include: primary road cost (all season access road), secondary road cost (site access road from all season access road), bulky, recycled and landfilled waste area, hazardous waste storage, carcass, and burn pit cells, site operating structures, blowing debris control, on- and off-site drainage management, perimeter fencing, double swing gate, site signage, and engineering and contingency allowance (40% of capital cost). The cost estimates were developed from an estimation of unit values for each of the elements presented 2 above based upon the general site configuration for a 40 year development area of 66,000 m . Unit costs to apply to each of the unit values are based upon solid waste, and transportation related work from in house data base for work in the Mackenzie Delta, and the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut. The 40% Engineering and Contingency Allowance is an overall contingency allowance for construction and engineering applied to the conceptual level of costing. 6.2 Capital Costs and Life Cycle Cost of Solid Waste Sites (Table) The cost estimates for the landfill sites remaining from the initial screening are summarized in Table 1. Sites 10 and 12 have the lowest capital costs by margins of $7 million because of the significantly lower cost of upgrading the winter access road to an all-weather road. Table 1: Example table caption Site Number 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 12

Total Capital Cost $25,620,796 $24,509,119 $22,311,202 $19,585,251 $20,291,282 $19,393,881 $12,728,853 $23,339,433

Annual O&M $512,416 $490,182 $446,224 $391,705 $405,826 $387,878 $254,577 $246,789

*Note: The O&M costs per year are estimated based on 2% of capital cost. 6.3 Life Cycle Cost Evaluation A Life Cycle Cost Evaluation (40 year) was also prepared for the sites remaining from the screening process. As a sample, the life cycle operation and maintenance costs for the sites with the lowest capital (Sites 10 and 12), were the same with a value of $3.2 million. 7

Discussion

In the planning analysis context, a number of issues need to be considered in conjunction with the discussion, and ultimately the recommendation of potential waste management sites. For the development of the Hamlet of Aklavik solids waste facility, the following issues should be considered: access to site, proximity issues (human activities, natural features, and local receptors), site configuration, potential environmental or public health impacts, estimated capital cost to develop site, and estimate operation and maintenance costs. Other issues including surface materials, snow accumulation, local hydrology, and vegetation should also be considered, although they are not taken into account at this stage due to the limited information available. The remaining sites from the screening process included sites 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12. These sites provide an adequate site area, and active landfilling area.

9 of 173

An overriding issue associated with the development of a new solid waste for Aklavik is the site development in the delta area adjacent to the community instead of a development outside the delta area, which was recommended in a previous planning study. A risk of flooding exists for any facility within the delta area; however the risk is diminished to some degree with a location that is not immediately adjacent to the Peel Channel. As part of the subsequent phases of investigation, flood risk and flood proofing of any site must be considered in order to address anticipated regulatory concerns. The process for the development of any landfill site, beyond the planning stage, takes a considerable amount of time and effort associated with biophysical studies, and regulatory reviews and approvals. In consideration of this time requirement, the redevelopment of the existing site is a reasonable step to obtain additional operating capacity for the facility. A concept for the redevelopment of the existing site is presented in Figure 3, which includes the provision for waste diversion and on-site drainage management. These provisions will also address existing compliance issues with the regulatory authorities. A key element in the redevelopment is the application of landfill cells instead of an open dumping area, which provides improved overall management, and may accommodate an ultimate operating height of 4 to 5 meters.

Figure 3: Redevelopment concept for existing landfill site 8

Conclusions 3

The waste generated over a 40 year planning horizon for the Hamlet of Aklavik is 200,000 m , and with a 3 3 to 1 compaction ratio, this results in 66,000 m of solid waste. The area requirement for the waste 2 generation is 22,000 m for an ultimate site development with a 3 meter high site. In order to make sure

10 of 173

there is adequate space waste diversion activities, site operating activities, and for cover material as part of proper waste disposal, the minimum area requirement was tripled, resulting in a minimum active landfill 2 area of 66,000 m for a 40 year operating horizon. Limited information was available for a detailed consideration of the sites for topographic, hydrogeological, and biophysical characteristics as part of the planning analysis. The planning analysis was primarily based upon geographic characteristics of land areas, pond areas, and proximity to existing access. 2

Of the 15 original sites from the scoping study, 8 have sufficient area greater than 66,000 m , which included a 50 m site buffer from the operating area to the adjacent pond areas. These sites are 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12. The Opinion of the Probable Cost for the Capital Cost to develop these 8 sites range from $11.7 Million for Site 12, to $25.2 Million for Site 1. The operation and maintenance costs for the 8 sites range from $0.6 Million to $1.2 Million. The cost to each of the sites is the majority of the cost capital cost. The least expensive sites to develop are Site 10 and 12 based upon Capital and O&M Costs. Development details for Site 12 is presented in Figure 4. Redevelopment of the existing site is a reasonable consideration to obtain additional operating capacity for the facility, and achieve additional time for the planning, engineering, and construction of a new site.

Figure 4: Site Development Concept for Site 12 9

Recommendations

Based upon the limited analysis, Sites 10 and 12 should be investigated further. These sites are recommended because they meet all of the selection criteria for site area, active landfilled area, and have

11 of 173

the lowest capital and O&M costs. Further site investigations to be completed on Sites 10 and 12 should include topographic, hydrogeological, geotechnical biophysical analyses, and flood risk analyses. The Hamlet of Aklavik should engage a discussion with the regulators based upon the planning study results in order to develop the potential scope of the detailed investigations. The Hamlet should anticipate a strong reluctance for the regulators to consider waste management sites in the delta area in consideration of the flooding issues that may develop. Cost sharing with an all-weather access to the granular sites should be considered and advanced by the Hamlet. This would be a good opportunity to share the enormous costs associated with the development 2 of an all-weather access road. Site 10, with a site area of 137,000 m , and an active landfill area of 2 79,000 m , has a total capital cost of $12.7 million, and annual operation and maintenance cost of 2 2 $254,500. Site 12, with a site area of 211,600 m , and an active landfill area of 138,600 m has a total capital cost of $12.3 million, and annual operation and maintenance cost of $246,800. In consideration of the potential timeframe to develop a new solid site, Aklavik should advance the redevelopment of the existing solid waste site to increase the capacity and operating horizon, address regulatory compliance issues associated with drainage management, waste diversion, and operating areas.

12 of 173

Fort Resolution Solid Waste Management Review Ken Johnson Planner and Engineer Background The Hamlet of Fort Resolution operates a municipal solid waste area, and a bulky / construction waste area (See Figure 1). These sites have been operating since approximately 1979. A waste management planning report was completed in 2008 for the community of Fort Resolution and the Government of Northwest Territories, Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. The report is entitled Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT: Waste Management Planning Study in 2008 (AECOM, November 21, 2008, Ken Johnson, Project Manager). The project objectives of the 2008 planning study were to: provide an assessment of the existing sewage and solid waste sites; develop action plans to optimize the operating life of the facilities; develop five options for sewage treatment; develop a scope of activity for additional technical work; and, provide schematics and a preliminary cost estimates for facility relocation or expansion. A supplementary report was prepared in 2010, entitled Fort Resolution â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deninoo Community Council, Waste Management Assessment Report (AECOM, January 20, 2011, Ken Johnson, Project Manager). This document reported on site inspections of the waste management facilities, and assessed the facilities in relation the 2008 planning report. The solid waste assessment submitted on October 7, 2013 noted that practices prior to September 11, 2013, in the municipal waste area were best described as a haphazard disposal of waste. This resulted in the entire area of the landfill site being covered with solid waste, effectively making the site inaccessible, and creating a significant fire hazard. The solid waste assessment also noted that the Hamlet of Fort Resolution initiated significant site improvements at the municipal waste site after September 11, 2013 by contracting a backhoe and a tractor to cleanup and organize the area . This work provided and significant improvement in the condition of the site from the previous weeks.

13 of 173

Solid Waste Operation and Maintenance Improvements Municipal Waste Area The site work at the municipal waste area (See Figure 2) has created a single cell which may be used for waste disposal. Once this cell is full, further cells may be created and sequentially filled (See Figures 3, 4 and 5). The cells may be created by the construction of parameter berms spaced 10 to 15 metres apart, and 1 to 1.5 metres high (See Figure 6). The management of a single waste cell consists of a sequence of activities (See Figure 7). The main activity is associated with the active waste disposal area, which should be kept to a minimum size with both the garbage truck dumping and the resident dumping. The active area should be periodically consolidated with a tractor and compacted. Following the compaction of the waste, intermediate cover should be added and compacted. The area adjacent to the municipal waste area may be organized to accommodate waste diversion with a series of turnouts and drop off areas (See Figure 8). Associated with the turnouts and drop off areas, signage should be added to instruct and direct the waste disposal. For further details on the potential waste diversion refer to Section of 8.0 of the Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT: Waste Management Planning Study in 2008 (AECOM, November 21, 2008). Bulky / Construction Waste Area The bulky / construction waste area (See Figure 9) has generally been developed in a satisfactory manner with the dumping bulky and construction wastes and the periodic consolidation of the waste with a tractor. Some municipal waste is being disposed in this area, which is probably a matter of convenience. This area is filling up and consideration should be made for the development of future phases of a bulky / construction waste area. A potential development scenario for future phases is the consolidation and cover of the bulky / construction waste and creation of new working areas on top of the current working area (See Figures 10 and 11). This development may also include additional clearing and the establishment of a tree buffer.

14 of 173

Solid Waste Operation and Maintenance Practices The general operation and maintenance practices at the solid waste areas in Fort Resolution should be defined in a comprehensive operation and maintenance plan, which would provide considerably more detail than the information in this letter report. The solid waste operation and maintenance plan would include details on waste diversion, household hazardous waste management, compaction and waste covering, site access and road maintenance, performance monitoring and record keeping, and fencing and signage. Landfill Capacity The accidental burning at municipal waste area has provided a considerable volume reduction, and consequently considerably more operating space to fill the current working area. If this area is operated with waste compaction and consolidation, it may last another 2 to 6 years. Once this area is full, the existing area may be expanded by building up as described in Section 7.5 of the Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT: Waste Management Planning Study in 2008 (AECOM, November 21, 2008). Building up the landfill on the existing site may provide another 4 to 9 years of operational space beyond the 2 to 6 year window. Municipal Waste Site Remediation If the municipal waste site development is not expanded by building up on the existing area, remedial work may be required to grade and cap this area. In summary, this work would require the rough leveling of the solid waste, the placement of a leveling layer of soil (750 mm), the placement of an organic layer of soil (150 mm), and placement of seed for a grass cover. An opinion on the probable cost of this work is $90,000 (See Appendix to Report). Fire Hazard Remedial Action Remedial action to reduce the fire hazard at the municipal waste site has been discussed within the Hamlet administration, particularly the need for a fire buffer around the solid waste sites (See Figure 12). The best solution to the fire hazard would be the control of all burning at the site, however, accidental fires may occur.

15 of 173

N Bulky Waste Site

Municipal Waste Site

Hamlet of Fort Resolution, NT Solid Waste Management Review FIGURE 1. WASTE SITE LOCATIONS Prepared by Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng. 2013 10 09

16 of 173

Sewage Lagoon Cell 6

N Reclaimed Working Area

Abandoned Working Area (High Groundwater) Current Working Area

Approximate Limits of Municipal Waste Area

Scale

Hamlet of Fort Resolution, NT Solid Waste Management Review FIGURE 2. MUNICIPAL WASTE AREA Prepared by Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng. 2013 10 09

17 of 173

Access Road

N Cell 6

Cell 5

Berm Cell 4

Berm

Cell 1

Cell 2

Cell 3

Scale 30 metres

Hamlet of Fort Resolution, NT Solid Waste Management Review FIGURE 3. MUNICIPAL WASTE CELL DEVELOPMENT Prepared by Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng. 2013 10 09

18 of 173

Hamlet of Fort Resolution, NT Solid Waste Management Review FIGURE 4. SITE PHOTOS SHOWING WASTE CELLS Prepared by Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng. 2013 10 09

19 of 173

Cell 5

Cell 4

Cell 3 Hamlet of Fort Resolution, NT Solid Waste Management Review

FIGURE 5. SITE PHOTOS SHOWING WASTE CELLS Prepared by Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng. 2013 10 09

20 of 173

5 to 8 metres

1.5 to 1 slope

Berm

10 to 15 metres

Section A-A

Berm

1 to 1.5 metres

Hamlet of Fort Resolution, NT Solid Waste Management Review FIGURE 6. WASTE CELL CONFIGURATION Prepared by Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng. 2013 10 09

21 of 173

Active waste disposal area

Working area in cell

Consolidation of waste in working area

Compaction of consolidated waste

Addition of intermediate cover

Compaction of intermediate cover Hamlet of Fort Resolution, NT Solid Waste Management Review FIGURE 7. WASTE CELL MANAGEMENT Prepared by Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng. 2013 10 09

22 of 173

N Landfarm Area

Lagoon Area

Municipal Waste Area Hamlet of Fort Resolution, NT Solid Waste Management Review FIGURE 8. WASTE SITE DIVERSION ORGANIZATION Prepared by Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng. 2013 10 09

23 of 173

N Current Access

Current Limits of Bulky / Construction Waste Area

SCALE

60 metres Hamlet of Fort Resolution, NT Solid Waste Management Review FIGURE 9. BULKY / CONSTRUCTION WASTE AREA Prepared by Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng. 2013 10 09

24 of 173

SCALE

60 metres Hamlet of Fort Resolution, NT Solid Waste Management Review FIGURE 10. BULKY / CONSTRUCTION WASTE DEVELOPMENT Prepared by Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng. 2013 10 09

25 of 173

Access Phase 1

Remaining low area in Phase 1 area to be filled with bulky / construction waste and covered to create working area for Phase 1; tree buffer to be added to perimeter of area.

Remaining low area in Phase 2 area to be filled with bulky / construction waste and covered to create working area for Phase 2 Hamlet of Fort Resolution, NT Solid Waste Management Review FIGURE 11. BULKY WASTE SITE Prepared by Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng. 2013 10 09

26 of 173

Hamlet of Fort Resolution, NT Solid Waste Management Review FIGURE 12. FIRE BUFFER CLEARING Prepared by Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng. 2013 10 09

27 of 173

Site Selection and Conceptual Design of Landfill in Tuktoyaktuk, NWT Kenneth Johnson, Planner and Engineer, 2012

1. 1.1

Introduction Background

The Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk has been planning to develop a new landfill site for over a decade. The work associated with this planning was a report prepared in 1999 that identified and evaluated 6 alternative new sites for a landfill, and a report prepared in 2002 that compared the current waste management situation (location and operations) to a new site and alternative management technology (baler and/or transfer station). Ultimately, for a variety of reasons, the Hamlet did not advance any of the recommendations in these reports. However, the Hamlet has maintained an interest in identifying and implementing a new landfill site south of the community. An important element to the new site was the construction of the Tuktoyaktuk - Inuvik highway. In 2011 the Hamlet, in consideration of the sites recommended in the 1999 planning report, advanced the selection of an alternate site, and a proposal was issued for the planning and engineering associated with this site. The site is located approximately 12 km south of the community and approximately 700 m west of the Tuktoyaktuk-Inuvik Highway (see Figure 1). This site was the basis for the request for proposals that was issued in July 2011, and AECOM was the successful proponent on the proposal. As part of the preparation of the proposal submission, AECOM reviewed the background information, in particular the 1999 planning report that identified 6 alternative sites. The intent of this background review was to be fully conversant on the historical waste management site selection work in Tuktoyaktuk in the event that alternative sites emerged from the discussion of the site selected by the Hamlet. completed an inspection and limited geotechnical field program of the site selected by the Hamlet in April 2012. In spite of the snow and ice cover, it was evident that the site selected by the Hamlet may have topographic, geotechnical, surface water, and other related environmental issues that would not be consistent with the objectives of a landfill site. In consultation with the Hamlet councillors, Hamlet administration, and the project manager and environmental engineer (Ken Johnson, P.Eng.) an alternative adjacent site was identified, inspected and a limited geotechnical field program was undertaken. The objective of this report is to provide planning related information for these two sites and one other site identified by a Hamlet councillor based on the preliminary assessment of the topography features, geotechnical conditions, and other environmental related features. This report may be used for stakeholder consultation and an initial regulatory submission. Following from this report, and the regulatory submission, engineering work may advance to finalize the background information (topographical and geotechnical) and proceed to the detailed design and ultimately the construction of the new site.

28 of 173

2. 2.1

Community Information Location

Tuktoyaktuk is located on Kugmallit Bay in Beaufort Sea, just east of the Mackenzie River Delta, approximately 137 air km north of Inuvik. Its geographic coordinates are 69Â°27'N latitude and 133Â°02'W longitude. Tuktoyaktuk has a population of 935 in 2011 (Northwest Territories Bureau of Statistics, 2011). The population of the Hamlet is concentrated on a small peninsula along the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula on the eastern shore of Kugmallit Bay. The community is accessible either by scheduled air surface from Inuvik year-round, by water during the summer months,or by winter road from December to mid-April. Northern Transportation Company Limited (NTCL) provides barging services during ice-free seasons from June to September each year.

2.2

Geology and Terrain

The Tuktoyaktuk area is located entirely within the zone of continuous permafrost. The active layer above the permafrost, typically from a few centimeters to a few metres, begins to thaw once the snow has melted in late May, and is completely frozen again by the end of November. The landform of the Tuktoyaktuk area is thermokarst topography, which is characterized by an irregular land surface and small depressions and numerous shallow lakes. Most of the Tuktoyaktuk area is below 60 m in elevation. Pingos, massive ground ice, and ice-wedge polygons are common throughout the area. Tuktoyaktuk is approximately 75 km north of the treeline. The land is generally covered with an organic mat of peat and tundra vegetation. A drilling programme for the project was conducted on April 12, 2012. A total of five boreholes were drilled to depths from about 4.5 m to 6 m. The full geotechnical investigation report is provided in Appendix A. The results of soil samples indicate that the surficial soil deposits are the fine-grained silts and clay with high ice content in the project area. The surficial soil deposits across the project area are anticipated to be perennially frozen, rich with ground ice, extremely susceptible to thermal disturbance. In particular, the consequences of any thermal disturbance could be expected to result in settlements.

2.3

Climate

The climate of Tuktoyaktuk is characterized by cool summers and long, cold winters. The July mean high and low temperatures are 15.30C and 6.40C respectively. The January mean high and low temperatures are -22.50C and 29.40C respectively. The mean total annual precipitation in the area for the most recent period of record, 1971 to 2000, was 139 mm, with an average rainfall of 70 mm and an average of 69 cm of snowfall. The prevailing wind is from the northeast.

Existing Landfill Site and Waste Generation

Tuktoyaktukâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s solid waste is collected by truck and transported to the solid waste landfill, approximately 3 km south of the Hamlet . The landfill site consists of the: perimeter fence and access roads to landfill areas; active municipal waste disposal area (east area) (see Figure 1); bulky waste disposal area (south area); remediated disposal areas; and on-site drainage retention system.

29 of 173

surrounded by a 1200 m perimeter fence on the inland side of the site. The ocean-facing side of the landfill, to the west, is not fenced.

3.1

Solid Waste Disposal Facility

The Tuktoyaktuk Solid Waste Disposal site is a large fenced-in facility, approximately 3 kilometres south of the Hamlet. It has been in operation since the early 1970s as a replacement to the dump formerly located at the end of the community airstrip. The facility covers an area of approximately 20 hectares, but not all of the area is currently in use. The municipal waste area occupies an area approximately 70 metres wide and 50 metres long. The landfill is operated with limited compaction and limited cover. The domestic waste area has a limited area for household hazardous waste storage, and no designated areas for waste separation. The municipal waste area is used by both the community and the local industries with no direct fee charged. There is no permanent supervision of the site, and no records of the quantities and types of waste are kept. The Hamlet was operating a bulky metal waste area is approximately 100 m wide by 100 m long. This area was remediated with complete cover in 2004. There is not designated metal waste area currently at the site. Several old landfill areas were remediated in the north, southwest and east portions of the landfill site. These areas have been covered, with limited vegetative cover in the north and southwest areas and substantial vegetative cover in the east area.

3.2

Solid Waste Disposal Facility On-site Drainage Retention and Control Berm

Most of the surface area of the Solid Waste Disposal facility is covered by a lagoon containing surface runoff from the landfill. The surface runoff lagoon is retained by a 250 m long gravel and clay berm on the eastern edge of the landfill site. The berm does not have any discharge control structure, so drainage continually accumulates. The perimeter berm also prevents the ingress of the ocean.

3.3

Solid Waste Generation and Area requirements

Landfill volume estimates are necessary to determine the dimensions for the landfill. The required landfill volume for the desired site life can be computed based on: a) historical data of solid waste generation; b) theoretical estimate derived from the equation which is provided in the “Guidelines for the Planning, Design, Operations and Maintenance of Modified Solid Waste Sites in the NWT” (MACA, 2003). The past records of solid waste generation for the community are not well documented. The MACA’s recommended waste generation rate is therefore used to estimate the landfill volume requirements. Based on the MACA’s Guidelines, the future uncompacted solid waste generation estimated for the next 40 years is 298,369 m3. Using the MACA recommended compaction ratio for a modified landfill site of 3:1, approximately 99,456 m3 of capacity will be required to meet the community requirements to 2052.

30 of 173

Site Evaluations

Described below are the three sites that have been identified as potential locations for the Tuktoyaktuk new landfill. The first site "A" is located approximate 9 kilometres south of the community along the Tuktoyaktuk - Inuvik Highway. Sites "B" and "C" are located adjacent to each other approximately 12 km south of the community along the Tuktoyaktuk â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Inuvik Highway. All of the sites are located in an undisturbed area. Sites A and B were selected by the Hamlet; Site C was selected by AECOM.

4.1

Site A

Site A is located approximately 9 km from the community along the Tuktoyaktuk - Inuvik Highway immediately adjacent to the highway on the north side. This a large relatively area 350 metres wide and 900 metres long parallel and bounded by the highway on the southeast and bounded by a wetland area on the northwest (see Figure 2) . The area sits at an overall elevation of about 10 metres above sea level and contains about 6 high points of land several metres above the overall height of the land; the adjacent wetland sits at an elevation of about 5 metres above sea level. No geotechnical related information has been obtained for this area because it was identified as a potential site by a Hamlet Councillor during the visit in June, 2012. The terrain evaluation (see Figure 2) indicates that this site contains flat, dry ground, with an elevation of approximately 4 metres above adjacent low wet areas. On the basis of this limited terrain information, this site would merit further consideration for a landfill development, however, during the site meeting, Hamlet council members stated that this site would be more suited to a residential development, and therefore based upon potential land use, this site should be set aside from any landfill development.

4.2

Site B

Site B is located approximately 12 km from the community along the Tuktoyaktuk-Inuvik Highway in a bowl shaped valley approximately 750 m east of the highway. There is no existing access to this site (see Figure 3) . The surface of the site is generally flat, with a gentle slope towards a pond to the north. The pond appears to mark the point of lowest elevation in the valley and collects local drainage. Overflow from the pond drains to a body of water on the other side of the highway that is connected to the Beaufort Sea to the north. The surface elevation of the site is approximately 10 metres above sea level. Three boreholes were completed at this site on April 12, 2012,. Samples obtained from test holes indicate that the subsurface soil consists primarily of silt with a trace of clay, sand and gravel. The soil is very ice rich, as indicated on the borehole logs. Examination of the satellite imagery indicates that the site is located on polygonal ground â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a permafrost feature indicative of the presence of ice wedges in particular. Vegetation in the area appears to be shrubs and grasses. This was the Hamletâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s selected site because it is hidden from view from the highway. The June inspection of the site revealed standing water on the site, which indicates seasonal surface water, which would flow towards the pond to the north. The terrain evaluation (see Figure 3) indicates that this site contains low, wet ground and season runoff from the adjacent high ground flows through the site. On the basis of the wet nature of the area, the site is not suitable for any landfill development.

31 of 173

4.3

Site C

Site C is located approximately 12 km from the community along the Tuktoyaktuk-Inuvik Highway in an area of high ground approximately 100 to 300 m east of the highway (see Figure 3) . The high ground is at an elevation of greater than 30 metres, with high areas within the site approaching 35 metres in an overall area of approximately 400 metres by 400 metres. The Tuktoyaktuk-Inuvik Highway is at an elevation of approximately of at least 20 metres below the general elevation of the site. Satellite images indicate seasonal runoff channels flowing northwest and south. Two test holes were completed at this site on April 12, 2012 based upon the recommendation of AECOM. Samples obtained from test holes indicate that the subsurface soil consists primarily of silt with a trace of clay, sand and gravel. The subsurface is very ice rich. Vegetation in the area appears to be shrubs and grasses. The terrain evaluation (see Figure 3) indicates that this site contains high, dry ground. On the basis of this terrain information this site may be advanced for development as a landfill.

Discussion

The topography, surface drainage and permafrost are site specific conditions which will influence the cost and may have an impact to the environment. Site B is exposed to more surface water. Poor drainage area at this site in the proximity of the pond is a concern. The active layer is very fragile and susceptible to damage when disturbed, especially summer months. As frozen ground thaws in the summer, the municipal solid waste in the landfill would mix with water at Site B. Over time, excess water would flow around the landfill. The additional water will increase leachate production. If the leachate leaves the landfill, it will contaminate surface water at the nearby pond. Because the subsoil at Site B contains a lot of ice, construction of a dyked and lined containment will be subject to large differential settlements due to permafrost degradation, and a substantial risk of failure. Failure of the containment will result in release of contaminant to the receiving water. Although the site is hidden from view, it would be very difficult and expensive to control the surface runoff on the relatively flat and low lying area. In general, construction of a dyked and lined containment for a landfill results in substantially higher capital costs. In addition, they result in higher operating costs, primarily because the containment has to be pumped out regularly to minimize harm to animals and birds in the area. The cost to maintain this site would be prohibitively expensive. Site C has no major drainage related issue because the site is situated on the higher ground. Any runoff originating from the site will make their way to the south along a seasonal channel into a small pond. The leachate generation depends on temperature, topography, moisture, and type of wastes. Leachate is not expected to penetrate permafrost unless there is water infiltration. A unique consideration in cold regions is the amount of moisture that is available in the landfill. At Site C, the potential for leachate generation is minimal because the quantity of precipitation (approximately 165 mm) that will enter the landfill is very little. There is also very low potential for chemical and biological release from the landfill because the rate of decomposition is minimal in the very dry and cold climate. In addition, if any leachate originating from Site C have occurred they will be filtered and diluted as they travel through the natural ground to the south. This is considered beneficial as the soil profile and vegetative cover will acts

32 of 173

as filter and attenuate the concentration of contaminants which may leach from the site. There are no unusual conditions anticipated at this site that would require any extra maintenance than is normally expected. Site C has no land uses related limitations and the site has sufficient space to accommodate a new landfill facility. Topographical survey will aid in the final components and the engineered layout for the facility at Site C.

Based on planning analysis of the three sites for landfill, Site C is the most appropriate location for development of a new landfill site.

Conceptual Design of Site C

A conceptual design for Site C was completed incorporating areas for municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, metal waste, bulky waste, construction waste, tires, recyclable waste and compost waste. The conceptual design incorporates a Stage 1 and a Stage 2 area, with the Stage 2 area anticipated to be primarily associated with municipal solid waste. The conceptual design also includes a burn pit in anticipation that wood waste may be burned at the site. Overall important features of the site are a runoff pond to collect and control on site drainage, and a cover material stockpile. The ultimate configuration of the site will depend upon the operating priorities for the community.

33 of 173

34 of 173

35 of 173

36 of 173

37 of 173

NORMAN WELLS NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Norman Wells Solid Waste Master Plan

The existing landfill site in Norman Wells is located about 5.3 kilometres east-northeast of the town centre. There is quarry area adjacent to the landfill site, which provides material (limestone) that can be used as cover material. The historic landfill development was based on the depression landfill method, in which the wastes are dis-

The Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2012

38 of 173

4.625 x 4.625

By Ken Johnson, AECOM

posed of on the ground and following the

Excellence in Water and Wastewater Treatment Solutions

topography of the site. The landfill has no liner or runoff collection system.

The existing landfill site is situated

between the rock outcrops and the glacial deposits of the valley plain. The underlying material is a glacial moraine plain and is described as glacial till (clay, silt, minor sand and gravel). Norman Wells is near the boundary between discontinuous and con-

SaniBrane® Membrane Bioreactors, RBC, EA and SBR package plants, odour control, disinfection and much more... Design, construction, installation and operation of package treatment plants worldwide. Over 350 installations and an international reputation for quality equipment and service.

tinuous permafrost, and the active layer is typically 0.5 m to 2.0 m thick. Due to the presence of permafrost, the movement of

Non-Metallic Chain & Flight Collector Mechanisms

Trickling Filter Media

any runoff through the landfill would be reMemcor Membranes

stricted in the active layer.

A solid waste master plan was com-

pleted to provide a long term framework for the future development of the existing

T: 1-888-821-5451 E: information@sanitherm.com

www.sanitherm.com

site, and provide guidance to the Town of Norman Wells (administration and operating staff), as well as a communication document with the regulatory authorities in demonstrating their appropriate solid waste management practices.

The solid waste master plan evaluated

the airspace and future expansion applying an average waste to soil budget of 4:1 (ratio of landfill waste to soil used as cover material). The proposed development plan contemplates a cell airspace capacity of approximately 600 tonnes or 1,200 cubic metres per year. New cell construction would start at the down-gradient end of the existing landfill and proceed uphill to reduce the

SUSTAINING communities

30 Years.

interference of runoff with any new con-

for over

struction.

Every day in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, NAPEG Members play an important role in developing innovative and sustainable water supply and treatment solutions.

The following design criteria were rec-

ommended as part of the master plan: • 10% slope (the original ground slope) around the disposal area; • 25% (4 horizontal to 1 vertical) grade on waste side slopes, to a height of approximately 12 m;

To learn more, visit www.napeg.nt.ca

NAPEG Northwest Territories and Nunavut Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists 201, 4817 - 49 Street, Yellowknife, NWT X1A 3S7

(867) 920-4055

• 5% minimum grade on top of the landfill; and The Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 39 of 2012 173

An on-site runoff collection system was reasoned to be unnecessary for the Norman Wells landfill.

NORMAN WELLS NORTHWEST TERRITORIES • Final cap of 1.10 m, consisting of a 0.2 m topsoil layer, a 0.3 m subsoil layer, and 0.6 m barrier layer (compacted clay liner).

An on-site runoff collection system was

reasoned to be unnecessary for the Norman Wells landfill for the following reasons:

• The population served is less than 1,000 people (849 in 2006); • The quantity of waste is relatively small, approximately 1.6 tons or 3.3 m³ per day; • The surface area of the landfill is only 17,500 m²;

• Precipitation is relatively low, approximately 290 mm per year ; and • The permafrost and cold temperatures create slow, nearly negligible biodegradation. However, the landfill approval does require that all municipal cells be constructed to include groundwater and surface water monitoring programs In order to minimize the amount of cover soil required and achieve the targeted waste to soil ratio of 4:1, it is important to maintain an “optimum” cell size and shape. Based on the volumes received at the landfill, the following “optimum” operating cell size was recommended: • Operating cell geometry slanted cube • Operating cell width 8 to 10 m • Operating cell depth 2 to 4 m The Norman Wells landfill will provide adequate capacity until the year 2080, for a life of approximately 70 years. This estimation of site utilization sequencing is based on the projected population, waste growth projections and the estimated developed site capacity. S

NTWWA Conference 2012 Join us in Yellowknife November 23 to 27, 2012 Canadian North Airlines is the official airline of the NTWWA Conference. While in Yellowknife, stay at the Super 8 Motel; the Yellowknife Inn; Days Inn/Chateau Nova; or Capital Suites. 38

The Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2012

40 of 173

Edited from a report by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)

fort smith NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Low Level Radioactive Material Storage at the Fort Smith Landfill

In the closing days of World War II, miners working at Port Radium

ven fabric and/or HDPE material. The entire storage cell is covered

on Great Bear Lake (See photo) ferried bags of uranium ore from the

with clean sand material varying in thickness between 30 and 90 cen-

Eldorado mine. The ninety-pound sacks were carried on menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s backs,

timetres. The Fort Smith radioactive material storage cell has been

loaded onto boats and transported about 2,000 kilometres south to

developed over the course of three remedial programs conducted in

Alberta. The ore was transported up the Mackenzie and Slave Rivers

the Town of Fort Smith in 1998, 2001 and 2010.

to Waterways, Alberta and then by rail south. A major portage was

The first cell in 1998 facilitated the removal and disposal of the

required around the rapids between Fort Smith and Fort Fitzgerald.

uranium ore-contaminated warehouse. The Town of Fort Smith was

As a result, the ore was stored for brief periods of time at either

responsible for the overall management of this initial demolition

end of the portage. The ore was processed in Ontario, and ultimately

project and the identification of a disposal site for the associated

sent to the Manhattan Project in New Mexico, where it was used to

materials. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. was retained by the Town to

develop the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Ore from the Eldorado

provide the technical expertise and the support staff required for the

mine was shipped from the 1930s until 1960.

safe removal and containment of the low-level radioactive waste.

An old storage shed (a 10 x 14-metre building) was one of several

In 2001, uranium-contaminated soils were removed from three pri-

identified sites along the portage route that accumulated radioactive

vate properties and ditches in Fort Smith. Radiation levels at each

material. A contamination survey showed that uranium ore had been

location were above that of the local background, but were lower

ground into the wooden floor boards, into the cracks between the

than that which would result in an incremental dose of 1 mSv/a (the

floor boards, onto the tops of the floor joists and onto the crawl

regulatory limit for the general public). Eighteen truckloads of urani-

space soils beneath the building.

um contaminated soil were hauled to a cell adjacent to the 1998 cell.

A temporary storage area for radioactive material has been de-

The 2010 a program was undertaken to address the materials in the

veloped at the Fort Smith Landfill and is comprised of three sepa-

road bed that were identified in 2001. Conditions encountered dur-

rately constructed cells within an L-shaped footprint measuring ap-

ing 2010 were consistent with expectations based on the previous

proximately 22 metres in length and 15 metres along its widest side.

work and nine truckloads ultimately disposed of in the special con-

All contaminated materials, lumber and soil, are contained within wo-

tainment area at the Fort Smith landfill. S

The Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2012

41 of 173

Annual General Conference Assemblée générale annuelle Edmonton, Alberta June 6-9, 2012 / 6 au 9 juin 2012

Landfill Runoff Treatment Options for Iqaluit Nunavut Kristi Beckman Ken Johnson AECOM Canada Ltd. Abstract: The City of Iqaluit operates a landfill system for the disposal of the solid waste generated in the community. The City holds a Water License which states that the City is required to collect, monitor and control the discharge of runoff from the site. The landfill site relies on the local permafrost regime to provide a low permeability barrier to control subsurface runoff. The City currently employs a surface water management system to divert off-site surface runoff from entering the site, and to collect on-site surface runoff for a controlled discharge into the environment. In 2006, the City upgraded the landfill’s drainage management system by constructing a perimeter berm structure, three on-site detention ponds and an off-site retention pond. The historical sampling results from the landfill runoff retention pond show that the water is consistently over the maximum allowable concentration limits for iron, manganese and zinc in the regulations applied to the landfill. The City has examined treatment options which could be applied to the landfill runoff, including wetland treatment, mechanical treatment (membrane bioreactor technology) and physical-chemical treatment with filtration. Of these four options, the physical chemical treatment with filtration is the most appropriate technology for the community because of cost, reliability and ease of operation. As a first step in applying this option, the City initiated a filtration process in 2010 to determine the practicality and the potential treatment of the runoff by filtration alone. The next phase of the trial process for the City will be applying chemical treatment in advance of the physical filtration process. 1.

Introduction

The City of Iqaluit Water License requires that the City of Iqaluit collect, monitor and control discharge of the runoff from the West 40 Landfill site. Currently the City of Iqaluit sends approximately 30,000 cubic metres of compacted waste to the landfill annually. In 2007, the calculated volume of runoff water generated from the landfill during the winter was approximately 7,700 m³ and during the summer was 6,600 m³. The West 40 Landfill currently employs a surface water management system to divert off-site surface runoff from entering the site, and to collect on-site surface runoff for a controlled discharge into the environment. The landfill site relies on the local permafrost regime to provide a low permeability barrier to control the subsurface runoff. The City has examined options for treating landfill runoff prior to discharge into the receiving environment.

1 42 of 173

2. 2.1

Current Site Conditions Current Drainage Management Plan

In 2006, the City of Iqaluit upgraded the West 40 Landfill to improve drainage management. The current landfill drainage management system on site is based on a system of berms, ditches, detention ponds and a retention pond. Figure 1 shows the current Landfill drainage management system.

Figure 1: West 40 Landfill Drainage Management System A perimeter berm structure diverts off-site runoff around the site and diverts on-site runoff into a ditch collection system. The collection ditch infrastructure provides a continuous system for the controlled movement of surface runoff. Surface runoff flows from the ditches into one of four detention ponds. The detention ponds are able to store a combined total volume of 3 approximately 3,000 m . The detention ponds provide temporary storage and serve as a point where runoff may be sampled. Runoff is pumped from the detention ponds into a retention pond for longer term storage. Figure 2 shows an example of the layout of one of the detention ponds on-site.

2 43 of 173

Figure 2: On-site Detention Pond for Landfill Runoff The landfill runoff retention pond was constructed as part of the 2006 improvements and has 3 approximately 5,000 m of storage volume. The retention pond provides storage before the runoff is decanted into the receiving water system. Figure 3 shows the layout of the retention pond. The City is required to sample the retention pond and submit results to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) prior to any discharges. Once approval to discharge is received from AANDC the City decants the pond to the marine receiving environment. In 2010, the City of Iqaluit purchased a tube filtration system and has been filtering the retention pond water through this device before discharge. Prior to 2010, runoff in the retention pond was decanted directly into the receiving water system. Typically, the City decants the pond twice a year.

Figure 3: Retention Pond for Landfill Runoff The City of Iqaluit is continuing to make capital improvements to the drainage management system associated with the West 40 Landfill. Construction has been completed for the expansion of the perimeter berm on the east side of the site to provide a larger berm structure, and to install an impermeable membrane on the interior face of the berm.

3 44 of 173

Along with capital improvements at the Landfill site there have also been operational improvements to the drainage management. The landfill operating staff has taken steps to minimize the generation of on-site runoff by initiating removal of clean snow from the landfill site. The removal of snow ultimately reduces the amount of on-site runoff management required. 2.2

Summary of Historical Landfill Water Sampling Data

Twelve water samples taken from the detention ponds, retention pond and ditches around the landfill between 2004 and 2011 were reviewed. Currently, there are not specific guidelines or regulations for the discharge of landfill surface runoff in Nunavut. The closest guidelines to use for analyzing the concentrations of parameters in the landfill runoff are from the limits for discharge from a sewage lagoon from the City of Iqaluit Water License (2006) and the Guidelines for the Discharge of Treated Municipal Wastewater in the Northwest Territories (GDTMWNWT). All twelve samples throughout the time period tested exceeded the limits for iron, manganese and zinc as listed in the GDTMWNWT. Table 1 presents the maximum and minimum sample results for these three parameters compared to the GDTMWNWT reference guideline limit. The June 2006 sample results from the retention pond exceeded the limits for iron, manganese and zinc as well as for BOD5, TSS, aluminum, copper and lead. All other samples analyzed were below the limits for BOD5, TSS, aluminum, copper and lead. Table 1:

Comparison of GDTMWNWT Limit and Maximum and Minimum Sample Results

Iron

GDTMWNWT Limit 0.3 mg/L

Maganese

0.05 mg/L

Zinc

0.5 mg/L

3. 3.1

Maximum Sample Result and Source 122 mg/L INAC Results July 30, 2009 1.61 mg/L Retention Pond #2 May 23 2011 15.0 mg/L Retention Pond 2007

Minimum Sample Result and Source 2.3 mg/L Detention Pond May 9, 2006 0.61 mg/L Retention Pond Sample #1 May 3 2010 0.5 mg/L INAC Results July 30, 2009

Review and Recommendation of Discharge Criteria Origin of Effluent Quality Criteria for Landfill Runoff

Within the City's current water license there is a condition which states that the City must submit a report “that will include a discussion of available treatment options, proposed discharge criteria, … and a monitoring program”. In response to this condition of the current license, the City retained an engineering consultant in 2008 to prepare the reporting requirements. In June 2008, a report entitled “City of Iqaluit – Water License Monitoring Program” was completed. The report identified parameters to be tested in landfill runoff and also recommended the frequency of sampling of the detention ponds and the retention pond associated with the landfill runoff management system. Table 2 lists the recommended parameters presented in the report. The report was reviewed and supported by Environment Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The report did not recommend any specific limits (maximum allowable concentrations) on the parameters to be monitored.

4 45 of 173

Table 2:

Landfill Runoff Monitoring Parameters and Frequency as Recommended in 2008 Water License Monitoring Program Report Prepared by Earth Tech Parameter

Recommended Sampling Frequency

Detention Ponds pH Turbidity Total suspended solids BOD5 COD TOC Retention Pond pH Turbidity Total suspended solids BOD5 COD TOC Ammonia nitrogen TKN Total phosphorous Full Metal Scan + Hg Total Coliform Fecal Coliform BTEX PCBs 3.2

Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually

Sampling Criteria from Other Jurisdictions

There are no specific quality guidelines for the discharge of landfill runoff in Nunavut. The West 40 Landfill retention pond discharges into a marine environment; for this reason, it is not appropriate to consult or compare sampling guidelines and criteria developed for surface water discharge situations with data from the West 40 Landfill runoff. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) have guidelines for the discharge of water into marine environments for the protection of aquatic life. The criteria outlined in CCMEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water Quality Guidelines for The Protection of Aquatic Life lists guidelines for select metal parameters and petroleum hydrocarbon parameters. The CCME guidelines were developed in a national context for receiving environments across Canada. The guidelines are listed for long-term discharges; as the decant of the detention pond is a short-term discharge these guidelines are not applicable. 3.3

Applicable Sampling Parameters and Maximum Allowable Concentrations

It is most applicable to compare landfill runoff water sample results from the West 40 Landfill with the Guidelines for the Discharge of Treated Municipal Wastewater in the Northwest Territories (GDTMWNWT) (Season: Summer, 150-600Lcd, marine/bay receiving environment). The GDTMWNWT criteria are the current effluent quality guidelines referenced in the City of Iqaluitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water License.

5 46 of 173

Another applicable reference is a water license issued by the Nunavut Water Board to Defence Construction Canada for a DEW Line remediation project (license number 1BR-DYE0914). This water license lists guidelines that apply to discharge events associated with demolition rinse water, water from dewatering contaminated soil areas, contact water and potential seepage from a non-hazardous waste disposal facility and other monitoring stations at the site (Cape Dyer, Dye-M). The City of Iqaluitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Water License issued in 2006 lists guidelines for water and waste disposal. The guidelines listed in this license are for discharge of a municipal wastewater treatment lagoon and can be used as a reference when establishing appropriate guidelines for the discharge of landfill runoff. Table 3 compares the parameters and maximum allowable concentrations from the three appropriate references discussed above. Table 3:

Appropriate Parameters and Maximum Allowable Concentrations for Comparison with West 40 Landfill Runoff Sampling Results

Parameter pH Oil and Grease Arsenic (total) Cadmium (dissolved) Chromium (dissolved) Cobalt (dissolved) Copper (dissolved) Lead (dissolved) Mercury (total) Nickel (dissolved) PCB (total) Zinc (total) Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene BOD (5 Day) TSS Aluminum (total) Barium (total) Boron (dissolved) Cyanide (total) Fluoride (dissolved) Iron (dissolved) Maganese (dissolved) Methylene Blue Active Substances (MBAS) Molybdenum (total) Selenium (total) Silver (total) Sulphate (dissolved) Sulphide (dissolved) Tin (total) Note:

Maximum Allowable Concentration 6 to 9 5 0.1 10 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.05 0.0006 0.3 1 0.5 0.37 0.002 0.09 120 180

Source

2 1 5 0.1 5 0.3 0.05 5

1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT

0.2 0.05 0.1 500 0.5 5

1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT

2009 Cape Dyer WL & 1992 GDTWNWT 2009 Cape Dyer WL 2009 Cape Dyer WL 2009 Cape Dyer WL 2009 Cape Dyer WL & 1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT 2009 Cape Dyer WL & 1992 GDTWNWT 2009 Cape Dyer WL & 1992 GDTWNWT 2009 Cape Dyer WL & 1992 GDTWNWT 1992 GDTWNWT 2009 Cape Dyer WL 2009 Cape Dyer WL & 1992 GDTWNWT 2009 Cape Dyer WL 2009 Cape Dyer WL 2009 Cape Dyer WL 1992 GDTWNWT & 2006 City of Iqaluit WL 2006 City of Iqaluit WL

2009 Cape Dyer WL refers to the 2009 Cape Dyer DEW Line Remediation Water License 2006 City of Iqaluit WL refers to the City of Iqaluit 2006 Water License

6 47 of 173

Landfill Runoff Treatment Options

The City of Iqaluit has examined treatment options which may be applied to the landfill runoff water in the future. Currently, none of the options listed below have been pursed further than the conceptual design and planning stage. 4.1 4.1.1

Constructed Wetland Treatment Overview of Constructed Wetland Technology

In 2007, the City of Iqaluit retained a consultant to develop a conceptual plan for a wetland treatment system for the West 40 Landfill. It was determined that a constructed wetland system was the most appropriate wetland configuration because of the runoff volumes and cold climate conditions. Constructed wetlands are engineered systems that are designed and constructed to utilize the natural functions of wetland vegetation, soils and soil microbial populations to treat contaminants in wastewater streams. As wastewater flows slowly through a wetland, pollutants are removed through physical, chemical and biological processes. The physical processes include entrapment, sedimentation and adsorption. The biological processes include nitrification and denitrification, the uptake of nutrients and metals by plants and by organisms that occupy the bedding media. Constructed wetlands are advantageous to natural wetland systems because they can be specifically engineered for particular wastewater characteristics, they have lower lifecycle costs, and they may be operated with less labour and power. It is important to note that wetland technology is still in a developing phase, and it is not possible to predict the ultimate performance of a wetland system. 4.1.2

Proposed Details of a Constructed Wetland Structure for the West 40 Landfill

The conceptual design report recommended that a subsurface horizontal flow wetland system be designed to treat the surface runoff from the landfill site. Subsurface flow wetlands involve passing the wastewater substrate through gravel or organic soil based systems. The large surface area of the media and plant roots provides space for microbial activity to degrade contamination. Media based wetland systems have high efficiencies at removing biodegradable organic matter and nitrate-nitrogen. Subsurface flow systems are below ground and work ideally in colder climates. Subsurface wetlands are preferred because they reduce odour and bug problems and reduce the potential for human contact with contaminated wastewater. The proposed wetland treatment system would be located adjacent to the existing landfill site. The available and optimal location is the area east of the runoff retention pond which is sloped west to east. This land is currently under the control of another jurisdiction; therefore, the City would have to negotiate for the use of this land for the wetland system. The wetland would be in operation from June to October. The proposed wetland would have a subsurface flow with permeable soil matrix growing medium. Landfill runoff would be introduced via a perforated head pipe to a gravel flow dispersion trench. 3

The wetland system would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would have a 7,700 m treatment capacity to meet the 2007 current discharge quality requirements. Phase 2 would have 3 a 6,600 m treatment capacity for the future process improvements. The cost estimated to implement a constructed wetland at the site in 2007 for Phase 1 was $273,770 and for Phase 2 was $268,437.

7 48 of 173

4.2 4.2.1

Membrane Bioreactor Technology Overview of Membrane Bioreactor Technology

Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) combine the membrane filtration process with a suspended growth bioreactor to degrade contaminants. In 2007, a report was prepared on Membrane Bioreactor Technology for the City of Iqaluit which outlined a mechanical treatment option for the treatment of runoff from the West 40 Landfill. An immersed MBR was recommended as the most appropriate MBR technology because of the lower energy demand when compared to side stream MBR configurations. To treat the West 40 Landfill runoff an anoxic and aerobic tank would be required in front of the MBR for nitrogen removal. The MBR system would be able to produce effluent that is well below any guideline limits. The MBR would only be in operation for the summer months (120 days) and would require proper storage and maintenance work during the winter months. Commissioning the MBR for each season would be a difficult task. The order of magnitude cost estimate prepared in 2007 for an MBR for only one season of operation was 2.4 million dollars (including a 40% contingency allowance for construction and engineering services). MBRs are associated with high capital and operation/maintenance costs. 4.3

Geomembrane Physical – Chemical Treatment System

In 2010, a report was prepared for the City of Iqaluit to implement a physical – chemical treatment system using a geomembrane filtration system for the West 40 Landfill runoff to meet specified effluent discharge criteria. 4.3.1

Overview of Geomembrane Physical-Chemical Treatment System

The geomembrane physical-chemical treatment process involves chemical treatment, solid filtration and neutralization all carried out continuously. The landfill runoff properties are characterized initially and the contaminants which require removal are identified. A chemical treatment process is designed to precipitate the contaminants from solution and to flocculate the contaminants into larger filterable particles. The Geotube® then works as a physical barrier to remove suspended solids. The solids that remain in the Geotube® can be returned to the landfill or transported for disposal at an appropriate facility. The Geotube® system can be stored in a shipping container and commissioned each time it is required to be used. In the 2010 report the contaminants requiring removal from the West 40 Landfill runoff were iron, manganese and zinc. A two-stage chemical treatment step was proposed. In the first chemical step calcium hydroxide solution would be added to raise the pH of the runoff water to induce the precipitation of the metals. In the second chemical treatment stage aluminum sulphate and polymer were added to flocculate the metals into larger particles. The chemical treatment stages were air mixed to promote the oxidation of the iron and manganese in the solution, which leads to precipitation. The filtered water then entered a final neutralization step were the pH was adjusted to between 7 and 8 using hydrochloric acid. The cost of the geomembrane equipment (pumps, tanks, geomembrane, piping, fittings, and chemicals for one season and transportation) to Iqaluit was estimated to be $75,000. This amount did not include the cost of manpower on site. The cost of an operator was estimated to be $1,000/day. For the 2010 discharge event the cost of operator time and expenses per seasonal treatment and discharge event would be $25,000. Supplies for seasonal treatment events were estimated to be $10,000.

8 49 of 173

4.4

Tube Filtration System Currently in Use at the West 40 Landfill

The City of Iqaluit has purchased and utilized a tube filtration system on two discharge events from the retention pond. The first event was in July 2010 and the second event was in June 2011. The tube filter used by the City has a nominal pore size of 450 microns. The pore size decreases during operation as the tube captures suspended solids. The City has not used any chemical pretreatment on the runoff. As proposed, pretreatment could enhance contaminant removal through the flocculation of dissolved contaminants. The performance of the tube filter in removing contaminants, based upon the very limited sampling in 2010 (unfiltered discharge versus filtered discharge), is encouraging with substantial reductions in aluminum, iron, zinc and turbidity reported by the City of Iqaluit. The results reported by the City in 2011 do not show significant signs of contaminant removal which suggests that the City may wish to consider chemical pretreatment in the future as part of the tube filtration process. 5. 5.1

Conclusions and Recommendations Collection and Control of Landfill Runoff

The landfill runoff management system has been designed and constructed for the collection and control of off-site runoff (clean) and on-site runoff (contaminated) water. The on-site runoff is controlled so that water drains into a series of detention ponds on site and is then transferred to one retention pond off-site for storage prior to being discharged into the environment. Prior to any discharges the City consults and notifies the regulatory authorities. Modifications to the collection system are currently being completed by the City to improve the management of the on-site runoff. 5.2

Treatment of Landfill Runoff

The City has investigated potential treatment processes which may be applied to the landfill runoff, including wetland treatment, membrane treatment and geomembrane physical-chemical treatment. Based upon the capital cost of the three options, the membrane treatment option is not financially viable for the City. The wetland treatment option may be financially viable; however, negotiation is required with the current landowner. Negotiation could take a considerable amount of time and may not be successful, depending upon the stakeholders involved. The City has implemented a physical filtration process on a trial basis. The performance of filtration alone for the treatment of the landfill runoff has been inconclusive; therefore, it is recommended that the City advance the use of a chemical treatment in advance of the filtration process. The geomembrane physical-chemical proposal is financially viable for the City and operationally practical for the City staff. 5.3

Effluent Quality Criteria for Treated Runoff

The City has completed an investigation into the appropriate parameters that should be tested for and a frequency of testing for the landfill runoff management system. This investigation was reviewed and supported by Environment Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The City should continue to monitor for the parameters recommended in the 2008 Water License Monitoring Report. The Guidelines for the Discharge of Treated Municipal Wastewater in the NWT have been developed for arctic locations discharging into a marine environment, and are the most applicable standards of concentration limits to apply to the City of Iqaluitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s discharge from the retention pond at the landfill. The Cape Dyer water license has criteria that may also be used to supplement the GDTMWNWT in cases where a standard does not exist.

9 50 of 173

H ALASKA

Alaska Solid Waste Management

Burn box incinerator being emptied of ash.

Burn cage for solid waste management.

Burning household waste is still a wide-

open burning to more costly high tempera-

pollution than do the less expensive and

spread practice in rural Alaska to reduce

ture multiple chambered incinerators and

lower temperature open burning, burn bar-

waste volume, decontaminate refuse, and

thermal oxidation systems. Generally, the

rel, burn cage and burn box methods.

make waste less attractive to animals.

higher temperature combustion systems

Alaskans use a wide variety of combustion

tend to be more expensive to purchase and

quires knowledge of the waste and how it is

methods that range from less expensive

maintain. However, these systems cause less

burned. Municipal solid waste contains both

Understanding waste combustion re-

combustible (e.g. paper, plastic, wood, and food) and non - combustible (e.g. metal and glass) materials Combustible wastes account for about 70% of municipal waste. Paper and cardboard alone make up around 40% of the total. Garbage also contains 20% to 40% water. The amount of water and noncombustibles in the waste reduces the burning efficiency.

The various burning methods applied in

Alaska include open burning on the ground, burn cages, burn barrels, burn boxes, air curtain incineration, and multiple chambered incineration systems.

Open Burning

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Open burningâ&#x20AC;? means the burning of

a material that results in the products of

The Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2012

51 of 173

Edited from Burning Garbage and Land Disposal In Rural Alaska, A Publication for Small Alaskan Communities Considering Incineration and Energy Recovery, Alaska Energy Authority and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, May 2004

ALASKA

Incinerators

that reduce smoke emissions and contami-

Open burning is the least effective and most

used in Alaska, and incinerators burn waste

hazardous form of combustion and it is also

at higher temperatures than open burn

modular. Modular incinerators are manufac-

the least expensive way to burn municipal

methods. Incinerators rely on engineered

tured in a shop off-site and installed at the

solid waste, which is why it has been com-

designs to achieve the higher temperatures

place they are used. Site-built incinerators

combustion being emitted directly into the air without passing through a smoke stack.

Many waste incineration systems are

nant formation when burning garbage. Most of the incineration systems are

monly used in Alaska. It is the policy of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to eliminate, minimize, limit or control open burning as needed and to encourage other methods of disposal or incineration where possible.

A burn cage is a simple and inexpensive

way to make an open burn somewhat more effective. The burn cage is an improvement over open burning on the ground because the burn cage exposes the waste to natural draft on all surfaces including the bottom and this allows air to access the waste and promotes more efficient combustion throughout the burning period. It also limits

TRANSFORM YOUR CORPORATE TRAINING PROGRAM We’re helping business and industry become more efficient and productive in a global economy. NAIT Corporate Training draws on the Institute’s more than 200 programs to customize and deliver training across a range of competencies: • Information Technology • Telecommunication

the size of the waste pile thereby reducing

• Project Management

the potential for smoldering of waste not

• Engineering Technologies

exposed to air inside the pile. And finally,

• Environmental Management

it contains the burning within a specific

• Trades

location reducing the chance of the burn

• Business and Leadership

spreading to other waste disposal areas or

• Health and Safety

surrounding vegetation.

• Aboriginal Initiatives

• International Training

Although this form of burning is an im-

provement over uncontained open burning on the ground, there is still a good chance that insufficient turbulence and low burning temperatures will produce smoke and incomplete combustion products. The

Invest in your team. nait.ca/cit | 780.378.1230

process may not consume large and frozen masses of waste and partly burned food wastes may still attract animals. This method

EDUCATION FOR THE REAL WORLD

is an effective way to burn clean, dry wood, paper and other wastes that ignite and burn cleanly without smoke. Burn cages can be built locally using existing resources. However, units can also be pre-cut and shipped for assembly on site. The Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 52 of 2012 173

Burning household waste is still a widespread practice in rural Alaska.

ALASKA

are generally larger, with capacities of over

WE CAN SUCK UP YOUR SPILLS

500 tons per day. The largest municipal waste incineration system in the state is located in Juneau and includes two modular units with a total capacity of 72 tons per day.

Incinerators are often described based

on the amount of combustion air that is provided to the system. Starved air systems contain at least two chambers. The primary chamber receives less than the amount of air needed to achieve full combustion. Gases from this incomplete combustion then pass into the second chamber where sufficient air is brought in for full combustion.

WE COVER ALL INDUSTRIES • Potable water • Waste water • Solid waste • Construction • Industrial • Mining • and More..

Although “burn boxes” are generally

considered to be a modification to open burning, because these devices are usually

SPILL CONTAINMENT & RECLAMATION:

fitted with a smokestack they are regulated as incinerators. Burn boxes are singlechamber chambered units and are the least expensive incinerators in use. Waste is placed on grates inside the upper half of the unit. Ash falls through the grates during and after burning. Ash is cleaned from

EQUIPMENT SALES • SERVICE • RENTALS • INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY

Phone orders welcome!

the lower half of the unit when a sufficient amount has accumulated. Burn boxes usually rely on natural draft, not a fan, to provide combustion air and generally do not require power or a motor to operate.

EQUIPMENT RENTALS & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY

fax: 867.873.4871 103 Kam Lake Road www.ronsauto.ca | info@ronsauto.ca

SERVING EVERY COMMUNITY IN THE NWT & NUNAVUT FOR OVER 40 YEARS

Burn boxes are the least effective

form of incinerator and will exceed air quality standards if not operated carefully. Inert wastes such as metal and glass do not burn well and will rob heat from the combustion process, thereby creating a lower temperature burn. These wastes should be

Please recycle

separated prior to burning and recycled, landfilled directly, or transshipped to another facility. Approximately 16 communities in Alaska use Burn boxes. The current cost of a unit is around $12,000 but can be less if salvageable materials are available for local fabrication.

The Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2012

53 of 173

Typical composition of solid waste from a material perspective and a combustion perspective.

ALASKA

Requirements are Becoming Stricter

The requirements for the burning

of garbage in Alaska are slower becoming stricter as communities incrementally make improvements to their waste management facilities. Under current Alaska air quality regulations, any device that can burn more than 1,000 pounds of waste per hour must have an air quality permit and be operated and monitored to minimize air pollution. These facilities must also meet standards for particulates and ambient air quality. The permit will ultimately require stack testing for the incinerator. S

Suppliers of the most complete line of water distribution products serving the Canadian North Ecology North is a charitable, non-profit organization based in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Ecology North supports sound environmental decision-making on individual, community and regional levels. Phone:

(867) 873-6019 Email:

admin@ecologynorth.ca Website:

www.ecologynorth.ca The Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 54 of 2012 173

55 of 173

56 of 173

57 of 173

58 of 173

59 of 173

60 of 173

61 of 173

62 of 173

63 of 173

64 of 173

65 of 173

TSIIGEHTCHIC LANDFILL DESIGN 1.

Introduction

The Tsiigehtchic landfill site is solely for community use. The proposed project is an expansion of the existing landfill adjacent to the existing sewage lagoon located approximately 1.7 km east of the community centre. The existing landfill site provides separate areas for disposal of municipal solid waste, household hazardous waste, honey bags, animal carcasses and tires. An adjacent area is allocated for bulky waste. The Tsiigehtchic Waste Study conducted in 2005 recommended that the existing landfill site be redeveloped and expanded because it had no remaining capacity.

Design Standards

A redevelopment and expansion of the landfill site has been based upon from the conceptual design information presented in the 2005 Tsiigehtchic Waste Study in conjunction with the following guidelines, standards, manuals, and reference documents. • Guidelines for the Planning, Design, Operations and Maintenance of Modified Solid Waste Sites in the Northwest Territories, GNWT, April 2003” (MACA guidelines). •

Cold Regions Utilities Monograph, Third Edition, ASCE, 1996.

•

Water Licence G99L3-004, August 1, 2005, Gwich’in Land and Water Board.

•

Northwest Territories Waters Act, current to February 2011.

Solid Waste Generation and Capacity Requirements

Based on the 2005 Waste Study Report, the Charter Community records show that the total amount of municipal solid waste was 1,680 m3 (0.021 m3/capita/day) in 2003. Using the 2003 per capita estimate of solid waste generation, the uncompacted solid waste volume generation is estimated to be 20,699 m3 for the period of 2011 to 2031 (20 years). The calculations are presented in Table 2. Based on the MACA guidelines, the recommended compaction ratio for a modified landfill site is 3:1. Approximately 7,000 m3 of capacity will be required to meet the community requirements for 20 years.

66 of 173

Table 1: Future Solid Waste Generation Planning Calendar Population Year Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139

Landfill Design Criteria

4.1

Site Layout

Waste Generation (m3 in given year) 1,042 1,042 1,042 1,042 1,042 1,042 1,042 1,042 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065

Cumulative Volume (m3)

Cumulative Compacted Volume (m3)

1,042 2,084 3,126 4,168 5,210 6,252 7,294 8,359 9,424 10,489 11,554 12,619 13,684 14,749 15,814 16,879 17,944 19,009 20,074 21,139

347 695 1,042 1,389 1,737 2,084 2,431 2,786 3,141 3,496 3,851 4,206 4,561 4,916 5,271 5,626 5,981 6,336 6,691 7,046

The configuration of the landfill was developed based on the area method. The site area was determined by the volume of compacted waste. The size of the redeveloped landfill site footprint measures approximately 73 m, 172 m, 30 m and 165 m along the north, east, south, and west segments respectively. The preliminary cell layout is provided on Drawing 60164827-C100. 4.2

Perimeter Berm

A perimeter berm with a crest width of 1m and a minimum height of 1.2 m above existing grades is proposed along the perimeter of the landfill site. The inside of the berm is at a 1.5H:1V slope and the outside is at a 1.5H:1V. 4.3

Surface Water Drainage System

The management of the surface runoff from precipitation (rain and snow) is important in landfill design. The surface water outside the landfill area (off-site) should be intercepted and channelled to the adjacent surface water drainage. A surface water

67 of 173

drainage ditch and the perimeter berm have been incorporated into the design to prevent surface water runoff from entering the landfill site. Off-site surface water from the surrounding area adjoining to the northern and western perimeter berms will be controlled by surface water ditches, and directed into the adjacent forested area where it will ultimately disperse into the ground. The surface drainage ditch will be constructed with 1.5H:1V side slopes, and a minimum depth of 0.5 m. Off-site surface water from the surrounding area adjoining to the eastern perimeter berm is conveyed naturally by overland flow to the adjacent sewage lagoon. Water in contact with waste mass is controlled by surface water ditches conveying to two runoff ponds where the water may be pumped to the ditches that drain through the site and into the adjacent sewage lagoon. 4.4

Fencing and Access

Site security consists of a 2.0 m high chain-link fence running along the southern boundary of the site to control access and wind blown debris. A lockable gate is included in the design as a provision for limiting access to the site at some point in the future. A 4 m wide all-weather access road is proposed within the site and cul-de-sac will be provided at the end of service road to facilitate vehicle movements at the landfill site. 4.5

Hazardous Waste Storage Area

The hazardous waste storage area is 10 m x 20 m; this is sufficient place for the community to store hazardous waste. A liner system consisting of a 60 mil thick high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane is proposed for hazardous waste material cell. The side slopes of the base are designed at a slope of 1.5H:1V. 4.6

Honey Bag and Carcass Disposal Area

The honey bag and carcass disposal area is located at the existing honey bag area to the southwest of the main solid waste disposal site. The existing site area is approximately 17 m by 20 m. 4.7

Bulky Waste Disposal Area

A separate bulky waste disposal area is located south of the solid waste disposal site. To expand the bulky waste disposal capacity, an additional area of approximately 110 m by 30 m is proposed next to the existing bulky waste area. It is proposed that tires should be piled at the designated area within the main solid waste disposal site.

68 of 173

Solid Waste Disposal Operation and Maintenance

5.1

Intermediate Cover and Final Cover

The operation and maintenance of the site should follow the standards outlined in the MACA Guidelines for the Planning, Design, Operations and Maintenance of Modified Solid Waste Sites in the Northwest Territories the Guidelines. The area method employs the spreading and compacting the solid waste in a designated cell. Waste placement operations start at the base of the berm surrounding the cell. Waste is deposited in layers, compacted, and periodically covered. The placement of 300 mm layer of finegrained soils for intermediate cover is recommended every spring and fall. Cover material may be obtained from stockpiled area within the site. Once the landfill has reached its capacity, the site should be covered with a 500 mm layer of soil overlaid by a 150 mm layer of organic soil top soil with vegetation to prevent erosion. Final cover should be graded to no less than 3% to promote surface water runoff by minimizing infiltration. 5.2

Hazardous Waste Disposal Area

Non-residential hazardous waste should not be accepted at the landfill site. All residential hazardous wastes entering and leaving the site should be monitored. Periodic removal of the stored hazardous wastes for shipment to the appropriate treatment and disposal facility is recommended. 5.3

Honey Bay and Carcasses Disposal Area

The honey bag pit and carcass disposal area will be a source of significant odour during the warmer weather. This impact may be controlled by frequent covering with soil and/or lime. 5.4

Bulky Waste Disposal Area

Bulky wastes should be maintained in an orderly fashion. Clear signage should be provided to promote proper segregation of bulky items.

Site Monitoring

6.1

Groundwater Water Monitoring

In reference to the MACA guidelines, no groundwater monitoring is required for the Charter Community since the population served is less than 1,000.

69 of 173

6.2

Surface Water Monitoring

As stipulated in the current Water Licence G99L3-004, runoff from the landfill is to be monitored at station 1557-6, located at the east side of the solid waste disposal facility. Surface runoff at this location is to be inspected monthly during periods of overland flow from landfill to the sewage lagoon. All sampling, sample preservation and analysis shall be conducted in accordance with methods prescribed in the current edition of “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater”. 6.3

Annual Reporting on Landfill Operation

Activity at the landfill site should be monitored and recorded. The site activities (what waste is going where) should be recorded on a monthly basis, and should include a site photo. On an annual basis, the monthly records should be compiled into a simple audit of the site activity. The audit should be submitted with the annual water licence report to the Gwich’in Land and Water Board.

Closure

The landfill site is designed to operate for 20 years. When the site reaches its capacity, the Water Board would require notification of a pending closure. A closure plan should be submitted for approval at least six months prior to closure and includes, at a minimum, the following: •

A plan showing the appearance of the landfill site after closure.

•

A description of the proposed end use for the landfill site.

•

A schedule for completion of the final closure.

•

Leachate preventing and monitoring.

•

Type and source of cover materials.

•

Hazardous wastes.

•

Contaminated site remediation.

70 of 173

E Lake

Sewage Lagoon Landfill

Community

Water Treatment Plant Tso Lake

Water Supply Lake

Tsiigehtchic, NWT Waste Study

AREA MAP Figure 1

71 of 173

N Remediated MSW Area

Active MSW Area Clean Fill

Bagged Sewage

Hazardous Waste

Bulky Waste

200 metres Tsiigehtchic, NWT Waste Study

LANDFILL SYSTEM Figure 2

72 of 173

Bulky Waste Site

NORTH Refuse Pile

Remediated Area

Clean Fill

SOUTH

Hazardous Waste Bagged Sewage

Remediated Area

Municipal Waste Site Tsiigehtchic, NWT Waste Study

LANDFILL PHOTOS Figure 3

73 of 173

Entrance

Tsiigehtchic, NWT Waste Study

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PICTURES Figure 4 74 of 173

Tsiigehtchic, NWT Waste Study

LANDFILL DESIGN Figure 5

75 of 173

CARCROSS

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN CARCROSS, YUKON Burning vessel with loading doors open; note screened vents on top of vessel.

Whatever stops the garbage from burning, just do it – and do it quickly, Carcross residents told officials during a public meeting in April 2009. Government representatives and environmental scientists visited the community as part of a community tour to overhaul the territory’s solid-waste strategy. Garbage burning has persisted because it’s cheap. On average, a garbage-burning facility costs $28,500 to maintain per year. A supervised transfer facility can cost up to $100,000. Sixteen Yukon communities currently put the torch to their waste. Most employ big, hulking burning vessels; 40

however, some communities still burn in an open pit. Converting burn dumps to non-burn dumps could cost as much as $9 million, with $2 million more per year in operational costs, Carcross residents were told at the pubic meeting. There are presently 19 unincorporated communities for which YG operates solid waste facilities. The current solid waste management practices in the Yukon, dependant on the geographical area and needs of the surrounding communities, typically fall into one of the following categories: • Burial of waste in a trench. • Open trench burning and burial.

• Burn vessels and burial of the ash. • Unmanned transfer station disposal. • Manned transfer station disposal. Carcross still uses open trench burning for solid waste management. The use of burning vessels, however, has been increasing in communities across the Yukon. Burning Vessels In most instances, burning vessels were relatively new additions at the respective waste facilities. The burning vessels are constructed of large used steel fabricated underground or aboveground storage tanks that have been

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2009 76 of 173

CARCROSS modified with doors and vents to accept varying capacities of waste. The configuration of these burning vessels vary only slightly from one another, but their size differs in proportion to the volume of waste expected at the respective facility. The wastes accepted and segregated at each site are generally the same. The burning vessels are very effective in containing the wastes accepted and minimizing the litter that escapes, not to mention the reduction in scavenging from animals and birds in comparison to open trench burning. The difficulty, however, is that there are large quantities of non-burnable items (metals, mostly) that find their way into the vessel and, later must be separated from the ashes. The possibility of a propane tank, paints, or car batteries

entering the vessel is also a risk (due to the unmanned nature of the sites), and this poses a risk to the environment, as well as the health and safety of those using the facility. Open Trench Burning Carcross has maintained the use of open trench burning as a potential means to avoid the commissioning of a burning vessel, which could delay the establishment of a transfer station for trucking waste 75 kilometres back to the Whitehorse landfill. The Carcross site is divided into operating areas â&#x20AC;&#x201C; one area for domestic waste (to be burned in the trench) and the other area for construction wastes, appliances, waste metals, and hazardous waste. The domestic waste portion of the facility is untidy due to the abun-

dance of litter scattered by wind and birds, but overall the site is well maintained, with the majority of wastes segregated in tidy piles, despite a lack of clear signage. Overall, there is no apparent operational difference between a burning trench facility, and burning vessel facility, other than litter control. Burning vessels do burn much more quickly and in a more controlled manner than in a trench. Open trench burning has greater potential to smoulder for longer periods of time, due to uneven temperatures and incomplete combustion of wastes. Transfer Stations When it comes to transfer stations, the major factor contributing to site performance is the level of staffing. Sites

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2009

41 77 of 173

CARCROSS that are kept tidy, have access to staff during operating hours, and access to the site, are limited to those hours only. Unmanned facilities could greatly benefit from improved waste-management practices. In principle, these sites should operate the same as the Yukon's

other transfer stations, but the absence of staff and the unlimited access to the facility has been detrimental to the operation. This combination provides no supervision, and the public has taken advantage of the consequence-free environment on a regular basis.

An Environment of Exceptional Solutions. Innovative Solutions.

AD-DA-MRC-2009JUL10-P1V1

Jacques Whitford AXYS is pleased to announce that we have joined Stantec. As part of Stantec, our combined business sectors will be more comprehensive, with a broader geographic presence and access to more service specialists and experts. Yellowknife (867) 920-2216

One Team. InďŹ nite Solutions. 42

General Observations The waste deposit practices are variable in the Yukon. Due to the remoteness of some residents, and the lack of some services in the territory, it is common that users store their wastes at their residences for an extended period of time, and then unload a large quantity of waste at once, temporarily overloading a site's capacity. This is particularly apparent when it comes to auto hulks, appliances, construction and demolition waste, and tires. Throughout the Yukon, the level of community volunteerism varies quite significantly. It seems that some communities are attuned to environmental and solid waste issues in the Yukon, and the others are more inclined to "keep things the way they've always been." This presents challenges when adopting a common framework for standardizing waste management approaches. More specifically, recycling tends to be less developed at unincorporated communities, since there is a lack of recycling facilities available nearby. Contractors hired to manage each facility are directly responsible for each site's relative functionality and tidiness. Each contractor is hired as a result of a tendering process, and there is often a learning curve associated with the contractors executing the waste management contracts if the contractor is new. At times, this can result in onerous micro-level management for the YG, where contractor performance has to be closely monitored, and often contracts either have to be renegotiated, cancelled, or reissued. Back in Carcross, the latest public meeting was â&#x20AC;&#x153;probably round sixâ&#x20AC;? in a long line of engineers and consultants sweeping through the town with promises of clean waste disposal, said

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2009 78 of 173

CARCROSS Burning vessel showing ash discharge system and trench for disposing of ash.

another resident. “Just tell us a solution is coming quickly; you’ll be more popular,” he said to government representatives. “Let’s fast track this thing, rather than just studying the crap out of it again.”

References EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., Comprehensive Solid Waste Study for Yukon Territory Unincorporated Waste Facilities, Volume 1. April 2009 Yukon News, The Long Road to No-Burn. April 24, 2009

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2009

43 79 of 173

WCW Conference & Trade Show ▪ Winnipeg ▪ September 20 - 23 ▪ 2009

Sewage Composting in Iqaluit, Nunavut – Black Gold Ken Johnson ABSTRACT In the Canadian north, municipal sewage sludge has been virtually ignored because of the predominance of lagoon wastewater treatment systems. The application of mechanical sewage treatment systems in Nunavut, and an increased regulatory scrutiny over the past 15 years have created a demand for sewage sludge handling, treatment, and disposal. The City of Iqaluit, Nunavut has been working toward the implementation of a secondary sewage treatment system since 1998, and with it the need for sludge management. This is an ambitious goal for the community considering the inherent challenges to the design, construction and operation of facilities in the harsh arctic environment. Conventional municipal sewage treatment uses physical, chemical, and biological processes to separate solids and biological contaminants from municipal wastewater. Solids in the sludge are typically processed in a digester system, in which biodegradable materials are “digested” into stable organic matter. Sewage sludge may be further treated through dewatering, heat drying, alkaline (lime) stabilization, composting, or other processes. Freezing and thawing, as an efficient method of sewage sludge conditioning, has been used for many years in cold climates. The final separation is achieved when the “released” water drains away from the solids after thawing, leaving a porous sludge with solids content of 20 to 30%. Following this dewatering and drying process, composting may provide stabilization and destruction of pathogens. The composting process requires the addition of bulking materials such as wood chips and cardboard pieces. The City of Iqaluit landfill facility has been able to divert sewage biosolids from the first phase of the wastewater treatment plant. The process for the biosolids is to dry the solids throughout the long winter making use of Iqaluit’s cold dry weather, and compost the dried solids during the short warm summers to produce a cover material for the landfill. This process is attractive because the finished material is non-hazardous, and will reduce the use of precious granular material at the landfill - granular material may cost close to $40 per cubic metre in Iqaluit. Managing sewage sludge through freeze-thaw-composting is not without its challenges, but the City of Iqaluit has successfully completed a pilot program. Where other municipalities take for granted the technologies available to them, the arctic must re-engineer the process to suit the environment.

2009 iqaluit sewage composting.doc Page 1 of 11

80 of 173

WCW Conference & Trade Show ▪ Winnipeg ▪ September 20 - 23 ▪ 2009

INTRODUCTION The City of Iqaluit, Nunavut is in the process of upgrading to a conventional activated sludge wastewater treatment system for its municipal sewage. The first phase of the project (primary treatment) was commissioned in May 2006, and the second phase (secondary treatment) is planned for the next five (5) to ten (10) years. The design, construction, and operation of this facility present challenges that are unique to Iqaluit’s harsh arctic environment. One of these challenges is how to dispose of the sewage sludge produced by the sewage treatment facility. Sewage sludge, produced as a waste product during modern sewage treatment, has specific handling, treatment and disposal requirements. Sludge has high levels of pathogens and high nutrient characteristics, so sludge must usually be treated before disposal in order to protect public health and the receiving environment. Most municipalities in Canada are aware of the need to treat sewage sludge before disposal. However, sewage sludge treatment in the Canadian north is not well established. Municipal sewage sludge in the north is hidden as an inherent part of a sewage lagoon. Sludge essentially becomes part of the lagoon as it settles to the lagoon bottom, and only requires removal every 10 (ten) to 15 (fifteen) years. With such infrequent sludge disposal, it is easy to ignore municipal sewage sludge entirely. In addition, sludge management techniques used in more southern climates are not necessarily effective in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut because of the challenging environmental and social conditions. The City of Iqaluit recognized the need for a sewage sludge management plan and retained AECOM Canada Ltd. to complete the plan. AECOM began by identifying available sludge management technologies, and then applied screening criteria to produce a short list of technologies for detailed evaluation. These technologies were reviewed for their applicability in a northern context, and it was recommended that freeze-thaw dewatering and composting was the most appropriate choice for Iqaluit. With freeze-thaw dewatering and composting selected as the sludge treatment processes, the City applied for funding to begin a pilot project in order to determine how effective the technology would actually be for Iqaluit's sewage sludge. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities approved the City's grant application for equipment and testing. A pilot dewatering and composting facility was constructed next to the landfill in 2006. AECOM was asked by the City of Iqaluit to determine the effectiveness of the sludge management pilot project. AECOM proposed to do this by analyzing samples of the compost and comparing these samples to the raw sludge. To this end, composted sludge samples were taken from the pilot sludge management area in October 2008, along with raw sewage sludge samples from the site. Samples of Iqaluit's raw sewage sludge were also taken in March, May and June of 2006. This report summarizes the results of the sampling.

2009 iqaluit sewage composting.doc Page 2 of 11

81 of 173

WCW Conference & Trade Show ▪ Winnipeg ▪ September 20 - 23 ▪ 2009

SLUDGE COMPOSTING PROCESS The sludge management facility is located next to the municipal landfill. Raw sludge is piled at the east end of the site, and four (4) composting piles (windrows) are established on concrete slabs towards the west end of the site. The area is fenced, with two gated entrances: one direct access through a gate from the road on the west side of the site, and an access road from the main gate at the landfill entrance. Freezing and thawing is used to dewater the raw sewage sludge. During spring and fall months, the sludge freezes and thaws, which separates the solid sludge particles from the water. When complete thawing occurs from May to June, some of the separated water drains away. This freeze-thaw process produces a dryer sludge material available for composting. To begin the composting process, dewatered sludge is mixed with wood chips (produced by shredding) at a ratio of approximately 2:1 wood: sludge, and piled in rows. The compost should be turned regularly to encourage aerobic conditions inside the pile. Over the summer months, composting will occur, and a "maturing" phase can occur over the following winter months. SAMPLING RESULTS 2008 Samples On October 28, 2008 samples of raw sludge and composted material were collected from the City's sludge management facility. See Figures 1 and 2 below for the sampling locations. The samples were stored in coolers and delivered to Bodycote (Norwest Labs) in Edmonton for analysis on October 30. Figure 1: 2008 Sample Locations

Compost #1 Compost #2

Sludge #1

Compost #3

Sludge #2

The sample results were received by AECOM on November 11, 2008. Table 1 shows the results for the 2008 compost and sludge samples.

2009 iqaluit sewage composting.doc Page 3 of 11

82 of 173

WCW Conference & Trade Show ▪ Winnipeg ▪ September 20 - 23 ▪ 2009

Figure 2: Iqaluit Pilot Sludge Management Site Overview Table 1: October 2008 Sample Results Parameter

Unit

Compost #1

Aggregate Organic Constituents % 10.8 Organic Matter weight % 32.1 Water % 67.4 Solids % 0.68 Oil (dry wt.) % 0.46 Oil (wet wt.) Classification 0.35 Nitrogen (TKN) % mg/kg 1620 Phosphorus Microbiological Analysis

Compost #2

Compost #3

Sludge #1

Sludge #2

8.3

8.6

84.2

0.29 1410

0.32 1470

0.35 2090

0.28 1340

The low organic matter result for Sludge Sample #2 may be an anomaly. 2009 iqaluit sewage composting.doc Page 4 of 11

83 of 173

WCW Conference & Trade Show ▪ Winnipeg ▪ September 20 - 23 ▪ 2009

Parameter

Unit

Compost #1

Compost #2

Compost #3

Sludge #1

Sludge #2 23000

44.8

Total Coliforms

MPN/g

Fecal Coliforms

MPN/g

>1,100,00 0 1,100,000

56.2

60.9

19.6

Physical and Aggregate Properties % 55.7 Solids (wet wt.) Soil Acidity 7.4 pH 5.66 EC (sat. paste equiv) 2.75 EC (soil: water) Water Soluble Parameters mg/kg 3400 BOD (extractable)

23000

104000

2006 Samples AECOM staff took samples of raw sludge from Iqaluit (the WWTP or the sludge management site) in March 2006, May 2006, and again in June 2006. In summary these reports stated that: 1. Untreated Iqaluit sludge has a high concentration of total solids (around 20%) compared to typical primary sludge (around 6%). 2. Untreated Iqaluit sludge contains a high concentration of Total Coliforms and Fecal Coliforms, with >1,100,000 MPN/g measured for both parameters in both the March and June samples. 3. Untreated Iqaluit sludge contains a low concentration of metals compared to typical wastewater sludge. The sludge sample taken in March 2006 was analyzed for many different parameters, including various trace metals. The results can be compared to those of the Compost #1 sample taken in 2008, as shown in Table 2 below.

2009 iqaluit sewage composting.doc Page 5 of 11

84 of 173

WCW Conference & Trade Show ▪ Winnipeg ▪ September 20 - 23 ▪ 2009

Table 2: Comparison of Compost and Sludge on All Parameters Parameter

Unit

Aggregate Organic Constituents Organic Matter % weight Water % Solids % Oil (dry wt.) % Oil (wet wt.) % Classification Nitrogen (TKN) % Metals Mercury mg/kg Aluminum mg/kg Antimony mg/kg Arsenic mg/kg Barium mg/kg Beryllium mg/kg Bismuth mg/kg Cadmium mg/kg Chromium mg/kg Calcium mg/kg Cobalt mg/kg Copper mg/kg Iron mg/kg Lead mg/kg Magnesium mg/kg Manganese mg/kg Molybdenum mg/kg Nickel mg/kg Phosphorus mg/kg Selenium mg/kg Silicon mg/kg Silver mg/kg Strontium mg/kg Thallium mg/kg Tin mg/kg Titanium mg/kg Vanadium mg/kg Zinc mg/kg

Compost (2008)

Sludge (2006)

10.8 32.1 67.4 0.68 0.46

NT 80.2 17.6 11 2.16

0.35

1.08

0.12 6190 3.1 5.1 69 0.2 3.3 1.11 27.7 17700 5.1 283 18800 87.9 3400 282 4 19 1620 0.6 680 1.4 64 <0.05 6 213 15.5 357

0.08 NT 0.4 0.4 24 0.2 NT 0.17 2.7 NT 0.2 170 NT 3.9 NT NT 2 2.2 1420 0.9 NT 1 NT 0.1 2 NT 1 200 2009 iqaluit sewage composting.doc Page 6 of 11

85 of 173

WCW Conference & Trade Show ▪ Winnipeg ▪ September 20 - 23 ▪ 2009

Parameter

Unit

Microbiological Analysis Total Coliforms MPN/g Fecal Coliforms MPN/g Escherichia coli MPN/g Physical and Aggregate Properties Solids (wet wt.) / Total Solids % Soil Acidity pH Water Soluble Parameters BOD (extractable) mg/kg *NT: Not Tested

Compost (2008)

Sludge (2006)

<3 <3

>1,100,000 >1,100,000 1,100,000

55.7

19.5

7.4

5.6

3400

39500

DISCUSSION Microbiological Content The composting process is reducing the number of total and fecal coliforms to a great extent. As shown in Table 3, the Most Probable Number of both total and fecal coliforms is very high in Iqaluit's raw sewage sludge; lower in a sample of sludge that has undergone a freeze-thaw dewatering cycle; and very low in the composting material. Both the 2008 and 2006 sample results were used to generate the averages in Table 3. Table 3: Total and Fecal Coliforms in Iqaluit Sludge and Compost Units

Average Raw Sludge

Dewatered Sludge

Average Compost

Total Coliforms

MPN/ g

> 852,500

23,000

Fecal Coliforms

MPN/ g

> 852,500

23,000

The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) classifies sewage sludge as either Class A or Class B with respect to pathogen content. Either of these classes of treated sludge can be land applied. The EPA regulation states that a composted sludge is considered Class A if the co period. Compost is considered Class B if the temperature of the compost is raised to 40˚C or higher for five (5) days or longer, and the temperature exceeds 55˚C for at least four (4) hours during this period. The operating temperature of Iqaluit's compost piles during the summer is unknown.

2009 iqaluit sewage composting.doc Page 7 of 11

86 of 173

WCW Conference & Trade Show ▪ Winnipeg ▪ September 20 - 23 ▪ 2009

Iqaluit’s treated sludge (compost) is either Class A or Class B with respect to pathogens. One of the alternative ways for a treated sludge to be classified as Class B is if the average fecal coli form count of seven samples is less than 2,000,000 Most Probable Number per gram of total solids (dry weight basis). Iqaluit’s compost is well below this limit for fecal coliforms, so the compost is at least Class B. There are also several alternatives for a treated sludge to classify as Class A, such as having low test counts for certain pathogens. This has not been examined in detail for Iqaluit’s compost. Post temperature is maintained at 55˚C or higher for fifteen (15) days or longer, and the aerated pile is turned a minimum of five times during this Solids Content The freeze-thaw dewatering process, combined with the composting treatment stage, appears to be effective at increasing the solids content of the sludge material. Raw sewage sludge from Iqaluit's WWTP is about 20% solids. As noted in the April 2006 letter report, this is higher than typical for primary sludge which is generally about 6% solids. After the sludge undergoes freeze-thaw dewatering and is mixed with dry wood chip material, the average solids content of the composting material is 58%. One of the October 2008 sludge samples appears to have advanced in the freeze-thaw dewatering cycle, since the solids content is 44.8% while four other sludge samples have solids contents of 18, 19.5, 19.6 and 20.9% respectively. This could indicate that the freeze-thaw process is successfully dewatering the sludge. However, no firm conclusions can be made about the effectiveness of the freeze-thaw process due to the limited number of samples. Figure 3: Solids Content

70.0

60.0

Solids Content (%)

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Average of 4 Sludge Samples

Dewatered Sludge

Average of 3 Compost Samples 2009 iqaluit sewage composting.doc Page 8 of 11

87 of 173

WCW Conference & Trade Show ▪ Winnipeg ▪ September 20 - 23 ▪ 2009

Metals Content In the April 25, 2006 letter report on Iqaluit's raw sewage sludge, it was noted that the Iqaluit March 2006 sludge sample had low concentrations for several key metals. The following charts compare the metals concentrations in Iqaluit sludge and compost. The metals concentrations measured in the October 2008 compost sample were somewhat higher than concentrations in the March 2006 raw sludge sample. A rational explanation for this increase may be the source of the wood waste, which is shredded wood products and contains metal associated with nails and fixtures. Figure 4: Metals in Sewage Sludge Sludge Sample, March 2006

Compost Sample, October 2008 400

350

25 300 250 mg/kg

mg/kg

20 15

200 150

100 50

Zi nc

Le ad

n Ti

iu m le n

l Se

N ic ke

m en u ol yb d

er c

ur y

al t C ob

om iu m C hr

m iu m C ad

se ni Ar

Co pp er

The metals shown above have an impact on how a treated sludge (biosolid) may be used or disposed of. Except for tin, these twelve (12) metals are considered "of principle concern" in biosolids used for land application by the Ontario Ministry of Environment (1996). Ten (10) of them are regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for sewage sludge to be used in land application. USEPA pollutant limits for sewage sludge are shown in Table 4 below. Treated sludge must be below the Ceiling Concentration limits for any land application. For application on agricultural land, forest, a public contact site, or a reclamation site, the sludge must meet a more stringent Monthly Average Concentration, or else the application of sludge must be limited by a maximum cumulative pollutant loading rate in kilograms per hectare.

2009 iqaluit sewage composting.doc Page 9 of 11

88 of 173

WCW Conference & Trade Show ▪ Winnipeg ▪ September 20 - 23 ▪ 2009

Table 4: US EPA Pollutant Limits for Land Applied Sewage Sludge

Land Application2

Surface Disposal3

Pollutant

Units

Ceiling Concentration

Monthly Average Concentration

Maximum Concentration

Arsenic

mg/kg

Cadmium

mg/kg

Chromium

mg/kg

Mercury

mg/kg

Molybdenum

mg/kg

Nickel

mg/kg

420

Selenium

mg/kg

100

Copper

mg/kg

4300

1500

Lead

mg/kg

840

300

Zinc

mg/kg

7500

2800

600 17

420

Iqaluit’s sludge (treated and untreated) is well within the US EPA limits as shown in Table 4. Therefore, based on trace heavy metals content, the compost is suitable for land application. CONCLUSIONS Based on the sampling to date, the freeze-thaw dewatering and composting processes are effectively treating Iqaluit’s sewage sludge. Compost samples showed a dramatic reduction in total and fecal coliforms compared to the raw sludge samples. As well, the solids content of compost samples and one partially treated sludge sample was much higher than that of the raw sewage sludge. The processes do not appear to have any significant impact on some contaminants, including metals, but this result is expected. It is worth noting that the metals concentrations in Iqaluit's sewage sludge and compost are below the US EPA limits on sludge for surface disposal and land application. Iqaluit's treated compost has very low pathogen counts, and likely could be classified as Class B sewage sludge or even Class A. This means that the treated compost is suitable for land disposal and some types of land application.

Land applications are defined as the spreading of sewage sludge onto land to condition soil or fertilize vegetation. 3 Surface disposal is defined as placing sewage sludge on an area of land for final disposal. 2009 iqaluit sewage composting.doc Page 10 of 11

89 of 173

WCW Conference & Trade Show ▪ Winnipeg ▪ September 20 - 23 ▪ 2009

RECOMMENDATIONS AECOM recommends that the City of Iqaluit continue to use freeze-thaw dewatering and composting to treat the sludge from its Wastewater Treatment Plant. These processes are successfully reducing the microbiological content and increasing the solids content of the sewage sludge. In addition, the technology is cost-effective and requires a modest amount of work to operate and maintain, particularly when compared to other technologies. Based on a cursory examination of US EPA sewage sludge use and disposal regulations, Iqaluit’s treated sewage sludge (compost) is suitable for use as a cover material at the landfill.

2009 iqaluit sewage composting.doc Page 11 of 11

90 of 173

WHITEHORSE

THE RAVEN RECYCLES IN WHITEHORSE, YUKON Raven Recycling building.

Introduction Solid waste management continues to be a challenge for communities across the north and the south. Certainly, while landfill burning is a distant memory for southern communities, it remains a common practice in the north. Incremental improvements to open burning are being made with the application of burning vessels in the Yukon (See article in NTWWA Journal, 2006), and selected burning in the NWT and Nunavut. Environmental legislation is pushing communities to stop burning altogether; however, this legislation has not been complimented with sig-

nificant alternatives for waste management, such as recycling. One significant success story for recycling in the north has been Raven Recycling in the Yukon. This “grass-roots” organization has grown from simple beginnings in 1989 as the Recycling Committee of the Yukon Conservation Society to an independent private enterprise with almost 20 employees. Things have changed a lot since then, such as the introduction of beverage container legislation in the Yukon in 1995. Raven now accepts over 30 different commodities to be recycled. Acting from their mandate to

divert waste from the landfills of the Yukon, Raven ensures that any surplus funds from recycling profitable commodities (such as aluminum) are spent on recycling items that lose money (such as magazines). The Raven Recycling Society is the central recycler in the Yukon Territory for household and commercial waste, while there are currently 19 recycling depots and 3 material processors in the Yukon. Limited recycling success in Nunavut and growing success in the NWT Recycling in Nunavut has been initiated

CANADA’S LEADER IN: • Biosolids Management • Land Application • Advanced Technologies • Storage Facility Management • Digester and Lagoon Cleaning • Mobile Dewatering – Centrifuge, Press & Geo-Synthetic

Call for details or quotation

800.846.2097 26

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2008 91 of 173

By Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng., Senior Planner and Engineer, Earth Tech Canada

with limited success over the past decade. In 2005, the City of Iqaluit pulled the plug on Nunavut’s only door-to-door recycling program, and replaced it with a voluntary system. Only a fraction of the city's total annual garbage collection, about 60 out of an annual total of 6,000 tonnes, ended up in the blue bags and plastic boxes used to separate recyclable materials. The recyclables cost the city $7,800 a tonne to get rid of, which is more than 35 times higher than the cost of $200 a tonne to dispose of trash at the dump. Other communities across Nunavut are making efforts to divert waste for recycling, however this is a slow process and will ultimately depend upon assistance from senior government to be sustainable. In the Northwest Territories, as of the end of 2007, residents had turned in more than 50 million beverage containers for recycling since a beverage container return program was established in 2005, following the enactment of beverage container legislation in 2005. This program results in 82 per cent of all beverage cans and bottles sold being recycled, putting the territory's recycling rate on par with other Canadian jurisdictions. The Raven keeps some beverage recycling entirely local In the beginning, the Raven’s Pop Can Depot was run entirely by volunteers. A

WHITEHORSE

Raven Recycling drop off.

single penny refund was given only on pop-cans, with the funds coming from the committee member’s own pockets. Raven essentially set the stage for the beverage container legislation, which did not follow until 1995. Consider the recycling of an empty Yukon beer bottle. Some of the domestic beer bottles that are brought into Raven for the ten cent refund end up just three blocks away at the brewmeisters of the Yukon Brewing Company Ltd. Here, the bottles are washed, sterilized and refilled with brews such as Arctic Red, Yukon Gold and Chilkoot Lager. Bottles surplus to Yukon Brewing’s requirements are shipped to southern breweries for reuse. Aluminum from beer and pop cans is

reused on this continent, thanks to the large aluminum company Alcan. Raven bales all the pop and beer cans dropped off for refunds into small compact blocks. Other recycling and recycling initiatives Raven purchases the ABCS’s of scrap metal. These letters stand for aluminium, brass, copper and stainless steel. Recyclers bring their aluminium, copper, brass and stainless steel to Raven Recycling, where they are paid a price by weight of material. Plastics, such as yogurt tubs and margarine containers, get shipped straight to processors in the lower mainland of British Columbia. There, the plastics are ground

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2008

27 92 of 173

Raven Recycling operating yard.

WHITEHORSE into small sizes, decontaminated, washed, pelletized and blended with other plastics to make whatever recipe the eventual purchaser wants. Paper gets shipped to brokers in the lower mainland of British Columbia. The paper brokers shop around until they can find the best price for Raven’s paper. Recently, all of the bales of paper that Raven has sent south to the brokers have ended up in the People’s Republic of China. It is used in their mills to make new paper products. The future of the Raven The future of the Raven looks very bright, with their revenue funds spent on research, consulting, public and school education programs, and advising various levels of government about the benefits of waste Reduction, Reuse and Recycling. Established recycling initiatives of Raven, such as the corporate “PaperSave”

pickup program, are continuously re-eval-

is that the Raven is one of the territory’s

uated to improve the efficiency and quali-

largest bulk exporters. In 2002, Raven

ty of paper recycling in the Yukon.

shipped the equivalent of 464 semi trailers

An interesting quirk of the recycling trade

worth of loose recyclables outside the ter-

Ramtech Environmental Products Supplying and servicing the leading Water, Wastewater & Stormwater process equipment in Western Canada.

Suppliers of Mustang Squeeze tools & Reed pipe cutting tools.

• McElroy Fusion equipment sales, service & rentals.

Including UV disinfection, aeration systems, MBR systems, ABJ process, blowers, grit removal, screening, clariﬁers, thickeners, dewatering, aluminum covers, odour treatment, noise attenuation, etc.

• Fusion training. • Friatec Electrofusion equipment, fittings sales & service. CANADA-WIDE TOLL FREE: (EDM) 1-888-554-0638 Alberta – Head Office (780) 454-0638 Nova Scotia (902) 468-0118

Ontario (905) 846-0212

SK/MB/NU (306) 480-7999

BC/YK/NT (604) 768-9126

Proudly serving Western Canada for over 20 years.

t: 403.221.8585

2335 - 23 Avenue S.W., Calgary, AB T2T 0W3

f: 866.586.7400 | e: info@ramtechltd.com 28

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2008 93 of 173

WHITEHORSE

The future of the Raven looks very bright, with their revenue funds spent on research, consulting, public and school education programs, and advising various levels of government

Raven Recycling swap area.

about the benefits of waste ritory for recycling and reuse; in 2005 the

lished the viability of recycling, and con-

shipments were equivalent to 578 semi

tinues to be the groundbreaker in accept-

trailer loads.

ing and processing new and different

Throughout the years, Raven has estab-

recyclable items.

Reduction, Reuse and Recycling.

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2008

29 94 of 173

CSCE 2007 Annual General Meeting & Conference Congrès annuel et assemblée générale annuelle SCGC 2007 Yellowknife, Northwest Territories / Yellowknife, Territoires du nord-ouest June 6-9, 2007 / 6 au 9 juin 2007

Wetland System for Treatment of Landfill Runoff in Iqaluit, Nunavut Ken Johnson, and Dong Li, Earth Tech Canada Geoff Baker, and Mark Hall, City of Iqaluit Abstract The City of Iqaluit produces approximately 10,000 m3 of compacted waste, which enters the landfill each year, and includes residential, commercial and industrial wastes. The City’s landfill operation uses the area method, which involves placing waste above grade against a berm, compacting the waste using a wheeled loader, and covering the waste using a wood mulch material. A landfill expansion has been an expected part of the continuing operation of the existing site for the past 6 years, and the implementation of the expansion is an absolute necessity to properly manage the site. With the expansion comes the necessity to manage the runoff in and around the site in order to minimize the impact of contaminated runoff that is inherent to any landfill operation. Innovation is coming forward from the City with the consideration of wetlands to provide “treatment” to the runoff before it is discharged into the environment. Wetland treatment systems have been applied to municipal wastewater treatment in the north for the past decade, but landfill runoff has not been considered in the application of this process. Regulatory scrutiny and incremental improvements by the communities has made landfill runoff treatment a new priority for water licence compliance. The City of Iqaluit is continuing to take significant steps to improve its waste management practices. The City is devoted to being environmentally responsible, and compliant with the regulatory requirements of the various local, territorial and federal agencies. The City is not only responding to the current needs of the community, but is also committing to solid waste planning for the future. 1. Introduction The City of Iqaluit produces approximately 10,000 m3 of compacted waste, which enters the landfill annually, including residential, commercial and industrial wastes. The landfill site relies on the local permafrost regime to provide a low permeability barrier to control the subsurface runoff. The on-site surface runoff is comprised of contaminated surface runoff originating from the melt water from the spring freshet and runoff from summer precipitation. The surface runoff sampling results in June 2006 suggest that the landfill runoff needs to be appropriately managed, and direct discharge into the environment should be controlled. The average monthly temperatures in Iqaluit vary from 2.2 to 7.7 degree Celsius from June through September and -4.4 to -28 degree Celsius from October through May. The average annual precipitation is 198 mm of rainfall and 236 cm of snowfall for a mean annual precipitation total of 412 mm.

95 of 173

Landfill runoff sampling at the landfill site was completed in 2004 and 2006. The major parameters exceeding the Guidelines for the Discharge of Treated Municipal Wastewater in the Northwest Territories (1992) in 2006 sampling event are Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5), Total Suspended Solid (TSS) and metal contents including Aluminum, Iron, Copper, Lead, Manganese and Zinc. Four drainage control ponds are located in the landfill area at West 40 Landfill site. An existing pond was augmented by three new ponds in 2006. A runoff retention pond was also constructed in 2006 as the area where accumulated runoff in the control ponds may be pumped to. The runoff retention pond was constructed in original ground with a compacted base. The base materials are typically loamy sands based on the grain size distribution. The loamy sand is a poorly graded material with limited permeability, and has significant fractions of silt and gravel sized materials A proposed wetland treatment area is located east of the runoff retention pond. The slope in the proposed wetland location is generally from west to east, which provides a positive drainage slope by gravity for the proposed wetland. 2. Wetland Systems Both natural and constructed wetland systems have been used to treat a variety of wastewaters including runoff from landfills. The use of constructed wetland, rather than natural wetlands, may be preferred because constructed systems may be specifically engineered for the particular wastewater characteristics. Constructed wetlands allow a greater degree of control of substrate, vegetation types, flow characteristics, and flexibility in sizing. Constructed wetlands are engineered systems that have been designed and constructed to utilize the natural functions of wetland vegetation, soils, and their microbial populations to treat contaminants in various wastewater streams. Constructed wetlands are categorized into two main groups: surface flow (SF) and subsurface flow (SSF). Factors to be considered include land area availability, capital cost, runoff composition concentrations, and the potential public health risks. Unlike a natural wetland system in which hydrology is largely fixed by the tolerance limits of the existing plant community, a constructed wetland may be designed to regulate water depth and retention time based on the influent quality. A constructed SF wetland is a shallow, engineered pond (about 30 cm deep) that is planted with local emergent and rooted vegetation. Runoff is introduced at one end and flows across the wetland area to the discharge point. The emergent plants of SF wetlands are not harvested to remove nutrients. Instead, the natural assimilative capacity of the microbial flora (bacteria and fungi) that attach to the plants, provides efficient and reliable removal of biodegradable organics and nitrogen (ammonia and nitrate). Metals and phosphorus may be sequestered in plant materials and wetland sediments. Most of the treatment is a function of the microbial, physical and chemical action rather than plant uptake; therefore, these processes may occur during cold weather. SSF wetlands are gravel or organic soil based systems, in which the wastewater substrate passes through the permeable media. The flow is subsurface in and around the roots of the wetland plants. Flow through the media may also be horizontal flow, referred as subsurface horizontal-flow wetland; or vertically downward, referred as subsurface vertical-flow wetland. The large surface area of the media and the plant roots provides sites for microbial activity, and SSF systems use many of the same emergent plant species as SF systems. SSF wetland systems have better performance in cold weather because most of the treatment occurs below the ground surface where the treatment processes are less affected by cold air temperatures. In addition, media based systems have relatively low in maintenance requirements and are less likely to have odor and mosquito problems in comparison with SF wetlands. When properly designed, media based wetland systems have high removing efficiency rates for biodegradable organic matter and nitratenitrogen. Another consideration that makes the SSF system attractive is the reduced potential for human contact with partially treated wastewater, which reduces public health concerns.

96 of 173

There are some general considerations for the design of a constructed wetland, and every wetland system is site-specific and the assistance of an experienced wetland designer is critical to the success of a wetland project. Some key components to consider are: • • • • • • • • •

Available land area Available vegetation Available soil materials Contaminant removal objectives Operating window dictated by freezing conditions Hydraulic retention time (HRT) Gravity flow availability Nuisance controls (i.e. mosquito and odour control) Maintenance and self-sustainability.

To meet the perspective discharge criteria, it is important to design the wetland system with a hydraulic retention time (HRT) sufficient to reduce the organic contaminant and nitrogen concentrations under cold water temperature conditions. This will require additional land area as compared to a system operated with a warmer water temperature. The minimum HRT is 7 to 10 days for SF wetlands and 2 to 4 days for SSF wetlands. Based upon this criterion, the land area required for a SF wetland system will be at least twice as large as a SSF wetland system. The porous media of SSF wetland will provide more contact area between contaminants and microbes/medium particles. The contaminants will first partition from the liquid phase into the solid phase, and then be absorbed by the plant roots. The SSF wetland systems have a higher removal efficiency for biodegradable organic matter and nitrate-nitrogen than SF wetland system in comparing the areal removal rate constant. Considering the advantages and disadvantages, and the local conditions in Iqaluit, a SSF wetland system is recommended for Iqaluit landfill surface runoff treatment process. 3. Design Criteria for Wetland System Wetland performance may be characterized by contaminant concentration reduction, by mass reduction or by areal load reduction. There are no guidelines for treated landfill surface runoff in Nunavut. The benchmark conditions on the treated discharge are the discharge limits for Sewage Lagoon effluents of the City of Iqaluit Water Licence. Suspended solids are principally removed in a wetland system by physical filtration processes. Subsurface flow (SSF) wetland systems effectively remove suspended solids from contaminated water. Suspended solids within SSF system may block the pores or bedding media, and as a result, will decrease the hydraulic conductivity or the flow through the system, especially near the inlet. Organic matter is removed in the wetland systems by deposition and filtration for settleable BOD, and by microbial metabolism for soluble BOD. The removal efficiencies for BOD5 vary significantly depending on the organic loading rates, dissolved oxygen concentration, water temperature, bedding media and plant species. Metals are removed by cation exchange to wetland sediments, precipitation as insoluble salts and plant uptakes. The major concerned metals are Iron, Zinc, Copper, Aluminum and Lead in Iqaluit, based on the 2006 sampling results. The average removals of these metals were reported in the range of 50 to 90%. The reduction of nutrients, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) requires the longest hydraulic retention time of any of the anticipated pollutants. The phosphorus concentration measured in 2006 sampling event was 0.8 mg/L, which is lower than the Canadian Guideline 1.0 mg/L. For most wetland treatment, P is not regarded as an important pollutant; however, P is a required supplement to support biological processes.

97 of 173

The retention pond provides storage for runoff generated from landfill site during the period of October through May (See Figure 1). It is anticipated that the wetland treatment for the retention pond accumulation will be operated during the frost free period of June through September. Hydraulic retention time for constructed wetlands is typically in the range of 1 to 10 days. The HRT for the proposed SSF wetland system is 4 days to maximize the removal of the contaminants based on the local conditions. Hydraulic loading rate is a primary design factor for constructed wetlands. The selection of an appropriate design loading rate should be based on several factors, including treatment objectives, wetland used for levels of treatment, wetland types, and safety factors. Since constructed wetlands technology is a variable science, the facility may be conservatively designed with low loading rates. The average loading rates for wetland treatment of municipal wastewater is approximately 3 cm/day. Considering the cold climate and runoff parameters at the landfill site, the proposed design hydraulic loading rate is 2.5 cm/day. 4. Conceptual Design of Wetland System The design of the wetland will include the sizing of wetland, a pumping system to pump runoff from the retention pond to the wetland, the plant selection suitable for the local climate and removal of contaminants, bedding materials, and the reduction of suspended materials in the retention pond. The proposed approach to the facility design is to complete a pilot study to determine the performance of the wetland system. A series of sampling tests will be needed to determine the surface runoff water characteristics in the retention pond and the wetland itself over the duration of the wetland operating 3 3 season. The estimated surface runoff volumes are 7,700 m from November to May and 6,600 m for June to October. Runoff testing to meet the guidelines of NWT, may provide some flexibility in the discharge strategies. The potential total runoff treatment needs for the wetland may be up to 14,300 m3 per year. The proposed wetland will be a subsurface flow wetland with permeable soil matrix growing medium as discussed in Section 2. Runoff will be introduced via perforated head pipe to a gravel flow dispersion trench (See Figure 2). Runoff will permeate through the side of the flow spreader trench, through a peat bed, then into the permeable medium. The sacrificial peat bed will buffer the wetland against spike concentrations of contaminants. Since there is a slope from the inlet to the discharge point of the proposed wetland area, the SSF will be designed as a horizontal subsurface flow. The design slope will be calculated based on the anticipated hydraulic conductivity of available materials for the bedding media. At the outlet of the wetland, another gravel trench will be placed with a perforated pipe. The treated runoff may then be discharged to a stream on the northeast corner of proposed SSF wetland. The ability of wetlands to remove contaminants from water relies on the emergent plants, which play a key role in a wetland treatment process. Plants provide an oxygen source to help sustain aerobic conditions in the wetland, and plant roots provide passages for water to filtrate through the bedding media. As water slowly flows through a wetland, pollutants are removed through physical, chemical, and biological processes. The physical processes include entrapment, sedimentation and adsorption. The biological processes include nitrification and denitrification, the uptake of nutrients and metals by plants, and by organisms that occupy on the bedding media. The different species of organisms and plants may have markedly different success depending on factors such as type and toxicity of individual pollutant, water level and temperature.

98 of 173

The performance of a constructed wetland for contaminant removal often depends on the proper interaction among hydraulic retention time (HRT) and flow, contaminant compositions, vegetation and seasonal temperatures. It is difficult to determine the exact area needed for effective treatment of runoff since specific hydraulic and pollution fluctuations, as well as varying local climatic conditions have to be taken into consideration. There are two methods to estimate the preliminary area for the constructed wetland. One method is to use the model based on reaction kinetics; the other method is to calculate the land area required using the selected hydraulic loading rate. The reaction kinetics model to determine the preliminary area requirements is based on desired effluent quality, first areal rate constants and background limits of the contaminants. To achieve a conservative estimate of land area required, modeling was conducted on BOD and TSS. The other factors can be used in modeling are TP, TN, ammonia, and organic nitrogen. However, the sampling programs conducted in 2004 and 2006 show that the results of these parameters are below the guidelines of NWT, 1992. The land area calculated is 840 m2 to meet the BOD discharge guideline 120 mg/L. Should the BOD discharge concentration be 45 mg/L (as in 2005 Yukon Interim), the area required is 2,070 m2. The hydraulic loading rate is assumed to be 2.5 cm/day (0.025 m3/m2/day) for optimal removal efficiency (as discussed in Section 3). Therefore, the area estimated for surface runoff treatment during an average 105 frost free days, to treat 7,700 m3 of surface runoff, is approximately 2,940 m2. Comparing the reaction model method with hydraulic loading rate method, the difference for the calculated land area to treat the same runoff volume is significant. The calculated land area by the reaction model method is the area required to treat BOD to meet the effluent guidelines, BOD is the governing parameter based upon its larger area requirement. The rate constant and temperature coefficient in the calculation are based on the broad range of study results, not specifically for the cold climate. Therefore, these parameters may not represent the actual biochemical reaction and rate constants in the proposed wetland system, particularly the temperature coefficient, Î¸. The land area requirement calculated from hydraulic loading rate is much larger than the land area calculated from the reaction model. In order to be conservative, the larger land area requirements will be applied to the proposed wetland system during the conceptual design. The pilot study results will allow for an optimization of the wetland system based upon the local conditions. 5. Recommendation and Implementation Iqaluit may develop the wetland system for the treatment of landfill on-site surface runoff. It was recommended that the subsurface flow wetland system be designed to treat the surface runoff from the landfill site of Iqaluit. During the pilot operation, by collecting the water quality parameters of the wetland influent and discharge, the operation of the wetland treatment system will be monitored and evaluated for the need to expand the system. The conceptual design for Iqaluit West 40 Landfill site surface runoff provides a practical and valuable solution for the management and protection of water bodies surround the landfill site. Following the recommendations made within this report, the next steps are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Submission of the conceptual design for regulator review; Monitoring the quality of runoff contained in control ponds and the retention pond; Completion of preliminary engineering for the pilot program for the proposed wetland treatment; Completion of detailed design and tendering for construction; Operating the facility and monitoring performance; Planning for facility optimization based on performance.

99 of 173

6. References Alberta Environment (AE). Guidelines for the Approval and Design of Natural and Constructed Treatment Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. March 2003. Donald A. Hammer. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural. Lewis Publisher, Michigan, 1990. George Mulamoottil, Edward A. McBean and Frank Rovers. Constructed Wetlands for the Treatment of Landfill Leachates. Lewis Publishers, New York, 1999. Ken Johnson, Role of Saturated and Unsaturated Zones in Soil Disposal of Septic Tank Effluent. Master of Applied Science Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1986. Keith D. Johnson, Craig D. Martin, Gerald A. Moshiri, and Willian C. McCrory. Performance of a Constructed Wetland Leachate Treatment System at the Chunchula Landfill, Mobil County, Alabama. Lewis Publishers, New York, 1999. MACA, NWT. The Guidelines for the Discharge of Treated Municipal Wastewater in the Northwest Territories, 1992. Nunavut Water Board Water Licence: City of Iqaluit, No.3AM-IQA0611 TYPE “A”, issued by Indian and Northern Affair Canada, 2006. R.H. Kadlec and R.L. Knight. Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publishers Co. 1996. R.H. Kadlec. Constructed Wetlands for Treating Landfill Leachate. In Chapter 2 of “Constructed Wetland for the Treatment of Landfill Leachates,” edited by George Mulamoottil, Edward A. McBean and Frank Rovers. Lewis Publishers, New York, 1999. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Design Manual: Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. EPA 625-1-88-022. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Research Information. Cincinnati, OH, 1988.

100 of 173

101 of 173

102 of 173

MANAGEMENT OF SEWAGE BIOSOLIDS – AN OVERVIEW OF CANADIAN ACTS, REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CITY OF IQALUIT Ken Johnson, Earth Tech Canada Inc. Mukesh Mathrani, Earth Tech Canada Inc. Earth Tech Canada Inc., 17203, 103 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T5S 1J4

INTRODUCTION In 2003, Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. was retained by the City of Iqaluit to undertake the design of improvements/upgrades to the existing non-commissioned Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). The initial facility was constructed as a membrane treatment facility, however this facility was never commissioned. The facility upgrading consists of converting the membrane facility to a conventional secondary treatment facility (activated sludge). It is the intent to upgrade the WWTP in three phases, with a first phase of construction to be completed in the spring of 2006. The first phase will provide primary treatment; the second phase will provide secondary treatment; and the third phase will provide an increase in overall capacity. The sewage sludge generated from the WWTP can be a health and environmental concern for the community and the regulatory agencies, if not properly treated and disposed off. Therefore, the City has planned to have a Sewage Sludge Management Plan (SSMP) to address community and regulatory concerns and to use the sewage sludge as “sewage biosolids”. City of Iqaluit - Location Iqaluit, place of many fish (in local language), is the largest community and the capital city of Nunavut, located in the southeast part of the Baffin Island, near the mouth of the Sylvia Grinnell River, at 63° 44′ N latitude and 68° 31′ W longitude. Iqaluit is about 2,200 kilometres east of Yellowknife. Located at the head of Frobisher Bay, this community was established in 1949 as Frobisher Bay, when the Hudson's Bay Company moved its post here from a site 70 kilometres southeast. It became a municipal hamlet in 1971, capital of Nunavut in 1999 and a City in 2001 (the only City in the territory of Nunavut). The land area of the municipal boundary is 52.34 square kilometres. Iqaluit has the distinction of being the smallest Canadian capital city in terms of population and the only capital that cannot be accessed from the rest of Canada via road.

103 of 173

FIGURE 1: MAP OF CANADA SHOWING LOCATION OF IQALUIT

FIGURE 2: IQALUIT ACROSS KOOJESSE INLET Iqaluitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s major economic activity is the Government of Nunavut and Government of Canada offices. Other economic activity includes social institutions, educational institutions, a hospital, stores and tourism.

104 of 173

City of Iqaluit - Population According to the “2001 Community Profiles” by Statistics Canada, the total population of Iqaluit was 5,236. Inuit (aboriginal people) represent approximately 85 per cent of the population. The Government of Nunavut population projection for Iqaluit is 6,477 in the year 2010 and 8,391 by 2,020. City of Iqaluit – Terrain and Climate Iqaluit’s location is above the tree line and within the continuous permafrost zone of Canada. The terrain surrounding Iqaluit is rolling, and the region generally consists of glacially scoured igneous/metamorphic terrain. The subsoil is made up of glacial drift over granitic Precambrian bedrock. The overburden consists of silty-sand, sand, gravel and boulders which vary in depth up to 18 meters. In some locations, a thin layer of organic material is found. Iqaluit experiences 8 months of the year in which the average daily temperature is below freezing, on an average. Iqaluit has an Arctic climate with January high and low temperatures of -21.5 °C and -29.7 °C, respectively and July high and low mean temperatures 11.4 °C and 3.7 °C, respectively. The annual precipitation is made up of 19.2 centimeters of rainfall and 25.5 centimeters of snowfall for a total of 43.0 cm precipitation. The prevailing winds are northwest at 16.7 kilometers/hour.

METHODOLOGY For any community development project it is necessary, and in most of cases an essential project requirement, to comply with all the regulatory requirements, federal as well as provincial/territorial. In this regard, a consultation process with all the regulatory departments is preferably exercised from the early stage of the project. This is to make sure that all the regulatory concerns are appropriately addressed to proceed with the project, properly and effectively. For the City of Iqaluit’s SSMP it was important to know about the relevant regulations, acts, standards and guidelines to develop and implement the plan, accordingly. However, no such regulatory framework exists in the Territory of Nunavut that can be directly applied to Iqaluit’s SSMP. In most cases, the laws of the Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT) are considered as a guideline. This is because the Nunavut territory was separated from the NWT in 1999. For a possible future regulation it was important to develop Iqaluit’s SSMP in such a manner that it should comply with any such regulation. Also, the City of Iqaluit is interested to make its SSMP as an example for other territorial communities. In this regard, all the acts, regulations, guidelines and standards governing sewage biosolids management in Canada were reviewed and analyzed for their application in the context of the City of Iqaluit. This paper is therefore an outcome of that review and analysis process.

105 of 173

DISCUSSION Canadian Regulatory Framework In November 2003, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), which is comprised of 14 federal, provincial and territorial member jurisdictions, agreed to pursue the development of a Canada-wide Strategy for Municipal Wastewater Effluent (MWWE), with the outcome of a harmonized (one-window) management approach for MWWE across Canada by November 2006. The MWWE Strategy will address a number of governance and technical issues resulting in a harmonized management approach. Regarding the issue of sewage sludge, the Development Committee of the CCME will prepare a proposal to develop a strategy for environmental risk management of the municipal sewage sludge. Wherever possible, opportunities to link the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) 1999 and the Fisheries Act with development of the Canada-wide Strategy will be undertaken. At this time there is no regulation under the Fisheries Act applicable to the release of effluents from municipal wastewater systems, although these systems are recognized as a significant source of harmful substances in the environment. It is envisioned that the outcome of the CCME’s MWWE process will be effective environmental protection through a harmonized management regime that will be fair, consistent and predictable. Currently, treated sewage sludges, for the most part, are provincially regulated in Canada. The following sections therefore provide a highlight of the regulatory framework in various provinces and territories of Canada related to the management of sewage sludge or sewage biosolids, including composting and land application. British Columbia In British Columbia, the “Organic Matter Recycling Regulation” (OMME) (2002) governs the discharge of sewage sludge. The regulation is designed to make sure that selected organic matter is recycled in environmentally prudent manner and to instill public confidence in the production and use of recycled organic matter. The OMRR regulation applies to the construction and operation of composting facilities and sets standards for the production, distribution, storage, sale and use or land application of sludge, and compost. The “Compost Facility Requirements Guideline” (2004) (Part 5 of the OMRR) provides guidance to compost facility operators. The “Best Management Practices Guidelines for the Land Application of Managed Organic Matter in British Columbia” (2002) is aimed to make sure that sludge is applied in environmentally safe manner, minimizing human health risks.

106 of 173

Alberta In Alberta, under the “Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act” (1993) (EPEA), Alberta Environment has the responsibility for waste management facilities dedicated to handling and disposing of non-hazardous waste including municipal sewage sludge. The “Code of Practice for Compost Facilities”, and the “General Standards for Landfills”, outlines minimum requirements for the design, construction, operation and monitoring of landfills that accept 10,000 tonnes or less per year of non-hazardous and inert waste or a compost facility accepting 20,000 tonnes or less per year of mixed organic material. Alberta Environment only requires notification with respect to compost facilities, which process only vegetative matter and/or manure. The responsibility for reviewing applications and monitoring waste facilities is managed regionally, with approvals and registrations being authorized by the Regional Directors of the Alberta Environment. The disposal of sewage sludge by incineration is regulated under the 1995 “Guidelines for Design and Operation of Refuse Incinerators in Alberta”. Saskatchewan In Saskatchewan, the “Land Application of Municipal Sewage Sludge Guidelines” (2004) provides instructions and requirements to apply/spread municipal sewage sludge onto agricultural land in a beneficial and environmentally acceptable manner, protecting the environment and human health from adverse effects. These guidelines are not applicable to industrial wastes. The “Guidelines for Sewage Works Design” (2003) applies to all sewage works described in the “Water Regulations” (2002) except for industrial wastewater works. These guidelines require a permit to construct, operate, extend or alter municipal sewage sludge application works from the Saskatchewan Environment (SE) before starting construction of such works. The SE’s review of municipal sewage sludge applications focuses mainly on the quality of sewage sludge used and protection of public health and environment. The SE does not review the projects with regard to crop production and impacts to soil chemistry for agriculture. According to these guidelines, the sewage sludge process should include considerations for sludge characteristics, energy requirements, effectiveness of sludge thickening, complexity of equipment, manpower requirements, toxic effects of heavy metals and other substances on sludge stabilization and disposal, treatment of side-stream flow such as digester and thickener supernatant, odour problems, back-up method of sludge handling and disposal and method of ultimate sludge disposal.

107 of 173

Manitoba In Manitoba, the “Water Works, Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Regulation” (1988) under the Public Health Act regulates the treatment and disposal of sewage sludge. The implementation of these regulations is the responsibility of the Department of Water Stewardship. Ontario In Ontario, sewage sludge is regulated under Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act (OEPA). The 1996 “Guidelines for the Utilization of Biosolids (Sludge) and Other Wastes on Agricultural Land”, were mainly developed by the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE). These guidelines are used by the Ontario MOE to assist them in issuing Certificates of Approval to municipalities or contractors for “organic soil conditioning site”. Certificates of Approval are required for all land application sites, and include explicit management conditions that are enforceable by the Province under the OEPA. The sludge that is sold as a fertilizer may fall under the Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC). In the wake of the tragedy in Walkerton in May 2000, the provincial government committed itself to province-wide nutrient management standards. The 2002 “Ontario Nutrient Management Act” came into force in July 2003, and included a province-wide ban on the land application of untreated sewage, to be phased in over 5 years. The Act also states a ban of sewage sludge application on snow-covered or frozen soils. The General Regulation under the Nutrient Management Act sets out specific details of the legal requirements for the handling, storage and land application of “non-agricultural materials” (nutrientrich materials not from animal sources) including sewage sludge. The generators of these non-agricultural materials, such as municipalities, are required to have a nutrient management strategy in place by 2008. The management of composting with due regard to process conditions and characteristics, to prevent contamination of the environment, is controlled by the 2004 “Interim Guidelines for the Production and Use of Aerobic Compost in Ontario”. This document includes discussion of generic composting technologies, major operating parameters, sampling and chemical analyses, monitoring of processes, reporting of results and assessment of potential off-site impacts. Quebec In Quebec, sewage sludge is considered as fertilizing residual material (FRM). The Ministry of Environment’s “Guidelines for the Beneficial Use of Fertilizing Residuals” (November 2002), is used to provide the criteria, technical requirements and regulatory standards for the reclamation of a multitude of fertilizer residuals including compost. These guidelines are the result of the 1996 Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement du Québec (BAPE)’s final report that highlighted the need to restrict landfilling of residual materials and increase reclamation in various forms.

108 of 173

New Brunswick In New Brunswick, the 1996 “Guidelines for Issuing Certificates of Approval for the Utilization of Wastes as Soil Additives”, mainly developed by the New Brunswick Departments of the Environment and Local Government, are used by the government for safe and responsible use of municipal wastes on land. These guidelines cover the acceptable methods of stabilization, suitability of the land as well as application rates, separation distances (for example, between the land and a drinking water supply) and waiting periods (between the application of the biosolids and various uses of the land). These guidelines also outline handling and follow-up requirements related to transportation, storage and record keeping for those who receive Certificate of Approval to apply biosolids. The land application of municipal wastewater biosolids as compost is regulated by the 1998 “Guidelines for the Site Selection, Operation and Approval of Composting Facilities in New Brunswick”. Nova Scotia In Nova Scotia, the use/disposal of biosolids is regulated by the 2004 “Guidelines for Land Application and Storage of Biosolids in Nova Scotia” under the Nova Scotia Environment Act. These guidelines have been created in response to a requirement to manage the biosolids generated during the treatment of domestic wastewater or septage in Nova Scotia. Research from other jurisdictions that utilize the organic matter and beneficial nutrients contained in biosolids formed the basis of these guidelines. The purpose of these guidelines is to facilitate the beneficial use of biosolids through land application, while protecting the environment and human health from adverse effects. These guidelines are also aimed to provide guidance for obtaining an Approval from the Nova Scotia Environment and Labour to land apply and/or store biosolids. These guidelines provide site selection criteria such as soil requirements, separation distances to protect public health and water quality, land slope, depth to groundwater and land use restrictions. These guidelines also require nutrient and land management plans including sampling, record keeping, monitoring and reporting of all the activities. According to these guidelines, only stabilized biosolids can be applied to land. Biosolids acceptable for land application and/or storage falls into one of three categories, depending on the metal and pathogen content: EQ, Class A, or Class B. It should be good to mention over here that EQ (Exceptional Quality), Class A and Class B identification for the sewage sludge are established by the US EPA. These classes are based upon the sewage treatment process, which will define the level of pathogenic organisms and the reduction in the vector attraction potential. These biosolids classes also dictate the application requirements of the sewage sludge, such as buffer requirements, crop harvesting restrictions, and public access to the sewage or biosolids application site.

109 of 173

EQ biosolids is the name given to treated residuals that contain low levels of metals and do not attract vectors. These biosolids, used in small quantities by general public, have no buffer requirements, crop type, crop harvesting and site access restrictions. Class A sludge contains low levels of metals, no detectible levels of pathogens, and do not attract vectors. There are no requirements regarding buffer zones, crop type, crop harvesting and site access if used in small quantities by the general public. When used in bulk, Class A sludge is subject to buffer requirements, but not to crop harvesting restrictions. Technologies that can meet Class A standards include thermal treatment methods like composting, heat drying, heat treatment, thermophilic (heat generating) aerobic digestion and pasteurization. Class A technologies, known as PFRP (Processes that can Further Reduce Pathogens), must process the sludge for a specific length of time at a specific temperature. Class A sludge may then be distributed to public for unrestricted or limited restricted application to farms, lawns, gardens, golf courses, etc. Class B sludge is treated, but can contain compliant amounts of pathogens. Class B requirements make sure that pathogens in the sludge have been reduced to levels that protect public health and the environment. This sludge is subject to buffer and crop harvesting restrictions. Treatment technologies meeting Class B standards include anaerobic digestion, aerobic digestion, composting, air-drying and lime stabilization. Class B technologies, known as PSRP (Processes that can Significantly Reduce Pathogens), must process the biosolids under certain operating conditions (length of time and temperature). Class B sludge may then be distributed to public for restricted application to farms, landfills, and forests. In Nova Scotia, there are no restrictions for land application of EQ biosolids or biosolids, regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) under the Canadian Fertilizer Act, and no Approval is required. However, the land application of either Class A or Class B biosolids requires an Approval, and restrictions pertaining to the use of these products will apply. For both Class A and Class B biosolids, land application is not permitted when the ground is frozen, snow covered or saturated. The acceptable stabilization methods to the Department of Nova Scotia Environment and Labour are: composting, aerobic digestion, anaerobic digestion, alkaline/lime stabilization, heat drying, heat treatment, and pasteurization. Other stabilization methods may be acceptable upon the Departmental review and approval. The 1998 “Composting Facility Guidelines” (revised in October 2003) under the Environment Act, administrated by the department of the Environment and Labour, provide guidelines for the proper environmental management of composting facilities in the Nova Scotia. These guidelines also provide guidance as to the requirements to obtain an approval to construct and operate a composting facility. These guidelines apply to all composting facilities requiring approval under Section 27 of the 1995 “Solid Waste-Resource Management Regulations”.

110 of 173

Prince Edward Island In Prince Edward Island, the 2003 “Sewage Disposal Systems Regulations” regulate the disposal of sewage in the province. These regulations are administrated by the provincial Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture. Newfoundland and Labrador In Newfoundland and Labrador, the 2002 “Environmental Protection Act” regulates the management of waste and disposal sites in the province. The Act is administrated by the department of Environment and Conservation and the department of Government Services. Northwest Territories In Northwest Territories, the federal department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), established under the federal Northwest Territories Water Act (1992) and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (1998), is responsible for the regulation and enforcement of waste disposal into water through territorial Water Boards. The NWT Water Board’s “Guidelines for the Discharge of Treated Municipal Wastewater in the Northwest Territories” (1992), cover the guidelines for the treatment capability of a single-cell annual discharge lagoon, the preferred sewage treatment method in the northern communities. Yukon In Yukon, the Yukon Water Board issues permits for municipal wastewater systems, including collection, treatment and release components, under the 2003 “Yukon Waters Act”. The Water Resources Division of the Yukon Department of Environment administers and audits the performance of each facility under the license, except with respect to any effluent toxicity tests, which are administrated by the Environment Canada under the Fisheries Act. The 1983 “Guidelines for Municipal Wastewater Discharges in the Yukon Territory” were developed to identify conditions and objectives of municipal wastewater quality that were considered appropriate for Yukon communities by the Water Board. These Guidelines were updated and released on July 14, 2005 as the “Draft 2005 Interim Guidelines for Municipal Wastewater Discharge”. The purpose was to help communities in the design and planning of new and upgraded sewage treatment systems that are anticipated between now and 2007 when a Canada-wide MWWE Strategy is scheduled for release. All municipal waste discharges in the Yukon are required to comply with the Yukon Waters Act, the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and other relevant legislation and regulations.

111 of 173

Nunavut In 1996, the Nunavut Water Board (NWB) adopted NWT’s municipal effluent guidelines as the “Nunavut Water Board Effluent Guidelines”. Several concerns were raised by the NWB in applying the guidelines in the Nunavut including the treatment, handling and disposal of sludge from mechanical systems. In 2001, the NWB recognizing the conflict between ‘achievable’ and ‘desired’ and the potential for industrial and commercial wastewater discharges to municipal systems with respect to the economic growth, proposed revisions to the NWB Municipal Effluent Guidelines. The 2002 “Guidelines for the Discharge of Domestic Wastewater in Nunavut” are administered by the Nunavut Water Board (NWB) through INAC. These guidelines apply to commercial and industrial wastewater discharged to municipal systems. The 1976 “Guidelines for Effluent Quality and Wastewater Treatment at Federal Establishments” apply to the disposal of sewage sludge on land. Summary of Regulatory Framewok The discussion on the regulatory framework for the sewage sludge management in the previous sections identifies that the existing system for the management of sewage sludge in Canada includes a number of Acts, Regulations, Guidelines and Standards administered by federal, provincial and territorial governments. In addition, certain municipalities administer sewer use by-laws that control the disposal of specific substances at the source. Table 1 summarizes the regulatory framework of sewage sludge (biosolids) management in the various provinces and territories of Canada. Regulatory Framework in the Context of Iqaluit’s SSMP In the context of Iqaluit’s SSMP, the regulatory framework for SSM varies between provinces and territories. But, the one thing is common in all acts, regulations, guidelines and standards that, all these pieces of regulations are aimed towards the use of sewage sludge (biosolids) in a controlled and sustainable manner, and protecting the public from any adverse health consequences. In most of the cases, the guidelines and standards are developed by one province/territory and adopted by other provinces/territories with some modifications to suit the local conditions. Also, some provinces are in the development and implementation stage of a complete set of regulations concerning the management of sewage sludge and use as a compost and/or application as soil additive. In the case of Iqaluit, therefore, considering the community background that is quite different from the other Canadian provinces, technical and financial resources, accessibility to the community and other associated difficulties it is less practical to adopt the most stringent regulatory framework at the initial stage.

112 of 173

In the context of Iqaluit, it is likely that the prevailing legislation and guidelines will pertain to most aspects of the Iqaluit’s SSM Plan including: • • • • • • • •

design, construction and operation of sewage sludge processing and end-use facilities; sewage sludge quality criteria sewage sludge transportation requirements sewage sludge site management procedures environmental assessment as part of the planning process monitoring and reporting requirements contingency planning staff training

CONCLUSION In order for the City of Iqaluit to successfully implement any form of sewage sludge management plan, an appropriate regulatory and community stakeholder dialogue needs to be implemented and maintained. REFERENCES Alberta Environment (1995), Guidelines for Design and Operation of Refuse Incinerators in Alberta. Alberta Environment Alberta Environment (2004), Standards for landfills in Alberta. Environmental Assurance Science and Standards Branch, Alberta Environment. CBCL Ltd. (2005), Atlantic Canada standards and guidelines manual for the collection, treatment and disposal of sanitary sewage. CBCL Ltd. Environment Quebec (2004), Guidelines for the beneficial use of fertilizing residuals: reference criteria and regulatory standards. Environment Quebec. Forgie, D.J.L., Saaser, L.W., Neger, M.K. (2004), Compost facility requirements guideline: how to comply with part 5 of the organic matter recycling regulation. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Government of Manitoba (1988), The public health act C.C.S.M. c. P210 water works, sewerage and sewage disposal regulation 331/88 R. Government of Manitoba. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2002), Environmental protection act. Department of Environment and Conservation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

113 of 173

Government of Prince Edward Island (2003), Chapter E-9 environmental protection act sewage disposal systems regulations (R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. E-9). Government of Prince Edward Island. Government of Yukon (1983), Guidelines for Municipal Wastewater Discharges in the Yukon Territory. Government of Yukon. Government of Yukon (2005), Draft 2005 interim guidelines for community wastewater discharge. Government of Yukon. Hinch, P.R., Bryon, S., Hughes, K., Wells, P.G. (Editors) (2002), Sewage management in the Gulf of Maine workshop proceedings. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour and Environment Canada. Marbek Resource Consultants (2005), review of existing municipal wastewater effluent (MWWE) regulatory structures in Canada, final report. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. McDougall, R., Ham, M.D.V., Douglas, M.J. (2002), Best Management Practices Guidelines for the Land Application of Managed Organic Matter in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Ministry of Environment and Local Government (2001), Waste reduction and diversion waste reduction diversion, an action plan for New Brunswick. Ministry of Environment and Local Government. Nova Scotia Environment and Labour (1998), Composting facility guidelines. Nova Scotia Environment and Labour. Nova Scotia Environment and Labour (2004), Guidelines for land application and storage of biosolids in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Environment and Labour. National Research Council Canada (2003), Biosolids Management Programs. National Research Council Canada. National Research Council Canada (2005), Communication and public consultation for biosolids management a best practice by the national guide to sustainable municipal infrastructure. National Research Council Canada. New Brunswick Department of the Environment (1996), Guidelines for issuing certificates of approval for the utilization of wastes as soil additives. New Brunswick Department of the Environment.

114 of 173

New Brunswick Department of the Environment (1998). Guidelines for the Site Selection, Operation and Approval of Composting Facilities in New Brunswick. New Brunswick Department of the Environment. Northwest Territories Water Board (1992), Guidelines for the Discharge of Treated Municipal Wastewater in the Northwest Territories. Northwest Territories Water Board. Nunavut Water Board (September 2004), Nunavut Water Board News. Nunavut Water Board (1996), Nunavut Water Board Effluent Guidelines. Nunavut Water Board. Nunavut Water Board (2002), Guidelines for the Discharge of Domestic Wastewater in Nunavut. Nunavut Water Board. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1996), Guidelines for the utilization of biosolids and other wastes on agricultural land. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1999), Guide for applying for approval of waste disposal sites sections 27, 30, 31 and 32 Environmental Protection Act R.S.O. 1990. Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1999), Guide for applying for approval of a hauled sewage (septage) or processed organic waste (biosolids) waste disposal site sections 27, 30, 31 and 32 Environmental Protection Act R.S.O. 1990. Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (2004), Interim guidelines for the production and use of aerobic compost in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Ontario Ministry of Environment (2004), Licensing guide for operators of wastewater facilities O. Reg. 129/04. Ontario Ministry of Environment Saskatchewan Environment (2002), Guidelines for sewage works design. Report No. EPB 203, Environmental Protection Branch, Saskatchewan Environment. Saskatchewan Environment (2002), The water regulations. Saskatchewan Environment. Saskatchewan Environment (2004), Land application of municipal sewage sludge guidelines. Report No. EPB 296, Environmental Protection Branch, Saskatchewan Environment.

115 of 173

United States Environmental Protection Agency (1994), A plain english guide to the EPA part 503 biosolids rule. Report No. EPA/832/R-93/003, U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, D.C. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999), Biosolids generation, use and disposal in the United States. Report No. EPA530-R-99-009, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C. Walker, J. and Mascaro, P. (1993), A guide to the federal EPA rule for land application of domestic septage to non-public contact sites (agricultural land, forests, and reclamation sites). Report No. EPA/832-B-92-005, Municipal Technology Branch, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

116 of 173

Integrated Waste Management in Iqaluit, Nunavut Ken Johnson, P.Eng., Earth Tech Canada Glenn Prosko, P.Eng., Earth Tech Canada Prepared for Consulting Engineers of Award Application, September, 2006 Received Award of Merit, Municipal Engineering Category Background Since the application of modern sewage treatment technologies in the past century, municipal sewage sludge has been an inherent part of overall waste management practices. It was traditionally considered a waste product, and disposed of like any other waste. Ultimately, however, the high nutrient characteristics and pathogens in sewage sludge were identified, and over the past 30 years sewage sludge has been recognized as a waste material that requires specific handling, treatment and disposal practices. Sewage sludge also has beneficial uses which have been covered by government regulations since the early 1990’s. These regulations discourage the disposal of untreated sewage sludge on agriculture lands or in landfills. Most municipalities in Canada recognize that sewage sludge presents treatment and disposal challenges, and that care is needed to protect public health and the environment. In the Canadian north, municipal sewage sludge has been virtually ignored because of the predominance of lagoon wastewater treatment systems. In a lagoon system, sewage sludge essentially becomes part of the lagoon itself as it settles to the bottom. Only when the performance of a lagoon starts to decrease substantially is it deemed necessary to remove sewage sludge. This periodic exercise may occur every 10 to 15 years. The application of mechanical sewage treatment systems in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, and an increased regulatory scrutiny over the past 15 years have created a demand for sewage sludge handling, treatment, and disposal. Landfilling of sewage sludge is a “tried and true” technology because of its limited requirements for planning, engineering and regulation; however, regulatory demands have been increasing, and sludge management in an engineered context is a necessary part of any new mechanical sewage treatment system. The City of Iqaluit, Nunavut has been working toward the implementation of a secondary sewage treatment system since 1998. This is an ambitious goal for the community considering the inherent challenges to the design, construction and operation of facilities in the harsh arctic environment. After an initial membrane treatment project failed to be commissioned in 2000, the City Figure 1: Trucked Sewage Discharge Iqaluit WWTP Phase 1 in background

1 117 of 173

Integrated Waste Management in Iqaluit, Nunavut chose to pursue a conventional activated sludge process: the first phase (primary treatment) of this project was commissioned in May 2006; the second phase (secondary treatment) is scheduled for implementation within the next 5 years. Community Characteristics Iqaluit is the largest community and the capital city of Nunavut, located in the southeast part of the Baffin Island, at 63° 44’ N latitude and 68° 31’ W longitude. Iqaluit is 2300 kilometres east of Yellowknife, and 2800 kilometres northeast of Edmonton. Located at the head of Frobisher Bay, the community was established in 1949 as the community of Frobisher Bay. It became a municipal hamlet in 1971 and the capital city of Nunavut in 1999. The Government of Nunavut population projection for Iqaluit was 5,600 in 2005 and the community is expected to grow to Figure 2: Iqaluit WWTP Phase 1 over 8,000 in the year 2020. Approximately 60 percent of the community is presently aboriginal. Land area within the municipal boundary is 52.3 square kilometres. Iqaluit’s location is above the tree line and within the continuous permafrost zone of Canada. The terrain surrounding Iqaluit is “rolling”, and the region generally consists of glacially scoured igneous/metamorphic terrain. The overburden consists of silty-sand, sand, gravel and boulders, which varies in depth up to 18 meters. For 8 months of the year, the average daily temperature in Iqaluit is below freezing. The January high and low mean temperatures are -21.5 °C and -29.7 °C, respectively, and the July high and low mean temperatures are 11.4 °C and 3.7 °C, respectively. Annual precipitation is 43.0 cm, and is made up of 19.2 cm of rainfall and 25.5 cm of snowfall. The community operates both a piped sewage system and a trucked sewage system. The pipe sewage system serves approximately 65 percent of the community, and the remainder of community is served by trucks which pumpout individual tanks in each home. Solid Waste Management Practices The City produces approximately 10,000 cubic meters of compacted waste, which enters the landfill each year, and includes residential, commercial and industrial wastes. Recycling is currently limited to the collection and diversion of aluminum cans. The City’s landfill operation uses the area method, which involves placing waste above grade against a berm, compacting the waste using a wheeled loader, and covering the waste using a mulch material. The waste is covered once per day during the summer and once per week during the winter.

2 118 of 173

Integrated Waste Management in Iqaluit, Nunavut

Figure 3: Iqaluit Landfill

City of Iqaluit landfill staff have taken significant steps in attempting to reduce the amount of waste entering the existing operational cell. Shredding the waste was identified as a significant volume reduction measure, as the resulting mulch may be used as a waste cover material. The amount of waste deposited at the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s landfill which is available for reuse as cover material is approximately 20% of the total annual volume. This waste for reuse consists mainly of select construction debris, furniture, cardboard and plastic. The waste is segregated from the general waste stream and stockpiled in a specific area of the landfill. Limited compaction is then used to prepare the waste material for loading in the 120 hp shredder.

Figure 4: Shredder Operation at Iqaluit Landfill Raw material on left and finished product on right

Once these materials have been properly shredded, the material is stockpiled and used for landfill cover, local road building (within landfill), and berm reinforcement during the winter months.

3 119 of 173

Integrated Waste Management in Iqaluit, Nunavut Sewage Sludge Composition and Volumes The sewage sludge waste streams from the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) will have 3 distinct components: the first will be fine screening, the second will be sludge from the primary filter, and the third will be sludge from the waste activated treatment system. The first phase of the WWTP project will incorporate only sludge streams for fine screening and the primary filter. The fine screening is accomplished utilizing screens salvaged from the original un-commissioned construction; the primary sludge is produced form a newly installed Salsnes filter. The Salsnes filter is a relatively new process with its origins in Norway, which applies a moving fabric with a nominal opening size of 300 microns to filter the sewage. The daily mass of screenings and primary sewage sludge produced from a future population of over 8,000 (in the year 2020) is Figure 5: Phase 1 Filtration expected to be approximately 1,700 kilogram (a volume Systems - Fine Screen and of approximately 1.8 to 2.0 cubic meters). With these Primary Filter quantities, the primary sewage sludge trailer would have to be unloaded once every two days. With the current population of 5,600, the sludge trailer is unloaded every two or three days.

Figure 6: Sludge from Primary Filter (Salsnes filtration unit)

Figure 7: Sewage Sludge Trailer

Environmental Planning for Sludge Management The potential land base available to the City of Iqaluit is very large at over 50 square kilometers, particularly in comparison to the population base of approximately 6,000 people. However, the potential area for sewage sludge management is very limited by the existing road network. Building any new access road is very expensive, with a capital cost in excess of $500,000 per kilometer in addition to significant operation and maintenance costs.

4 120 of 173

Integrated Waste Management in Iqaluit, Nunavut

Figure 8: Development Setback Envelope for Waste Management

Figure 9: Land Use in and around Iqaluit

One of the primary regulations governing the development of any waste management site is a 450 metres setback from residential or commercial developments. Based on the current development limits of the City, a 450 meter setback creates a significant limitation on sludge management. The City of Iqaluit has a comprehensive community plan which stipulates land use designations and identifies existing land uses of interest or concern to future land development. Of particular interest and concern are the open space areas, and a significant number of old waste disposal sites. Applying the environment planning information produced three potential locations for potential sludge disposal locations. Transportation from the WWTP to two of the sites posed a potential concern because the access routes go through the community. Based on the environmental planning exercise, the existing landfill site was recommended for sludge management.

Figure 10: Three Potential Locations for Sludge Management Sites.

5 121 of 173

Integrated Waste Management in Iqaluit, Nunavut Process Review for Sludge Treatment and Disposal Conventional municipal sewage treatment uses physical, chemical, and biological processes to separate solids and biological contaminants from municipal wastewater. Solids in the wastewater are removed through primary treatment (primary sludge), and biological contaminants are removed through secondary treatment (secondary sludge). Solids in the sludge are typically processed in a digester system, in which biodegradable materials are â&#x20AC;&#x153;digestedâ&#x20AC;? into stable organic matter. Sewage sludge may be further treated through dewatering, heat drying, alkaline (lime) stabilization, composting, or other processes. Regardless of the treatment technology, there are limited options for end use or ultimate disposal of sewage sludge, especially in a harsh arctic environment. . In Canada, approximately 388,700 dry tonnes of biosolids are produced every year. About 43% of the sewage sludge is applied to land, 47% is incinerated, and 4% is sent to landfill, with the remainder used in land reclamation and other uses. Land application has been increasing in recent years as many municipalities move away from incineration and landfill disposal due to environmental concerns with these processes. There are a variety of conventional as well as modified, patented, and proprietary sewage sludge management technologies available, and many of these technologies are not necessarily "appropriate" for the City of Iqaluit given the extreme operating conditions inherent the climate and location of the community. A comprehensive process was applied to provide a sewage sludge management plan to the City of Iqaluit. The process involved the following steps: 1. Identifying all available sewage sludge management technologies. 2. Establishing and applying screening criteria to all available sewage sludge management technologies to produce a short list for detailed evaluation. Figure 11: Sewage Sludge

3. Establishing and applying Freeze-Thaw Drying detailed evaluation criteria to screened/short listed sewage sludge management technologies to determine the preferred technology.

6 122 of 173

Integrated Waste Management in Iqaluit, Nunavut 4. Reviewing preferred sewage sludge management technologies in the northern context. 5. Recommending the “most appropriate” sewage sludge management technologies. 6. Developing means of implementing recommended (or most appropriate) sewage sludge management technologies. Additional research of the published literature on “air drying” in cold climates suggested that a “freeze thaw” process may provide an optimization consistent with the cold climate of Iqaluit. The particular climate “attributes” of Iqaluit are: 1. Extreme winter cold, with a record low of -46°C in February 1967. 2. Moderate summer warm, with a record high of +26°C in July 2001. 3. Limited moisture, with an average rainfall of 200 mm per year. Freezing and thawing, as an efficient method of sewage sludge conditioning, has been used for many years in cold climates. An important aspect of this process is that the separation of sludge particles and water is generally irreversible. The final separation is achieved when the “released” water drains away from the solids after thawing, leaving a porous sludge with solids content of 20 to 30%. Following this dewatering and drying process, composting may provide stabilization and destruction of pathogens. The composting process will require the addition of bulking materials such as wood chips and cardboard pieces. Composting of Sewage Biosolids The City of Iqaluit landfill facility has been able to divert sewage biosolids from the first phase of the WWTP. The process plan for the biosolids is to dry the solids throughout the long winter making use of Iqaluit’s cold dry weather, and compost the dried solids during the short warm summers to produce a cover material for the landfill. This process is attractive because the finished material will be non-hazardous and will reduce the use of precious granular material at the landfill - granular material may cost close to $40 per cubic metre in Iqaluit. The timeline for freeze-thaw-composting will be a two-year cycle: freezing will occur from September to May; thawing from May to June; and composting from June to September. The compost would then “mature” from September to May, with the total process taking 20 months from start to finish. This innovation follows in the steps of groundbreaking work by the Bill MacKenzie Humanitarian Society, which proved that composting is feasible in Iqaluit. The innovation captured the attention of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which approved a grant application from the City for equipment and testing.

7 123 of 173

Integrated Waste Management in Iqaluit, Nunavut

Figure 12: Composting of Household Organics Material in Iqaluit

Compatibility of Sludge Management with Improvements to Landfill In 2006 a major expansion of the City landfill was completed. Sludge management was a significant part of the expansion with a dedicated area developed for sludge freeze-thawcomposting. Overall improvements included on-site and off-site drainage management, and fencing to essentially double the operating footprint of the landfill, providing sufficient capacity through the year 2011. Although the landfill site has a finite capacity, the integrated waste management approach by the City of Iqaluit has provided the means to divert the biosolids waste stream from the landfill and create a product useful to the ultimate decommissioning of the landfill site. Managing sewage sludge through freeze-thaw-composting is not without its challenges, but the City of Iqaluit, through its progressive management of its utilities, is succeeding. Where other municipalities take for granted the technologies available to them, the arctic must re-engineer the process to suit the environment.

Figure 13: Sludge Freeze-Thaw-Composting Area of Landfill Expansion

8 124 of 173

DESTRUCTION BAY

APPLICATION OF BURNING VESSELS FOR SOLID WASTE IN DESTRUCTION BAY, YUKON

Burning in northern communities remains a common sight.

INTRODUCTION The practice of burning garbage is currently an integral part of waste management in rural Yukon. Other than the strictly landfill operations in Whitehorse, Haines Junction, Dawson, and Carmacks, all Yukon communities use some form of burning to manage their garbage. The historical practice has been to place the waste in trenches, burn it, and then cover the trenches. This "burn and bury" method allows for a significant reduction in the volume of waste, to about 15% of its original volume. This extends the life of the landfill site and reduces equipment operating times, making it more economical than 22

a sanitary landfill both in capital and operating costs. However, the toxic emissions from burning garbage, while difficult to quantify, pose a significant risk to public health and the environment. Studies have suggested that the dioxin and furan emissions from a landfill burning may be very high. This adds some argument that that the Yukon should consider the possibility of a ban on the open burning of garbage. ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES TO CONVENTIONAL BURNING Eliminating the burning of municipal solid waste in the Yukon would require sig-

nificant increases in capital, and operation and maintenance spending. Under the current waste management strategy this would certainly be the case, but it is certainly not impossible to eliminate burning, and there are alternative methods to account for the extra cost. Whitehorse, Haines Junction, Dawson, and Carmacks have all ceased burning of domestic waste; this was accomplished through intentional investment and the establishment of waste diversion programs. Whitehorse, for example, has a wellestablished private recycling sector, and the City operates a large scale composting service. Carmacks opened a new landfill site to accommodate the extra garbage resulting from a burning ban. Haines Junction has purchased a compactor system at a cost of C$ 98,000.00, allowing the community to compress its garbage and extend the life of the landfill. Incineration has been applied as a cleaner, more efficient method of waste disposal compared to open burning, but at a cost of millions of dollars. The high-efficiency incinerator used by the City of Skagway, Alaska had a capital cost of about US$2.3 million (1998), and the community spends about US$50,000 per year on fuel, in addition to staffing 1.5 operators. While incineration is certainly cleaner and more efficient than open burning, many communities like Skagway have found that it

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2006 125 of 173

by Ken Johnson, Technical Editor, NTWWA Journal with contributions by Matthew Nefstead, Department of Environment, Government of Yukon and Pat McInroy, Government of Yukon

DESTRUCTION BAY

Open burning in a northern solid waste disposal site.

Large burning vessel configuration.

Small burning vessel configuration.

requires a large capital investment, high operation costs, a large amount of garbage, and constant supervision by skilled operators.

It is estimated that paper and other organics make up about 65% of the waste stream in the Yukon. If every residence in the Yukon used a backyard composter, it is conceivable that landfilled waste could be reduced by half. PUBLIC EDUCATION Ultimately the most important option for waste reduction is public education. It is estimated that paper and other organics make up about 65% of the waste stream in the Yukon. If every residence in the Yukon used a backyard composter, it is conceivable that landfilled waste could be reduced by half. Another worthy target of public education campaigns is recycling participation. Recycling programs are becoming

increasingly accessible in the Yukon, but people need to use this service if it is going to make a difference. The authorities responsible for waste management in each community may encourage residents in rural areas to make use of available recycling programs, adjusting their disposal practices in accordance with a realization of the quantity of recyclable material they normally throw away. According to a 1995 waste management report, plastics, glass and metals make up 25% of the waste stream by weight. DESTRUCTION BAY BURNING VESSEL There are a number of ways to increase the efficiency of open burning, mostly by increasing the available airflow. These methods cause a significant reduction in the production of dangerous emissions, and it is recommended that some of these be adopted in the Yukon if open burning continues. Applying this principle using "made in the Yukon" technology, the Community Development Branch of the Government of the Yukon, has implemented a burning vessel. The burning vessels are making good use of abandoned fuel tanks along the Alaska Highway that were part of the oper-

ation of the Highway over the past 60 years. The tanks are generally about 7 metres in diameter (24 feet), and are modified with a cutting torch to provide 12 millimetre (mm) venting screens, and reinforced doors. The burning vessels are easily loaded into the back of pickup truck. Another added benefit to the burning vessels is that they are completely portable by demolition with a cutting torch, and reconstruction at more distant locations. Not only do the burning vessels provide an increased burning efficiency, reducing pollution, but they also provide a controlled burn. This additional benefit is in response to the increasing wildfire danger in the Yukon, which may require a buffer zone of 50 metres if conventional burning is used. The increased buffer zone from 30 metres to 50 metres is an expensive undertaking for the additional clearing. The regulatory authorities have provided generally positive feedback to this innovation, and a total of 6 installations are expected by the end of 2006. The Yukon burning vessel concept is an excellent example of appropriate technology applied in a northern context, and providing an incremental improvement to waste management practices. HI

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2006

23 126 of 173

Hamlet of Cambridge Bay Sewage & Solid Waste Facilities

Planning Report for New Waste Management Sites July 12, 2006 127 of 173

HAMLET OF CAMBRIDGE BAY SEWAGE AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT 1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background

In our proposal for the Cambridge Bay sewage & solid waste facilities, Earth Tech presented two scenarios to the Government of Nunavut for improvement to the community’s sewage and solid waste facilities: Scenario 1 was the Redevelopment of Existing Facilities, and Scenario 2 was a New Site Development and Existing Site Closure. Earth Tech was directed by the Government of Nunavut to proceed with Scenario 2. Six potential waste management sites were identified during a community workshop in late February, 2006. These sites were identified based upon a 5 km envelope around the community (See Figures 1 and 2), and setbacks from identifiable water bodies. Two additional landfill sites were also suggested during this workshop. The objective of this report is to provide planning information for each of the proposed waste management sites based upon a landfill configuration for solid waste management, and a lagoon/wetland for sewage treatment. 1.2

Waste Management Processes

The site planning information for each of the proposed waste management areas has applied the use of a landfill for waste management and a lagoon/wetland for sewage treatment. The application of a landfill remains an appropriate technology for most northern communities because of its reasonable capital, and operation and maintenance costs, and its ease of operation and maintenance. Lagoon/wetland systems are an emerging technology for northern communities. Lagoon systems, by themselves, have been in operation in northern communities for decades. An improvement in the application of lagoon technology has been the complimentary addition of a wetland to the lagoon system to provide a post treatment process. The success of the lagoon/wetland systems has been recently documented in an article about the wetland facility in Coral Harbour (See Appendix B). 1.3

Planning Analysis Scope

The scope of the planning analysis is: • • • • • • • 2.

Determine the area requirements for a landfill and a lagoon/wetland site; Analyze the proximity issues to each site (human activities, and natural features); Identify and analyze of potential road access to the each landfill and lagoon sites; Estimate capital cost to develop each site; Estimate operation and maintenance costs for each site; Present general site development configurations for the sites; Present conclusions on the planning analysis.

SITE DEVELOPMENT AREA REQUIREMENTS

The appropriate planning horizon for a new landfill site has been identified to be 40 years based upon the recognition of the long term needs (spatial and environmental) of solid waste management. The appropriate planning horizon for a new sewage facility is 20 years. Initial calculations have been completed for sewage for the period of 2006 to 2025 (20 years) and for solid waste for the period of 2006 to 2045 (40 years). These calculations were originally 1 128 of 173

HAMLET OF CAMBRIDGE BAY SEWAGE AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT

presented in the February 6, 2006 Progress Report, and are included in Appendix C of this report. According to these calculations, the annual sewage volume in 2025 for Cambridge Bay will be 120,572 m3, and total accumulated solid waste volume in 2045 will be 290, 615 m3 (based on 3:1 compaction ratio). Based on the sewage generation volume, approximately 9 hectares of land area is required for the sewage lagoon. The required area for lagoon is based on the assumption that the average depth of existing ponds is 2 m; the area may vary depending on the depths of the existing ponds. An additional wetland area is required in order to provide a post treatment improvement to the quality of the sewage lagoon effluent before it is discharged into the receiving water bodies. Based upon the solid waste generation volume approximately 13 hectares of land area is required for the landfill. This development area is based upon developing the site in two 1 metres lifts, and providing an additional operating area for waste diversion. 3.

PLANNING ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITES

A total area of 13 ha (approximately 10 ha as an active area) is required to accommodate the solid waste generation for the next 40 years. This area is available for all the sites identified during the February workshop, and also for the areas suggested by the Hamlet. There are many water bodies surrounding these sites, but none of these sites are used as a source of water supply to the Hamlet. Therefore, there should be no concern regarding the contamination of potable water supply serving the Hamlet of Cambridge Bay. However, measures should be taken to provide the appropriate runoff management to avoid the flow of contaminated landfill runoff into the adjacent water bodies. At this stage there is not enough information available about surficial materials, snow accumulation and vegetation on any these sites. These pieces of information are necessary to appropriately plan and ultimately develop a landfill site. There will be a need for additional information collection in support of a detailed planning and analysis to develop any of these sites in a manner acceptable to the public and the regulatory agencies. Site 1 Site 1 site is approximately 1 kilometre from the existing community boundary to the north, and northwest of the existing landfill site (See Figures 1, 2, 3, and A1). This site can be considered in the close proximity of the community, however, the site has an advantage of accessibility; there is no need of building an access road to this site. Site 2 Site 2 is approximately 2.2 kilometres from the community boundary in the northwest (approximately 1.7 km from site 1) (See Figures 1, 2, 4, and A2). This site is within 2 kilometres of the airport, and therefore may be a concern for bird hazards to aircraft. To develop this site a new 800 metre access road is needed. Site 3 Site 3 is approximately 4.5 kilometres from the community boundary to the west (approximately 2 km from site 2) (See Figures 1, 2, 5, and A3). This site is within 2 kilometres of the airport, and therefore would be a concern for bird hazards to aircraft. To develop this site a new 500 metre access road is needed. 2 129 of 173

HAMLET OF CAMBRIDGE BAY SEWAGE AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT Site 4 Site 4 is approximately 8.5 kilometres from the community boundary to the west (approximately 4.5 kilometres from site 3) (See Figures 1, 2, 6, and A4). Access to this site may be a major concern because it must traverse the airport parameter. Access will also have significant demands for capital costs to upgrade the existing access, and the operation and maintenance costs. This site is in close proximity to several cottages. Site 5 Site 5 is approximately 4.5 kilometres from the community boundary to the northwest (See Figures 1, 2, 7, and A5). Access will have significant demands for capital, and operation and maintenance costs. To develop this site a new 2 kilometre access road is needed. Site 6 Site 6 is approximately 3.5 kilometres from the community boundary to the north east (See Figures 1, 2, 8, and A6); approximately 1 kilometre from the existing trail along the river. This site is not in close proximity of the community or the airport, however, access to the site must be developed through improvements to the existing road and a new 2 kilometre road. Site 7 Site 7 is approximately 5 kilometres from the community boundary in the east (See Figures 1, 2, 9, and A7). This site is not in the close proximity of the community and the airport, however, access to the site must be developed through improvements to the existing road, a bridge, and a new 3.7 kilometre road. Site 8 Site 8 is approximately 3.5 kilometres from the community boundary in the south east (See Figures 1, 2, 10, and A8); approximately 1 km from the Bay. This site is not in the close proximity of the community and the airport, however, access to the site must be developed through improvements to the existing road, a bridge, and a new 3.2 kilometre road. 4.

PLANNING ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SITES

Constructed lagoons and lagoons converted from natural waterbodies are two main types of engineered sewage treatment facilities commonly used in cold regions. Seasonal discharge is commonly used for both types of lagoon system. Conversion of a natural waterbody into a sewage lagoon may decrease construction costs, therefore, it is recommended option where the biophysical conditions are favorable. Constructed lagoons can be used where there is no suitable natural waterbody available. Eight potential sewage lagoon and wetland sites are identified for the treatment and disposal of the Hamlet's sewage. Each of the potential sites will be located near to a landfill site in order to provide convenience of operation and management. At this stage there is only very limited information available about these sites. There will be a need for additional information collection in support of a detailed planning and analysis to develop any of these sites in a manner acceptable to the public and the regulatory agencies. The additional information may include local hydrology, surrounding topography, geometry of the ponds, the fishing and recreational use, vegetation, and snow accumulation. 3 130 of 173

HAMLET OF CAMBRIDGE BAY SEWAGE AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT

Site 1 Site 1 is planned to incorporate the landfill site 1 nearby (See Figures 1, 2, 3, and A1). A constructed lagoon has been applied since there is no suitable waterbody nearby except for the existing lagoon site. The proposed constructed lagoon site is about 100 m away from the proposed landfill site 1, and about 1.0 kilometre to the community boundary in the north. There is existing access to the lagoon site. The southwest area of the lagoon site would be developed as wetland to improve the water quality of the effluent from the lagoon before it enters the environment; the seasonal discharge would flow on the west side of the community. A concern regarding this option is the close proximity of the community.

Site 2 Site 2 is planned to incorporate the landfill site 2 nearby (See Figures 1, 2, 4, and A2). This proposed lagoon site is about 1 kilometer away from the proposed landfill site 2, about 3 kilometres to the community, and 3 kilometres to the airstrip. A nearby area may be developed to a wetland as post treatment to the lagoon; the seasonal discharge would flow on the west side of the community. Approximately 800 meters of road is required to be constructed in order to access the proposed lagoon site.

Site 3 Site 3 is planned to incorporate the landfill site 3 nearby (See Figures 1, 2, 5, and A3). This proposed lagoon site is about 2 kilometres away from the proposed landfill site 3, about 4.5 kilometres to the community, and 2.5 kilometres to the airstrip. The discharge from the proposed lagoon will flow through the proposed wetland and several downstream ponds for some 5 kilometres to Cambridge Bay; the seasonal discharge would flow on the west side of the community. There is existing trail to the proposed lagoon site, but this would have to be upgraded for the lagoon development.

Site 4 Site 4 is planned to correspond with landfill site 4 nearby (See Figures 1, 2, 6, and A4). The distance from this site to the community is approximately 9 kilometres, and 600 metres to the proposed landfill site 4. The effluent from the lagoon may be discharged to a wetland before entering the West Arm. There is an existing trail to the proposed lagoon site, but this would have to be upgraded for the lagoon development.

Site 5 Site 5 is planned to correspond with landfill site 5 nearby (See Figures 1, 2, 7, and A5). The distance from this site to the community is some 6 kilometres, and 300 metres from the proposed landfill site 5. Approximately 4 kilometres of new road must be constructed in order to access the site. The discharge from the proposed lagoon will flow through the proposed wetland and several downstream ponds for some 8 kilometres to Cambridge Bay. The seasonal discharge would flow on the west site of the community.

Site 6 Site 6 is planned to correspond with landfill site 6 nearby (See Figures 1, 2, 8, and A6). The distance from this site to the community is about 5 kilometres, and 100 metres to Greiner Lake. The water quality of the effluence from the lagoon will be improved by wetland before the discharge enters environment. The existing track has to be extended at least 2.5 kilometres in order to access the site. A concern regarding this option is the treated effluent discharge into freshwater creek. 4 131 of 173

HAMLET OF CAMBRIDGE BAY SEWAGE AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT

Site 7 Site 7 is planned to correspond with landfill site 7 nearby (See Figures 1, 2, 9, and A7). The distance from this site to the community is about 5 kilometres, and 400 metres to the proposed landfill site 7. The existing trail has to be improved and extended at least 3 kilometres in order to access the site, and a new bridge will be required to cross the river.

Site 8 Site 8 is approximately 2 kilometres west from the proposed landfill site 8 (See Figures 1, 2, 10, and A8). A new bridge and a 1 kilometre of road have to be built in order to access the site. 5.

COST ESTIMATES

5.1

Cost Estimates for Development of Landfill Options

The cost estimates for the landfill sites discussed in section 3 are shown in Table 1. These costs do not include the cost of construction of access to the sites. The details of the cost estimates are presented in Appendix D.

Table 1. Cost Estimates for Landfill Site Development Option

Capital Cost

O&M Costs Per Year*

Description

1 to 8

$400,400

$20,020

Landfill site development

Note: The O&M costs per year are estimated based on 5% of capital cost. These estimated costs DO NOT include: • • • 5.2

Costs associated with land acquisition. Costs associated with site access. Costs associated with restoration/post closure of existing waste facilities. Cost Estimates for Development of Sewage Treatment Options

The cost estimates for the sewage treatment and disposal sites discussed in section 4 are summarized in Table 2. These costs do not include the cost of construction of access to the sites. The details of the cost estimates are presented in Appendix D.

Table 2. Cost Estimates for the Sewage Treatment Options Option

Capital Cost

O&M Cost Per Year*

Description

$7,627,200

$76,000

Constructed lagoon + wetland

2-8

$2,403,800

$72,000

Lagoon created from natural waterbody + wetland

5 132 of 173

HAMLET OF CAMBRIDGE BAY SEWAGE AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT Note: *The O&M costs per year are estimated based on 5% on $0 to $2 M capital; 4% on $2 to $3 M capital; 3% on $3 to $4 M capital; 2% on $4 to $5 M capital; and 1% on >$5 M capital. These estimated costs DO NOT include: • • • • • 5.3

Costs of agreements for wetland development. Costs associated with land acquisition. Costs associated with discharge agreement. Costs associated with restoration/post closure of existing waste facilities. Costs associated with site access (See Section 5.3 for this information). Cost Estimates for Access Roads to Development Areas

The cost estimates for the access to the sewage treatment and disposal sites are summarized in Table 3. The details of the cost estimates are presented in Appendix D.

Table 3. Cost Estimates for Access Road Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Capital Cost $560,000 $2,520,000 $1,260,000 $3,360,000 $4,060,000 $2,380,000 $5,600,000 $5,320,000

O&M Cost Per Year* $10,000 $30,000 $22,500 $50,000 $32,500 $22,500 $35,000 $40,000

Note: The access costs include the estimate costs of the new access roads and improvement of the existing trails. * The O&M costs per year are estimated based on $5,000 per km per year. These estimated costs DO NOT include: • • • • • 6.

Costs of agreements for wetland development. Costs associated with land acquisition. Costs associated with discharge agreement. Costs associated with the improvement of existing trails. Costs associated with restoration/post closure of existing waste facilities.

SITE CONFIGURATIONS

The configurations of the proposed landfill and lagoon/wetland sites should follow the generally accepted layouts presented in Figures 11 and 12. The key element in the configurations is the access, both to the site and within the site, which must be an all weather road. The access size, particularly on site, must have sufficient size to allow vehicle movements. The landfill has the most complex site configuration because of the need to divert various waste streams. 6 133 of 173

HAMLET OF CAMBRIDGE BAY SEWAGE AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT Diversion must include hazardous waste, and should include biohazardous waste such as honeybags and animal carcasses; tires may also be diverted from the waste stream. The general waste is segregated into municipal solid waste and bulky waste, which essentially describes the waste that can be easily compacted, and the waste that can not be easily compacted. Further features of the landfill configuration include site drainage management for "on-site" and "off-site" runoff. Off-site runoff is water that has not been contaminated by draining through the landfill, and onsite runoff is water that is potentially contaminated by draining through the landfill. On-site runoff may require containment and treatment, depending upon its contaminants. The landfill configuration also includes site operating structures, and fencing for controlling the activity on the site and to catch blowing debris. The lagoon/wetland configuration includes the inlet structure the lagoon, the outlet structure (pumping or piping), fencing to control site activity, and the wetland area. Configurations for both landfill and lagoon/wetland require significant engineering design and construction to provide facilities that operate in an efficient and effective manner.

SITE DEVELOPMENT INNOVATIONS

Landfills and sewage lagoons designed and operated in the north are generally very simple in their design, construction, operation and maintenance in order to provide a cost effective solution for the community and the senior government. These features also provide also provide a facility that the community may effectively operate and maintain. Innovations may be limited by the very nature of these facilities. A recent article on the landfill serving the City of Iqaluit presents some interesting innovations that may be applied to Cambridge Bay (See Appendix B). The main innovation is the use of wood waste in the construction and operation of the landfill site. A potential innovation in lagoon system may be the application of a "submerged" berm structure to provide a barrier for a primary cell in the lagoon system. Primary lagoons provide a valuable separation of solids within the treatment process, and provide an opportunity for the periodic removal of solids. Traditional primary lagoon structures with discharge pipelines to secondary cells are prone to freezing in the discharge structures from the lagoon. The submerged berm structure provide a barrier between the a primary and secondary cell and provides an opportunity for solids to be retained in the primary cell while providing a large weir structure for the sewage to overflow into a secondary cell.

DISCUSSION OF THE POTENTIAL SITES

In the planning analysis context, a number of issues need to be considered in conjunction with the discussion and ultimately the recommendation of potential waste management sites. For the development of the Cambridge Bay integrated sewage and solid waste facilities, the following issues should be considered. • • • • •

Access to the site. Proximity issues (human activities, natural features and local receptors). Site configuration. Estimated capital cost to develop a site. Estimated operation and maintenance costs.

Other issues including surficial materials, snow accumulation, local hydrology, and vegetation should 7 134 of 173

HAMLET OF CAMBRIDGE BAY SEWAGE AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES PLANNING REPORT also be considered, although they are not taken into account at this stage due to the availability of limited information. The selection of the sewage site is incorporated with the selection of landfill site options in order to minimize the environmental impacts, capital cost, and operation and maintenance cost. Of the eight potential sites (Table 4) considered for the integrated sewage and solid waste facilities, Site 1 is not considered for further discussion because of its proximity to the community and the conflict with future community development to the north and west. In addition, Site 2 and Site 3 are not considered for further discussion given their proximity to the airport, which is a potential bird hazard to aircraft. In comparing the other six options (Table 4), the Site 6 appears to be the most economical site based upon capital cost assuming the existing track can be improved to access the site. Site 4 appears to be the second most economical site based upon capital assuming the existing track can be improved to access the site. As mentioned above, the analysis is based on the available information. Whether Site 6 can be ultimately developed as the future sewage and solid waste facility site depends upon further investigation. The investigation includes the condition of the existing track, the geometry of the natural pond, detail topography of the area, the vegetation of the proposed wetland, and other biophysical and land use features around the site.

Table 4. Comparison of Sewage and Solid Waste Facilities Options

Option

Total Capital Cost

Distance From Airport

Distance From Community

Distance Between Sewage Site And Landfill Site

4 5 6 7 8

$6,164,200 $6,864,200 $5,184,200 $8,404,200 $8,124,200

>3 km >3 km >3 km >3 km >3 km

9 km 6 km 5 km 5 km 3 km

0.6 km 0.3 km 0.1 km 0.4 km 2 km

New Access Road Required

1 km 4 km 2 km 4 km 3 km

Existing Trail

Length Of Sewage Discharge Route

O&M Costs Per Year

9 km 2.5 km 2.5 km 3 km 5 km

0.3 km 8 km 2.5 km 2 km 0.1 km

$140,000 $130,000 $115,000 $127,000 $132,000

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon planning analyses of all the identified sites for solid waste and sewage waste facilities it is concluded that: • • • • • • •

The necessary area required for the landfill facility is available at all the sites. Water bodies are available at all the sites to use them as a sewage pond. The area is available for the wetland post treatment at all the sites. There is limited information available about the sites. Developing a new solid/ sewage waste site requires an access road. Community consultation on the sites should now be undertaken to determine the concerns associated with each site. A preliminary reconnaissance should be undertaken on each site to advance the available information. 8 135 of 173

136 of 173

137 of 173

138 of 173

139 of 173

140 of 173

141 of 173

142 of 173

143 of 173

144 of 173

145 of 173

146 of 173

147 of 173

TSIIGEHTCHIC

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS IN TSIIGEHTCHIC, NT Tsiigehtchic area map showing water and water facilities.

Background Solid waste management is a challenge for most of the communities in the Yukon, NWT, and Nunavut, however the community of Tsiigehtchic, NWT has managed to keep pace with the challenges. The Charter Community of Tsiigehtchic is a Gwich’in community located at 67O 27’ N and 133O 46’ W in the Inuvik Region of the Northwest Territories. The community has a population of about 200 people , and is located at the confluence of the Arctic Red River, and the Mackenzie River on a high point of land. The town site is 1010 air kilometres northwest of Yellowknife; the Dempster Highway connects Tsiigehtchic to Inuvik, 125 kilometres to the northeast, and Whitehorse, Yukon 1400 kilometres to the southwest. For hundreds of years, the Gwichya Gwich’in of

Introduction The development and sustaining of infrastructure in cold region communities, which includes solid waste management, has always been influenced by a variety of technical, financial, administrative, operational and regulatory factors. Over the past 10 years the complexity of these factors has increased substantially with changes to the available financial resources, the administrative structures, the operational responsibilities, and the regulatory environments. Many of these changes have increased the overall complexity of infrastructure development, and sustainability in cold region communities, particularly at the community level. Many communities are finding the demands of these complexities to be well beyond their financial and administrative resources, and as a consequence are placing themselves in very undesirable situations with regard to community funding and regulatory compliance.

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2005 148 of 173

By Ken Johnson, MCIP, P.Eng., Senior Planner and Engineer, Earth Tech, Edmonton

TSIIGEHTCHIC

Tsiigehtchic traveled up the Arctic Red River into the mountains along the Yukon, NWT border, in late summer. There they lived and hunted through the winter, and when the river opened in the spring, they returned to their fishing grounds at Tsiigehtchic, and other places along the Mackenzie River. Missionaries established a Roman Catholic church in the area in 1868, however some families continued to winter in the mountains until the 1960s. Construction of the Dempster Highway in the 1970s brought wage employment to the community. Surface material around the community is a mixture of gravel, sand and fine sediments, with outcrops of sandstone and shale; this is underlain by sandy or silty clay. The active layer around the community is 0.3 to 0.5 metres deep. The dominant trees are black spruce and birch, which grow in well drained land areas; willow grows in the poorly drained areas. Existing Solid Waste Facilities The solid waste disposal facilities in Tsiigehtchic operates in two adjacent areas immediately west of the sewage lagoon, and 1 kilometre east of the community. The landfill areas provide discrete sites for the disposal of municipal solid waste, household hazardous waste, clean fill, honey bag waste, and bulky waste. The solid waste disposal systems include:

The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut 201, 4817 - 49th Street Yellowknife, NT X1A 3S7 www.napegg.nt.ca

Protecting the Public by registration of Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists Look for the Designation P.Eng. | P.Geol. | P.Geoph. For information on registration or to confirm that a company or individual is licensed to practice in the Northwest Territories and/or Nunavut, contact NAPEGG at (867) 920-4055.

Solid waste site plan. • a municipal solid waste area; • a household hazardous waste disposal area; • a bagged sewage disposal area; and • a bulky waste disposal area. The active portion of the disposal area covers an area of approximately 0.8 hectares with additional solid waste related areas to the south (bagged sewage pit, and hazardous waste area). A bulky waste site is also south of the main site. The solid waste area is used by both the public and the local industries with no direct fee charged. There is no permanent supervision of the site, and no records of the quantities and types of waste that are kept. In 2003 the Community deposited approximately 1700 cubic metres of municipal solid waste. This volume is based upon an estimated average of 7.5 truck loads per week in a 9 cubic metre truck (4.3 cubic metres per load). Condition of Facilities The solid waste disposal facilities for Tsiigehtchic generally appear to be well managed, and this observation is supported by the Municipal Water Use Inspections conducted over the past several years. The appropriate equipment is used to collect, and manage the site. Several aspects of the operations are in need of improvement in order to satisfy the generally accepted practices for solid waste disposal. These aspects concern landfill burning and hazardous waste collection and storage. Open burning of municipal solid waste is a practice that is no longer acceptable from public health and environmental impact perspectives. This position is supported in the most recent guidelines for operations and maintenance of solid

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2005

31 149 of 173

TSIIGEHTCHIC waste sites in the NWT. The hazardous waste storage area is a bermed area on the south side of the waste disposal area. The area is used for the storage of waste oil, batteries, and paint. The collection of hazardous waste in Tsiigehtchic appears to include a significant nonresidential component. Although this may be seen as a beneficial community activity, in fact, it is a tremendous liability for the community administration. Nonresidential hazardous waste is not the responsibility of the community administration, and the non residential community must be instructed to appropriately dispose of hazardous waste at their own cost and effort. The bulky waste area occupies an area south of the main solid waste disposal site. The bagged sewage pit is a bermed area on the south side of the waste disposal area. The pit receives no cover material. Waste Management Improvements and Future Needs The existing municipal solid waste area is full, and the entire site needs to be redeveloped to accommodate any future waste disposal. A redeveloped site would have an estimate volume of 5,520 cubic metres without any volume reduction by burning or diversion. This would provide approximately 10 years of capacity. Approximately 25% of the honey bag waste area has been used in 3 years of operation, based upon visual inspection and estimate. The remaining capacity is estimated to be 10 to 12 years. The hazardous waste area requires periodic removal of the various stockpiled wastes for shipment to the appropriate treatment and disposal facility. The existing bulky waste is full, and the new site needs to be developed to accommodate any future waste disposal . Conclusions The small communities of the NWT and Nunavut have the potential to appropriately operate and maintain solid waste management facilities, as 32

seen in the community of Tsiigehtchic. Critical to their management is having an appropriately engineered and organized site, with the appropriate equipment and operation and maintenance documentation. Senior governments and regulators must also play a role in the operation and maintenance of the facilities by

providing the communities with the appropriate information and resources for technical demands such as improving operation and maintenance practices. Small communities often do not have the capacity to retain or maintain a resource for assisting in this manner. !"

Supplying Quality Products For Over Forty-Six Years Liquid Alum â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Dry Alum Sulphuric Acid Aqua Ammonia â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Phosphoric Acid Certified to ANSI/N.S.F. Standard 60

Box 62037, 104 Regent Ave. Winnipeg, MB R2C 5G2

Phone #: (204) 222-3276 Fax #: (204) 224-0562

Journal of the Northern Territories Water & Waste Association 2005 150 of 173

RESIDENTIAL LAND USE RELATED TO LANDFILL SITES IN COLD REGION COMMUNITIES Ken Johnson, MASc, P.Eng. Land Use Planner Earth Tech Canada <ken.johnson@earthtech.ca>

ABSTRACT The 65 communities in the Northwest and Nunavut Territories of Canada each have a unique history of settlement and development. With settlement and development evolved waste disposal sites that were a product of convenience, rather than any appropriate waste management practices. As a result, many communities have waste disposal sites that are close to potential community residential expansion areas. The regulatory framework currently governing community residential development in the vicinity of either a remediated or unremediated waste disposal site in the Territories has a specific setback requirement of 450 metres. There is no specific setback distance for remediated solid waste sites pursuant to the NWT Public Health Act. In fact, the General Sanitation Regulations under the Act refers to the setback distance for all waste disposal grounds and as such, may be interpreted to include remediated waste sites. This approach to the setback for landfill sites is beginning to have impacts on communities as the communities continue to grow, and Land Use Plans are updated to identify areas for future growth. The impact on communities to “leap over” waste disposal sites in distances approaching 1,000 metres is significant from an infrastructure perspective (capital, operation, and maintenance costs) and a social perspective (distance to family, friends, and amenities). A rational approach to a potential relaxation of the setback distance is presented for the Territories based upon the criteria of: site activity, remediation undertaken, subsurface conditions, surface conditions and community perception. This rational is compared to the application of landfill setback distances and landfill management that have been developed in the State of Alaska.

030626

LANDFILLS-

REVISED AFFILIATION.DOC

INTRODUCTION Landfill Practices and Types Landfills in cold region communities are evolving from waste management of convenience to engineered landfill sites. The evolution of waste management sites from the so-called “dump” to the engineered landfill sites has occurred over many years, and is far from finished. Many landfills remain very unsatisfactory to regulatory officials from public health and environmental impact perspectives. The reasons behind the remaining poor waste management practices are many, and include insufficient resources for waste management to an incomplete understanding of what appropriate waste management should include. The landfills utilized in the cold regions may be generally categorized into four different types as shown in Figure 1. The depression and embankment types represent landfills developed from convenience rather than design. The mound and excavation types represent engineered landfills that cold region communities now strive to construct and maintain. Many local factors ultimately determine the ultimate configuration and location of the landfill in a community. The lining of community landfills in cold regions with an engineered material has never been undertaken and is unlikely to be undertaken in the foreseeable future given the added cost and the limited community capital budgets. Impact of Setbacks The impact of current setback requirements of the General Sanitation Regulations of the NWT and Nunavut Health Acts on residential development is twofold, as shown in Figure 2. The first impact is objective, and may be quantified in the capital cost of constructing a road and power supply which carries

151 of 173

030626

LANDFILLS-

REVISED AFFILIATION.DOC

152 of 173

on to a new residential development; the cost of operating and maintaining the road; and the cost of operating water, sewer, fuel and waste management vehicles over this road.

Although the regulation conveys some discretionary authority by the Health Officer, in practice, the regulators have not exercised any discretion with regard to setbacks.

The second impact is subjective in the separation distance between neighbourhoods. This separation limits access to amenities, and the social structure of the community, both of which are very important to aboriginal communities.

As well, the Regulations also state that every waste disposal ground shall be:

BACKGROUND Leachate and Methane Gas The public health, public safety and environmental impact concerns with landfills arise primarily from the production of leachate and methane gas. The generation of leachate and methane gas is dependent upon a number of factors, including temperature, moisture and overall makeup of the landfill, including the chemical nature and the physical nature of the waste. These factors have been well studied, and well documented in a southern context, however, the variability of these factors in a cold region context is not well documented or well studied. Of the dependent factors, temperature and moisture may be considered to be limiting because without moisture leachate will not be generated, and without moisture or heat methane gas will not be generated. General Sanitation Regulations The General Sanitation Regulations to the Public Health Acts in the NWT and Nunavut are intended to address the public health and safety aspects. The Regulations state that no building used for human habitation shall be: 1. 2.

030626

nearer than 450 m to a waste disposal ground; or on any site, the soil of which has been made up of any refuse, unless the refuse has been removed from the site or has been consolidated or the site has been disinfected in every case and the site has been approved by a Health Officer.

LANDFILLS-

REVISED AFFILIATION.DOC

1. 2. 3.

located at least 90 m from any public road allowance, railway, right-of-way, cemetery, highway or thoroughfare; located at least 450 m from any building used for human occupancy or for the storage of food; and situated at such a distance from any source of water or ice for human consumption or ablution that no pollution shall take place.

A Commissionerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Exception to these regulations is possible, however, this is a long and potentially political process. A Commissionerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Exception has only been granted in a few cases in the NWT. The Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk The potential impact of these regulations varies from community to community, however, the community of Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territories is a classic example of the potential influence of landfill setbacks on community residential development (See Figure 3). The community has three landfills at various stages of activity. Two of the landfills have been closed and remediated, however, under the General Health Regulations, these waste disposal grounds shall be located at least 450 metres from any building used for human occupancy. The impact to existing and future community development by the application of the setback is significant given the limited land base of the community. Obviously the application of the setback to the landfill near the community core would likely receive an exception based upon its proximity to a built up area and also the remediation completed. The other two sites present no opportunity under the current regulation for any change in the setback, and pose a significant impact on future residential development in a community which has extremely limited space for residential expansion.

153 of 173

ANALYSIS Leachate and Methane Gas Production The generation of leachate is dependent upon factors including moisture, permeability of the landfill matrix, and absorption capacity of the landfill matrix. Of these conditions, moisture may be the primary limiting factor for the simple reason that without moisture leachate will not be generated. The moisture data presented in Table 1 compares the total precipitation for key cold region communities for comparison to several southern Canadian centres. In the cold region communities, with the exception of Iqaluit, the total average annual precipitation falls below or close to the expected precipitation in a desert. Deserts, by definition, receive less than 250 mm of precipitation. A unique consideration in cold regions is the availability of the moisture for infiltration into a landfill. Table 1 also presents the available moisture in the form of rainfall. The average annual rainfall reduces the available precipitation or moisture by 1/3 to Â˝. The

030626

LANDFILLS-

REVISED AFFILIATION.DOC

rainfall moisture may reflect the true moisture available to leachate generation because frozen ground, including normally permeable ground, has a low permeability. This condition may be observed in communities such as Beaver Creek, Yukon and Fort Smith, NWT during the short melt periods in the spring where significant ponding occurs on normally permeable ground. TABLE 1 TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION FOR SELECTED SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN COMMUNITIES Average Average Annual Average Yearly Temp. Precipitation Annual Rainfall (Â°C) (mm) (mm) Edmonton 3.6 461.3 349.3 Vancouver 9.9 1,167.2 1,117.2 Winnipeg 2.4 504 404.4 Toronto 8.9 818.9 689.3 Dawson City -5.1 306.1 182.7 Whitehorse -1.2 261.2 145.5 Yellowknife -5.4 266.7 150.2 Inuvik -9.8 266.1 114.6 Cambridge -15.1 136.3 68.1 Bay Rankin Inlet -11.6 258.9 145.5 Iqaluit -9.3 432.6 192.1 Resolute Bay -16.6 131.4 52.7

154 of 173

The social costs associated with isolation from a community centre are difficult to measure. Informal community studies and consultation repeatedly identify the desire for residential development to occur close to the existing community centre. In the case of Tuktoyaktuk, a community survey suggested that the new residential area to the south is not considered to be part of the existing community. TABLE 3 ESTIMATED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR LANDFILL SETBACK ENVELOPE FOR A 50 LOT SUBDIVISION Trips per Year

Extra km per Trip (1.8 km/trip)

Time at 50 km/hr

Cost at $130/hr

Assumptions

Although biological activity is sustained at very low temperatures, the anaerobic biological activity necessary to produce methane gas would be significantly reduced in the cold region communities presented in Table 1. The average yearly temperature varies from -1.2°C in Whitehorse to -16.6°C in Resolute, compared to 3.6°C in Edmonton.

Social Costs

3 times/week 9 houses/ truck 2 times/week 6 houses/ truck

866

1,559

31.2

$4,050

866

1,559

31.2

$4,050

1 time/week 25 houses/ truck 1 time/month 4 houses/ truck Weekly

104

187

3.7

$481

150

270

5.4

$702

3.1 (30 km/hr)

$406

Activity

The generation of methane is dependent upon the factors of moisture, nutrients, and temperature. Since moisture is limited in cold regions, as previously discussed, methane generation is limited. A further, potentially more significant, limitation to methane generation is temperature, which is presented in Table 1 in the value of average annual temperature for key northern centres, for comparison to several southern centres.

Monetary Costs The capital cost to bridge the region of no development, presented in Figure 2, has a number of elements including: 1. 2. 3.

the capital cost of a 450 metre access road beyond the existing landfill; the capital cost of 900 metres of power line; the operation and maintenance cost of operating of water, sewer, solid waste, and fuel vehicles along this additional 900 metres of road; and operation and maintenance costs of the road itself.

A capital cost estimate of the road and power is presented in Table 2 and suggests a value of over $180,000 could be expected. TABLE 2 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR LANDFILL SETBACK ENVELOPE Assumptions m Total Road $300/m 450 $135,000 Power $5,000/pole 900 $45,000 100 m/pole TOTAL COST $180,000

An operation and maintenance cost estimate for the operation and maintenance associated with the landfill setback is presented in Table 3 and suggests a potential annual cost of approximately $10,000.

030626

LANDFILLS-

REVISED AFFILIATION.DOC

Trucked Water (500 L Tank & 4,500 L Truck) Trucked Sewage (750 L Tank & 4,500 L Truck) Solid Waste Fuel Oil (1,000 L Tank & 4,500 L Truck) Road Maintenance (Grader or Snow Plough) Total Cost/Year

$9,689

DISCUSSION Burden of Costs The burden of the capital and operation and maintenance costs to a small community are significant. The estimated $180,000 road and power capital cost is equivalent to a 2 bay garage for the community. The estimated $10,000 annual operation and maintenance cost would be a significant percentage of a communities operation and maintenance budget, and these budgets are decreasing. Although the social costs are indeterminate, there is definitely a cost on an already overburdened social services system.

155 of 173

030626

LANDFILLS-

REVISED AFFILIATION.DOC

156 of 173

Leachate and Methane Gas Concerns The production of leachate and methane gas may be significantly reduced in cold regions by the variation from southern climate in the factors that influence their production. This suggests that these two products should receive site specific consideration on not only their significance ,but also their impact. Decision Rational A decision rational for a change in the existing setbacks may be developed based upon the following considerations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

site activity; remediation complete; subsurface conditions; surface conditions; and community perception.

These basic consideration, presented in Figure 4, suggest an opportunity for a change in the setback. The setback should ultimately include a consideration of the presence or absence of permafrost. Site activity should be the fundamental consideration for any landfill setback and, as such, an operating landfill should not be considered for any change in the setback. Remediation completed should be a minimal requirement for any action to change a setback distance, not only from a regulatory perspective, but also from a modern waste management perspective. Subsurface conditions associated with the permeability of the in situ materials should be considered for their influence on the conveyance of any leachate or methane gas produced. This consideration may be independent of permafrost. Surface conditions for consideration would be associated with drainage and runoff which influence the availability of moisture within a landfill, and hence leachate or methane gas production even in a minimal amount. Community perception may ultimately determine the tolerable proximity of a remediated landfill, however, other factors such as residential development

030626

LANDFILLS-

REVISED AFFILIATION.DOC

proximity to a community may be more important to the community. The final consideration would be permafrost conditions which could suggest a greater relaxation in the setback based upon the presence of permafrost. State of Alaska Regulation The State of Alaska does not have a prescriptive setback for landfills from residential areas, but they do however require owners of proposed landfills to evaluate the potential risk to the underlying aquifer from landfill leachate. Landfills are prohibited from violating water quality standards (include drinking water standards) at a “point of compliance” or “poc” for groundwater which is 45 m from the waste cell boundary on the landfill facility property. The landfill is also prohibited from adversely impacting adjacent properties or impacting use of adjacent property, therefore a “poc” may be established at a property line (located less than 150 m away) if the groundwater is or has the potential to be used as a drinking water supply. Based on the groundwater modelling, a landfill would have to be set back far enough away from a residential area not to impact groundwater quality, or a liner could be installed if necessary to protect water quality downstream. The minimum setback is a 15 m setback from the edge of waste placement (cell boundary) to the property line. Further to these setbacks, the State of Alaska does not require the installation of a liner, groundwater monitoring, or methane gas monitoring for a landfill located in regions of continuous or discontinuous permafrost if the landfill demonstrates that: 1.

site is developed and operated to prevent permafrost degradation; a thermal analysis must consider the site specific effects of local heat sinks and sources, and the disturbances or removal of natural or artificial insulating layers; areas of permafrost that are critical to the operation of the landfill will not be allowed to thaw; these areas must be monitored with a sufficient number of thermistors to detect any thawing;

157 of 173

3. 4. 5.

oils, liquids from spill cleanups, and waste that is incompatible with freezeback will not be placed in the landfill; the landfill is operated with a fluid management plan that minimizes any free liquid in the landfill; and after closure, the waste will remain frozen.

suggest a specific relaxation limit to the current setback regulations. It does however suggest an opportunity for analysis in the reflection upon the rational used in another cold region jurisdiction.

The landfill is excepted to be monitored for temperature and erosion during the active life and during post-closure of the landfill.

CONCLUSIONS The State of Alaska approaches the regulation of landfill setbacks in a significantly different manner to the NWT and Nunavut. The fundamental difference is the use of analysis and monitoring in the determination of landfill development and maintenance criteria. Most significantly, this approach recognizes the inherent characteristics of â&#x20AC;&#x153;permafrostâ&#x20AC;? to the installation of a liner, groundwater monitoring, and methane gas monitoring for a landfill located in regions of continuous or discontinuous permafrost. These conditions are subject to a thermal analysis, operation and long term maintenance to prevent the waste from thawing. The relaxation of restrictions that are more appropriate in a southern context has a precedent in the setback distance required for airports and landfills with regard to bird hazards to aircraft. The 8 kilometre setback guideline for Transport Canada was reviewed and revised in 1990 by the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs in consideration of factors unique to the north, and in reflection of setback guidelines utilized in the State of Alaska. Most importantly, the revised guideline identified the site specific factors that influence bird hazards to aircraft, and the spatial relation to landfills. The increasing financial responsibility being transferred upon cold region communities of the NWT and Nunavut along with decreasing funds for capital and operation and maintenance is a new challenge facing all communities. Any reasonable opportunity to reduce capital and operation and maintenance costs to communities should be considered by all levels of government. The decision rational presented does not

030626

LANDFILLS-

REVISED AFFILIATION.DOC

158 of 173

LAND USE PLANNING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT IN IQALUIT, NUNAVUT Ken Johnson Engineer, Planner, and Surveyor UMA Engineering Ltd. ken.planner@home.com The City of Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada’s newest Capital City, is unique in its location, its culture, and its infrastructure. Its place in Canada is even more interesting given the population of Iqaluit is less than 6,000 people. Its infrastructure not only includes specialized systems for water and sewer delivery and collection, but also special considerations for waste management. The waste management in Iqaluit includes both sanitary sewage treatment and disposal, and solid waste disposal. Both of these waste streams have had significant influence on the development of Iqaluit in the past, and will continue to have significant influence on the development into the future.

History of Waste Management The City of Iqaluit has had a continuing problem with solid waste management and sewage treatment and disposal within the community. The history of waste management in Iqaluit has evolved no differently than most remote communities, with convenience and low cost being the original criteria for waste management systems. For solid waste management, this problem began with the use of multiple solid waste disposal sites by various military organizations in the 1950s and 1960s; the problem continued after the military left Iqaluit. The use of the military dump sites, and additional unorganized sites by the community continued. The end result has been a total of six known community solid waste disposal sites, none of which have incorporated proper waste management techniques, or proper site reclamation. The sewage treatment and disposal systems for the City have also been problematic, however, prior to 1978, raw sewage was discharged from a number of pipes along the shore. The primary sewage lagoon system which presently serves the City of Iqaluit was a major improvement to sewage treatment in 1978. The location of the sewage lagoon has been a concern of the community for many years because of its proximity to the community core and the airport. This proximity has raised concerns from the perspective of aesthetics, public health, and public safety. The lagoon operation has operated to the general satisfaction of the regulatory authorities, however, it has suffered from a number of catastrophic failures of portions of the dike structure. These failures have been attributed to both tidal action at the toe of the dikes, and surface runoff intrusion and overflows to the top of the dikes.

These failures have been documented in the years 1981, 1984 and 1991. The City of Iqaluit retained consulting expertise in the early 1990s to provide preliminary engineering for improvements for solid waste management and sewage treatment and disposal. The engineering work has also included work for the cleanup of the existing solid waste disposal sites within the community. The consultant’s work on solid waste management produced a new landfill site that was placed in operation in 1995. This site represented a significant step forward in waste management because the site was planned and engineered to include landfill design parameters such as on-site and off-site drainage control, access control and engineered roads, appropriate consideration of setbacks, and operation and maintenance planning. The engineering of the new landfill also received the appropriate regulatory scrutiny and approvals in advance of its operation. The preliminary engineering on sewage treatment and disposal produced several recommendations for system improvements in consideration of the current effluent quality standards, and improved effluent quality standards. In implementing improvements to sewage treatment and disposal, the City chose to pursue a design build approach to a sewage treatment facility. The spatial relationships for waste management and development are now reasonably well defined by the regulatory framework currently in place, with considerations of setbacks for residential and commercial development, natural habitat, and transportation. However, the waste management practices of the past continue to influence development in Iqaluit because many of these setbacks were not been applied or enforced. The waste management activities in and around the City include five abandoned solid waste sites and a primary sewage lagoon.

Landfill Practices and Spatial Framework in Cold Regions Landfills in cold region communities are evolving from waste management of convenience to engineered landfill sites. The evolution of waste management sites from the so-called “dump” to the engineered landfill sites has occurred over many years, and is far from finished. Many landfills remain very unsatisfactory to regulatory officials from public health and environmental impact perspectives. The reasons behind the remaining

159 of 173

2001: A Spatial Odyssey/Odyssée de L’espace poor waste management practices are many, and include insufficient resources for waste management to an incomplete understanding of what appropriate waste management should include. The landfills utilized in the cold regions may be generally categorized into four different types of “depression” types, “embankment” types, “mound” types and “excavation” types. The depression and embankment types represent landfills developed from convenience rather than design. The mound and excavation types represent engineered landfills that cold region communities now strive to construct and maintain. Many local factors ultimately determine the ultimate configuration and location of the landfill in a community. The lining of community landfills in cold regions with an engineered material has never been undertaken and is unlikely to be undertaken in the foreseeable future given the added cost and the limited community capital budgets. The spatial framework for landfills is governed by several pieces of legislation, the most significant of which is the Public Health Act, and the associated Public Health Regulation. The General Sanitation Regulations to the Public Health Acts in Nunavut are intended to address the public health and safety aspects. The Regulations state that no building used for human habitation shall be: • nearer than 450 m to a waste disposal ground; or • on any site, the soil of which has been made up of any refuse, unless the refuse has been removed from the site or has been consolidated or the site has been disinfected in every case and the site has been approved by a Health Officer. Although the regulation conveys some discretionary authority by the Health Officer, in practice, the regulators have not exercised any discretion with regard to setbacks. As well, the Regulations also state that every waste disposal ground shall be: • located at least 90 m from any public road allowance, railway, right-of-way, cemetery, highway or thoroughfare; and • situated at such a distance from any source of water or ice for human consumption or ablution that no pollution shall take place. Other agencies that are part of the spatial and regulatory framework include: the Nunavut Water Board; the Territorial Department of Renewable Resources; the Territorial Department of Community Government and Transportation; Transport Canada; Indian and Northern Affairs Canada; the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; and Environment Canada. Each agency has a regulatory influence in the form of the operations, maintenance, environmental impact or spatial relationship.

Sewage Treatment Practices and Spatial Framework in Cold Regions A variety of treatment options for wastewater treatment and disposal are available for cold region communities, however, the ultimate choice for a community depends upon technology which is appropriate to the location. The treatment technologies available may be categorized into the two general areas of mechanical and non-mechanical treatment, which describes the mechanism by which the sewage treatment is completed. Mechanical treatment may be characterized by the need for a power supply, construction to accommodate devices imported to the community, and a reasonably sophisticated operating system. A common example of a mechanical system is a rotating biological contactor (RBC). Non-mechanical treatment may be best characterized by using the very common example of a sewage lagoon. This system often does not require a power supply, and may be constructed using mainly local materials. Sewage lagoon systems may be constructed systems or existing natural impoundments of a natural depression or lake system. Mechanical treatment systems have not been widely utilized in NWT or Nunavut communities. The use of mechanical systems in the NWT has, in a number of cases, been unsuccessful. Lagoon systems for cold regions may be categorized as continuous discharge (short detention and long detention), intermittent discharge, and zero discharge. The regulatory framework for sewage treatment and disposal is similar to that for solid waste, with similar agency involvement and similar setback requirements.

Land Use Bylaws and Waste Management The Town’s General Plan Bylaw was developed with sections to specifically address waste management past, present, and future in the context of land use planning. The specific wording in the Bylaw includes the following passages devoted specifically to waste management: 1. The City will continue to evaluate options for long-term sewage treatment, including the relocation of the lagoon, or tertiary sewage treatment at the present site. The evaluation will consider cost-effectiveness, the degree of environmental protection and the land use implications. 2. The City will reserve a site in West 40 (west limit of the community) as shown on the Future Land Use Concept as a potential site for the relocation of the sewage lagoon. If another option for sewage treatment is adopted; then other potential uses for that site will be considered. If the best solution is the relocation of the sewage lagoon, the existing site will be restored and consideration given

126

160 of 173

2001: A Spatial Odyssey/Odyssée de L’espace to a second or relocated road link between West 40 and the rest of Iqaluit. 3. The City shall continue to evaluate all possible options for an integrated waste management system, including the suitability of the new landfill suit for long-term use and also considering complementary strategies such as source reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste materials. 4. The City shall continue to encourage the responsible federal, territorial and other agencies to assist in the clean up and restoration of the six landfill sites which are the legacy of fifty years of indiscriminate waste disposal. The City shall seek suitable end uses, such as recreational use, for these restored sites.

Future Waste Management This national spotlight for the City of Iqaluit has given rise to an increased awareness in many aspects of the community’s infrastructure, particularly waste management. Although the current practice of landfilling and open burning in an engineered landfill site is the status quo for most of northern Canada, this is no longer a desirable practice in the City of Iqaluit, particularly at the current landfill site in the West 40 area. A sitting study was recently completed to position the City of Iqaluit to proceed with the implementation of a new waste management plan. The siting study encompassed the entire area within the Municipal Boundary in order to satisfy any potential criticism in the siting process. Clearly, distance to a site becomes a significant factor from the onset given that the capital cost of an access road may exceed $250,000 per kilometre, and that operation and maintenance costs in the winter would be very expensive as well. Ultimately implementation of a site will be based upon environmental and land use criteria, technology, and stakeholder and community consultation to gain acceptance of a site. The criteria for an environmental assessment of any particular site will also vary depending upon the site. The City of Iqaluit is suggesting that it will pursue the implementation of a solid waste incineration system to be located in the industrially zoned area. The implementation of this technology will ultimately depend upon available capital funding (in excess of $3 million), and sustainable operation and maintenance funding (in excess of $300,000 per year). The City Iqaluit is also working toward the start-up of a new tertiary sewage treatment plant which may provide high quality treatment to serve the City well into the future. This $7 million capital project, with an operation and maintenance demand in excess of $400,000 per year, is awaiting completion of project deficiencies. An interesting opportunity has emerged for some

residents in the Apex neighbourhood of Iqaluit. A technology known as wastewater recycling has received funding for a trial program for an 11 house cluster. This system would take wastewater from each house and complete a tertiary treatment process before pumping it back to be used to flush toilets and do laundry. Residents would still get a fresh supply of water for drinking and bathing. The water system is an innovative environmental project the City is banking on to conserve Iqaluit’s water supply Recycling wastewater is expected to reduce water consumption (from 1,825,700 litres a year to 912,850 litres a year) and cut down the number of water deliveries to households (4,000 to 100 per year). The growth in Iqaluit over the past three years has put a tremendous strain on the City’s waste management systems. This, in turn, has placed demands and expectations on the City’s land use planning efforts related to waste management. These improvements to the current waste management practices in the City of Iqaluit will improve the presentation of the community as a Territorial Capital, and also improve the development situation with regard to regulatory setback requirements for public safety, public health, and environmental protection.

Biography Ken Johnson is an engineer, planner and surveyor from St. Albert, Alberta. Ken’s formal training includes a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering, a Master’s Degree in Civil Engineering, and Certificates in Site Planning and Survey Technology. Ken is a registered Professional Engineer in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, and the Province of Alberta. Ken is also an Associate Member of the Alberta Land Surveyors Association, a Provisional Member of the Alberta Association of the Canadian Institute of Planners, and past Chair of the Cold Region Engineering Division of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. Ken’s professional experience in the Canadian north spans a period of 14 years; during 5 of these years he spent some time as a resident of each of the 3 Territorial Capitals. He has worked as far north as Canadian Forces Station Alert, and to the eastern and western limits of the Canadian north. Ken has provided consulting expertise in the areas of cold region municipal engineering, cold region environmental engineering, and land use planning in remote communities. His current areas of interest and study are land use planning and climate change in cold regions, on-site wastewater recycling in cold regions, and land use planning and waste management in cold regions.

127

161 of 173

162 of 173

163 of 173

164 of 173

165 of 173

166 of 173

167 of 173

168 of 173

169 of 173

170 of 173

171 of 173

172 of 173

173 of 173