INNOVATION OPPORTUNITY FOR NUNAVUT WASTEWATER TREATMENT 2004 11 01 Ken Johnson, Planner and Engineer ken.johnson@cryofront.com BACKGROUND Over the past several years the situations with wastewater treatment in Nunavut Territory have reached a near crisis situation. Nunavut's infrastructure is crumbling, report warns (June 14, 2004) - Nunavut's sewage lagoons have a 65-per-cent failure rate. Garbage is burned in open-pit dumps, sometimes close to towns. None of Nunavut's 25 communities has a reliable source of water to fight fires. Neither drinking water supplies nor the diesel storage systems essential for power generation meet new federal guidelines. Nunavut is falling behind by up to $50 million a year just to maintain current buildings and services, the Conference Board estimated. The factors contributing to this “crisis” include: •
Regulatory enforcement and the subsequent regulatory orders;
•
Reported “failures” of earthen lagoon systems;
•
Failures of the limited mechanical systems serving communities of the north;
•
Population increase and increased water use;
•
Aging infrastructure or infrastructure reaching volume capacity; and
•
High costs for granular material or other supplies in certain communities.
In contrast, the communities of the Northwest Territories do not have the same apparent “crisis” in wastewater treatment. Why the difference between these two political jurisdictions? A technical paper by Johnson and Wilson in 1999 (1st Cold Regions Specialty Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Regina, Saskatchewan, 1999), prior to the division of the Northwest Territories, reported that the majority of lagoon systems across the north were operating in a satisfactory manner. In particular “those systems which are technologically simple, and engineered for sufficient capacity tend to perform well; problems appear to be linked with undersized systems, maintenance deficiencies, or poor operational practices.” Certainly the climate and terrain play some role in the situation in Nunavut; however, other factors such as the approach of the regulatory community are having some
influence on the situation. The bottom line for Nunavut is that the status quo is no longer appropriate. Innovation is required on the part of all interests to change their way of doing business. Innovation does not necessarily have to come in the form of technology, but rather in the process that leads up to the application of technology. Planning of infrastructure in the Canadian north has been grounded on a process that was formulated over 20 years ago. This process systematically applied a planning process based on community growth, consumption, development timelines, cost, and operation and maintenance. The process itself accommodated little or no consultation with communities or the regulatory community, and relied on “portals” within regional governments and the Water Board as the means to address this consultation. This approach is no longer the status quo as greater demands have been placed upon communities by both the senior governments and the regulators. An article by Johnson in 2004 (Development Needs for Northern Communities: The Challenges Associated with the Continuing Boom, Planning Digest Spring 2004) noted that “the development and sustaining of infrastructure in cold region communities has always been influenced by a variety of financial, administrative, 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 environment. 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.” Another recent publication by Johnson (Incremental Infrastructure Improvements I3 – A Balanced Approach for Northern Communities, Northern Territories Water and Waste Association, 2004 Annual Conference), suggests that an incremental approach, where there are intermediate steps (a progression from one step to the next high step) is a planning innovation. He notes that “it is easier to change an action in a plan than create an action by itself.” In applying I3 he adds that you must know where you are NOW, and where you are expected to be NOW in order to develop a plan and schedule. Communication of I3 is essential to be ultimately success in the process. POTENTIAL APPLICATION TO CAPE DORSET WASTEWATER TREATMENT Cape Dorset could be used as a case study for the situation described above. Regulatory orders have resulted in emergency water licence amendments, emergency designs and implementation on the wastewater treatment system. It is understood that the constraints regulatory bodies can impose on the GN, and the requirement for
the GN to respond promptly to regulatory orders. That being said, with the high cost of designing and constructing new sewage treatment facilities, the following tasks could be completed prior to initiating the actual design, and construction of the project. •
• • •
Regulatory requirements for sewage treatment in Cape Dorset should be understood, addressed and agreed to by the regulators before proceeding with design A technical review of the conceptual lagoon design and biophysical study of the proposed wetland area; Incorporating estimates on design treatment capacity, wetland treatment capacity, and wetland suitability in the area; and Providing technical feasibility of the conceptual design and O&M of the proposed lagoon/wetland option.
Cape Dorset could be used as an example by regulators and the GN for other communities that are either under inspector’s direction or facing required improvements or upgrades to their sewage treatment facilities. Therefore it is important that precedent be set for sound environmental planning, regulatory certainty and technical evaluation to ensure the correct option is selected. To achieve these goals, the following scope could be advanced: •
• • • • • • • •
•
Review and consult with regulators on effluent criteria expectations (present and future), including Nunavut’s position/input into the CCME Wastewater Effluent Strategy Document and prepare statement on effluent criteria expectations; Obtain regulatory signoff on effluent criteria expectations; Review and consult with community on environmental concerns; Develop topographical mapping for wastewater area ; Prepare biophysical overview of area based upon community consultation, and airphoto interpretation; Prepare environmental engineering overview of lagoon based upon airphoto interpretation, and literature review of northern lagoon performance; Complete environmental planning assessment of area based upon biophysical overview and environmental engineering overview; Review conceptual engineering completed on lagoon and complete update on conceptual engineering using topographic mapping and environmental planning assessment; and Prepare recommendation on feasibility of lagoon to meet effluent criteria expectations as a sewage treatment option and scope the necessary studies to advance the options to a preliminary engineering stage.