Joe: Thanks for the opportunity to review this correspondence.  I have provided a few comments on the Site Specific section in Ms. Spagnuolo's letter.  The other sections appear to contain fairly generic information and most of this is already addressed in our application.

• I  do not have any pH data on the specific soil that will be treated at the landfarm.  The soils logs indicate that the majority of the 3500 cu. m is sand and gravel.  There is no reason to be believe that this material would be extremely acidic or alkaline.
• Figures showing the monitoring well locations and the proximity of the landfarm to St. Peter Bay were attached to our application.  Perhaps EC didn't get the attachments.
• In terms of the necessity for sampling groundwater twice annually, the length of the frost free season would presumably be a major factor.  The annual schedule as proposed was based on the fact that qualified staff would be on site to take soil samples at that time.    If the Board feels that EC's recommendation has merit, I presume that we will see that provision in the Water Licence.
• Any future decisions to use biological amendments would take the CEPA Domestic Substances List into consideration.
• An Operations and Maintenance Manual will be prepared once the Water Licence is issued to ensure that all the licence conditions are addressed.
• EC's recommendation on use of the CCME Freshwater Aquatic life guidelines versus Marine Aquatic Life is debatable.  I am under the impression that the discharge from the retention cell will follow manmade drainage ditches to St. Peter Bay.   If St. Peter Bay is a marine environment and the upstream drainage route does not meet the criteria for a freshwater aquatic habitat, then there should be no reason to apply the Freshwater criteria.  I am sure you have access to more specific information on this area than I had available for the application.  If my assumptions area not correct, please advise.  My concern is that the Freshwater guideline for toluene is significantly less than the Marine guideline.  The soil analysis results did not indicate any appreciable levels of toluene so it may not be a major issue.
  

Hopefully this information is of some value to you.  It would be very much appreciated of you could keep us posted when the Water Licence might be issued as our client would like to formulate plans for next year.

Regards

David Ediger, P.Eng.
Senior Environmental Engineer
Wardrop Engineering
400 - 386 Broadway
Winnipeg MB  R3C 4M8
ph.:   (204)988-0527
fax:   (204)957-5389

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Murdock [mailto:tech1@nwb.nunavut.ca]
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 2:32 PM
To: Ediger, David
Subject: Re: NWB4KRK Status of Licecne

David,

Pleasure talking to you earlier yesterday. Please find attached EC comments
on NWB4KRK's application. I will pass any other information along as it
becomes available. Also please feel free to contact me if need be.

Regards,

Joe

Joe Murdock, B.Sc., M.Sc. Can., MIT, CEPIT
Technical Advisor
Nunavut Water Board
P.O. Box 119
Gjoa Haven, Nunavut
X0B 1J0
Tel: (867) 360-6338
Fax: (867) 360-6369
email: tech1@nwb.nunavut.ca
webpage: http://nwb.nunavut.ca

Nunavut Representative - Canadian Geotechnical Society Cold Regions
Geotechnology Division
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ediger, David" <David.Ediger@Wardrop.com>
To: <tech1@nwb.nunavut.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 12:29 PM
Subject: NWB4KRK Status of Licecne

> Joe:  Can you please advise us on the latest status of the Water Licence
> for
> the Kugaaruk landfarm?  We are not aware that the public notice resulted
> in
> any comments or concerns.  One of our staff was in the area recently and
> he
> asked that we get an update.
>
> Thanks
>
> David Ediger, P.Eng.
> Senior Environmental Engineer
> Wardrop Engineering
> 400 - 386 Broadway
> Winnipeg MB  R3C 4M8
> ph.:   (204)988-0527
> fax:   (204)957-5389
>
>
>  << File: 050902NWB4KRK EC Comments-IMLE.pdf >>