241

7 NUNAVUT WATER BOARD HEARING

8

9 RE: CITY OF IQALUIT WATER LICENSE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 _______________________________________________________

17 HEARING HELD AT THE NAVIGATOR INN HOTEL

18 IQALUIT, NUNAVUT

19 MARCH 8, 2006

20 4:07 P.M. to 10:20 P.M.

21 VOLUME III

22 _______________________________________________________

23

24

25

26

242

1 APPEARANCES:

2

3 HEARING BOARD:

4 Mr. L. Toomasie Chairman

Mr. G. Porter Member

5 Mr. G. Kakkiarniun Member

Mr. R. Kayarsark Member

6 Mr. T. Kabloona Member

7 WATER BOARD STAFF:

8 Mr. W.A. Tilleman , QC Legal Counsel

Philippe di Pizzo Executive Director, Chief of

9 Administration

Phyllis Bealieau Licensing Administrator

10 Ben Kogvik Interpreter/ Translater

Joe Murdock Technical Advisor

11 David Hohnstein Technical Advisor

Richard Dwyer Licensee

12 Dionne Filiatrault Director of Technical Services

13 APPLICANT:

14 City of Iqaluit

15 INTERVENORS :

16 Department of Indian and Northern Affairs

Environment Canada

17 Department of Environment

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

18 Government of Nunavut

Bill MacKenzie Humanitarian Society

19

20 INTERPRETERS:

21 Isa Boaz Inuktitut Language

Jose Arreat Inuktitut Language

22

Jimmy Ekho Sound Technician

23 Tommy Kullualik Sound Technician

24 Diane Hermann, RPR Court Reporter

25

26

243

1 I N D E X

2 PAGE

3 Presentation By City of Iqaluit on Sewage........245

& Effluent Treatment Facility

4

Environment Canada Questions the City of.........251

5 Iqaluit on Sewage & Effluent Treatment

Facility

6

The Public Questions the City of Iqaluit on......255

7 Sewage & Effluent Treatment Facility

8 DIAND Questions The City of Iqaluit on Sewage....265

& Effluent Treatment Facility

9

Water Board Staff Questions the City of Iqaluit..267

10 on Sewage & Effluent Treatment Facility

11 DIAND Questions the City of Iqaluit on Sewage....274

& Effluent Treatment Facility

12

Bill Mackenzie Humanitarian Society Questions....278

13 The City of Iqaluit on Sewage & Effluent

Facility

14

Presentation By City of Iqaluit on Sludge........289

15 Management

16 Bill Mackenzie Humanitarian Society Questions....302

the City of Iqaluit on Sludge Management

17

Government of Nunavut DOE Questions the City.....308

18 Of Iqaluit on Sludge Management

19 The Public Questions the City of Iqaluit on......314

Sludge Management

20

Government of Nunavut DOE Questions the City.....322

21 Of Iqaluit on Sludge Management

22 The Public Questions the City of Iqaluit on......324

Sludge Management

23

DIAND Questions the City of Iqaluit on Sludge....327

24 Management

25 Bill Mackenzie Humanitarian Society Questions....328

the City of Iqaluit on Sludge Management

26

244

1 I N D E X ( con't )

2 The Public Questions the City of Iqaluit on......333

Sludge Management

3

Water Board Staff Questions the City of Iqaluit..342

4 On Sludge Management

5 The Public Questions the City of Iqaluit on......346

Sludge Management

6

Presentation by the Government of Nunavut DOE....353

7 and Closing Statement

8 The City of Iqaluit Questions the Government.....362

Of Nunavut DOE

9

Presentation by DIAND on Sewage & Effluent.......363

10 Disposal Treatment, and Closing Statement

11 Environment Canada Questions DIAND ...............369

12 Water Board Staff Questions DIAND ................370

13 Presentation By Environment Canada...............379

14 Water Board Staff Questions Environment Canada...385

15 Reporter's Certificate...........................392

16 Exhibits.........................................393

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

245

1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 4:07 P.M.)

2 THE CHAIRMAN: We shall proceed again with our

3 agenda. The next item on the agenda is the sewage and

4 effluent treatment facility. We have a presentation

5 from the applicant for this at this time.

6 Go ahead, Geoff Baker.

7 PRESENTATION BY CITY OF IQALUIT ON SEWAGE & EFFLUENT

8 TREATMENT FACILITY:

9 MR . BAKER: Hi, Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

10 Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to give a short

11 presentation on the City's sewage treatment collection

12 and -- or the City's sewage collection and treatment.

13 The City's sewage collection infrastructure

14 consists of a network of collection pipes, four sewage

15 trucks, two dumping stations, three lift stations or

16 pumping stations, and now a sewage treatment plant

17 which is currently in the process of being commissioned

18 to replace the existing sewage lagoon.

19 The sewage collection system consists of

20 approximately 20,000 metres of sewers and force mains,

21 and four sewage pumping trucks. Approximately 60

22 percent of the city's population is currently on pipe

23 sewage services with approximately 40 percent serviced

24 by truck. Pipe sewage flows by gravity to one of the

25 two lift stations located in the city or to the lift

26 station located at the new sewage treatment plant.

246

1 This creates limits of the expansion of the system

2 without the construction of additional lift stations.

3 With truck services, pumper trucks extract sewage

4 from household sewage tanks and deliver the sewage to

5 the dump station adjacent to the lagoon. For the dump

6 station, the sewage flows by gravity to the sewage

7 treatment plant, previously the sewage lagoon.

8 Of the two sewage dumping stations, the station

9 located adjacent to the lagoon is the only one

10 operational. The station located in the expansion area

11 has never been operational due to insufficient sewage

12 pipe capacity downstream of the area. It was included

13 in the City's six-year capital funding agreement with

14 the Government of Nunavut but was removed because of

15 the extensive upgrading required downstream of the

16 station.

17 Sewage lift station number one is located in the

18 Lower Base area. It receives sewage from Happy Valley,

19 the expansion area, the Astro Hill complex, and lower

20 Iqaluit. Lift station number two services part of

21 lower Iqaluit. Lift station number three is located at

22 the sewage treatment plant. Its purpose is to lift

23 sewage from below ground to the fine screens located

24 within the treatment plant. Lift station number one

25 will undergo a complete retrofit during the summer of

26 2006. The project was originally scheduled for 2005,

247

1 but due to problems encountered with the foundation

2 requirements, the upgrade was delayed to 2006.

3 The design for the upgrade of lift station number

4 one is complete, and the construction contract has been

5 awarded. The current capacity of lift station number

6 one is approximately 60 litres per second, and lift

7 station number two is approximately 20 litres per

8 second. Using the City's design standard of 400 litres

9 per capita per day, lift station number one currently

10 receives peak flows of approximately 50 litres per

11 second, and lift station number two receives a peak

12 flow of nine litres per second.

13 Lift stations number one and two pump sewage to

14 points in the sewer system where flow -- where it can

15 flow by gravity to the new sewage treatment facility.

16 With the commissioning of the city's sewage treatment

17 plant, the city sewage system is providing reliable

18 primary treatment of the waste water. The original

19 intent of the upgrade of the plant was to carry it

20 through to secondary treatment, but due to the immense

21 capital cost, the plant is now being constructed in

22 phases.

23 Phase two does not currently have a construction

24 schedule attached to it and is totally dependent on

25 funding availability. Phase two construction costs are

26 currently estimated in the vicinity of $10 million. It

248

1 remains the City's intent to upgrade the plant to

2 provide secondary treatment; however, due to funding

3 limitations, it is not currently scheduled.

4 As indicated earlier, phase one of the treatment

5 facility will provide primary treatment of sewage, the

6 second phase will provide secondary treatment, and the

7 third phase is to expand the capacity of the plant to

8 service a population of 12,000. After phase two is

9 complete, the City is anticipating meeting effluent

10 requirement of 45 milligrams per litre for BOD, 40

11 milligrams per litre for total suspended solids, and 10

12 milligrams per litre for ammonia. With primary

13 treatment only, the City anticipates it will meet the

14 currently followed effluent requirement in Nunavut of

15 120 milligrams per litre for BOD, and 180 milligrams

16 per litre for total suspended solids.

17 The City is proposing to develop a monitoring

18 protocol for its waste water effluent to be submitted

19 to the Nunavut Water Board and regulators for approval.

20 The primary treatment plant which is currently

21 being commissioned consists of core screens, a lift

22 station, fine screens, and what is called a primary

23 Salnes filter. The lift station pumps the waste water

24 from below ground to the fine screens. The inclined

25 auger-style fine screens utilise a perforated basket

26 for screening and have openings of three millimetres in

249

1 diameter. Immediately downstream of the fine screens

2 is the primary Salnes filter. The Salnes filter is fed

3 by gravity from the screens. The openings in the

4 Salnes filter are 300 microns in diameter. The primary

5 Salnes filter effluent can be expected to be similar in

6 quality to primary effluent from a conventional

7 primary sedimentation tank or a primary clarifier . The

8 filter has been sized to accommodate peak flows of 167

9 litres per second.

10 From the primary Salnes filter, the partially

11 dewatered sludge discharges through a chute to a

12 utility trailer on the first floor. The utility

13 trailer, when filled, is taken to the sludge disposal

14 area at the landfill. It is anticipated that the

15 trailer will be emptied every two to three days. The

16 City's pilot project, potentially partially funded by

17 an FCM grant, for processing the sewage sludge will be

18 explained in greater detail in a following presentation

19 by Ken Johnson of Earth Tech Canada.

20 Up until last Friday, the City's primary means of

21 treating sewage was the sewage lagoon. The City is

22 proposing to decommission the lagoon and address the

23 stability issues of the berms to allow for its future

24 use as a backup facility. The City retained a

25 consultant in February of 2005 to undertake a dam

26 safety inspection of the sewage lagoon berms .

250

1 Recommendations from that inspection include the

2 following: Preparation of the required operations and

3 safety manual; preparation of an emergency preparedness

4 plan; preparation of a log book and permanent file.

5 The second recommendation from that inspection was to

6 undertake the next dam safety inspection prior to

7 October of 2005. The third recommendation from that

8 report was to upgrade the safety and stability of the

9 lagoon berms to provide adequate protection against

10 overtopping and adequate erosion protection.

11 The fourth and final recommendation from that

12 report was, if the sewage lagoon is to remain in

13 service, the lagoon should be either redesigned,

14 rebuilt, or an impervious liner installed with erosion

15 measures applied to downstream faces of the berms .

16 The City has, to date, not implemented any of the

17 recommendations of the dam safety inspection. In 2006,

18 the City is intending to undertake another dam safety

19 inspection prior to October. As well, the City is

20 planning for the rebuild of the west dike at the

21 lagoon. The City had a design completed for the berm

22 rehabilitation in 2005. The upgrade is estimated in

23 the order of $65,000.

24 Subject to funding being available, the City will

25 attempt to implement all recommendations from the 2006

26 dam safety inspection.

251

1 The City appreciates the intervenors '

2 acknowledgement that the City has taken significant

3 steps in the right direction with respect to its sewage

4 treatment system. As indicated earlier, the City has

5 commissioned its sewage treatment plant and the plant

6 is now processing all of the City's sewage. The City

7 is also undertaking a major upgrade to its sewage lift

8 station this summer. The City also plans to upgrade

9 some of the ageing piping infrastructure this summer.

10 However, we do realise that much work remains to be

11 done, most importantly, phase two of the sewage

12 treatment plant improvements.

13 Thank you.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, applicants.

15 Now, I call if there is questions from interested

16 parties.

17 MR . ROGERS: Well, we have no questions at this

18 time, thank you.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Environment Canada, come up.

20 ENVIRONMENT CANADA QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT ON

21 SEWAGE & EFFLUENT TREATMENT FACILITY:

22 MS. WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just

23 have a few questions for the City about the operation

24 of the sewage treatment plant.

25 The first one, I think, will be for -- with

26 respect to the design objectives for treatment, and

252

1 we've just heard that there are to be 45 milligrams per

2 litre for BOD and the same for TSS targets. Now, the

3 report did say that their design objectives were 20 and

4 20 milligrams per litre , and I just wanted to confirm

5 that upon commissioning of the phase two, that is still

6 the plan to try and meet those numbers.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

8 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

9 I think those, I think those are the designing

10 objectives based on the process capabilities. So I

11 would say yes, the 20-20, would be, again, what the

12 process capabilities are at this time.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

14 Anne Wilson.

15 MS. WILSON: Anne Wilson, Environment Canada.

16 I would just like to note that with the

17 Canada-wide strategy for municipal waste water effluent

18 management, Environment Canada will be looking for

19 effluent quality to be in the 20 to 30 range for both

20 of those parameters, and so we strongly encourage the

21 proponent at the type of the phase two design to really

22 work to those objectives.

23 With that comment, may I move to my next question?

24 Okay.

25 Can you provide us with some idea as to whether

26 the phase one effluent will comply with section 36.3 of

253

1 the Fisheries Act and be able to pass an acute toxicity

2 test?

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

4 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

5 Given that the effluent criteria for the phase one

6 is primary, then I guess a fair statement to say that

7 it probably will not meet the requirements of the

8 Fisheries Act.

9 MS. WILSON: Anne Wilson, Environment Canada.

10 To my mind, that will lend some urgency to the

11 phase two progression there. We'll just leave it at

12 that.

13 Then two other questions. Can you clarify for me

14 the winter outflow configuration? I couldn't really

15 get a sense from the documents as to whether it's going

16 to be a continuous outflow in the winter. Are we

17 expecting some open water to be maintained? Is there

18 worry about glaciation below an outfall pipe? If you

19 can just describe that for me, that would be very

20 helpful. Thank you.

21 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

22 I don't expect there to be any glaciation. I

23 think that's been proven with the operation of the

24 primary sewage lagoon over the past -- what is that?

25 -- 30 years, that that is a continuous outflow

26 situation. And it is likely the effluent from the

254

1 phase one plant is, in fact, going to be warmer, so

2 there's a less, I suppose, less likelihood of any

3 glaciation forming.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

5 Anne.

6 MS. WILSON: Thanks. Anne Wilson.

7 Just to confirm, then, it will be a continuous

8 flow?

9 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

10 Yes, it is a continuous flow.

11 MS. WILSON: Thank you. Anne Wilson. My last

12 question.

13 I noticed in the documentation that the only time

14 we'd be certain we need the sewage lagoon as a backup

15 facility would be during power failures. So, I just

16 wondered what contingencies are being planned for to

17 provide alternate sources of power or to maintain the

18 flow to the treatment plant in all contingencies.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

20 MR . HALL: Mark Hall, City of Iqaluit.

21 The design specifications for the city's treatment

22 plant include a self-contained generator set which is

23 currently in the process of being remanufactured to

24 bring it up to current Canadian code standards, and

25 this will be the power supply in the event -- sorry,

26 the primary power supply in the event of a power

255

1 failure at the plant. That is an integral part of the

2 sewage treatment plant.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

4 Environment Canada.

5 MS. WILSON: Anne Wilson. Thank you, that was

6 all my questions.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks again.

8 Is there any more questions, comments from

9 interested parties? Does the DFO have questions or

10 comments?

11 MS. GORDANIER : No.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: No, okay. Thank you.

13 How about GN, did it have comments.

14 MR . ENO : No comments from the GN.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

16 How about the public, is there any -- do you have

17 one? Okay, come to the microphone, and please state

18 your name for the record before you speak. Thank you.

19 THE PUBLIC QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT ON SEWAGE &

20 EFFLUENT TREATMENT FACILITY:

21 MR . CROWLEY: My name is Paul Crowley, and I'm

22 citizen here in Iqaluit.

23 Based on the question that Anne Wilson just posed,

24 so we will not be meeting standards that will meet the

25 Fisheries Act requirements? Is that a $5 million

26 upgrade, and we're not going to meet the Fisheries

256

1 standards, Fisheries Act standards; is that correct?

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Before you -- before the answers

3 come up, I'd like to recognise a Board member, Thomas

4 Kabloona from Baker Lake just came in from Rankin

5 Inlet. He was on the line with us on the telephone

6 yesterday and this morning.

7 Applicant.

8 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

9 Just to clarify the phases and the cost. The

10 current phase of the project to -- for primary

11 treatment is 3.5 million, which will, again, replace

12 the lagoon, provide primary treatment, and the effluent

13 quality will still produce, I guess strictly speaking,

14 an effluent that could be deleterious to fish. So to

15 provide -- to meet that requirement is -- a secondary

16 treatment is required of waste activated sludge. That

17 is the phase two with a capital cost estimated to be

18 about $10 million.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: You have more questions, Paul?

20 MR . CROWLEY: Yes.

21 I haven't been at all the hearings, so forgive me

22 if I'm asking for a repeat of information that's

23 already out. And phase two is, then, scheduled for

24 when?

25 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

26 We don't have a construction schedule for phase

257

1 two of the sewage treatment plant, and it is totally

2 and utterly dependent on financing being available, and

3 right now we don't have that in our immediate plans.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

5 Do you have more comments? Please state your name

6 for the record.

7 MR . CROWLEY: Yes, Paul Crowley. Another

8 question.

9 And what would be the cost of simply reinforcing

10 the lagoon and continuing with that, and why is that no

11 longer an option? Just a comment to accompany that, it

12 seems that phase one is only meaningful if phase two

13 follows quickly after, and without phase two and a plan

14 and a financial plan to make it happen, we are

15 investing an awful lot of money on something that we're

16 not sure is going to happen. Thank you.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

18 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

19 The existing sewage lagoon will -- it is -- the

20 fact that it is a retention lagoon structure in fact

21 will -- with time, the effluents will degrade. So in

22 fact, with time -- with the mechanical system phase

23 one, we're putting in a process that will, I guess,

24 maintain the same effluent quality for the growth of

25 the community up to a population of about, I think,

26 12,000. So in fact, we are, we are improving the

258

1 effluent quality with this system over what we expect

2 the lagoon to be able to perform in the coming years.

3 I guess in terms of the financial, it is a

4 two-phase, but I guess two -- the town or the City had

5 intended to complete both phases one and two, I think,

6 when we went off with this project about two years ago,

7 and again, being financial responsible, they identified

8 that the additional funding for the phase two was not

9 going to become available in the near future and at

10 that point, recognised that the existing lagoon had to

11 be taken out of service, so they put in phase one to

12 get an effluent -- or improve and maintain the effluent

13 quality. And recognising that the design has been

14 completed for phase two and based on the funding

15 availability, it will be carried out, but again, a $10

16 million capital project is -- the -- and I stop, it's

17 just a tremendous capital project to be undertaking,

18 and, I mean the town -- the City is lobbying where it

19 can to try and capture that funding.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

21 Paul?

22 MR . CROWLEY: Yes, Paul Crowley.

23 I have some questions with regards to the trucking

24 of sludge or -- I'm not sure what the technical,

25 appropriate technical term you use, but for the sludge

26 from the phase one to the dump. And what is the

259

1 likelihood of there being spills between the dump and

2 where the collection starts, and what's in place to

3 deal with that? Having travelled on many a country

4 road behind farmers, I can only assume this won't

5 always be pleasant.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

7 Applicants?

8 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

9 The trailer is a sealed unit. It is not covered,

10 but it is a steel unit with, I think, seals

11 appropriate. And I guess it becomes -- the sludge is a

12 very thick liquid, so it's not likely to be sloshing

13 about and spilling, but I guess that becomes a matter

14 of, you know, in terms of the operation, that the

15 driver will have to be cautious.

16 MR . CROWLEY: Paul Crowley, follow-up question.

17 The truck effluent, what will -- what plans are in

18 place? I understand this has to happen every three

19 days or so at this population. How do you deal with

20 issues such as road blockages and the like, because of

21 storms that sometimes have lasted three days, and that

22 particular area of town gets pretty good snow drifts?

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

24 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

25 There isn't really a contingency in place. In the

26 instance where we do get a three- or four-day

260

1 snowstorm, certainly the road would have to be opened

2 by our, our public works operational crews. There is

3 about four, four to five cubic metres of storage within

4 the trailer. We anticipate producing about 1.5 cubic

5 metres per day of sewer sludge. As well, there is two

6 bins located at the sewage treatment plant which

7 indicates where we do have a snowstorm for three to

8 four days, there is extra storage for the sewage

9 sludge. As well, there is a valve on the -- there is a

10 valve on the chute which transfers the sewage from the

11 second floor to the first floor. That is able to be

12 closed and allowed to back up for a certain period of

13 time without affecting the integrity of the system.

14 Thank you.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

16 You are going to continue, Paul?

17 MR . CROWLEY: That's okay. Paul Crowley.

18 I'm not sure if now is the moment, but -- or if

19 there will be presentations on this afterwards, but I'm

20 concerned about the sludge at the dump itself. Is now

21 when we should be bringing these questions up, or

22 should we address that after a later presentation?

23 Okay. I guess I'll just start with the quality or

24 the nature of the sludge that's there and what will

25 happen to it once it's in the current landfill, and how

26 will you manage the additional effluent that comes from

261

1 it and the treatment of that effluent.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

3 Applicants?

4 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

5 So, just a short description of the process. The

6 process that we're intending to pilot out at the

7 landfill is a freeze-dried dewatering followed by

8 composting. The freeze-dried dewatering , that runoff

9 will form part of the, I guess, the internal runoff

10 system that is being -- that the City intends to be --

11 have designed over the course of this year and

12 constructed into the fall of this year. So, it's

13 essentially runoff that will be completed and will form

14 part of the on-site runoff collection system, and then

15 it will be tested and, I guess, appropriately treated

16 and disposed of.

17 MR . CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

18 Paul?

19 MR . CROWLEY: Paul Crowley.

20 Will the catchment basin for that effluent, is

21 that a sealed unit? Will it capture everything?

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

23 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

24 At this time it's not a sealed unit. The, I

25 guess, process we are putting into place is a six- to

26 ten-inch layer of sand beneath the sludge which in fact

262

1 forms a biofilter . So, in fact, there's a layer of

2 treatment before that runs off, and then it will be --

3 I guess flow into the, to the on-site drainage or

4 on-site runoff management system. So, I guess the

5 essence of the question -- the answer is no, it's not a

6 lined system.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

8 Paul?

9 MR . CROWLEY: Paul Crowley.

10 So, are -- will we be capturing all of the

11 effluent in the catchment area, or not? I guess that's

12 something that I'm unclear of.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

14 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

15 The intent is, yes, to capture all the runoff from

16 the sludge.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Paul?

18 MR . CROWLEY: My next line of questions is more

19 with the volume and the impacts on the life of the

20 current landfill, the dump. Can -- will there -- can

21 you make -- give us an idea of how it will impact on

22 the current life of the existing dump?

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

24 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

25 The intent is by composting and, I guess, creating

26 soil from the sewage sludge, in fact you're getting a

263

1 product that will ultimately enhance the performance of

2 the landfill by providing an organic cover material,

3 'cause certainly as part of any closure plan for a

4 landfill is you want to create a low permeability

5 cover. So by having organics and then seeding that,

6 you maximize that opportunity. So that, I think -- I

7 would say that this -- the sludge in the composting --

8 or the sludge management plan actually provides an

9 enhancement to the overall performance of the landfill

10 site.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

12 Paul?

13 MR . CROWLEY: Paul Crowley.

14 A follow-up question, follow-up question. So I

15 understand that the -- you know, if you compost it, it

16 creates earth, and that earth can then get used,

17 particularly when we're closing it up. But how will it

18 impact the life of the actual dump by the volume that

19 it takes up? I guess that's what I'm unclear about.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

21 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

22 The sludge disposal area was taken into account

23 when we calculated the -- when we calculated the life

24 span of the landfill to be 2010, 2011. We do know that

25 there will be a necessity for a new landfill after that

26 fact. So for all intents and purposes, I don't see the

264

1 sludge generation having an impact on the life of the

2 current landfill.

3 MR . CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

4 Paul?

5 MR . CROWLEY: Which leads to the next set of --

6 leads to the next set, I guess. Is there a plan, and I

7 haven't seen it if there is, for the long-term

8 management and the opening up of a new dump, and how

9 does this work into this license application since this

10 license will basically terminate at the same time as

11 the current landfill?

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

13 MR . JOHNSON: This is Ken Johnson.

14 Just as a bit of history, that the City in, I

15 guess, 2003-2004 actually went through a fairly

16 rigorous exercise to try and identify a new landfill

17 site. Out of that came no landfill site, so -- and, of

18 course, that was not the intended outcome. So in fact,

19 over the next, I guess, term of the license and within

20 the operating capacity of the existing site, that

21 exercise has to be completed with, of course, a renewed

22 urgency, given the life of the landfill.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

24 Paul?

25 MR . CROWLEY: Just a comment, then, that I would

26 think that it may be appropriate and suggest it may be

265

1 appropriate for the Water Board to include that as a

2 condition, and that there be a mid-term point of

3 verification to ensure that it's happened, because I do

4 feel like I'm in the movie "Groundhog Day" a few times

5 when I come to these hearings, and I've heard this

6 before, at least twice, since I've been here. So,

7 while I think we want to keep an open mind to people's

8 best intentions, those best intentions have paved quite

9 a road so far. Thank you.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Paul.

11 You want to respond or --

12 MR . HALL: Mark Hall, City of Iqaluit.

13 With regard to the citizen's suggestion that, in

14 fact, there be a condition imposed by the Board to

15 compel the municipality move forward with vigour as far

16 as a permanent landfill site, we agree and think that

17 would be an excellent condition to be imposed. Thank

18 you.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

20 DIAND wish to make a comment on questions?

21 DIAND QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT ON SEWAGE &

22 EFFLUENT TREATMENT FACILITY:

23 MR . ROGERS: Jim Rogers speaking, INAC . I

24 apologise to the Board. I said I wouldn't have any

25 questions, but I do.

26 One point in your comments was the maintenance of

266

1 the existing sewage distribution or collection system.

2 As you know, INAC -- the water resource officer from

3 Indian Affairs has mentioned this a number of times,

4 the sewage breakages, the spills. Maintenance of the

5 system should be included in your plan someplace and

6 maybe a little more information on that.

7 And the second comment, it's more of a comment. I

8 know when you were designing the new waste water

9 treatment system you looked into multicell lagoons,

10 other mechanical systems. Is there any thought given

11 to using the existing lagoon as a polishing lagoon

12 after the, after the treatment plant, with a four- to

13 six-day retention time to allow a drop in biological

14 oxygen demand and some of the remaining sludge settling

15 in the lagoon? It's just whether that was looked into

16 or not. Thank you.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicants?

18 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

19 That was, in fact, looked at, and the process

20 designer's conclusion was that there would not be any

21 significant enhancement in the effluent quality by

22 adding that into the process.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Geoff?

24 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

25 In looking at that option of pumping sewage back

26 to the lagoon for additional treatment, it was

267

1 identified that a new lift station would be a

2 requirement to pump sewage back to the sewage lagoon

3 which, as we found out last year with the construction

4 -- or the total refit of our existing lift station

5 number one, that comes with a capital cost of about

6 $1.5 million, and certainly doesn't seem feasible right

7 now. Thank you.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

9 Is there any question from Water Board staff? Go

10 ahead, Dionne.

11 WATER BOARD STAFF QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT ON

12 SEWAGE & EFFLUENT TREATMENT FACILITY:

13 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going

14 to -- again, sort of the same process that I've always

15 used. Dionne Filiatrault , Mr. Chair.

16 In the preliminary design report, I guess my first

17 question relates to a final design report and as- builts

18 for the waste water treatment system. That should be

19 provided. In the preliminary design report there was

20 discussion on the design criteria and the assessment of

21 ammonia in the effluent, and I'm just wondering if the

22 City would like to comment on whether or not they feel

23 the effluent discharge from the treatment facility

24 should be regulated for ammonia.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

26 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

268

1 Now, is that from phase one or phase two of the

2 project?

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Geoff, okay.

4 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

5 I think the predesign study that you are referring

6 to actually included two phases, phase one including

7 primary and secondary treatment, and phase two being

8 the expansion of the plant. That is a little different

9 in comparison to what actually happened when the

10 construction was actually broken into three phases:

11 phase one providing primary, phase two providing

12 secondary treatment, and phase three actually expanding

13 the, expanding the capacity of the plant. That's about

14 all I can add there, I think. I don't know if Ken can

15 speak to the effluent quality guideline for ammonia.

16 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

17 So I guess the negotiation or the -- what occurred

18 with the federal officials was that we put forward the

19 effluent criteria of 45 benzene solids, 45 BOD, and

20 five ammonia, and that was, I guess, accepted or -- by

21 the federal regulators as, I guess, a guideline, with

22 the operating criteria being 20-20. And that was

23 accepted as the -- as a reasonable operating criteria

24 for a secondary sewage treatment facility.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

26 Is there any more questions from the Water Board?

269

1 Dionne.

2 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dionne

3 Filiatrault .

4 I guess the next four questions or so are related

5 to that preliminary design report that I'm not sure how

6 valid they are, and I'll maybe just get you to speak to

7 it, to the issues as whether or not they are still

8 valid, and if they are still valid, then some sort of

9 response to them.

10 There's a grit removal system was proposed for the

11 future if grit becomes an issue. Is that still

12 forecasted as a potential future issue?

13 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

14 No, I think grit removal has been removed from

15 the, from the treatment process.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Any more questions from Water Board

17 staff?

18 MS. FILIATRAULT : Final clarification, Mr. Chairman.

19 Confirm with the City that the lagoon is to be

20 used or not to be used as an emergency backup facility,

21 if I could just once again get confirmation on that?

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

23 Applicant?

24 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

25 It is our current plan to retain the sewage lagoon

26 as a backup facility. Thank you.

270

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Dionne?

2 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

3 The document discussed that if the facility was to

4 be maintained, then it would need to be upgraded -- or

5 not upgraded, but would need to be brought into an

6 acceptable operating level. Does the City have any

7 indication of what is needed to meet the

8 recommendations that were made in the preliminary

9 design report to bring it to an acceptable operating

10 level?

11 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

12 As outlined in my presentation, there were a

13 number of recommendation that were put forward through

14 a dam safety inspection done by Concentric Associates.

15 They recommend the preparation of an O & M manual, an

16 emergency preparedness plan, a permanent log book, a

17 permanent file, another dam safety inspection during

18 the summer months, upgrading the lagoon berms , and if

19 the lagoon was to remain as the City's sole source of

20 sewage treatment, that it either be redesigned or

21 rebuilt or an impervious liner installed.

22 I certainly don't think that we could commit to

23 implementing all those recommendations this year, but

24 we certainly will commit to undertaking another dam

25 safety inspection during the summer months of 2006, and

26 we did have a design completed for the upgrade of the

271

1 west dike at a cost of about $65,000. We are also

2 proposing to undertake as much of this work as

3 possible. Subject to funding availability, we'd

4 certainly attempt to implement all recommendations, but

5 I certainly don't see that as being feasible at this

6 time.

7 MS. FILIATRAULT : Mr. Chairman, Dionne Filiatrault .

8 Can you confirm whether or not the design upgrade,

9 or whatever the terminology is that you used, with

10 respect to the upgrade for the west dike was, in fact,

11 submitted as information to this Board?

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

13 MR . BAKER: I had assumed that it was presented

14 to the Board or submitted to the Board. If, in fact,

15 it hasn't, I can certainly provide that by -- before

16 closing of this hearing.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Dionne.

18 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19 In the waste water treatment plant conversion and

20 expansion issued for 96 -- 95 percent review dated

21 October 2004, does this reflect the preliminary design

22 that was developed in May 2004 or the new three-phase

23 final design?

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

25 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

26 I think that predesign document also -- I think

272

1 it, as I indicated earlier, it has the treatment plant

2 being constructed in two phases rather than three,

3 again, as with the first phase, providing primary and

4 secondary treatment, and the second phase providing

5 expansion of the capacity of the plant.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

7 Dionne?

8 MS. FILIATRAULT : There is, I guess -- has the

9 applicant provided any information to the Board with

10 respect to levels of faecal coliform that they propose

11 to be able to meet?

12 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

13 To be honest, I'm not sure. If we could go back

14 and research that and bring that information back to

15 you, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

17 Dionne, do you have further questions?

18 MS. FILIATRAULT : Mr. Chairman, Dionne Filiatrault .

19 Can you provide the Board with some additional

20 information on what -- if the applicant is proposing to

21 do any bioassay testing or toxicity testing, and if so,

22 what standard methods they're proposing to apply?

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant, go ahead.

24 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

25 Actually, that, I guess, effluent criteria monitor

26 is being developed as the plant is being commissioned,

273

1 taking into account, I suppose, the testing facilities

2 that we've got at the plant itself and the -- what is

3 anticipated from the water license, I guess, renewal

4 process. So, I guess that's a short answer.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Dionne?

6 MS. FILIATRAULT : Mr. Chairman, thank you. Dionne

7 Filiatrault .

8 From that, am I to understand that the treatment

9 plant has now been fully commissioned, is not at a

10 pilot project stage, it is fully commissioned, and that

11 there is, in fact, no formal or active monitoring

12 programme in place to assess the efficiency, treatment

13 efficiency of the current facility?

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

15 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

16 The plant is being commissioned. Plants of this

17 type do not operate on a pilot scale because the

18 technology is a proven process, so it's a matter of

19 commissioning and making sure the contractor is in, I

20 guess, compliance with the contract documents and

21 bringing the, the plant up to an operational level, and

22 that takes, takes weeks.

23 So as we speak, the consultant, Earth Tech, has in

24 town a commissioning team, which is an operator or

25 trained operator and a technical support to that, so

26 they're going through the treatment process. The

274

1 operator that is in town is, I guess, developing that

2 sampling -- I guess, protocols over the course of the

3 commissioning period.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

5 Dionne Filiatrault , do you have further questions?

6 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No

7 further questions at this time.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

9 I'll give you the floor. Come to the mike and

10 state your name for the record, thank you.

11 DIAND QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT ON SEWAGE &

12 EFFLUENT TREATMENT FACILITY:

13 MR . HOOS : My name is Rick Hoos . I'm

14 representing INAC . I'm actually an employee of EBA

15 Engineering Consultants. And I do apologise for coming

16 back to the microphone here to ask yet another

17 question, particularly recognising it's also close to

18 suppertime, but going back to the issue of considering

19 using the existing sewage lagoon for a form of

20 polishing prior to final discharge of the effluent to

21 the marine environment, and particularly considering

22 that it may be an undeterminant number of years before

23 secondary treatment is actually perhaps instituted at

24 the plant, I heard two, two reasons why you couldn't

25 use the sewage lagoon or why it wasn't such a good

26 idea. The first one was you felt it wouldn't

275

1 necessarily provide any opportunity for improvement of

2 the effluent as a result of X number days of additional

3 detention or retention of the, of the liquids. I would

4 like to see data that would support that sort of an

5 argument or I think it would be useful for the Board to

6 see if there is such information available, because it

7 would seem surprising that you couldn't gain some

8 benefit from -- even from a toxicity point of view, let

9 alone other considerations, by having additional

10 retention, especially if some air could be added to the

11 system.

12 The second issue that was raised was one of cost,

13 and I must admit, I do not understand exactly how your

14 lift system works. You do have lift stations in your

15 plant to bring it up to the top to begin with to run it

16 through some filters. Perhaps the piping could somehow

17 be adjusted, if necessary, to allow as an alternative

18 or -- never mind alternative, but to use the same power

19 to allow water to go into the lagoon for this

20 additional retention. Perhaps you could just comment

21 further on that.

22 MR . CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

23 Applicants?

24 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

25 I guess it's the -- the information of Geoff Baker

26 was sort of supplemental to mine, that I guess from the

276

1 process engineering perspective of having some

2 additional effluent quality improvement for an

3 additional cost of $1.2 million was not, I guess,

4 deemed to be an appropriate action for -- from an

5 overall process perspective.

6 From the hydraulics of the building itself is that

7 we are dealing with an existing building. We are -- so

8 the design that was in construction that is being

9 completed right now was dealing with an existing

10 structure which has an effluent pipe that comes out

11 below, basically, the discharge elevation of the

12 existing lagoon. So, in fact, from a hydraulic

13 perspective, it would be, it would be impossible to do

14 anything but pump the effluent back to the lagoon.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

16 DIAND ?

17 MR . HOOS : Yes, Rick Hoos , DIAND again.

18 One other comment, and that relates to the

19 toxicity. I guess, Ken, you may have some idea from

20 other arenas of primary treatment that primary treated

21 effluent typically does not meet the DFO standard for

22 fish toxicity. Certainly your effluent here, as long

23 as you've got ammonia levels in excess of 5 milligrams

24 per litre , it would seem likely that your effluent will

25 continue to fail that test, not only during the primary

26 stage, but even the secondary stage. That's just a

277

1 general comment.

2 So maybe -- you know, I'm not sure how appropriate

3 toxicity is going to turn out to be for a, for a sewage

4 effluent of the nature that you're going to be

5 generating 'cause I don't -- I think it's going to have

6 a hard time ever passing that test if that's the case.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

8 Applicants?

9 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

10 Yeah, we've already acknowledged that with the

11 primary treatment system in phase one, that it will not

12 meet the deleterious or the toxicity related to fish.

13 For the phase two effluent criteria, you know, this --

14 our process engineering experts, you know, developed

15 the criteria of, you know, 45-45-5 with general

16 operating criteria less than 20.

17 And this information was, as I say, passed through

18 the Water Board and, I guess, on to the regulators, and

19 there was a comment that this was a generally

20 acceptable effluent quality threshold, but in fact,

21 there was a caveat put on that, that agreement or that

22 letter of response, saying that still may not pass the

23 toxicity issue. But I guess that's, I suppose, the

24 general performance criteria that we felt was

25 appropriate for a secondary treatment system in

26 Iqaluit.

278

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, further question, DIAND ?

2 MR . HOOS : Hello? Yeah, just one final

3 comment. Rick Hoos here.

4 I do still want to make the point that having

5 primary treatment in Iqaluit is a vast improvement over

6 anything that's happened heretofore. Moving in the

7 direction of secondary treatment puts you in the top 10

8 percent of all sewage treatment systems operating in

9 Canada and even higher, better than that, in the world,

10 so you are to be commended for the directions you are

11 going in. I didn't want to give anybody the impression

12 that your system isn't, isn't good and moving in the

13 right direction. It definitely is.

14 The point I simply wanted to make is bioassay

15 testing may not be that useful an instrument for

16 testing the quality of your effluent. I think a mixing

17 zone is going to have to be taken into consideration in

18 order to satisfy environmental concerns.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

20 Applicants?

21 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson. No further comment.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

23 I saw another hand raised up, Jim Little. Come to

24 the microphone and state your name for the record.

25 BILL MACKENZIE HUMANITARIAN SOCIETY QUESTIONS THE CITY

26 OF IQALUIT ON SEWAGE & EFFLUENT FACILITY:

279

1 MR . LITTLE: Hi, it's Jim Little speaking. I

2 got two or three questions, here.

3 A few minutes ago, Ken, you said the cost of the

4 treatment plant was 3.5 million. Qullik , that was

5 Qullik 's price for constructing it. What would be the

6 overall cost, including, you know, the City's

7 engineering that went into it and Earth Tech's

8 commitment and all? Wouldn't that bring the total

9 closer to 4.5 million?

10 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

11 Yes, indeed, it would bring the total construction

12 cost, including engineering fees, to between 4 and 4.5

13 million.

14 MR . LITTLE: Okay, thanks. The reason I ask

15 that is the -- we've heard that the phase two was

16 going to be 10 million. Now, is that for some

17 construction company again, and there's additional

18 millions for development and -- or what is -- is that

19 10 million, is that going to be a turnkey operation, or

20 is that going to be -- is there going to be a lot of

21 other costs involved?

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

23 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

24 Right off the top of my head, I'm not sure. I can

25 go back and research that budget for you and provide

26 that information to you.

280

1 MR . LITTLE: That would be good. Okay, yeah,

2 thank you. It's Jim Little again.

3 We were talking about the standby generator. I'm

4 wondering when that's going to be up and running,

5 because I see it pictured in the schematics for phase

6 two, so is that when it's going to be installed? It's

7 going to be installed before that; is that right?

8 MR . BAKER: Yes, it is going to be installed

9 with primary treatment. We had talked about backup

10 power before. We had talked about bringing one of the

11 City's existing generators, one that was slated for the

12 lift station. The cost to retrofit that generator to

13 fit the primary sewage treatment plant was in the

14 vicinity of about $37,000. We thought it more fitting

15 -- although in increased capital cost right now, we

16 thought it more fitting to upgrade, do to upgrade the

17 generator that was sitting at the sewage treatment

18 plant from the initial construction of the sewage

19 treatment plant. I'm talking 2000-2001 when the city

20 was going down the road of memory and technology.

21 The cost to bring that existing generator into

22 compliance is about $53,000, and yes, that will be

23 installed as part of phase one, primary treatment.

24 MR . LITTLE: The reason I'm asking that --

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Please state your name for the

26 record. Thank you.

281

1 MR . LITTLE: Sorry, Jim Little still here.

2 The reason I'm asking that is -- well, there's

3 another question I want to ask. With the sewage trucks

4 now depositing their loads into that culvert which

5 leads, what, 100, 200 yards to the treatment plant, is

6 there a valve system there that will be operational so

7 that if there is a catastrophic failure at the plant --

8 say it gets hit by a bomb or something so it just

9 doesn't function any more, or say the machinery blows

10 up for some reason, can valves be opened to redirect

11 the effluent, the raw sewage, into the lagoon? Is

12 that, is that --

13 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

14 Yes.

15 MR . LITTLE: Okay. What -- okay.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Please state your name for the

17 record, Jim.

18 MR . LITTLE: All right. It's Jim Little again.

19 Well, okay, that's great. I had another question

20 if that valve system wasn't operating, but I -- I'll

21 pass on that.

22 Now, I've got a -- Ken was saying yesterday that

23 the, that the leachate collection, the water that will

24 be discharged from the freeze-thaw pilot will be in the

25 containment area. Is the size of the dike and the

26 drainage system contingent on money? Because I have a

282

1 document here from Dillon, "Sewage, Iqaluit Landfill

2 Environmental BaseLine Study, Iqaluit Landfill

3 Expansion Sample Locations," and it shows the ditches

4 and dikes and stuff, but the pilot area is well outside

5 of that.

6 Is there another, is there another document around

7 that shows the -- that that actually will be inside --

8 the pilot area will be inside the containment area?

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

10 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

11 I'm not sure to which document you're referring.

12 I think it was the drainage design that was completed

13 by Dillon Consulting in 2001, maybe. 2001?

14 Regardless, it doesn't matter. The City issued a

15 request for proposals this year --

16 MR . LITTLE: This is it.

17 MR . BAKER: -- for a new drainage design to be

18 completed. Certainly this design would, would not have

19 any bearing onto the design that's going to be

20 completed this year.

21 MR . LITTLE: Okay, so Jim Little again.

22 So the, the area at the landfill now where they

23 have that gravel pad, sand pad, where they're putting

24 the sewage sludge now, that will be within the drainage

25 area, the capture area of the landfill? Will it be

26 inside it or outside? Yesterday Ken said it was

283

1 inside. So the ditch is going to go right along the

2 edge of those fences there, is it?

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

4 MR . BAKER: I won't speculate right now where

5 these drainage ditches are going to go because until

6 the design is complete, I really don't know where these

7 ditches are going to go. We'll certainly leave that to

8 our experts to design that. I couldn't speculate where

9 these drainage ditches are going to go, but the

10 commitment certainly has been given to create a

11 leachate containment system over the entire site,

12 including the northern adjacent site which we refer to

13 as our expansion site.

14 MR . LITTLE: Yeah. Well, the expansion site

15 that I see here that's going to contain the leachate is

16 a long way from the pilot area. I guess that's what

17 I'm getting at. And if the pilot area is going to be

18 included in that, is that -- does that mean that the

19 prices are going to have to come in within that

20 $600,000 budget, or are we going to shrink up the size

21 of containment to fit the money that we have allotted?

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

23 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

24 Could I have you repeat the question, please, Jim?

25 MR . LITTLE: Well, I'm -- you've -- I heard

26 earlier submissions that there's $600,000 budgeted for

284

1 leachate collection, containment, and draining the --

2 making sure there's no water running into the facility,

3 right? $600,000. And I've also, in the same breath

4 almost, said that the extent of the leachate collection

5 containment treatment testing, whatever, has to be

6 within our budgetary allotment.

7 And what I'm wondering here is, is a lot of this

8 is going to cost a lot of money. We're not going to

9 put any membrane down because we can't afford it. Are

10 we going to say, well, we can't -- we can do our

11 fencing which is going to make things look good, but we

12 wouldn't do the diking that's actually going to do

13 something?

14 You're going to have to shrink back on what you're

15 actually going to do, and I guess the question is, the

16 area that we're going to shrink back, is that going to

17 put the sewage freeze-thaw bed, the pilot bed, outside

18 of the containment area? That's -- I'm sorry, I don't

19 want to make a big deal out of this, but I tried to put

20 it simply, and if you don't know, that's okay.

21 MR . CHAIRMAN: Applicants?

22 MR . HALL: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board,

23 Mark Hall, City of Iqaluit.

24 I believe the City previously today did commit and

25 did commit yesterday, but within the context of a

26 $600,000 capital budget, the number one priority will

285

1 be the re-ditching, the containment of drainage onsite

2 and offsite, including the sewage sludge management

3 area into a containment area within the landfill site.

4 That is the priority one before contemplation of

5 expenditures on other projects which we'd like to do

6 within the confines of funding, but the priority is the

7 capture containment, processing and testing of the

8 leachate on the site, and to prevent runoff coming onto

9 the site from beyond.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. State your name for the

11 record.

12 MR . LITTLE: Yeah, yeah. It's Jim Little again.

13 If there's new drawings on what is proposed, you

14 know, the extent of what you hope to do, I'd like to be

15 able to see those, if that's possible.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

17 MR . BAKER: Most certainly you could have

18 access to those drawings. The contract is yet to be

19 awarded, so when they do become available, we can --

20 well, we will most assuredly provide those to the Water

21 Board for approval, so thank you.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

23 Jim, state your name for the record.

24 MR . LITTLE: Yeah, it's Jim Little again.

25 I've got two more questions, but I think if I am

26 understanding things correctly, Mr. Johnson is going to

286

1 do a presentation on the sludge management; is that

2 correct? Okay. Well, I'll leave that, questions on

3 that, to another point, till a later time, but the last

4 question is regarding the comment on screenings and

5 grit.

6 Is it not, that piece of stainless steel or those

7 auger screws and all that stuff that's taking about 50

8 kilograms a day going into the wagon, isn't that the

9 screenings and grit? That's already there, that's

10 operational, isn't it? I mean, the machinery is there.

11 I'm assuming that it's working.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicants?

13 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

14 Actually, not being part of the process design for

15 the waste water treatment plant, I'd have to -- I guess

16 we'd have to confirm regarding the, the grit, the grit

17 system as part of the current phase one process.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

19 Jim, state your name for the record.

20 MR . LITTLE: It's Jim Little. Thank you very

21 much.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. It's 20 after five

23 right now. We will have to continue on tonight from

24 7:00, so we should take a break for supper at this

25 time. We'll be back here at 7:00. Thank you.

26 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 5:20 P.M.)

287

1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 7:07 P.M.)

2 THE CHAIRMAN: We shall proceed again with

3 tonight's agenda. At this time I'd like to open the

4 floor for interested parties to present their

5 presentation. I'd like to call GN to go first, Robert

6 Eno . Please come to the microphone. And then will be

7 INAC and Environment Canada and DFO . We'll follow

8 that.

9 Before proceeding, Anne wishes to speak.

10 MS. WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was

11 just going to ask -- it's Anne Wilson, Environment

12 Canada -- if prior to our presentation we could hear

13 the sludge presentation from the City as ours does

14 touch on that, and hearing from the City may answer

15 some of our questions.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: We had difficulty with the

17 transmission. Can you hear us so our lawyer can

18 understand?

19 Anne?

20 MS. WILSON: Anne Wilson, Environment Canada.

21 I just wanted to request that the City be allowed

22 to do their sludge management presentation first as I

23 think both of our presentations include both the sewage

24 and the sludge components, and hearing from them first

25 would help our presentations and questions, please.

26 THE CHAIRMAN: May I have advice from the staff?

288

1 MR . TILLEMAN : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's Bill

2 Tilleman .

3 And if there's no objection from the audience and

4 if the City agrees, then I suggest we do it. The City

5 has nodded that they agree. If there's no objection,

6 everyone is nodding yes in the audience, Mr. Chairman,

7 and I would recommend that the Board would make the

8 decision to go ahead with the town at this time.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant, you have any objection

10 to this request?

11 MR . ENO : Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a

12 suggestion. We're in the same boat as Environment

13 Canada. Our presentation on the sewage management is a

14 combination of the sludge and the lagoon, so I would

15 prefer to hold off on making our presentation until the

16 City of Iqaluit has made their presentation on their

17 sludge management plan, if that's acceptable to the

18 Board.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Robert, I didn't really get a clear

20 understanding 'cause I was doing something else at the

21 moment. Can you repeat that for me? Thank you.

22 MR . ENO : Yeah, sure. It's Robert Eno from

23 DOE. Like Environment Canada, our presentation on the

24 final section on sewage disposal is a combination of

25 the sludge management and waste disposal, sewage

26 disposal in general. So, if the next item up is going

289

1 to be the City presenting their plan on sludge

2 management, I'd prefer to hold off and make our

3 presentation right after they've, they've presented

4 their sludge management plan. If that's acceptable to

5 the Board.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

7 Applicant?

8 MR . BAKER: That is certainly acceptable to the

9 City. We're prepared to give the presentation whenever

10 required. Thank you.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yeah, you may start.

12 PRESENTATION BY CITY OF IQALUIT ON SLUDGE MANAGEMENT:

13 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson, consultant for the

14 City of Iqaluit.

15 This is a presentation based upon the planning

16 report that was submitted to the Nunavut Water Board in

17 January of this year, so this is just an overview of

18 that report.

19 Next slide. The application of mechanical sewage

20 treatment systems across the north over the past 15

21 years has brought forward a demand for sewage sludge

22 handling and appropriate disposal. Landfilling of

23 sewage sludge has been, we tried it a tried-and-true

24 technology with limited requirements for planning,

25 engineering, and regulation. These are a couple of

26 pictures of the Salnes filter system that's in the

290

1 Iqaluit sewage treatment plant.

2 Next slide. To develop a sludge management

3 programme to deal with the screenings , grit, and sludge

4 generated at the Iqaluit waste water treatment plant,

5 the following volumes were considered. In phase one,

6 with the fine screening and grit and primary filter,

7 we're dealing with approximately two cubic metres per

8 day. Phase two of the sewage treatment plant at some

9 point in the future will generate another 3.5 cubic

10 metres per -- cubic metres per day.

11 Next slide. For the sludge management plan, we'll

12 call it SSMP , the -- three key elements were really

13 undertaken to identify and undertake a decision

14 analysis of the technologies to evaluate potential

15 sites for the options and have some consultations with

16 the regulators and the stakeholders.

17 Next slide. The purpose of the planning report

18 was, again, to identify all the appropriate sewage

19 sludge management options, and really key to that was

20 -- for the City was, as we are calling it, leaving no

21 stone unturned. And the City has found in the past

22 that with a lot of the technologies that they've

23 pursued through engineering studies, that at some point

24 there have been proponents coming back and suggesting

25 other solutions to it, and the City really wanted to

26 avoid that with this particular technology, or this

291

1 particular process, because it really creates, I guess,

2 a confusion that -- if there are other options, and

3 when you've advanced engineering to a certain point,

4 you want to make sure that you can proceed with actual

5 implementation. So, we made a very concerted effort to

6 make sure that we brought every conceivable technology

7 into the planning report.

8 The next aspect of the planning report was to

9 analyse the options to identify the most appropriate

10 option for sewage sludge management in Iqaluit, and

11 finally, selecting an appropriate site and considering

12 land-use issues. Now, this is very important for, for

13 Iqaluit, and there's been a lot of effort put into

14 various siting-related issues and a lot of land-use

15 planning related issues in the city, so we wanted to

16 make sure that this came forward and was considered

17 fully with sludge management.

18 Next slide. A variety of conventional as well as

19 modified, patented, and proprietary sludge management

20 technologies are available. All of these technologies

21 may or may not be necessarily appropriate for the City

22 of Iqaluit, particularly in the northern context. And

23 that's something that is very important, is that you

24 may identify an appropriate technology that could be

25 applied in Iqaluit, but you also have to consider if

26 you bring it to Iqaluit and it works in a cold region,

292

1 is it in fact -- will it work in the context of

2 Iqaluit's resources, and both from a financial

3 perspective as well as a human resource perspective.

4 All such management technologies need to be

5 identified and documented in order to provide, again,

6 as I mentioned with the previous slide, that we left no

7 stone unturned.

8 Next slide. This is just a list, and again this

9 is directly from the, the report that was submitted to

10 the Water Board looking at all the various sludge

11 management technologies. And again, I'm not going to

12 read through these, but it just sort of gives you an

13 idea that we really went -- we identified a whole grand

14 list of technologies. So, we really did consider all

15 the potential technologies that could be used for

16 sludge management in Iqaluit.

17 Next slide. And as well as that, as considering

18 end uses for the sludge, which includes such things as

19 land reclamation, co-disposal in the sewage, just

20 landfilling , landfill cover, agriculture, horticulture,

21 land application on agriculture land. And of course,

22 quite obvious in any northern context is land -- there

23 is no agricultural land in the north, but again, we

24 wanted to make sure that we got all these potential

25 technologies identified so that at any point in the

26 future anybody says, "Well, what about this

293

1 technology," we've got it in our report and said we

2 have looked at it and we have made a decision as to

3 whether or not it should be applied. And again, these

4 are -- this is all information from the planning

5 report.

6 Next slide. In the recommendation process was

7 identified -- again, identifying all the sludge

8 management treatment technologies; establishing and

9 applying a screening criteria to the technologies to

10 produce a short list for detailed evaluation; and then

11 in establishing and applying a detailed evaluation to

12 determine the preferred sludge management, reviewing

13 these sludge management technologies in a northern

14 context within the, again, the financial and human

15 resource contacts of the City of Iqaluit and

16 recommending the most appropriate technology; then

17 developing the means of implementation, implementing

18 the most appropriate technology.

19 Next slide. In screening, you see the first

20 analysis or short listing of the technologies was what

21 we call the pass/fail to eliminate unsuitable

22 technologies from the detailed evaluation, and this was

23 based on applicability to the local situation, proven

24 technology, potential regulatory compliance, the

25 diversity of end users, potential for odours , health

26 and safety and public -- health and safety and public

294

1 acceptability, and political support.

2 Next slide. And this is, in fact, again, taking

3 all those previously identified technologies and going

4 through and giving them either a pass or a fail. And

5 again, I mean, the point of this is just to give you an

6 idea of what -- how big the list was that we put

7 together and went through.

8 Next slide. You can see the list was probably

9 upward of 30 different processes that were considered.

10 So a single fail mark marks -- a single fail marked

11 against any one of the criteria removes that particular

12 sludge management technology from the detailed

13 evaluation.

14 Next slide. So out of that evaluation came four

15 potential technologies based upon the screening

16 criteria. Now, it was an interesting point in going

17 through this, a lot of effort was put in to looking at

18 scientific papers about all these technologies and

19 identifying these ones, and it was an interesting point

20 after going through this process that -- doing some

21 research, that in fact a completely -- not a completely

22 different, but a very unique application came forward

23 out of this. There has been quite a bit of work done

24 with sludge management in cold climates, particularly

25 work done in Scandinavia and also in Antarctica, and

26 after doing the research, another solution actually --

295

1 or a variation on these solutions came forward as

2 really something that would provide something very

3 unique to Iqaluit, but also something that has been

4 done to a great degree in other cold-region

5 applications.

6 Next slide. This is just a detailed evaluation of

7 those, those four technologies that came out. I'm

8 actually jumping a little bit ahead of myself. So,

9 those four technologies actually went through a

10 detailed evaluation based on socio -economic criteria,

11 technical criteria, operational criteria, and they were

12 rated on a scale of one to ten and then scored by what

13 is called a decision analysis.

14 Next slide. And this is what this evaluation came

15 through. And really, again, it was -- what came out of

16 that was the -- that air drying came out to be the

17 highest rated technologies, followed by what is called

18 open composting, invested composting where you

19 essentially have a container where you compost, and

20 aerobic digestion where you essentially have a

21 container that you put air into that processes the

22 sludge.

23 Next slide. So this is just a summary, again, of

24 those. This is where I should have, in fact,

25 interjected my next point, is that this -- what came

26 out of the research was that there was a specific

296

1 application that would be very well suited to Iqaluit's

2 weather and some, and -- well, I can say weather,

3 climate and, I suppose, geography.

4 Next slide. What we also did as part of the

5 sludge evaluation was look at what we call

6 environmental planning, and this became very important

7 because sludge is -- I'm going to say can be a very

8 undesirable, aesthetic -- it can have very serious

9 aesthetic impacts, meaning being it can be a health

10 hazard. It can be quite smelly. But in fact, we

11 wanted to make sure that we considered strongly where

12 within the community would be a good location for a

13 sludge management facility.

14 Next slide. So what we did was in the

15 environmental planning, we looked at the potential

16 setback -- actually, the potential setback, based on

17 the Health Act, that sludge or sewage treatment

18 facilities need to be about -- need to be 500 metres

19 back from human habitation. This drew a line around

20 the downtown. We were looking at the current limit of

21 road accessibility because we certainly wanted to make

22 sure that, that we didn't have to build a new road

23 system just specifically for sludge management, and we

24 were also looking at the potential setback from the,

25 from the airport since the sludge management composed a

26 bit of a -- can be a bird hazard for aircraft.

297

1 Next slide. We also looked at the existing land

2 use planning within the City of Iqaluit and identifying

3 that there were old dump sites around the community.

4 There's an existing white side, but there's also green

5 space and open space that has a very important value

6 for the community; and environmental planning,

7 recognising that there are certain drainage catchment

8 areas or certain streams that have particular

9 importance, particularly for Lake Geraldine; and

10 finally, looking at where the existing road systems go

11 from the existing -- from waste water treatment plant

12 going out to the causeway, up to the Upper Base out to

13 the Road to Nowhere, and out to Apex, as that the

14 existing road system should be utilised for this.

15 Next slide. And this identified really three

16 potential areas that sludge management could -- where

17 sludge management could be utilised , those being the

18 Upper Base or north 40, the Road to Nowhere, and the

19 existing west 40 area. And really, out of this one,

20 our conclusion was that really the existing area in the

21 west 40 would be the most appropriate. Particularly

22 what is really important in this particular aspect is

23 that we did not want to transport the sludge through

24 the community. That would really pose a longer

25 distance, but also a potential, a potential concern for

26 spillage, and particularly when you're in residential

298

1 areas or commercial areas where people are actually

2 walking around or out and about.

3 Next slide. So after having done this analysis

4 and looking at the, the short-listed technologies, we

5 saw a couple -- several technical papers that suggested

6 that we could take advantage of the northern climate in

7 Iqaluit for doing the sludge management and really do

8 it on a very simple and economical means. Iqaluit has

9 extreme cold, minus 46 degrees C in 1967. It has some

10 warmth, and in fact, as we've seen probably in the last

11 week and a half, Iqaluit has a lot of warmth with

12 the -- but it has temperatures that can get up to in

13 the mid 20s to 30s , and it has limited rainfall.

14 So all of these factors came into play with the

15 option that we have recommended in the planning report,

16 is what we've called a freeze-drying, a freeze-thaw

17 drying with composting, and I think all of the Board

18 members have seen how the planning or the pilot scale

19 programme is being implemented at the landfill site.

20 We saw that this afternoon.

21 Next slide. So further, as I mentioned that

22 further literature reviewing on air drying in cold

23 climate suggested that a freeze-thaw process could

24 provide an optimisation consistent with the cold

25 climate of Iqaluit. An important aspect of this

26 process is the irreversible separation of sludge

299

1 particles and water. And actually, somebody -- the

2 analogy I was suggesting, I think, yesterday was a

3 muddy pond with the ice that forms on top of it and the

4 water, the water is always clear.

5 But another analogy is, is out on the tundra if

6 you observe, I guess, caribou manure, that in fact if

7 you come back with time to the caribou manure, you'll

8 look that it actually gets dryer with time, the same

9 pile of manure. So in fact, what water likes to do,

10 because it is so organised , that when it freezes and

11 thaws, it separates from the solids and you do get a

12 very dry -- or you get a drying of the material.

13 So following this dewatering and drying process,

14 then composting can provide the destablisation and

15 destruction of the pathogens or disease-causing

16 organisms. So, you've got freezing from September to

17 May, thawing in May to June, and then composting

18 through the summer month -- summer months, and then

19 maturing from September to May again. So, this is sort

20 of the general time line for the freeze-thaw and

21 composting process.

22 Next slide. The pilot programme that the City of

23 Iqaluit is currently implementing with the start-up of

24 the sewage treatment plant, and again, you were out

25 here, is utilising an area of the proposed expansion to

26 the landfill area, and then with time, as this process

300

1 is optimised or we find out how it works best, is then

2 expanding it as needed to the area to the west of the,

3 I guess, the current or the unused area or the proposed

4 expansion to the landfill; and as has already been

5 mentioned, that the drainage associated with using this

6 area would, would eventually be included as part of the

7 drainage management plan that the City of Iqaluit

8 currently has underway for this, the work they have

9 underway for this summer.

10 Next slide. This is a, this is a picture, again,

11 of that area with the -- the pilot operating area and

12 then the expanded area that would occur with time. So,

13 the operating area for the SSM was to be located by the

14 -- beside the existing landfill facility with the

15 advantage of it uses landfill resources, which is the

16 bulking agents, because the composting process itself

17 requires additional carbon, which is essentially paper

18 or wood chips, to really optimise the process. And

19 with utilising the composting process out at the

20 landfill, the end use of the sewage sludge is a

21 landfill cover material. What would happen, as well,

22 is you'd have a minimum aesthetic impact because it is,

23 in fact, located beside an existing sewage treatment --

24 or sorry, existing landfill facility.

25 Next slide. What we did to advance the pilot

26 programme is make an application to the Federation of

301

1 Canadian Municipalities, and they have approved in

2 principle the -- some funding for this project, and

3 we're now putting in a grant application to cover about

4 50 percent of the cost of the pilot or the trial

5 programme .

6 An important element to this trial programme is

7 this specialised bucket for the front-end loader, and

8 essentially what this is, is a mixing bucket. So we

9 can actually pick up the dried sludge and start mixing

10 it with the cardboard, shredded cardboard or paper, and

11 it becomes a very -- actually, a very efficient way of

12 advancing or treating the sewage sludge into

13 composting. So, this is part of the funding that the

14 City is currently applying for and will hopefully have

15 in place within the next several months to assist with

16 the composting.

17 Next slide. That's it. That's the end of my

18 presentation.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, applicants.

20 So open the floor for questions. Okay. Can I

21 have -- is there any questions from the parties,

22 interested parties? DIAND , you have a question?

23 MR . ROGERS: Jim Rogers, INAC .

24 Could the Board request a hard copy of that

25 presentation sometime today or have it sent to the

26 intervenors at some time, please? Thank you.

302

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

2 Bill, respond to that.

3 MR . TILLEMAN : Yes, sir. Yes, sir, thank you,

4 Mr. Chairman.

5 We will request that, and without objection being

6 shown, then we will enter that as the next exhibit.

7 And we'll need to get that before the end of the

8 hearing. So we'll mark that one as number 14. Thank

9 you, Mr. Chairman.

10 EXHIBIT 14:

11 CITY OF IQALUIT - SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN

12 PRESENTATION, KEN JOHNSON

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

14 Now open the floor for questions. Does DIAND have

15 questions regarding to the presentation?

16 MR . WEBBER: No questions, thank you.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there any -- Jim

18 Little, do you have a question regarding the

19 presentation?

20 BILL MACKENZIE HUMANITARIAN SOCIETY QUESTIONS THE CITY

21 OF IQALUIT ON SLUDGE MANAGEMENT:

22 MR . LITTLE: Hi, I'm Jim Little. I think Earth

23 Tech is on the right track, but I have some concerns

24 about the sequencing of your pilot. Now, I -- this

25 isn't guess work on my part. I have been corresponding

26 with Dr. James Martel who has developed a lot of this

303

1 freeze-thaw technology all over, worked at it for

2 years. He's a PhD , and he's been a consultant of mine.

3 And first of all, I have sent him all the data

4 that I could get my hands on, the sewage sludge

5 management plans, some additional questions I got

6 answered from, from Geoff, and a bunch of photocopies

7 from the -- from your final conceptual drawings for the

8 sewage treatment plant that gives the amounts of BOD

9 and TSS and all those things that I don't understand.

10 But he requested the information, and basically he

11 wanted a weather data as well.

12 And he -- based on our population and our sludge

13 production from phase two, he told me -- well, he told

14 me a number of things. One, we can freeze over seven

15 metres of sludge here throughout our freezing climate,

16 according to the data provided by Environment Canada.

17 But the -- we can only thaw, in our -- in our summer

18 period, our thawing period, 1.1 metres , 1.1 metres .

19 And the time period to run that thawing isn't two

20 months, it's from -- it's from the 1st of June until

21 the end of September. That's what he based his data

22 on. There might be -- I think it's not the end of

23 September and it's not quite the 1st of June, but that

24 period was worked out according to the data from

25 Environment Canada.

26 So, what I'm trying to get here to is, in fact,

304

1 the size of a freeze-thaw bed would in fact, based on

2 Dr. Martel 's data, would be one and a half acres.

3 That's providing it's a metre -- 1.1 metre thick and we

4 are using the entire summer to thaw the stuff out.

5 So, we're going to require a land area, if we're

6 going to do it in half -- we're going to only thaw out

7 half the time, it would stand to reason that the thaw

8 depth would only be half as much, you know, just

9 ballpark guessing. So instead of 1.5 acre freeze-thaw

10 bed, we now need 3 acres.

11 And if anybody has been around a facility that

12 composts or deals with sewage sludge, it will knock you

13 out. The stuff gets on your clothes. It is one of the

14 most foul-smelling materials that exists. And if we've

15 got a three-acre freeze-thaw bed open to the elements,

16 mister, I'm telling you, there's going to be a public

17 outcry that you will hear from here to Kimmirut .

18 I just don't think it's appropriate, especially

19 that particular area. Even that small test pilot area

20 strikes me as very ill-conceived. People walk by

21 there; they jog by there; they bicycle by there. It's

22 very -- it's campground down there. There's a lot of

23 people that go to that landfill. I mean, it's -- I see

24 that as a major obstacle with this plan, although I

25 commend you for developing it to this point.

26 You mentioned no stone unturned. Well, I think we

305

1 can look under the rocks a little bit more because I

2 think we can definitely improve upon it, and I'm hoping

3 that I can show you how. If we use the right

4 technology, again, we can reduce the size not -- from

5 1.5 acre to maybe three-quarters of an acre, even

6 smaller, with no additional cost, mind you.

7 Anyway, the other, the other thing, of course,

8 it's great to do the pilot, I'm happy about that, but

9 I'm wondering when an actual freeze-thaw bed will

10 actually be implemented. When will this actually

11 happen? Because to me, it appears that this is a

12 recipe for disaster in that, you know, it sounds good,

13 and I don't want to say that -- disagree with this

14 approach.

15 I think it's an excellent approach, but the

16 process, the steps to get there, are seriously flawed.

17 And I think what will happen once the sewage -- once

18 everything has settled down and the sewage treatment

19 plant is kicking out the sludge trailer load every two

20 days, or whatever it is, you're going to find that the

21 whole process is just a little bit crazy, and it's

22 going to be awful simple just to dump it in the

23 landfill and bury it, and I think that's what's going

24 to happen.

25 I'd like to know -- I'd like to see a firm

26 commitment on developing an actual development plan for

306

1 this sludge, not this -- I wish I had better choice of

2 words. I always say things that don't come across

3 quite right, but I think you know what I'm saying. I

4 think it would be -- we need a better plan, a

5 long-range plan that's actually going to deal with it,

6 and some sort of a commitment by the City that we're

7 actually going to do it.

8 And before I sit down, I would like to think that

9 the City is open minded and will listen to some

10 possible design changes that could actually make this

11 simpler to work, that will actually utilise their

12 climate, but it will also utilise some other things

13 that are free for us.

14 So with that, I'll sit down. Thank you for

15 listening.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

17 Any response? Applicant wish to respond?

18 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

19 Recognising that the volume of sludge we're

20 dealing with is significantly less than what -- the

21 calculation that Mr. Little has put forward, we are

22 dealing with the two cubic metres and so the areas that

23 he's talking about are for the eventual secondary

24 treatment system, which is, as the town -- or the City

25 has indicated, at some point in the future, at which

26 time, in fact, there will be a new landfill site, so

307

1 that as part of that landfill-siting process, that the

2 sludge management will be integral to that. So in

3 fact, that the process of area requirements for the

4 future will be part of the new landfill site so that

5 we, in fact, have sufficient area right now to manage

6 the sludge production and the freeze-thaw composting

7 process that we are recommending.

8 The depth that he was talking about in the

9 technical information is that, you know, we are

10 recognising that we need to experiment a little bit and

11 use a sludge depth at somewhere between, between sort

12 of one and two feet and see how that performs with the

13 dewatering and then the composting.

14 I guess part of the process in terms of aesthetics

15 and odour , we will, I guess, see how that performs over

16 the course of the coming summer. And we're, you know,

17 looking at the -- you know, the drying occurring, and

18 again with -- Mr. Little was looking at, you know, a

19 one metre depth of, I suppose, the freeze. I mean, we

20 can't -- theoretically, say, we go up several metres ,

21 but in fact managing that from the trailer system that

22 the City has in place would not be very, I guess you

23 say, feasible.

24 So we are, you know, dealing with a fairly small

25 profile, and again, putting it into a pilot process to

26 see how we can optimise the performance of this, of

308

1 this process technology.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, applicants.

3 Is there any more question from interested

4 parties? Robert Eno from GN.

5 GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT DOE QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT

6 ON SLUDGE MANAGEMENT:

7 MR . ENO : Robert Eno , Department of

8 Environment.

9 Two questions. First question: Have you folks

10 considered transporting that sludge in one of your

11 enclosed sewage trucks, or is this stuff just too

12 viscous?

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

14 MR . JOHNSON: I would say that the sludge is too,

15 is too viscous, but I suppose from an operation

16 perspective is that, you know, sort of sewage trucks

17 are dedicated to, you know, the truck sewage outfall,

18 so that would not be, I guess, an appropriate use of

19 the vehicles at this time.

20 MR . ENO : Robert Eno from DOE.

21 The second question is: In your test bed, is that

22 test bed going to be sloped so that when the thaw

23 season comes, that the water will run off rather than

24 just percolate back through the sludge? I know that

25 you've said that, you know, and I understand the

26 principle by which the freeze-thaw process takes place,

309

1 but if it's just sitting on flat ground, will the water

2 just not percolate back through the sludge?

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

4 Applicants?

5 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

6 Well, it is percolating -- I mean, it's going to

7 percolate down through and then, I suppose, hit the

8 sand that we've got out there and then hit the frozen

9 ground and then form part of the onsite runoff

10 management system. I mean, that's what we're

11 envisioning right now. So in fact the, you know -- I

12 mean, this -- we'll still have essentially frozen

13 ground over the -- you know, between the -- I say the

14 period that we expect the freeze-thaw to occur, and

15 then as they catch it or manage that runoff as it comes

16 through the sludge and hits the ground.

17 MR . ENO : Robert Eno , DOE. One more

18 question, hopefully, unless this generates another

19 question.

20 You're referring to the sand as a biofilter . Like

21 all filters, it gets clogged. Have you taken this into

22 consideration, that the sand may eventually become

23 saturated with residual sludge as a result of the

24 gravitational effect of the water coming through and

25 carrying with it particulates .

26 MR . JOHNSON: Actually, that's a good question,

310

1 but in fact, what will happen, once the drying has

2 occurred and the composting starts, that unless the

3 operator has a high level of skill, he's going to be,

4 in fact, scraping off what is referred to as the

5 schmutzedeck , and that is a real word, is that anytime

6 you have a sand filtration system is that first layer

7 forms its own biological layer as effluent goes through

8 it, and in fact, what you have to do is scrape it off.

9 But in fact, by virtue of the bucket operating, once

10 it's dried, and it starts mixing, that the schmutzedeck

11 will be removed, so you'll eventually have a fresh

12 layer of sand, 'cause that biologically active layer is

13 actually -- is only, I would say, millimetres thick.

14 MR . ENO : Robert Eno from DOE.

15 Then I presume that the sand will be renewed on a

16 periodic basis as required?

17 MR . JOHNSON: Yes. I think that's one thing that

18 Iqaluit does have. It may not have a lot of gravel,

19 but it does have a lot of sand.

20 Ken Johnson.

21 MR . ENO : Robert Eno .

22 That's all my questions, and thanks for that great

23 word.

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

25 Call once again -- okay, Paul Crowley.

26 MR . CROWLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Paul

311

1 Crowley.

2 I just want to follow up on a question that Robert

3 asked. I'm concerned about the trucking issue, as I

4 mentioned earlier today. Is an enclosed truck an

5 impossibility or could it be a backup? I understand

6 they may not be the best use, but I'm worried about the

7 trucking not working out as planned and what is the

8 backup if it doesn't.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant has a response?

10 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

11 I guess that you say the sewage trucks are not an

12 option. A covered trailer was not, I guess, thought to

13 be needed since -- for the transportation. It was, I

14 guess, a focus more on the issue of the trailer itself

15 was able to contain the sludge, because I suppose in

16 the unlikely event there is an accident, I mean, the

17 sludge will -- could spill out, but it's not like -- an

18 analogy to it I suppose would be with trucks in the

19 south now.

20 If you go into most southern jurisdictions, the

21 dump trucks that haul any sort of dirt or anything are

22 actually covered now, but in fact that's a very dry

23 material that can be blown out. But in the case of the

24 sewage sludge, it is still, you know, quite wet, so

25 it's not going to have -- it's not going to have

26 particulate blowing out because it is, as I say, it's

312

1 fairly wet and fairly cohesive.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

3 Paul?

4 MR . CROWLEY: It's Paul Crowley.

5 So you're telling me, I guess, you're confident

6 that we're not going to have sloshing of sludge across

7 between the dump site and where it gets picked up? I

8 mean, that's essentially what I'm trying to get at, as

9 you can probably understand. As people go towards

10 Sylvia Grinnell Park and the west 40 and the north 40

11 -- well, the west 40, anyhow, and use it for

12 recreational use, that's a concern.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

14 MR . JOHNSON: I very much appreciate the body

15 language 'cause that sort of told the whole story. No,

16 sludge does not have enough moisture in it for that.

17 This is quite -- I mean, in -- it does have -- I mean,

18 it does have a lot of moisture, but still, it doesn't

19 take very many -- very much solids to actually make a

20 very cohesive mix that won't -- that has a completely

21 different characteristic to water.

22 MR . CROWLEY: Okay. Paul Crowley.

23 This morning I was at another meeting, before I

24 came here, on climate change. I mean, I realise this

25 is a pilot project; however, our climate has been

26 changing, and we got rain last week. We're expecting

313

1 wetter and more precipitation over the next years. How

2 will that impact on this, or does it have an impact on

3 the pilot at all?

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

5 Applicant?

6 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

7 I would say it has no impact on the pilot, but

8 certainly in any biological process, that living

9 organisms do have a tendency to not perform in a -- I

10 suppose in a consistent manner. So certainly there

11 will have to, I think, be observations and

12 modifications with time. But considering the

13 enthusiasm and interest of the Iqaluit's landfill

14 manager, that he's going to be all over this and

15 really, I think, do probably an outstanding job of

16 implementing this process.

17 MR . CROWLEY: So one last question related to

18 that. I understand the principle is using the filter

19 and the percolation. If we have a rain event in the

20 middle of February like we had last week where we're

21 unlikely to get the percolation, we're more likely to

22 just get the rain and then a wash, how will that -- how

23 will that get dealt with?

24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

25 Applicants?

26 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

314

1 Actually, that will just go into the surface

2 runoff system, so in fact it will flow off and flow

3 with the grade of the land. So with the, with the

4 planned runoff -- onsite runoff management, it will go

5 into that system and really won't have, in fact, any

6 impact on the freeze-thaw because, I mean -- I mean,

7 frozen ground is not impermeable, you know. Water will

8 still move -- to some degree move through it, but it

9 has a very low permeability, so most of the water will

10 just flow off.

11 MR . CROWLEY: Thanks.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

13 Is there any more, any more questions from

14 interested parties? Okay, come up to the microphone.

15 Please state your name for the record.

16 THE PUBLIC QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT ON SLUDGE

17 MANAGEMENT:

18 MS. HAN: Siuling Han.

19 I just want to ask some questions to make sure I

20 understand properly what has been explained today. So,

21 in terms of water quality from the sewage plant, it

22 won't really get good until phase two and three are

23 completed. And in terms of the sludge plan, you're

24 basing your pilot on an assumption that we wouldn't

25 have to accommodate phase two and three because of size

26 stuff, and -- or we will at some point in the future

315

1 when we will have this gigantic new landfill which will

2 include, if I understand correctly, potentially a

3 three-acre sludge bed, and that could happen within the

4 next five years because that's when we're going to run

5 out of the room in the current landfill.

6 So I would -- it immediately makes me wonder where

7 this new landfill is going to be that includes enough

8 space for a three-acre sludge bed, if that's correct or

9 not, because all the rationale you used for the current

10 siting is great, I mean, other than for all the people

11 that come and go from the causeway to get onto the ice,

12 especially in the spring, and the people that camp in

13 that area in the summer, and the people that go up and

14 down that road for whatever other reasons all through

15 the rest of the year, including the businesses and

16 access to Sylvia Grinnell Park, and I guess probably

17 the people living along that road.

18 But the new landfill and the three-acre sludge

19 bed, the options on that side of town are pretty

20 limited for where that could go. So, if you find

21 yourself suddenly having to put your new landfill and

22 three-acre sludge bed anywhere else but in the west 40,

23 then all those concerns that you discussed about

24 driving through town to get to it could be as soon as

25 five years from now.

26 And just, I guess my question is, did I get any of

316

1 that logic wrong, and I'd be happy to hear that if that

2 is the case. Thank you.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

4 Applicant?

5 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

6 I guess the first issue or the first comment was

7 with the effluent quality. It's probably not fair to

8 say that the effluent won't be good until phase two of

9 the sewage treatment plant when it becomes secondary.

10 A primary effluent quality is still a much better

11 quality than raw sewage, and certainly it is the City's

12 objective to move towards secondary treatment, but

13 again, with the $10 million price tag, that has to come

14 into play somewhere down the road.

15 So the -- I guess there still will be a primary

16 sewage effluent, which is a significant -- well, not a

17 significant, a substantial improvement than raw sewage,

18 and certainly providing a -- or maintaining the

19 effluent quality that the sewage lagoon is providing,

20 and in fact, making sure that the effluent quality is

21 maintained, because the sewage lagoon will not have

22 capacity as the town grows.

23 You know, it is -- over the last 15 years, the

24 sewage lagoon has gone from a -- what is called an

25 hydraulic retention time, basically the amount of time

26 it stays in the pond from about 15 days down to about

317

1 five over the last, say, 10 to 15 years, so that has

2 certainly made the effluent quality -- has decreased

3 the effluent quality. So that with the new sewage

4 treatment plant, that in fact is maintaining what the

5 effluent quality that was, say, ten years ago. I mean,

6 we will ultimately know when the commissioning and

7 testing of the -- or the commissioning of the sewage

8 treatment plant is complete and the testing protocols

9 have gone into play.

10 Regarding the landfill siting, at this point a new

11 landfill site will have to be identified and put into

12 development within the next five years based on the

13 information that the City has right now. And that

14 siting process is very -- say very complex, but very

15 time-consuming and will take some time. But within

16 that process of, of doing the consultation, doing the

17 engineering, doing the planning for a new site, the

18 sludge management will be integral to that, as well as

19 hazardous waste management, as well as bulky waste, and

20 all the really -- all those significant components will

21 be part of that overall planning study or planning

22 process.

23 The three hectares is probably not a good number

24 to put at that because, again, we won't ultimately know

25 what the land requirement is until we have started -- I

26 guess, completed the pilot process, but as well as when

318

1 considering how that performs and what, what -- how the

2 potential process needs to be modified to entertain

3 secondary sludge at some point in the future.

4 So I guess that -- so the general answer to that

5 is, that is part of a fairly comprehensive planning

6 study for solid waste management that will take place

7 between now and the next five years.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

9 Is there any more questions from interested

10 parties? So is the Water Board -- oh, okay. Sorry.

11 You can come to the microphone.

12 MS. HAN: Siuling Han.

13 Just another question. There are a bunch of

14 questions that have been raised with regard to how the

15 sewage sludge management will succeed and, you know,

16 the size of the sludge bed that will be ultimately

17 needed. And you've kind of indicated that that 's all

18 dependent on the outcome of the pilot project, and yet

19 I believe that earlier it was said that this stuff had

20 been done in Scandinavia and the Antarctic, et cetera,

21 et cetera.

22 So presumably, there's enough information in

23 existence to at least make some projections about that,

24 and I believe that the person that Jim Little was

25 referring to would be somebody -- from what I

26 understand, he is -- he was making those kinds of

319

1 projections based on real data and based on real

2 experience with this technology. So, I'm not really

3 clear why some of these things are such big question

4 marks.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

6 Applicants?

7 MR . JOHNSON: These are small question marks, and

8 I think for taking technology or processes in cold

9 regions, having worked up enough in the north to say

10 that we know that the process in principle works, but

11 we want to make sure that we can optimise it. So

12 that's why we're calling it a pilot programme and

13 recognising that we are trying to optimise the process.

14 We are, in fact, also using the -- I mean, in the

15 composting we are applying a mechanical mixer that we

16 can't say has been -- we know that the mixing bucket

17 that the town is trying to or proposing to purchase

18 works well on mixing compost. It's been -- the City of

19 Edmonton has used it, and it recommends that we use

20 this technology.

21 So I guess the labelling it a pilot process, I

22 guess you could also use the phrase "an optimisation

23 process," because recognising we are dealing with a

24 very unique climate. Even though you say it's been

25 designed or applied in Scandinavia and Antarctica,

26 still that, I think -- or identifies that the process

320

1 itself will work, but in dealing with, okay, do we, in

2 fact -- can we go up to a metre thick in bed, or should

3 we keep it down at -- you know, that optimisation

4 process of seeing how that reacts.

5 And then with the actual composting itself as -- I

6 mean, for composting, a very critical element to

7 composting is the addition of a carbon source, meaning

8 wood chips and paper or some carbon source, and that

9 can vary anywhere from sort of a 50/50 or better,

10 actually requiring more. So we want to, again,

11 optimise that process.

12 So if "pilot" is a phrase to be applied to it, I

13 suppose " optimisation " can be applied to it as well.

14 MS. HAN: Siuling Han, again.

15 I was just -- I guess I was seeking clarification

16 because it sounded to me like there is information

17 available that would enable a certain amount of

18 modelling and projecting to be done, and I was just

19 wondering if that had been done in this planning.

20 MR . JOHNSON: We did review, I guess, the

21 literature that is available, I suppose applying --

22 that's why, again, we've sort of recommended that a

23 depth somewhere between 20 and 40 be considered for,

24 for the, I guess, the configuration we have. And at

25 the same point, with the carbon source of using this,

26 this bucket technology to, I suppose, try it out and

321

1 see how well it will work and what sort of mixing is

2 ultimately required to, to get the best compost.

3 That's Ken Johnson.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, thank you.

5 You have more questions?

6 MS. HAN: Yeah. Siuling Han again.

7 Thanks. I mean, I appreciate where you guys are

8 trying to go with this and, you know, I know that it's

9 not easy, so -- and I just want to recognise that. But

10 a lot of the information that was presented this

11 evening was quite interesting and new to me, and I was

12 just wondering, in the selection process you identified

13 that you had looked at socio -economic criteria,

14 environment criteria, things like that, and I'm just

15 wondering whether or not -- and a lot of the questions

16 that are coming out right now seem to be questions

17 that -- what am I getting at?

18 I'm getting at -- I guess what I'm getting at,

19 there seem to be a lot of things that in a public

20 consultation -- that might have been more appropriately

21 addressed during a public consultation process on this,

22 on this whole thing, rather -- not necessarily having

23 the Board have to sit through what's essentially, you

24 know, public questions about things that are of great

25 interest to the public. And I don't know if I missed

26 the public consultation part where all -- like, in this

322

1 process of the solid waste management, sludge

2 management planning, or has there just not been an

3 actual formal public consultation on this?

4 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

5 I guess the stakeholder consultation that has

6 occurred was information to the regulators and

7 organisations such as the MacKenzie Humanitarian

8 Society, and I think we also put out a communiqu to, I

9 think, the hunters and trappers and a few other

10 organisations and, I guess, essentially didn't receive

11 any feedback.

12 And it also is a matter of timing, you know, of

13 starting and executing this, I guess, this sludge

14 management plan and, you know, I guess concluding -- or

15 including it in the early winter and then coming up

16 against the Water Board hearing.

17 So there's always, I suppose, an improvement that

18 could have been made in, in the consultation process,

19 but I guess that was a matter of the timing that we had

20 available to us to move forward with this particular

21 project.

22 MS. HAN: All right, thanks.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

24 Robert Eno from GN.

25 GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT DOE QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT

26 ON SLUDGE MANAGEMENT:

323

1 MR . ENO : Robert Eno from DOE.

2 In listening to Mr. Little's submission, and I

3 want to emphasise I'm not taking sides with Mr. Little

4 over your, over your contentions, he does appear to

5 have some heavy hitters giving him some advice which

6 instills some doubt in my mind, and I'm just wondering,

7 do you have a plan B in the event that your sludge

8 management plan doesn't work or how -- or maybe I could

9 even rephrase that: How confident are you in this?

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

11 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

12 I guess the simple answer to this would be plan B

13 would be landfilling , but I guess -- and again, we're

14 saying that, you know, we are going to -- with the

15 freeze-thaw, we are going to reduce the moisture. I

16 mean, that's a simple matter of -- I've made several

17 analogies to it, that water and solids do not like to

18 hang out against -- around each other, so there will be

19 that separation. So with the freeze-thaw, we are going

20 to get a dewatered sludge. Now, given that, then with

21 the dewatered sludge, then there is an opportunity to

22 compost.

23 So, I guess it's a matter of, again, optimising

24 the processes that we are -- have in play. And I mean,

25 it's the same -- what Mr. Little was talking about,

26 it's still the same physics, really. When you're --

324

1 you know, if he's talking about the physics of, you

2 know, of sludge and dewatering sludge, it's still the

3 same assay physics. The water and the sludge will

4 separate. To what degree we will find out over the

5 course of the coming months and into the summer.

6 And then the -- so we've got, we've got some good

7 physics going for us with the, with the freeze-thaw, no

8 question about that. We've got some good biology going

9 for us with the composting. Mr. Little has

10 demonstrated that. So in fact, we can achieve

11 dewatering with the physics; we can achieve the

12 composting with the biology. So, you know, that, I

13 guess, leads to the, I guess, the simple conclusion

14 that I don't think -- there may not be a need for the

15 plan B.

16 MR . ENO : Robert Eno .

17 So you're saying that you have full confidence in

18 your plan, in other words.

19 MR . JOHNSON: Well, I guess we're -- sorry, Ken

20 Johnson. I mean, we're going to optimise it.

21 MR . ENO : Robert Eno . Thank you very much.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

23 Any more -- come to the microphone. Please state

24 your name.

25 THE PUBLIC QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT ON SLUDGE

26 MANAGEMENT:

325

1 MS. HAN: Siuling Han again.

2 I feel a bit uncomfortable asking this question,

3 but -- and I like the general plan, again, the

4 composting and I think that all makes sense. I am

5 concerned about the optimisation . I mean, if we're

6 talking about three acres, or whatever it may be, and

7 so I would like to know, have you done a project like

8 this anywhere else?

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

10 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

11 Specifically, I suppose the technical question

12 (sic) is no. We are, as I just explained, based on, I

13 suppose, good physics and good biology. The three

14 acres is probably -- again, that was Mr. Little's

15 estimate for phase two of the landfill site, which I

16 think has a total sludge generation rate of, I think,

17 five or six cubic metres per day, whereas we're now

18 with the phase one at about a quarter of that, a third

19 of that, so the area requirement is substantially less.

20 And that's my short answer, Mr. Chair.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

22 You have a further question.

23 MS. HAN: That's raised two questions, I

24 guess. First, in terms of thank you for being just

25 direct about saying the answer is no, that you haven't

26 done one of these before.

326

1 My understanding is that it's not actually

2 Mr. Little who's making these projections, it's

3 actually this -- a team of people who actually have

4 worked on this kind of stuff. And I would hope that

5 there's an opportunity for the City to draw on all the

6 expertise and resources that would ensure that we

7 optimise this project in a way that we would all like

8 to see it work out. That's my first -- it's just a

9 point.

10 I guess my second is, I'm getting a bit confused

11 and, at the same time, concerned because I feel like

12 when we talk about the sludge I'm being told, yeah,

13 don't worry, all that huge volume of sludge, that's

14 phase two/phase three, so don't worry about that. And

15 yet when we talk about the water quality to get better

16 than what the sewage lagoon is giving us now, oh, well,

17 that will be phase two and phase three. So, I feel

18 like there's a little bit of something that I feel a

19 bit uncomfortable about now, less -- more uncomfortable

20 than when maybe you started your presentation. Thank

21 you.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

23 Geoff Baker.

24 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

25 The focus right now seems to be around this three

26 hectares of land that's going to be required for this

327

1 the sludge management facility, and I think it would be

2 advantageous to the City to maybe see a copy of these

3 calculations so that we could actually provide a

4 reasonable technical response to that. Thank you.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

6 INAC , do you have a question or comment?

7 DIAND QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT ON SLUDGE

8 MANAGEMENT:

9 MR . ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's Jim

10 Rogers, INAC .

11 During your presentation we came up with a

12 question. Right now you're commissioning the sewage

13 treatment plant. Have you got the sand bed in place

14 and are spreading the sludge now? So you've already

15 got a sand bed in place and you're spreading the

16 sludge, are you?

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicants?

18 MR . JOHNSON: This is Ken Johnson.

19 And actually, I suppose, to supplement the

20 question about available expertise and saying, no, that

21 I have not personally designed and implemented a

22 freeze-thaw drying bed and a sludge composting, I guess

23 my colleagues within Earth Tech, we have an operating

24 division within the City of Edmonton that operates the

25 City of Edmonton's composting facility which, in fact,

26 is and of itself declared -- or the City of Edmonton

328

1 has declared it to be a centre of excellence and a

2 world-class, I guess, facility.

3 So in fact, I do have access, at least for the

4 composting side of it, to some world-class expertise,

5 and they have been involved in the -- identifying the

6 sludge management and actually offering some expertise,

7 particularly in the mechanics or the mechanical systems

8 that we are using or proposing to use for the sludge

9 management. So, these resources will be utilised as

10 needed.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

12 Any more? Jim, Jim Little with a question.

13 BILL MACKENZIE HUMANITARIAN SOCIETY QUESTIONS THE CITY

14 OF IQALUIT ON SLUDGE MANAGEMENT:

15 MR . LITTLE: Hi, I'm Jim Little.

16 I want to make something clear here. The data

17 that I sent to Dr. Martel , and it's as much data as he

18 asked for, he simply said that for phase two of the

19 sewage treatment plant, we have a freezing capacity of

20 1.1 metres , and for our volume that was projected in

21 those documents, it would take 1.5 acres, and that is

22 taking into consideration that we have -- we're taking

23 a maximum advantage of the thaw time less two weeks.

24 Now, I don't know exactly the dates, and

25 Dr. Martel could certainly provide that, but I don't

26 think it's fair to connect my name to doubling the size

329

1 of it because we're shortening the size of the thaw

2 period. Those things don't work that way necessarily.

3 It's easy to make that kind of a guess, but that's all

4 it is. I'm not -- so this idea of it being three acres

5 could be way out of whack. The only thing I know is

6 for 12 -- for our climate, it's 1.5 acres and 1.1 metre

7 depth. And, you know, there's a lot of other data that

8 he provided me with. I read a lot about this stuff.

9 Too, what I saw at the landfill, the sand bed,

10 there's -- what's happening there, there's two things

11 that concern me regarding my limited knowledge of this.

12 Mostly, I've never heard tell, I've never read, about

13 any of these freeze-thaw beds taking a sludge package

14 like what we're delivering there. It's usually a

15 higher moisture content so that it will flow in a pipe

16 so you don't have to deal with the stuff in a trailer

17 all the time. And it flows, and it flows on purpose so

18 that you can freeze it in, like, six-inch thicknesses.

19 You're not -- it's a, it's a no-no, and again I

20 won't pretend to know why, but it's no-no to have this

21 stuff in a very thick depth so that the surface freezes

22 and then it sort of freezes below. Now why, I don't

23 know, but it's highly recommended that the stuff only

24 go in layers, like six inches at a time.

25 And the other, the other point that I want to make

26 that concerns me about the landfill site is there's no

330

1 particular drainage. It's -- that is one of the most

2 important parts of it. There's a lot of anaerobic

3 stuff that starts to take place if it's not well

4 drained, and it's going to frighten everybody away from

5 that place for sure. It's going to be foul.

6 The question that I would like to ask is,

7 hypothetical, but -- and again, I just need a kind of a

8 yes/no answer. It's regarding the sewage lagoon, that

9 from what I understand, from what I've read, started in

10 1978 and then in 1998, it had 1800 cubic metres of City

11 effluent or water going into that. Now it's up around

12 2300 cubic metres a day. So, over that period of time,

13 there's been a lot of sludge settle out, right? I

14 mean, that's the idea of it, isn't, it, so that it's

15 sludged (sic) out? So, it would be my guess that

16 there's a -- I knew the volumes at one point. I've got

17 it in my literature from some documents that I got from

18 Geoff on the volumes, the capacity, the holding

19 capacity of the lagoon.

20 Wouldn't all that sludge in the bottom of that

21 lagoon detract from the efficiency of the lagoon? I

22 mean, isn't it kind of like it's filled up? And the

23 question is, what if it wasn't filled up? How much

24 better would the lagoon work if it was cleaned out, I

25 mean, if the sludge was actually removed from the

26 inside of that lagoon? That's the question I have.

331

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

2 Applicant, do you have a response?

3 MR . JOHNSON: I guess the first -- Ken Johnson.

4 The first answer to lagoon performance based on

5 the amount of sludge there is and increased performance

6 if there is less sludge just from the hydraulics, but,

7 in fact, that is, I guess at this point, a moot point

8 because the City has -- is commissioning a mechanical

9 treatment plant to replace the lagoon.

10 I guess the other point about the optimisation of

11 the sludge management plan, I suppose we can say we

12 look forward to seeing the information that Mr. Little

13 has received from Jim Martel and others that can assist

14 the City in optimising the sludge management process

15 itself.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

17 Is there any more? Jim, do you want to continue?

18 MR . LITTLE: Jim Little again.

19 I think it's important to answer that question

20 regarding the improved quality of the lagoon if we did

21 have the sludge out of it for two reasons. First of

22 all, if there was an improvement, the sludge was

23 cleaned out of there, wouldn't it be an appropriate

24 secondary backup system? That would be one thing.

25 And the other thing is, if it's full of sludge,

26 how are we going to clean it up? Are we going to leave

332

1 it there forever? If we're going to use it for backup,

2 shouldn't it be kind of optimised so that we can use it

3 for backup? And that's why I would like to get an

4 answer on that. I don't know who to ask, really, for

5 the expertise in that, but that is a question that's in

6 my mind that is important to me to know.

7 The other thing has got to do with the public

8 consultations. I know I noticed my organisation 's name

9 in this sewage sludge management plan regarding, you

10 know, people in the community, but I was never asked.

11 Our organisation was never asked for input, ever, and

12 you know, I've rankled a lot of people within the

13 community here, within the administration of the City,

14 but that's at the core of my frustration because I want

15 to contribute and have never been asked. So to -- for

16 me to hear -- if I heard you right, it bothers me to

17 have stated that we were asked for public consultation

18 when I've never heard of that once.

19 So anyway, I'd like to get answer on that lagoon.

20 If somebody could sort of direct me to where I might

21 get it, I'd appreciate it.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Jim.

23 Applicant, do you have a response for that?

24 MR . BAKER: Yeah, Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

25 First of all, I am fairly certain that a letter

26 was sent to the Bill MacKenzie Humanitarian Society. I

333

1 can't say with -- that I'm a hundred percent sure of

2 that. I certainly -- at the time that these letters

3 were sent out, I wasn't in a position to know that they

4 were -- there was one sent to you. I will confirm

5 that. I know our secretary drafted, drafted letters to

6 a number of different regulatory agencies. I don't

7 know if any of the other regulatory agencies here

8 tonight can confirm that they actually received a

9 letter looking for feedback from regulatory agencies.

10 With regards to the lagoon, I don't think I can

11 really comment on that right now, and decommissioning

12 of the lagoon will be dealt with through an abandonment

13 and restoration plan.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

15 Paul Crowley, you wish to ask a question?

16 THE PUBLIC QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT ON SLUDGE

17 MANAGEMENT:

18 MR . CROWLEY: Yes, Paul Crowley. Thank you.

19 I'm a resident here and a taxpayer, so -- and

20 because we've had a number of issues with the town with

21 capital projects that have gone awry, you'll have to

22 bear with, perhaps, some skepticism. But we have

23 proven technology with the sewage lagoon. We know what

24 it does and we know that it's coming towards the end of

25 its life, but we don't know whether we can improve it

26 or not, and yet we have another unproven technology

334

1 with a fair distant possibility of better treatment.

2 And now we're going from one source of effluent, we're

3 going to now create others, plus we're going to do this

4 trucking thing with the body language and all.

5 And you'll have to understand that, you know, at

6 some point we got to -- we have to have a level of

7 comfort as residents that we're not throwing good money

8 after bad, and keep doing it and keep doing it and keep

9 doing it. The $7 million initial investment was bad

10 enough. If we could have invested 3.5 million in

11 sorting out the lagoon for a longer life, I would have

12 liked to have known that.

13 And so that information is important, if nothing

14 else, to confirm that the path you're on is the right

15 one, which I hope it is at this point, because you've

16 already commissioned the plant. But as a resident and

17 a taxpayer, not a regulator with a disembodied

18 interest, I would like to know that, if nothing else,

19 to prove that you're on the right track. So, I ask

20 that you please provide us with that information.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

22 Applicant, do you have a response?

23 MR . JOHNSON: A very interesting question. The,

24 I guess -- I suppose the -- and I mean, I probably

25 won't provide a satisfactory answer but hopefully

26 provide a degree of confidence.

335

1 I suppose the history with the existing sewage

2 treatment plant is a very sad outcome. There's a

3 series of circumstances that we could probably spend a

4 good day discussing, but I guess the outcome of that is

5 that an investment of $7 million was made based on a

6 regulatory direction that the City of Iqaluit was

7 pursuing in their own, I guess, or what they understood

8 to be the, the direction or the -- I guess the ultimate

9 demands of the regulatory community.

10 What the City embarked on, once they recognised

11 that the existing facility could never be commissioned

12 -- although I suppose the, the original contractor to

13 that has debated that. What the City did after that

14 was retain the expertise of Earth Tech, the company I

15 work for, and our technical expertise in waste

16 management, which is world class. I guess that's the

17 best way I can describe it or -- again, I suppose I am

18 biased, but it is -- we have world-class expertise in

19 waste management to, I guess, come and fix the problem,

20 and that's what we are doing.

21 The question of, you know, ultimately providing

22 the best quality effluent to meet the, you know, the --

23 I guess the regulatory criteria is a question of

24 financing and trying to do it in an incremental and

25 responsible manner, meaning that the, the City from

26 their financial resources does not have that capacity

336

1 to spend upward of $15 million on a complete waste

2 management solution, so they have responsibly phased

3 it, recognising that an initial phase of primary

4 treatment is within their financial and human

5 resources, and then posture as best they can for

6 carrying out the complete solution within the

7 foreseeable future.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

9 Any more questions? Please state your name for

10 the record before speaking.

11 MS. HAN: Siuling Han.

12 I'm not sure if you'll be able to answer this

13 question or not, Ken, 'cause I know that you can only

14 work within the terms of reference that you're given as

15 a consultant, but the first thing is, I guess -- I

16 mean, supplementary to Jim's question about if you

17 actually cleaned out the lagoon, how much more life and

18 function would you get out of it, I guess the other

19 thing that has been -- I noticed it today driving down

20 there, there's a really huge pile of snow just upstream

21 of the sewage lagoon which, presumably, when it melts

22 ends up in the sewage lagoon, and I was just wondering

23 how -- if you have any idea of how much that additional

24 input from snow melt that's being stockpiled above the

25 sewage lagoon, what kind of an impact that has on the

26 lagoon capacity and function.

337

1 MR . HALL: Mark Hall, City of Iqaluit.

2 To respond to the issue of the snow dump, which is

3 an official snow dump utilised by the municipality and

4 contractors, to the best of my knowledge it does not

5 have a direct or indirect impact on the amount of water

6 volume or runoff to the sewage lagoon itself. The

7 slope is such that it drains into the bay. The City is

8 currently exploring alternate sites because there has

9 been public concern raised with respect to this

10 particular site over the years, not only with regard to

11 the lagoon, but also to the possibility of silt and

12 other contaminants entering the bay. So, we are

13 pursuing alternate site locations at the moment that

14 will allow for less snow in that particular area, and

15 the levelling of snow in more level areas to allow for

16 percolation of runoff in the spring. Thank you.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

18 You have a further question.

19 MS. HAN: Siuling Han.

20 Second question: With regard to the sewage

21 lagoon, yesterday you presented some information about,

22 I guess, the dam inspection, some repairs and things

23 that had to be done to it. What -- and I understand

24 those haven't been done, but what was the cost of

25 implementing those repairs?

26 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

338

1 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

2 The initial preliminary estimate provided for the

3 upgrade of the west dike at the sewage lagoon is in the

4 vicinity of $65,000, which is a capital project

5 scheduled for this summer. Thank you.

6 MS. HAN: And then I guess the last question

7 to follow on from what Mr. Crowley said, we've -- what

8 would have been the cost of upgrading the sewage lagoon

9 so that it could have the capacity that it needed to?

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Please state your name for the

11 record before you speak.

12 MS. HAN: Siuling Han.

13 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

14 And to be quite honest, I really have no idea. I

15 couldn't speculate as to how much it will cost to bring

16 the lagoon into compliance to provide the required

17 level of treatment. Thank you.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

19 MS. HAN: Siuling .

20 I mean, do you think you could give me an order of

21 magnitude, 5 million, 10 million, 2 million, 1 million,

22 65,000?

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

24 MR . JOHNSON: I guess my response to the lagoon

25 technology, the existing site would not have been able

26 to meet secondary effluent qualities, so it would have

339

1 had to require some insight, but in fact more important

2 to that is that the City of Iqaluit back in 1997

3 committed to replacing the lagoon system with a

4 mechanical treatment plant.

5 So in fact, that was a decision of -- ultimately

6 of council back in 1997. So, that ball was -- or that

7 path was taken back in 1997, and the administration is

8 now following through on that commitment made by the

9 town, given the many circumstances that have taken it

10 sideways in the last eight years.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

12 You have a further question.

13 MS. HAN: Siuling Han.

14 Thank you for that history. The reason I asked

15 the question is because from what I can see, we've

16 spent $5 million to get primary treatment which is

17 currently the quality of what we're getting out of the

18 lagoon right now, and I'm just wondering if we had a

19 properly functioning lagoon, presumably the quality

20 would be better than what we're getting from the lagoon

21 right now. And I was just wondering whether $5 million

22 would have gotten that for us without then having to

23 deal with all this sludge going to the dump and all the

24 rest of the things that have been raised.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

26 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

340

1 I guess still with the lagoon system you would

2 have still had sludge, so there still would have been a

3 sludge management plan that would have had to have been

4 implemented for the lagoon. I mean, it's a different

5 sort of time line for sludge from a primary lagoon.

6 That's usually dealt with on a -- sort of a five- to

7 ten-year life span or ten-year cycle. Every five to

8 ten years you take the sludge out, but you still have

9 to manage that to contain the system.

10 But I guess, I guess going back again to the other

11 statement is that the town had departed or had gone --

12 started down the path of, of mechanical sewage

13 treatment eight years ago and is really fulfilling that

14 commitment it made to, to the regulatory community.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

16 MS. HAN: So Siuling Han, again.

17 I understand, then, I'm not going to find out how

18 much it would have cost to upgrade the lagoon to make

19 it function to the level of the discharges we're going

20 to get from the mechanical separation.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

22 MR . JOHNSON: I can't provide that cost estimate

23 on the back of a napkin. That's actually, you know, a

24 fairly significant exercise that I think it's for the

25 City to backtrack. And actually, that was a very

26 important aspect to leaving no stone unturned with the

341

1 sludge management, is to make sure that we don't get --

2 the City isn't sort of caught in backtracking, is that

3 since the, the sewage treatment -- the existing sewage

4 treatment plant was -- or after the -- I said the

5 sewage treatment plant that was never commissioned, the

6 City wanted to depart down the road of using those --

7 that existing facility and, I guess, recycling or

8 reusing as much as it can and not having to backtrack

9 and start from scratch, so that we're really, I guess,

10 going from the year 2000 with a facility that hasn't

11 been mothballed .

12 It's certainly being used as much as it can for

13 the, you know, for the process and will continue to be

14 part of the phase two process with the existing -- so

15 where I guess the City is making best use of the

16 existing facilities that were never commissioned. But

17 I guess the short answer is no.

18 MS. HAN: Okay.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you.

20 Bill, you have something to say?

21 MR . TILLEMAN : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's Bill

22 Tilleman .

23 In an effort to save some time since we still have

24 other presentations and so on, it's possible that the

25 Water Board in their files have some information on the

26 study that we are discussing right now, and so Dionne

342

1 is looking for that information that may have been done

2 in the mid -1990s . So maybe she knows the answer now

3 and we just can settle some of these -- answer some of

4 these questions quickly.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

6 Dionne for the Water Board.

7 WATER BOARD STAFF QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT ON

8 SLUDGE MANAGEMENT:

9 MS. FILIATRAULT : Mr. Chairman, I am aware through

10 having worked with the Water Board since 1995 that

11 there was a planning study done back in, I think it was

12 '95-'96, and it was a Dillon document where they

13 investigated various options for upgrading or -- they

14 investigated mechanical treatment and alternative sites

15 for potential sewage lagoons or upgrading the current

16 sewage lagoon, and I'm just trying to check our

17 electronic files to see if I can pull that document and

18 provide it to, to anybody who wants it.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

20 Bill, you have -- do you want to continue, Bill?

21 MR . TILLEMAN : Okay, Mr. Chairman. It's Bill

22 Tilleman .

23 If it's okay with you, sir, then maybe we just

24 have a couple of questions while the staff is looking

25 for that document.

26 And, and so the -- we've heard a lot tonight about

343

1 phase two, and that is the hopeful next step and that

2 we will get there; it's costly to get there, and so on.

3 But I guess if there's any given experience that the

4 City has, is there any best guesstimate of when we

5 might get to phase two and what's the -- you know, on a

6 scale of ten, what's the likelihood that it will work,

7 that we will be able to move into phase two? Can they

8 express any opinion on that, is my question. And then

9 Dionne has a question, sir.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

11 Applicant, do you have a response?

12 MR . HALL: Mark Hall for the City of Iqaluit.

13 The City's -- sorry -- capital plan with the

14 Government of Nunavut expires in two years time in

15 1997. There has -- sorry, beg your pardon, 2007. Just

16 lost ten years. There has been no, to our knowledge,

17 there has been no ongoing or no activation of

18 discussions, negotiations, or otherwise.

19 To answer the question, in summary, it's doubtful

20 that, in fact, phase two is likely to be a reality or a

21 planning exercise within the next five-year period.

22 Thank you.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

24 Water Board?

25 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dionne

26 Filiatrault .

344

1 Just to clarify, Ken, what is the projected

2 commissioning date and full online operations for the

3 waste water treatment plant?

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant?

5 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

6 It would -- putting, I guess, a date to it, we

7 would, I guess to be -- in consideration of the

8 start-up, you know, start-up challenges, we'll say June

9 1st.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Dionne.

11 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

12 I have one final question, and it relates with --

13 to the actual sludge management plan, and the document

14 that we've received reflects more of a planning study

15 to assess options. Is there any plans to submit any

16 sort of preliminary design for a sludge management

17 facility; and has the City given any consideration to

18 monitoring needs with respect to the ongoing operation

19 of such a facility and how they would assess impacts to

20 fresh water?

21 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

22 That actually is part of the application that we

23 are making to the Federation of Canadian

24 Municipalities. I guess more specific information to

25 do with the plan is required or to do with the sludge

26 management is required for that application. So I

345

1 guess we'll say that the answer to the -- the short

2 answer is yes, including some sampling protocols, so I

3 guess that information can be submitted to the Board.

4 We're finalising that application.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

6 Bill.

7 MR . TILLEMAN : My name is Bill Tilleman . Thank

8 you, Mr. Chairman.

9 I maybe just suggest, so that we don't waste time,

10 that we maybe take a short break, and then -- and while

11 that -- we're still looking -- the staff is still

12 looking for this one document, and we can hopefully

13 have that. And maybe we can begin after the break with

14 the staff's document and then go into presentations, as

15 a recommendation to you, Mr. Chairman.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Bill.

17 Yeah, we'll take a ten-minute break. We'll be

18 back here at five to, five to nine.

19 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M.)

20 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 9:00 P.M.)

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's continue the agenda. The

22 Water Board staff was asking questions before the

23 break, so we'll continue with the Water Board staff at

24 this time.

25 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

26 Just for the information of the participants and

346

1 the town, there was a document dated July 11th, 1999,

2 by Dillon Consulting Limited titled "The Iqaluit Sewage

3 Treatment Planning Study," and we will make -- put that

4 on disk. And even though it is on the Nunavut Water

5 Board public registry, we will submit it and mark it as

6 an exhibit. Seventeen, Mr. Chairman.

7 EXHIBIT 17:

8 IQALUIT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANNING STUDY DATED.

9 11 JULY 1997, BY DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED,

10 ELECTRONIC COPY

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

12 Paul Crowley, you have a further question?

13 THE PUBLIC QUESTIONS THE CITY OF IQALUIT ON SLUDGE

14 MANAGEMENT:

15 MR . CROWLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Paul

16 Crowley.

17 Having had just a quick view of that document,

18 they reviewed all types of options, and as far as I can

19 tell from a quick scan, the sewage lagoon was rated as

20 a good one, if not the best one, and it was $3 million

21 to bring it up to appropriate levels.

22 So here we find ourselves in a situation without a

23 water license, the town has invested a whole bunch of

24 money in a technology and creating two sources of

25 effluent now, one at the dump and one at the plant,

26 and, you know, we really have to look at this in terms

347

1 of are we getting ourself (sic) further and further

2 into issues rather than digging ourselves out? Was it

3 Robert who said, you know, when you're in a hole, the

4 first thing you got to do is stop digging? Well, I

5 kind of get that feeling.

6 So if $3 million in '97 gets us the same level of

7 effluent that we have now but with one source of

8 effluent instead of trucking it and creating two

9 sources, I know there would have to be sludge

10 management, but it certainly -- it just puts the onus

11 on the proponent to really make your case that much

12 stronger that this is the best way to go, and there's a

13 few questions that seem unanswered to us still. Thank

14 you.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Applicant, do you have a response?

16 Or before that, Dionne?

17 MS. FILIATRAULT : Mr. Chairman, I just heard a beep,

18 and I just want to make sure that if there was anybody

19 on the phone, we haven't lost them.

20 MR . CHAIRMAN: Okay, yeah.

21 MS. PETERSON: Yes, I'm here. Thank you.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

23 Thank you. We'll proceed, continue. So

24 applicant, you have a response for the question?

25 MR . HALL: Mark Hall, City of Iqaluit.

26 Mr. Chair, members of the Board, I think it's

348

1 important at this particular juncture to note that

2 certainly the merits of expansion of a sewage lagoon

3 versus a mechanical system were an issue for debate

4 based on analysis, based on various research documents

5 which are a matter of record before this Board, but the

6 fact is that the council of the time in 1997, the

7 municipal council of this municipality, made a decision

8 that set the course which has resulted in the

9 development and the precommissioning as of today of a

10 mechanical sewage treatment plant. That is, that is a

11 fact. That is the course of action through the

12 administration that we followed.

13 We are now at the stage of precommissioning of a

14 brand new plant, and while I greatly appreciate the

15 concerns being raised, it's a fact. We were given

16 direction as an administration to move forward. Based

17 on nudges and suggestions and, indeed, the regulatory

18 environment in 1997, we were placed on notice that the

19 municipality needed to move on, bring its standards up

20 to environmental conditions at the time, and set a

21 course of action that would position us to be more

22 responsible as far as regulatory regulations were

23 concerned for the future.

24 So notwithstanding the history of this issue, the

25 fact is we are now here today. The basis of the

26 application respectfully, Mr. Chair, before this Board

349

1 is for the operation of a mechanical sewage treatment

2 plant, use of the existing sewage lagoon as a bypass or

3 an emergency facility only, and the resulting sewage --

4 sorry, sludge treatment plan being also a matter for

5 deliberation and approval for this Board. Thank you.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So -- oh, okay,

7 continue with the applicant, thank you. Go ahead.

8 MR . JOHNSON: Ken Johnson.

9 I was just giving some thought to potential costs

10 of an equivalent lagoon system to a mechanical system.

11 The information in the Dillon report was, I think,

12 planning from 1997, which is ten years ago, and the

13 planning level of accuracy does -- I mean, is limited.

14 I understand that there was a sewage lagoon that has

15 been constructed I think in Pond Inlet, and Pond is

16 about, what, one-fifth the size of Iqaluit? Something

17 in there. And I believe the capital cost for that

18 facility is about 5 or $6 million.

19 So on some simple math at going -- saying, okay,

20 we need a facility that's five times the size, and

21 again, this is just sort of -- this is quick -- this is

22 a very, very simple calculation that we're looking at a

23 cost of -- I can't say it wouldn't be five times as

24 much, but we're certainly looking at a cost that is

25 equivalent or probably greater than a mechanical sewage

26 treatment plant. I mean, the simple math is five times

350

1 $5 million is 25 million, but of course there's an

2 economy of scale. So we're looking at, you know, the

3 economy of scale may take it down by a third.

4 So we're still looking at a price tag, again, very

5 roughly, of somewhere at least as equal to the

6 mechanical plant that is, you know, with the

7 improvements that have been made or greater. And that

8 doesn't even beg the question of where you are going to

9 put such a lagoon, and you if would have to locate it

10 kilometres outside of Iqaluit, that means you would

11 have to pump it over land or for a period of time, and

12 that is a very costly exercise and a very risky

13 exercise in -- from freeze protection, because pumping

14 any distance in cold climates creates a risk of pipe

15 freezing, and then, of course, you've got -- that's a

16 catastrophic failure of a system.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

18 I call once more, is there any more questions from

19 any interested parties?

20 So the Water Board also finished with their -- go

21 ahead.

22 MS. FILIATRAULT : No, Mr. Chairman, but we do have

23 some housekeeping items with respect to the town of

24 Iqaluit, given that this is the last formal opportunity

25 to pose questions to them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

26 Dionne Filiatrault .

351

1 We did receive from the town of Iqaluit the solid

2 waste facility operational maintenance manual dated

3 April 2005, and this document does, in fact, contain

4 the table that we requested that was omitted. So

5 that's been, that's been listed as Exhibit 15. I would

6 ask that the presentation that was just given by Ken

7 Johnson, that a copy of that be provided and be marked

8 as Exhibit 14.

9 And also, we received, as per our request made by

10 the City, a copy of Bill MacKenzie Humanitarian Society

11 presentation in electronic format of their

12 presentations, and we can mark that as Exhibit 16, and

13 we can provide the City with a disk that they had

14 requested.

15 EXHIBIT 15:

16 CITY OF IQALUIT SOLID WASTE FACILITY O & M

17 MANUAL, INCLUDING TABLE 3.4, DATED APRIL 2005

18 EXHIBIT 16:

19 BILL MACKENZIE HUMANITARIAN SOCIETY

20 PRESENTATION, ELECTRONIC COPY.

21 MS. FILIATRAULT : There was also some requests for

22 follow-up, one being the issue of fecal coliform . I

23 can't remember if there was also a request for -- I'm

24 trying to think -- -of some engineering drawings, I

25 can't remember in relation to what, but you may be able

26 to clarify. I'm getting fuzzy. And there was the

352

1 City's work plan and a list of commitments and

2 priorities.

3 So there are some things that we have not received

4 to date, so I'd just like to have sort of a final

5 confirmation on those items from the City before we

6 move on.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dionne.

8 Applicant, do you have something to say?

9 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

10 The list I have of information to be provided to

11 the Board prior to closing the hearing tomorrow is a

12 memo from Earth Tech re: using the lagoon for further

13 treatment, supplementary to our, to our treatment

14 system -- our mechanical treatment system, sorry;

15 information regarding fecal coliform ; a bathymetric

16 survey of Lake Geraldine; a hard copy of Mr. Johnson's

17 presentation; and as a matter of clarification, I'm not

18 exactly sure what you meant by City's work plan. And

19 as well, we would request copies of prioritised

20 conditions of the water license from the Department of

21 Environment as well as Indian and Northern Affairs

22 Canada, which was agreed to earlier. Thank you.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

24 Water Board, Dionne? Go ahead.

25 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I

26 guess as the -- you are correct in the first four items

353

1 you had raised. As far as clarification on receiving

2 the priorities from the -- which parties are you

3 missing?

4 MR . BAKER: I think it's the Government of

5 Nunavut Department of Environment -- sorry, Geoff Baker

6 City of Iqaluit.

7 The Government of Nunavut Department of

8 Environment, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

9 Thank you.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dionne.

11 MS. FILIATRAULT : If I'm not mistaken, I believe

12 Indian and Northern Affairs has filed and it's in here,

13 so I'll make sure you get this. GN, I suggest we

14 remind them when they do their presentation with

15 respect to sludge management. And as far as the work

16 plan, that was the -- yes, information sort of laid out

17 in a table format that will assist the Board, based on

18 the information that you're going to get today, your

19 list of priorities. Thank you.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

21 So we'll continue in our agenda, tonight's agenda.

22 We're supposed to have a presentation from interested

23 parties, so we were supposed to start with the GN,

24 Department of Environment, Robert Eno .

25 PRESENTATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT DOE, AND

26 CLOSING STATEMENT:

354

1 MR . ENO : Good evening. Robert Eno from

2 Department of Environment.

3 Just make a point here. Earlier in the evening

4 one of the NWB staff asked me if I was prepared to make

5 my closing statements this evening in order to save

6 time, so I'm going to do that as a part of this

7 presentation, if the Board agrees. Thank you.

8 Essentially, DOE doesn't have a whole lot of

9 problems with the waste disposal facility as proposed

10 by the City of Iqaluit. We have posed a number of

11 questions, and we have offered comments pertaining to

12 this new waste water treatment plant. As I mentioned

13 earlier today, we don't expect all of these suggestions

14 to be placed in the terms and conditions of the water

15 license. They're there for the City's information

16 only, and just as people this evening have posed a

17 number of questions, and hopefully the City will take

18 these questions seriously, take them into

19 consideration, the same goes for some of the

20 suggestions we've made in our presentation. So the

21 City is advised to take these questions -- address

22 these questions, take the comments into consideration.

23 On the specifics, this rather hits home with a

24 lengthy discussion that's occurred this evening, and we

25 believe that the City should re-review their estimates,

26 just make sure that they are bang on in their estimates

355

1 as to biosolids production. Make sure that they have

2 enough room and it won't reach a situation where

3 they're in a crisis management situation where you've

4 run out of room to put the sludge and you're scrambling

5 for solutions. That old carpenter's adage "measure

6 twice, cut once," I think applies to this particular

7 situation.

8 The other comment that we had was the evaluation

9 ratings for the screen technologies, and that they

10 appear to be skewed in favour of air drying. The City

11 should be prepared to explain how they arrived at these

12 ratings. I'm not asking them to do this in this

13 particular forum. I liken it to filing your income tax

14 electronically. The tax man takes your word for it,

15 but be prepared to provide receipts if you're asked for

16 them. And in this case, there may come a time when the

17 City is required to defend their rating system which --

18 when -- which they use to arrive at the conclusion that

19 air drying was the, was the preferred option.

20 As far as sludge management, the City is advised

21 -- and again, I'm not asking this to be a term and

22 condition. If they're already on the road towards the

23 method that they want to use now, let's give them a

24 chance to give it a try; however, we are advising that

25 they review other options such as trench composting in

26 an enclosed building. This may or may not be feasible,

356

1 but it doesn't cost a whole lot to look at it and

2 investigate it, price it out, perhaps. Ken might

3 disagree with me on that, but I know that sometimes

4 estimating things becomes expensive, but we're just

5 suggesting that they look at this.

6 And again, as I've said previously, we strongly

7 recommend that they determine, with reasonable

8 exactitude, how much land you're going to require for

9 drying beds versus how much land is available for the

10 drying beds.

11 Couple of other comments. Appendix A of the

12 sludge disposal plan references a similar installation

13 in Sweden. Now, at the time I put this together I was

14 unaware of the situation in Antarctica, but I will

15 carry on anyways . The temperature graph for the

16 Swedish city indicates that they have seven months of

17 above-freezing temperatures, whereas in Iqaluit we have

18 four months of above-freezing temperatures. So the

19 question that we are posing to the City -- and again,

20 they don't have to answer this immediately, it's just

21 for their information -- have they determined how

22 Iqaluit conditions will affect this technology either

23 positively or negatively. Now, Ken Johnson mentioned a

24 situation in Antarctica. I suggest that perhaps that

25 would have been a better example to use as a

26 demonstration of the efficacy of this particular

357

1 technology.

2 The waste disposal sewage lagoon: This is a term

3 and condition we believe should be placed in the water

4 license. It should be required to draft a plan for

5 review and approval to manage the existing lagoon,

6 including but not restricted to contingency plans for

7 accidental release; plans for repairs and upgrades as

8 has been identified in the numerous reports that are --

9 have been submitted over the years; and if they decide

10 that they don't want to use the lagoon any more, an

11 abandonment and decommissioning plan, including

12 provisions on how they're going to manage the sewage

13 sludge that comes out of that lagoon. And they may

14 have to remove it in any case, whether they decide to

15 use it as a backup or not.

16 So, I'll just summarise : We don't have any

17 show-stopper concerns with this application. The major

18 concern we have relates to the paucity of information

19 pertaining to the short- and long-term management of

20 the current sewage lagoon. We believe that the City's

21 proposed sewage treatment system appears to be sound

22 and a proven technology. We believe that the City

23 needs to develop A & R plans for these facilities, for

24 those facilities which are under their control and

25 management and which are intended to be closed in the

26 near future. Now, near future is kind of an airy-fairy

358

1 term. Near future, for our purposes, would be before

2 the expiration of the current water license, assuming

3 that they are granted a water license.

4 We're looking for a long-term solid waste

5 management plan, and I just want to make a mention of

6 the long-term solid waste management plan. The City

7 does seem to be leaning towards a landfill, and I have

8 no objection to any kind of a solution that is

9 technically sound, although I am recalling a situation

10 some years ago here in Iqaluit where Nav Canada wanted

11 to build a radar installation just off the Road to

12 Nowhere, and the public opposition to that was

13 palpable. The people did not want that road. They did

14 not want the radar installation built on that hill, the

15 rationale being that it was going to ruin the pristine

16 nature of that area. So I just want to put this germ

17 in the minds of the City officials that if Nav Canada

18 couldn't put something like a radar installation, which

19 is really not a high-impact facility, if the public was

20 not willing to accept that, I have my doubts as to

21 whether the public would be willing to accept a

22 landfill site anywhere else but where the landfill

23 sites are now. And again, I -- this is not something I

24 want to be put in the terms and conditions, I'm just

25 mentioning it here for the.

26 City's consideration only; something to think

359

1 about. They probably have already thought about it,

2 but I just thought I'd mention it here.

3 A Lower Base soil and water management plan is

4 required. Now, that is if they intend to keep digging

5 in areas where there is known contamination. There

6 should be some kind of a management plan if you're

7 going to dig the stuff up. Like I said, I'm not

8 holding the City responsible for historic

9 contamination, but if you're going to dig it up, you've

10 got to take some responsibility for it.

11 The City of Iqaluit is facing problems unlike

12 those faced by any other city in Canada. I can say

13 this safely having been a resident here since 1988,

14 which for some of the Elders here in town is just a

15 drop in the bucket, but for me it's well over half my

16 life. And so, I've been able to watch things unfold

17 over the years, and I'm aware of some of the problems

18 that are faced by the city. They've got a number of

19 historic contaminated sites that they've inherited.

20 They've got ageing infrastructure. You have a

21 population boom; it's virtually doubled since 1991.

22 And you've got a high turnover of engineering staff.

23 And as I mentioned earlier, the individuals that I was,

24 that I was talking to in 1995, none of them are here.

25 There's a whole new turnover. And so I can't exactly

26 dress these individuals down for the things that they

360

1 inherited from previous administrations, it's just not

2 fair, but it's a problem in the city. There's no

3 continuity, and I think this is one of the reasons why

4 things don't get done as quickly as they should get

5 done.

6 So despite these hurdles, I think that the City

7 has progressed in many areas. There is room for

8 improvement; however, the City is to be commended for

9 the continuing efforts. DOE is willing to provide

10 assistance when and where possible. We have made a

11 number of initiatives, including a Nunavut hazardous

12 waste management manual. We are looking at developing

13 a course for landfill operators, not just for Iqaluit

14 but for all Nunavut , so that landfill operators are

15 properly trained on how to manage hazardous waste

16 coming into the landfill. We have produced a report on

17 repatriation of what is now called end-of-life

18 vehicles, what everybody refers to as car wrecks, and

19 we have been looking into recycling options. So we're

20 not just sitting here taking shots, we are actually

21 trying to be proactive , recognising the difficulties

22 that are faced by not just the City of Iqaluit but

23 other municipalities in Nunavut .

24 So, finally, DOE priorities, and I will provide a

25 hard copy tomorrow. When I go home this evening and

26 get my son to bed properly, I'll print it off on my

361

1 printer. Our priorities are leachate runoff monitoring

2 plan. I'm just throwing a date out there because I'm

3 doing it sort of off the cuff, but June 2006, the

4 rationale being is that this is around the time that

5 the expanded landfill site will be in operation.

6 A leachate and runoff control implementation --

7 actually, the implementation of the leachate runoff and

8 control upon commissioning of the new, and I put in

9 brackets "old," site.

10 A management plan for contaminated soils, June

11 2006, again, the rationale being this is presumably

12 around the time that there may be some more activity

13 with respect to installing systems. I don't know how

14 far along they are in the Lower Base area where the

15 contamination is, but if that's the case, then there

16 should be a management plan for contaminated soils.

17 A lagoon plan, I'd say within one year of the

18 issuance of the license. That's negotiable. Again,

19 I've, you know, I've tried to -- oh, what's happened?

20 I've tried to be reasonable in this. It's something

21 that probably should be negotiated between the Nunavut

22 Water Board and the City and determine what they

23 realistically can accomplish.

24 Long-term solid waste management plan, within four

25 years after the issuance of the license.

26 Abandonment and restoration of plan, within four

362

1 years of the issuance of the license or at a time

2 mutually agreed upon by the NWB , the City, and other

3 interested parties.

4 And this concludes Department of Environment's

5 presentation. Thank you very much, and I'm open to any

6 questions.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Robert Eno .

8 Could the applicant put questions.

9 THE CITY OF IQALUIT QUESTIONS THE GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT

10 DOE:

11 MR . HALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mark Hall,

12 City of Iqaluit.

13 The last item, Robert, of A & R plans, could we

14 have specifics with respect to what?

15 MR . ENO : Well, as I alluded -- pardon me,

16 Robert Eno , Department of Environment.

17 As I alluded to before, there are some sites for

18 which it's -- there is no question that it's the City

19 of Iqaluit's responsibility, so right off the top I

20 would say Honey Bag Hill and the Apex dump. There are

21 other issues, but they are outside the scope of this

22 particular hearing. So, I would say those two would

23 be -- would be in priority. And of course, obviously

24 there would have to be an abandonment and restoration

25 plan for the existing landfill once you move over to

26 the other one, unless you're planning on utilising that

363

1 still.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

3 Any further question from applicant? Thank you.

4 Is there any, any questions from interested

5 parties? Thank you.

6 Is there any question from Water Board?

7 MS. FILIATRAULT : My apologies, Mr. Chairman. I have

8 no questions.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

10 Thank you. Any other parties besides the --

11 interested parties, but is there question from other

12 parties? Thank you.

13 Thank you, Robert.

14 MR . ENO : Quyannamik .

15 THE CHAIRMAN: You're going to make closing

16 remarks in this presentation.

17 MR . ENO : I'm sorry, those were my closing

18 remarks. The last few remarks were my closing remarks.

19 Sorry, Robert Eno . Thank you.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: The next one, I'd like to open for

21 INAC to have presentation.

22 PRESENTATION BY DIAND ON SEWAGE & EFFLUENT DISPOSAL

23 TREATMENT, AND CLOSING STATEMENT:

24 MR . ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Jim

25 Rogers with INAC , and introduced before, Rick Hoos with

26 EBA and Lee Webber with Department of Justice, and in

364

1 the crowd there's Peter Kusugak as manager of field

2 operations for INAC and Nunavut regional office, Ian

3 Rumbolt , who's regional coordinator.

4 Before I begin with the, the presentation, earlier

5 today the Water Board staff asked for copies of water

6 test samples for Iqaluit. I have three electronic and

7 a hard copy package that I will give to the Water Board

8 staff at the end of the presentation. And as the Water

9 Board staff noted, we had put forward suggestions to

10 the Nunavut Water Board for priorities under the

11 Nunavut water license, as well.

12 There we go. See, I'm not totally technologically

13 inept.

14 Waste water treatment and disposal: I'm going to

15 shorten my presentation up quite a bit because the City

16 has answered some of the questions in our original

17 presentation, which is nice to know.

18 Our first issue was sewage disposal. The water

19 license application had suggested that there was a few

20 operating problems with the lagoon, and at this time I

21 would have to refer to the INAC water resource

22 inspectors' letters -- and of course, the last one is

23 March 11th, 2004 -- on sewage discharges that occurred

24 in the collection system and at the lagoon, berm

25 safety, et cetera. We would like to encourage the City

26 to upgrade, upgrade the berm, like they said they have,

365

1 and ensure that there's fewer releases of sewage

2 elsewhere during connections, and that refers back to

3 -- although you're working on the lagoon and filling it

4 in, the -- and that's good, we agree with that. The

5 City should also address sewage collection system

6 shortfalls to reduce sewer bypasses, pipe failures. We

7 had at least two sewage failures this fall -- this

8 winter. We won't count on the water supply ones, and I

9 won't make a comment about a pool out front. And

10 system upgrades, INAC believes that system maintenance

11 areas should not be ignored pending the completion of

12 major facilities.

13 INAC agrees with the City's proposal to retain the

14 lagoon as a backup facility. There has to be an A & R

15 plan for the sludge management within that, and the

16 City should be required to implement repairs as

17 suggested by their consultants.

18 And the A & R plan has been alluded to by DOE, the

19 Government of Nunavut DOE on decommissioning upon

20 closing; that's the A & R plan.

21 INAC recommends the waste water treatment plant be

22 completed. It's nice to hear it's being commissioned

23 and done as quickly as possible. We asked the question

24 earlier about the sludge management in the interim, and

25 that's -- you answered that you now have the sand

26 filters in place. And again, I refer back to some of

366

1 the inspectors' notes.

2 Effluent discharge criteria: The City of Iqaluit

3 has stated its intention to commission the waste water

4 treatment plant in phases. We could suggest that the

5 Water Board could consider also doing their water --

6 their water license, so they would stage the

7 requirements of your discharges to match as you improve

8 your water treatment. We would also suggest that the

9 City could -- should keep in mind with changing

10 regulations, especially with the municipal waste water

11 effluent regulations under the Fisheries Act, be under

12 36.5, that the City should consider waste water

13 disinfection on the long term. We're not saying doing

14 it right away, but you should keep that in your mind

15 when you're doing things.

16 Sludge management: The City has identified its

17 preferred sludge management technology, including

18 stabilisation techniques and final disposal locations.

19 We would like to see before the end of the license the

20 City come forward with a plan for a long-term site.

21 Inspection and monitoring: The information

22 provided in the monitoring plan appears to be confusing

23 and perhaps contradictory. The water license should

24 require the City to submit plans for a surveillance

25 network and provide the information gathered to the

26 Water Board on an annual basis.

367

1 INAC also recommends the license require

2 monitoring by the City of effluent discharge from the

3 final discharge point of the waste water treatment

4 plant and the existing sewage lagoon, depending on how

5 it's working.

6 Spill contingency plan: The spill contingency

7 plan, spilling waste water, should provide a clear path

8 of response in the event of spills and address key

9 elements of preparation -- or prevention, especially

10 prevention, preparation, response, and recovery.

11 Within that plan and the short term, we think that the

12 City should provide an up-to-date list of current

13 contact information, as well as the overview of

14 reporting structure, including first responders and

15 secondary contacts. Reporting methodology and training

16 programmes should be implemented as well, but we would

17 like to see an up-to-date contact list right away. And

18 don't forget, the spill response line is one of the

19 contacts.

20 And if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to summarise

21 our presentation. INAC recommends that the Board

22 require the City to provide clear plans for managing

23 its raw and treated water -- waste water and solid

24 waste facilities in Iqaluit, including comprehensive

25 contingency plans. We would also like to see the City

26 include how does the proposed deep water port, for

368

1 example, or plans along the road, how does that tie in

2 to your waste treatment, your sewage management plan,

3 your emergency preparedness plan.

4 INAC appreciates the City's fiscal and human

5 resource constraints but believes clear and

6 comprehensive plans would reduce the overall cost by

7 the City by reducing overlaps and errors. As staff

8 changes, you would have a -- if everybody understands

9 the plans, you lose one or two, you still have people

10 for continuity and corporate memory. An overall plan

11 would also assist the City to implement best management

12 practices for the management of municipal water and

13 waste water facilities.

14 The City should also make an effort to discuss

15 short- and long-term issues with agencies that operate

16 in Iqaluit. The Airport Authority and the Coast Guard

17 and the deep water port are examples. How does that

18 fit in with your overall plan? They are redoing --

19 they are going to be blasting in the north 40, I

20 understand; I'm not sure. There is ammonia from the,

21 from the explosives. How does that fit in with your

22 management plan overall? How would the deep water port

23 fit, and how does the -- you know, various things. You

24 can always phone us agencies, we're not that bad.

25 INAC would like to thank the Nunavut Water Board

26 and their staff for their work on this file and giving

369

1 us an opportunity to present and discuss our views on

2 the City's water license application. We thank the

3 City and their staff for their engagement throughout

4 the process. Thank you.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

6 I'd like to give the applicant an opportunity to

7 ask questions to DIAND 's presentation.

8 MR . BAKER: Geoff Baker, City of Iqaluit.

9 No, no questions or concerns. Thank you.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

11 Is there any question from interested parties?

12 Environment Canada.

13 ENVIRONMENT CANADA QUESTIONS DIAND :

14 MS. WILSON: Anne Wilson, Environment Canada. I

15 understand that Jim referred to disinfection of waste

16 water, and I just want to clarify what his thoughts

17 were on that. Thank you.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: DIAND ?

19 MR . ROGERS: It's Jim Rogers with INAC .

20 This is a long-term issue. A lot of cities in the

21 south, I know this is not the same, they are moving in

22 that direction. They're being encouraged by provincial

23 governments, and I believe the federal government will

24 encourage that as well. Generally, the disinfection is

25 using UV, unlike locally. We'll try to stay away from

26 killing the fish, we hope. But I think they should

370

1 consider it within their plans, because it may be

2 forced upon them in the long run.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

4 Do you have further questions?

5 MS. WILSON: It's Anne Wilson.

6 Just a quick comment that the issue of

7 disinfection of the waste water is a human health

8 issue, not an aquatic ecosystem issue, and I'm glad to

9 hear that chlorination would not be recommended. Thank

10 you.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

12 Is there any more questions from interested

13 parties? Thank you. Is there any question from other

14 interested parties? Thank you.

15 And is there any questions from the Water Board

16 staff? Thank you.

17 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Dionne.

19 WATER BOARD STAFF QUESTIONS DIAND :

20 MS. FILIATRAULT : Is INAC satisfied that the waste

21 water treatment plant was properly commissioned or --

22 to date?

23 MR . ROGERS: I believe it's just started to be

24 commissioned. It's not commissioned, it's in the

25 process of being -- I would say not vetted, but can't

26 think of the proper word. Well, no, started, maybe

371

1 that's the question.

2 I am trying to be reasonable, and I believe the

3 manager of field operations will agree with me that

4 we're trying to be reasonable; however, I suggested

5 that the -- I suggested the City should have informed

6 the water resource inspectors before they began testing

7 their water treatment plant.

8 I believe it's, it's within the operational rights

9 of the previous license, but it would have been a --

10 this is the question of phoning, phoning the agencies

11 working in the area. Sometimes they just -- a

12 misunderstanding gets blown up into a little bit more.

13 I do believe it fits within the, I can't say previous

14 license, but previous operating mode of the City.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please state your name

16 for the record before you speak.

17 MR . ROGERS: Sorry, that was Jim Rogers of INAC .

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

19 Dionne.

20 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dionne

21 Filiatrault .

22 With respect to such management, does DIAND feel

23 that sufficient information has been filed to assess

24 the quality and even quantities that affect water,

25 based on the preferred option as outlined by the

26 applicant?

372

1 MR . ROGERS: With the inclusion of a drainage --

2 well, a control of the water around the area where the

3 sludge will be put, yes. And they will be testing the

4 area, and we hope that they will be monitoring the

5 amount of, the amount of leachate or the amount of

6 water that runs off the solid waste. We agree with

7 that. We aren't here to question the methodologies

8 they do. We're looking more for the results.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

10 Dionne?

11 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

12 Just one final question, and it relates to your

13 submission on page 18 where you refer to contaminated

14 soils. How does INAC see this falling under the

15 jurisdiction of the Nunavut Water Board?

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Please state your name for the

17 record before you speak, please. Thank you.

18 MR . ROGERS: Yes, sorry, Mr. Chairman. Jim

19 Rogers, INAC .

20 If the contaminated soils are put within the,

21 within the solid waste storage site or if it's in a

22 separate location in a land farm, both these locations

23 will have precipitation falling on it or water running

24 into and out of it. The Water Board would be concerned

25 about that leachate, for lack of a better word, that

26 comes off that contaminated soil. However, land farms

373

1 aren't made to treat all types of contaminated soils --

2 for instance, hydraulic fluid, for example, comes to

3 mind right away -- and, therefore, they have to have a

4 good understanding of what's contained in the

5 contaminated soil before they -- wherever they place

6 it, and place it in the landfill a little differently,

7 so it's a storage site. Put it on a land farm, if it's

8 non-aromatic it won't get treated very well.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

10 Dionne.

11 MS. FILIATRAULT : My apologies, I do have another two

12 questions now.

13 Under that same line of questioning with respect

14 to the contaminated soils, INAC has recommended a full

15 metals ICP scan, and it would be useful to this Board

16 if they could clarify what they mean by "full".

17 There's various levels of ICP scans, and I just want to

18 make sure that I understand exactly what they're

19 requesting.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

21 MR . ROGERS: There is soil standards for CCME

22 which is one order of magnitude greater than -- or less

23 than required to protect whatever the soil standards

24 are set for. It may be -- I'm trying to -- industrial

25 sites is one example, probably the way the solid waste

26 storage site would be an industrial site, and then

374

1 there are CCME guidelines for soils.

2 A full metal scan is -- it's very difficult to

3 know what to do with something if you don't know what's

4 in it. You don't know how to treat it unless you know

5 what's there, you don't know how to store it unless you

6 know what's in there, so that's why we suggested a test

7 sample. A full test sample would be ideal. It might

8 be expensive, but it doesn't have to be continuous.

9 It's just a ...

10 MS. FILIATRAULT : Based on Mr. Rogers' -- Dionne

11 Filiatrault , Mr. Chairman.

12 Based on Mr. Rogers' recent comment, is it INAC 's

13 contention that this Board, in following through on

14 some of the recommendations that have been made by the

15 parties, can use soil sampling as a measure of water

16 quality assessment?

17 MR . ROGERS: We're suggesting the soil samples

18 so that they know what soils can be put into either a

19 solid waste storage site or into the other locations so

20 they don't create a water quality problem. I would

21 suggest that the Board would be more concerned with the

22 testing of leachate, but again, it's very difficult to

23 design anything unless you understand the -- what goes

24 into it.

25 So the Board may not require it as a license --

26 part of the license, but it would be suggested to the

375

1 City that it would be a good practice so they

2 understand what, what they're looking for at the other

3 end.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Once again, please

5 state your name for the record.

6 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dionne

7 Filiatrault .

8 And a final question: You are providing us with

9 inspection information, and I'm just wondering if INAC

10 can comment at this time, if this Board -- not to

11 presuppose any decision that they would make, but if

12 they -- if a license was issued to the town of Iqaluit,

13 what type of inspection programme does INAC foresee for

14 this license over the term of five years?

15 MR . ROGERS: We would encourage the Board to ask

16 the City to monitor. We will be doing what's called,

17 in other jurisdictions, called oversights. We'll be

18 sampling and doing cross-checks on the data provided by

19 the City. We will do sampling at similar locations in

20 the city to check and see if the results are similar.

21 So we'll be checking the results.

22 I'm not sure what type of programme you're

23 alluding to because -- and it's Jim Rogers, sorry,

24 INAC -- but we will follow the license requirements,

25 and we will develop a monitoring programme -- or,

26 INAC 's monitoring programme will be based on the

376

1 license requirements.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: Water Board.

3 MS. FILIATRAULT : As you are aware, INAC is the

4 responsible authority to enforce any license that the

5 Board would issue, and I think it would be useful

6 information for this Board to get an understanding of

7 how often INAC is proposing to go in and actually do an

8 inspection or actually file with this Board an

9 assessment of compliance in a formal compliance

10 reporting structure, how potentially they may meet any

11 potential terms and conditions, and if they are, and

12 when that would be filed with this Board.

13 I'm not looking for dates, I am looking for some

14 general information on what DIAND 's practices are with

15 respect to enforcement and compliance and the reporting

16 of such to this Board.

17 MR . ROGERS: Could I have a minute to confer,

18 please?

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Peter?

20 MR . KUSUGAK : Peter Kusugak , INAC . We've been

21 doing community inspections once a year. We did an

22 inspection in Iqaluit 2003, I believe -- 2004. Since

23 all the communities were done that year, last year we

24 did only exploration camps. This year we will be

25 concentrating on the communities and hitting

26 exploration camps or major projects when we're in that

377

1 area. We have had no water inspector for the last six

2 months, so the compliance reports aren't done, and

3 limited inspections were conducted over the summer last

4 year. Thank you.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

6 Go ahead.

7 MS. FILIATRAULT : Mr. Chairman, one follow-up to the

8 statement that's made.

9 While I can understand DIAND 's fluctuating and

10 doing communities and municipalities one year and

11 exploration camps another, the community of Iqaluit and

12 the town of Iqaluit is where the enforcement field

13 operations branch of INAC is based, and I wondered if

14 INAC can speak to whether or not this is -- just speak

15 to that, I guess. Why can't inspections be done on an

16 annual basis for Iqaluit?

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

18 INAC , Peter Kusugak .

19 MR . KUSUGAK : I will commit to one inspection a

20 year of Iqaluit. We also respond to spills in Iqaluit

21 if it's in our jurisdiction, and we also report to

22 other spills in other communities, so -- but I will

23 commit to one inspection per year for Iqaluit.

24 Quyannamik .

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Quyannamik .

26 Dionne.

378

1 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dionne

2 Filiatrault . I have no further questions.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask INAC , is this part of

4 your closing remarks, or do you have --

5 MR . ROGERS: That summary was our closing

6 remarks. Jim Rogers, with INAC .

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Thank you, INAC , for your

8 presentation and closing remark.

9 Dionne.

10 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just

11 Dionne Filiatrault .

12 Two housekeeping items. I have found the

13 priorities list as proposed by INAC , and that can be

14 forwarded directly to the applicant as we speak. And I

15 would remind Mr. Rogers that we need the sampling

16 results that he had forecasted. So, Mr. Chairman, I

17 would propose that the sampling test results and

18 inspection information or reports be filed as one

19 exhibit, 18.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Dionne.

21 EXHIBIT 18:

22 INAC SAMPLING & INSPECTION REPORTS

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Open up the floor for

24 presentation of Environment Canada, Anne Wilson.

25 MS. WILSON: I need another two inches that way.

26 MS. FILIATRAULT : Oh, sorry.

379

1 PRESENTATION BY ENVIRONMENT CANADA:

2 MS. WILSON: Anne Wilson, Environment Canada.

3 I'm going to skip over my first couple of slides

4 and we'll start right in the presentation as you've

5 heard already who we are and what we do.

6 Our concerns with the waste water treatment

7 aspects of this application, we'll cover the effluent

8 discharge criteria, the lagoon and its long-term plans,

9 sludge management, various monitoring programmes , and

10 contingency planning.

11 So the first topic is the effluent discharge

12 criteria. As outlined in our technical report,

13 consistent with the phased implementation of the waste

14 water treatment plant, Environment Canada recommends

15 that discharge criteria established for the plant in

16 the water license be phased in such that they become

17 increasingly stringent over time. The idea is that by

18 establishing more protective discharge criteria to be

19 implemented sequentially, this will act as a driver to

20 ensure that phase two is brought in, in a timely

21 fashion.

22 And I will just maybe say a word about the numbers

23 that we'd be interested in. Phase one, I believe, will

24 be an improvement on the existing lagoon, but we are

25 accepting of the current numbers of 120 milligrams per

26 litre BOD, 180 milligrams per litre TSS . We would like

380

1 to see ammonia measured. We do not expect it to be

2 regulated in the primary treatment stage. And of

3 course, there would be other parameters to be monitored

4 as well, if not regulated. And we would like to see

5 those done on a quarterly basis at first.

6 The other aspect would be the bioassay testing of

7 the effluent. We feel that can be done after the phase

8 one has been operating for some period to get an

9 initial sense of the LC 50 or the toxicity of the

10 effluent, and that will inform future planning to some

11 degree, I would hope.

12 Environment Canada also strongly recommends that

13 an operation and maintenance manual and training

14 programme be developed and implemented for the plant.

15 Now on to decommissioning on the sewage lagoon.

16 Environment Canada strongly recommends that the license

17 include a term requiring the City to implement the

18 repairs outlined in the February 2005 dam safety

19 inspection which was carried out by Concentric

20 Associates International. Given the concerns regarding

21 the inadequate sizing of the lagoon, the insufficient

22 retention time, and the stability of the berms , the

23 license should restrict the use of the lagoon to those

24 situations where it is required as an emergency backup.

25 To EC 's mind, these are pressing concerns, and they're

26 elaborated a little bit further in our technical

381

1 report.

2 Environment Canada also recommends that the

3 license require the City of Iqaluit to develop and

4 submit an abandonment and restoration plan for the

5 assisting lagoon for review and approval within three

6 months of the issuance of the license.

7 The next item is the sludge management, and I'm

8 going to skip the bullets that are on the screen

9 because they pretty much -- we've been given

10 indications by the presentation by Ken as to what is

11 happening now and what is going to happen. Other items

12 have come to mind on this topic.

13 I noted that we would have liked to have

14 information on the management prior to sludge disposal,

15 which we just found out about at this hearing. We're

16 very interested in the sludge characterisation

17 happening as soon as possible. I think the drainage

18 and leachate capture is going to be very key to good

19 management of this site, and that action will have to

20 be taken very early to ensure that the spring freshet

21 doesn't affect the site, and I don't know how the

22 runoff is in spring at the site with the current

23 configuration.

24 And to that end, this second bullet does suggest

25 that the City submit a plan to deal with the sludge

26 within 30 days and while they are actually producing

382

1 and disposing the sludge right now. I think that there

2 should be some early thought given to producing this

3 for review and informing the regulators.

4 The next item is monitoring. The license should

5 require the establishment of new SNP stations to

6 monitor effluent discharge from the final discharge

7 point of the new plant, as well as the existing sewage

8 lagoon. The stations should be monitored bimonthly

9 during periods of flow for BOD, TSS , pH,

10 bacteriological parameters, and ammonia. Additionally,

11 bioassay testing should be required from both stations.

12 The license should also require the establishment

13 of an SNP station at the sewage sludge management

14 facility, and once the sludge has been characterised ,

15 it should be monitored annually during periods of thaw,

16 and preferably late in the season, for those

17 contingencies found to be present in the sludge, at a

18 minimum BOD, COD, TSS , pH, heavy metals including

19 mercury, nutrients, bacteriological parameters,

20 phenyls , and oil and grease.

21 And on the issue of monitoring as brought up

22 yesterday, we do need to see the short-chain

23 chlorinated paraffins looked at as well in the sewage

24 waste stream, and it would be a good idea to look at

25 this in the sludge and any leachate coming from that

26 area.

383

1 The last item is emergency response and spill

2 contingency planning, and our technical report has

3 outlined a number of items on pages 14 and 15 which we

4 would like to see in an update to the spill contingency

5 plan. We would also like the plan to reflect changes

6 to the waste water treatment processes such as the

7 operation of the new plant in its current phase and the

8 use of the existing sewage lagoon on a contingency

9 basis if the plant is not functioning.

10 Again, in summary, there has been substantial

11 progress made by the City of Iqaluit towards improving

12 the quality of municipal waste management, and

13 Environment Canada does appreciate the work that has

14 been completed to date and looks forward to continuing

15 to work the City of Iqaluit and the Nunavut Water Board

16 to continue to ensure best practices are implemented in

17 managing municipal waste in Nunavut .

18 I have provided the Water Board with our suggested

19 priority for recommendations for all sections of the

20 hearing, and the City as well, so I will just skip over

21 this slide as the City has it in hand.

22 I will make my closing statements without a slide

23 now, just to say that we very much appreciate the

24 opportunity to present our concerns and to have the

25 opportunity to question the City and find out a lot

26 more information that hadn't been clear to us before.

384

1 We would urge the City to aggressively pursue funding

2 to move to phase two of the waste water treatment plan.

3 There are, you know, hopefully federal infrastructure

4 funds available for this type of thing. I believe

5 there is a degree of urgency, and after this fall,

6 there will be some further impetus that you can use

7 constructively from the Canada-wide strategy which will

8 move us towards lower limits achieving secondary

9 treatment. We also would urge the City to think in the

10 long-term in planning for the municipal waste water

11 management and the solid waste management over the

12 future.

13 And my last comment is to the Water Board, that we

14 would really encourage circulation of a draft water

15 license and also an SNP . We would be very pleased to

16 offer our comments on an SNP as far as the parameters

17 that we think would be helpful in evaluating the

18 performance of the systems and monitoring what's going

19 into the environment. Thank you.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Environment Canada.

21 I'll open the floor for questions from applicant.

22 Thank you, applicant.

23 Is there any question from interested parties?

24 Thank you. Is there any question from other interested

25 parties? No.

26 And then the Water Board? Okay, thank you.

385

1 Dionne?

2 WATER BOARD STAFF QUESTIONS ENVIRONMENT CANADA:

3 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dionne.

4 As you went through your slide when you were

5 making reference to monitoring, you talked about the

6 establishment of a monitoring station at the sewage

7 sludge management facility, and I'm wondering if

8 Environment Canada is satisfied with the information

9 that has been provided to date. Are they recommending

10 that that monitoring station be in the area of the

11 landfill where they're presently disposing of sludges ,

12 or is this for the forecasted new facility?

13 MS. WILSON: Anne Wilson, Environment Canada.

14 Our interests in the sludge characterisation will

15 include the sludge itself, and leachate coming off of

16 the sludge, and -- I'm not quite sure how to put this

17 -- young sludge and old sludge, just to get an idea of

18 what, of what the range of variability is. And so that

19 will involve, I think, more than one station, and

20 that's where it might be good to have a plan in hand as

21 to -- with a diagram as to where the expansions are

22 going to occur, where the runoff is going to occur

23 after the summer's construction is done, and that would

24 help us. Thanks.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

26 Dionne, do you have other questions?

386

1 MS. FILIATRAULT : Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,

2 Mr. Chairman.

3 With respect to the formal submission that

4 Environment Canada made, you discussed the publishing

5 of the notice requiring the preparation and

6 implementations of pollution prevention plans. Is that

7 something -- can you just clarify the requirements of

8 that as it relates to the mandate of this Board and

9 what -- how you expect -- what do you expect this Board

10 to do, with reference to those statements?

11 MS. WILSON: Anne Wilson, Environment Canada.

12 I don't think a license issued by this Board would

13 have any incompatible requirements to those

14 requirements. The city produces over 5,000 cubic

15 metres a day of effluent, therefore are captured under

16 those requirements. The first one does not apply to

17 the city because they are not chlorinating their

18 effluent, so they're not going to have residual

19 chlorine. The second one, which deals with the

20 toxicity of ammonia, does apply to the city, and the

21 requirement is for the ammonia to be -- I'm sorry, for

22 the effluent to be non-toxic due to ammonia at end of

23 pipe, and for there to be a minimised zone of chronic

24 toxicity in the area of mixing. To get to that place,

25 the guidelines, item 4, says that the owner/operator of

26 any waste water system must develop and implement plans

387

1 to get there. So, it gives a little bit of a breathing

2 space as far as getting from where you are not in

3 compliance with acute toxicity due to ammonia to where

4 you make a plan to get there. Is that helpful?

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

6 Dionne?

7 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chair.

8 Can Environment Canada comment on the effluent --

9 with respect to effluent discharge criteria, does

10 Environment Canada have any standards by which to

11 measure or assess compliance to 36.3?

12 MS. WILSON: Anne Wilson, Environment Canada.

13 The most common test used is the rainbow trout

14 bioassay test. That isn't a sole determinant of

15 deleteriousness, but it's one which the courts accept.

16 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dionne

17 Filiatrault .

18 With respect to the waste water treatment plant,

19 reference is made to the development of a training

20 programme , and how does Environment Canada see this as

21 being relevant to the Nunavut Water Board and their

22 mandate? And I mention this only that I wonder if it's

23 not more industry standard to obtain official

24 certification, operator certifications from the south

25 as opposed to the City of Iqaluit doing training in the

26 north.

388

1 MS. WILSON: Anne Wilson, Environment Canada.

2 I think the intent there is to ensure that the

3 plant is optimised , to use Ken's word, and that we get

4 the best quality through the best operation of the

5 system. To that end, it really -- if it's

6 certification that gets us there or if it's an O & M

7 section -- sorry, an operation and maintenance manual

8 section that details the credentials required and the

9 training that operators will have undergone, that would

10 satisfy us as well.

11 MS. FILIATRAULT : Final question, Mr. Chair. Dionne

12 Filiatrault .

13 With respects to -- with respect to an effluent

14 monitoring programme , Environment Canada makes

15 reference to assessment for metals. I'm wondering if

16 Environment Canada could be more specific with respect

17 to what they intend there; and also, the details on the

18 bioassay testing, would there be any restrictions to

19 timing of when -- or when they couldn't or shouldn't or

20 should be doing any of that sort of testing.

21 MS. WILSON: Anne Wilson, Environment Canada.

22 The metals which are routinely of interest to us

23 is the 23 metal ICP scan in the total form, and the

24 instrumentation runs the full scan whether you want it

25 or not. You just -- it's going to run it for all of

26 them, so we may as well have all the results reported.

389

1 We have had instances of hindsight where parameters

2 we'd never asked for to be measured have turned up, and

3 we've been very glad that they were in the scan.

4 With respect to the protocols for the bioassay, we

5 do have a standard protocol document available. The

6 window for getting the sample to the lab is five days.

7 They have to start the test within five days of taking

8 the sample, and so with flights, that can sometimes be

9 tricky. It has to be set up in advance. As far as

10 when to best take the sample from the plant, we would

11 like to see it when the plant is operating routinely,

12 not when it's at its worse and not when it's at its

13 best so we get a good representative end-of-pipe

14 effluent.

15 MS. FILIATRAULT : Thank you, Mr. Chair. No more

16 questions.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

18 Thank you, Anne Wilson, Environment Canada.

19 So it's getting late right now. We still have DFO

20 and Bill MacKenzie Humanitarian Society and the

21 citizens to make presentation, but I'd like to call the

22 Board to take care of those tomorrow morning, and then

23 we close for tonight. Would that be all right for the

24 staff?

25 MR . TILLEMAN : We're fine.

26 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. According to the agenda, we

390

1 are supposed to come back here at 10:00 in the morning,

2 but we might want to come in here earlier, maybe 9:00.

3 Would be -- would that be okay for the applicant? Do

4 you have a question, objection, or so, applicant?

5 MR . HALL: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, members of the

6 Board. Mark Hall, City of Iqaluit.

7 With the greatest of respect, the Board and the

8 intervenors have asked for quite a magnitude of

9 information which our team will endeavour to put

10 together. However, within the bounds of reason, I

11 think 9 a.m. is tight.

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.

13 MR . HALL: We want to present ourselves in a

14 timely and professional fashion, and we respectively

15 ask that the Board reconvene at 10 a.m. to give us a

16 chance to respond. It is our last chance to respond

17 comprehensively to the Board before it concludes.

18 Thank you.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. How about the other

20 interested parties, you have any objection? Thank you.

21 So, okay, I just want to respect the applicant.

22 It would be okay for us to come back here at 10:00 in

23 the morning? Okay.

24 Okay, we'll be back here tomorrow morning. Like I

25 say, we want to respect the applicant that they will

26 have time to put together this work. All right.

391

1 Okay, thank you, applicant and parties and Water

2 Board staff. It's been a long day today, so you have

3 good rest and come back here at 10:00 in the morning

4 tomorrow.

5 (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 10:20 P.M.)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

392

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION

2

3 I, the undersigned, hereby state that the

4 foregoing pages 241 through 391 were taken down by me

5 in shorthand and transcribed to the best of my skill

6 and ability.

7 DATED at the City of Calgary, Province of Alberta,

8 this 13th day of March, A.D. 2006.

9

10

11

12 Diane Hermann, RPR

13 Court Reporter

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

393

1 EXHIBITS

2 EXHIBIT 14:

3 CITY OF IQALUIT - SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN

4 PRESENTATION, KEN JOHNSON...............302

5 EXHIBIT 15:

6 CITY OF IQALUIT SOLID WASTE FACILITY O & M

7 MANUAL, INCLUDING TABLE 3.4,DATED .

8 APRIL 2005..............................351

9 EXHIBIT 16:

10 BILL MACKENZIE HUMANITARIAN SOCIETY

11 PRESENTATION, ELECTRONIC COPY...........351

12 EXHIBIT 17:

13 IQALUIT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANNING STUDY DATED

14 11 JULY 1997, BY DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED,

15 ELECTRONIC COPY.........................346

16 EXHIBIT 18:

17 INAC SAMPLING & INSPECTION REPORTS.378

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26