MV21014L3-0008

Final Report

Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Waste Management Planning Study

Site: Settlement of Fort Resolution Fort Resolution, NWT

Submitted to: Keith Morrison, P.Eng. Government of the Northwest Territories Municipal and Community Affairs 600, 5201–50th Avenue Yellowknife, NT X1A 3S9

Prepared for: Government of the Northwest Territories Municipal and Community Affairs 600, 5201–50th Avenue Yellowknife, NT X1A 3S9

Prepared by: AECOM (formerly Earth Tech Canada Inc.) 17203–103rd Avenue Edmonton, AB T5S 1J4

November 21, 2008

AECOM Project No. 104148-03

Final Report

Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Waste Management Planning Study

Site: Author: Patricia Hamilton, EIT Settlement of Fort Resolution Fort Resolution, NWT Title: Project Engineer Submitted to: Keith Morrison, P.Eng. Date: October 20, 2008 Government of the Northwest Territories

Municipal and Community Affairs

600, 5201–50th Avenue

Yellowknife, NT X1A 3S9 Reviewer: Ken Johnson, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.

Prepared for: Government of the Northwest Territories Title: Project Manager Municipal and Community Affairs th 600, 5201–50 Avenue Yellowknife, NT X1A 3S9 Date: October 27, 2008

Prepared by: AECOM (formerly Earth Tech Canada Inc.) 17203–103rd Avenue Edmonton, AB T5S 1J4

November 21, 2008

AECOM Project No. 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Government of the Northwest Territories

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In response to concerns expressed by community members, community stakeholders, and regulatory authorities, the GNWT retained Earth Tech (Canada) Inc., now doing business as AECOM, to complete a waste management study in Fort Resolution. Fort Resolution's current waste management systems include a sanitary landfill and a sewage retention lagoon.

Three site locations were considered as an initial phase in the waste management study: the current site, a gravel quarry approximately 16 km west, and the Pine Point Mine approximately 50 km west. Because hauling costs would be prohibitively high for the latter two options, it was concluded that the waste site should be kept in its current location. This site is close to the community, has a groundwater table that does not restrict the use of the site, and has sufficient space for future expansion.

The sewage lagoon is a facultative/infiltration process consisting of six cells linked by channels. Wastewater ultimately percolates through the sandy soil in a northerly direction to the wetlands approximately 400 metres from site. Detention in the lagoon and the infiltration process through the sandy soil provides treatment of the wastewater.

The sewage lagoon is approaching the end of its service life with its current configuration, as indicated by decreasing available freeboard. In order to extend the capacity of the current lagoon to provide time for design and construction of a new lagoon, an additional cell approximately 1000 m2 in size should be excavated to the east of the first lagoon cell.

To meet the twenty-year wastewater generation demand, a new lagoon should be constructed using the same facultative/infiltration process as the current lagoon. The volume of the new lagoon should be approximately 18,000 m3, with a depth of 3 metres. The cost of the new facultative/infiltration lagoon is estimated to be approximately $900,000.

The current landfill site uses an area fill method for managing the solid waste, and has enough capacity for approximately 2 to 6 more years depending upon site management. There are several operation and maintenance improvements that may be implemented for the site, which include the increased use of cover material on the active face of the landfill, and changing the operation to depositing solid waste into to a smaller area of the site and compacting the area, instead of pushing the solid waste against the edge of the cell. Additional capacity for the site may be achieved by “building up” the landfill area on top of the current site which may provide an additional 4 to 9 years of use. After the use of this area has been maximized, cells for the landfill may be trenched in the area to the north or west of the current site. In the redevelopment of the existing landfill site, the remaining space in the existing landfill should be partitioned into three cells.

The landfill has recently accepted contaminated soil from the NTPC, which is stockpiled on the site for future use as cover material. In the future, the community should ensure that waste classification sampling is performed on all contaminated soil accepted at the site. The community should also request financial compensation for taking on the risks associated with contaminated soil at the landfill site.

Previous waste management practices have created a number of abandoned waste management sites around the community. All of these sites should be assessed within the current three phase environment framework and appropriately remediated.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc i 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Government of the Northwest Territories

Table of Contents

Letter of Transmittal Executive Summary Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Project Background...... 1 1.2 Project Objectives ...... 1 2.0 COMMUNITY INFORMATION...... 2 2.1 Location...... 2 2.2 Topography, Geology, and Surface Drainage ...... 2 2.3 Subsurface Drainage...... 2 2.4 Climate ...... 3 2.5 Population Projection ...... 3 2.6 Potable Water Supply and Distribution ...... 4 2.7 Waste Management ...... 4 3.0 SEWAGE INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 4 3.1 Sewage Collection...... 4 3.2 Sewage Treatment and Disposal...... 5 3.3 Sewage Lagoon Site ...... 6 3.4 Sewage Generation...... 6 3.5 Sewage Characteristics and Lagoon Performance...... 7 3.6 Lagoon Capacity ...... 10 4.0 SOLID WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE...... 10 4.1 Solid Waste Collection ...... 10 4.2 Solid Waste Disposal ...... 10 4.3 Solid Waste Site...... 10 4.4 Solid Waste Generation ...... 11 4.5 Solid Waste Characteristics ...... 12 4.6 Landfill Capacity...... 13 4.7 Waste Site Relocation Options ...... 13 4.8 Maintaining The Current Location...... 14 4.9 Relocation to Site 16 km South of Town...... 15 4.10 Relocation to Pine Point Mine ...... 15 4.11 Relocation Options Cost Summary...... 16 5.0 LAGOON REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS ...... 16 5.1 Immediate Recommendations ...... 16 5.1.1 Cell Excavation...... 16 5.1.2 Infiltration Monitoring...... 17 5.2 Facultative / Infiltration Lagoon ...... 18 5.3 Lagoon Sizing to Provide Cold Weather Retention...... 19 5.4 Lagoon Sizing to Provide Warm Weather Infiltration ...... 19 5.4.1 Lagoon Size Requirements...... 20 5.5 Retention Lagoon...... 20 5.6 Firewater Cell ...... 21

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc ii 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Government of the Northwest Territories

6.0 LAGOON OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE...... 21 6.1 Fencing...... 21 6.2 Monitoring Infiltration Rates and Wastewater Levels...... 21 6.3 Desludging ...... 21 6.4 Effluent Monitoring ...... 21 7.0 SOLID WASTE SITE REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS ...... 21 7.1 Site Configuration – Current Landfill ...... 21 7.2 Cover and Compaction ...... 22 7.3 Reduce Active Area...... 22 7.4 Engineering an Operating Cell ...... 22 7.5 Site Configuration – Future Landfill...... 23 7.5.1 Building "Up" ...... 23 7.6 New Landfill Area – East of Current Landfill ...... 23 7.7 New Landfill Area – Surrounding Area...... 24 8.0 SOLID WASTE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...... 24 8.1 Waste Diversion ...... 24 8.2 Household Hazardous Waste ...... 26 8.3 Compaction and Waste Covering ...... 26 8.4 Site Access and Road Maintenance ...... 27 8.5 Performance Monitoring and Recordkeeping ...... 27 8.6 Fencing and Signage ...... 28 8.7 Aesthetic Concerns ...... 28 9.0 ASSESSMENT OF ABANDONED WASTE SITES AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATED SOIL ...... 29 9.1 Assessment and Remediation of Abandoned Waste Sites...... 29 9.2 Management of Contaminated Soil...... 30 10.0 COST ESTIMATES FOR SEWAGE LAGOON...... 31 11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 32 12.0 REFERENCES...... 35

Diagrams

Diagram 1 Infiltration Lagoon...... 5 Diagram 2 BOD5 and Nitrogen in Ammonia Concentrations ...... 9 Diagram 3 Using Stakes to Estimate Change in Freeboard Over Time...... 17 Diagram 4 Sludge Build-Up In Infiltration Lagoon...... 18 Diagram 5 Two-Celled Infiltration Lagoon With Cobble Berm ...... 19 Diagram 6 Two-Celled Retention Lagoon With Cobble Berm ...... 20

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc iii 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Government of the Northwest Territories

Tables

Table 1 Twenty-Year Population Projection...... 3 Table 2 Estimated Area Of Sewage Lagoon...... 6 Table 3 Twenty-Year Sewage Generation ...... 6 Table 4 Wastewater Characteristics Of The Sewage Lagoon ...... 7 Table 5 Groundwater And Surface Water Quality...... 8 Table 6 Solid Waste Volume Projection For Fort Resolution, 2008 – 2048...... 12 Table 7 Solid Waste Types And Estimated Volumes For The Community Of Fort Resolution ...... 12 Table 8 Potential Concerns Of Current Waste Site Location...... 14 Table 9 Estimated Annual Trucking Costs To Proposed Waste Site Locations ...... 16 Table 10 Potential Waste Diversion Measures ...... 25 Table 11 Cost Estimates For Sewage Lagoon Upgrades...... 31

Appendices

Appendix A Hay River Annual Temperatures Appendix B Waste Diversion Strategies Appendix C Fort Resolution Grain Size Analysis Appendix D Laboratory Results June 11, 2008 Sampling Appendix E Quotes For Liner For Retention Lagoon Option Appendix F Fort Resolution Site Photos: Site Visit – June 9-11, 2008 Appendix G Environmental Site Assessment Framework Appendix H Figures

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc iv 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Government of the Northwest Territories

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background

Earth Tech (Canada) Inc., now doing business as AECOM, was been retained by the Government of the Northwest Territories, Department of Municipal and Community Affairs to provide engineering consulting services to complete a waste management study for Fort Resolution's sewage and solid waste.

Fort Resolution has had a challenging history of waste management. The current waste management site (landfill and lagoon) was first commissioned in approximately 1979. This site was used until 1981, and then relocated (landfill and lagoon) to an area south of the community off of Pine Point Highway. Due to environmental concerns associated with the high groundwater table, this site was abandoned in 1986, and the current site was again put in use. Further studies in 1994 resulted in the development of a new site approximately 500 metres east of the current site, which was taken out of service because of the high groundwater table.

Community and council members have expressed concerns regarding the location of the current site, and the potential environmental impact, especially were a breach to occur of the infiltration lagoon. An Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) officer has also expressed a concern that the lagoon system has very little freeboard (distance from the lagoon water level to the top of the containment berms) and may be nearing capacity. As such, the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs of the Government of the Northwest Territories retained AECOM to provide a Waste Management Planning Study to develop options for future waste management in Fort Resolution.

1.2 Project Objectives

The waste management planning study was undertaken based upon the following project objectives:

• To provide an assessment of the existing solid and liquid waste sites based on a review of background information, site inspections of the waste sites and receiving water bodies, and interviews with community members and site operators. • To provide an assessment of the operating conditions of the facilities. • To develop action plans to optimize the operating life of the facilities with the existing configuration. • To develop and analyze five alternative options for sewage treatment (non mechanical) and solid waste management based upon the technological and climate limitations of northern treatment systems. • To develop a scope of activity for additional technical work for the facility relocation, expansion or redevelopment. • To provide schematics and preliminary cost estimates (Class D) for facility relocation, expansion, or redevelopment to achieve a twenty (20) year life span for the facilities (through to the year 2028).

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 1 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Government of the Northwest Territories

2.0 COMMUNITY INFORMATION

2.1 Location

The community of Fort Resolution is geographically situated on Resolution Bay and immediately south of the Slave River delta. It is located at 61° 10' 16" N Latitude and 113° 40' 20" W longitude, approximately 145 km southeast of Yellowknife by air. Fort Resolution is accessible by road, and is approximately 160 km by road from Hay River. Fort Resolution had a population of 505 in 2006 (Northwest Territories Bureau of Statistics, 2006).

2.2 Topography, Geology, and Surface Drainage

The community is located approximately 160 metres above mean sea level and four (4) metres above the Great Slave Lake level.2 The land to the east and south of Fort Resolution has a gentle slope towards Great Slave Lake.

The surficial soils are mainly deltaic, however, to the north of the community this pattern is interrupted by several massive outcrops of limestone bedrock. A similar bedrock outcrop at the community is not particularly noticeable. The next nearest outcrop is a prominent ridge, striking northeast and southwest, rising to an elevation about ten (10) metres above the community two (2) kilometres northwest, which is just off the northern end of the airstrip.2 Coarse limestone gravel covers the upper levels of the airport ridge. These deposits are Fort Resolution's principal source of aggregate for road and airport surfacing.2

Fort Resolution is within the southern margin of the discontinuous permafrost zone. As such, shallow permafrost is expected in undeveloped, forest-shaded areas.

Surface water runoff south of the airport ridge will likely discharge into Resolution Bay, and north of the airport ridge will discharge into Nagle Bay. Both bays ultimately discharge into Great Slave Lake.1

2.3 Subsurface Drainage

In June, 1983, eight boreholes were drilled at various locations in and around the community of Fort Resolution. Monitoring wells were installed in each location to monitor the groundwater levels. Groundwater levels were monitored on a weekly basis from June until November, 1983, and varied from 0.31 metres below grade to 4.22 metres below grade. During the monitoring program, the change in groundwater levels observed varied from 0.5 metres to 2.2 metres.2 During the drilling program, frozen ground conditions were encountered between 0.1 m to 2.4 metres below grade.

A subsurface hydrogeological drilling investigation was also conducted in the vicinity of the current waste site in September, 1992. Eighteen (18) piezometers were installed in ten (10) locations to monitor and sample groundwater, and the water depth was found to be one to two metres below the ground surface. The soil characteristics were reported to be fine-grained sand for the first 3 metres below grade. From approximately 3 metres below grade to 6.4 metres below grade, the soil was reportedly sand with silt layers, and beyond 6.4 metres below grade, the soil was predominantly clay with layers of sand or silt. The hydraulic conductivity of the sands ranged from 10-5cm/s to 10-3cm/s.3

The results of this hydrogeological investigation concluded that the ground water flow gradient is toward the wetland located some 500 metres north of the waste site3 (see Figure I). The report also concluded that effluent flow from the lagoon into the groundwater system should take approximately twelve (12) years to reach the wetland north of the waste site.3

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 2 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Government of the Northwest Territories

2.4 Climate

The climate in Fort Resolution may be characterized by long cold winters and short cool summers. Historical data is available for the neighbouring Hay River, as summarized in Appendix A. The daily average temperature is -2.9°C. The July mean high is 21.1°C and mean low is 10.6°C. The January mean high is -18.4°C and mean low is -27.6°C (Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000).3

2.5 Population Projection

According to the Northwest Territories Bureau of Statistics the 2006 population of Fort Resolution was 505.4 The average annual growth rate provided by the Bureau of Statistics from 1996 to 2006 is -1.1%. For planning purposes, a larger, conservative annual growth rate of 0.5% was assumed for the community and was applied to forecast the twenty-year population as listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Twenty-Year Population Projection

Planning Year Year Projected Population

-- 2006 505 -- 2007 508 1 2008 510 2 2009 513 3 2010 515 4 2011 518 5 2012 520 6 2013 523 7 2014 526 8 2015 528 9 2016 531 10 2017 533 11 2018 536 12 2019 539 13 2020 542 14 2021 544 15 2022 547 16 2023 550 17 2024 552 18 2025 555 19 2026 558 20 2027 561

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 3 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Government of the Northwest Territories

2.6 Potable Water Supply and Distribution

Raw water is pumped from Great Slave Lake through a 300 metre submerged intake line into a wet well beneath the truckfill station. The truckfill station is located on the northwest edge of the community. The raw water is treated with a package water treatment plant and disinfected before discharge into the water trucks which deliver it to the community residents. Approximately 80 m3/day of potable water is consumed by the community as estimated in 2004.5

2.7 Waste Management

Fort Resolution currently uses a waste management site (sewage and solid waste) located approximately 1.5 km north of the community centre (see Figure I). This site is located approximately 0.9 km east of the Fort Resolution airport. This present-day site was first put in use in approximately 1979. Prior to 1979, there were reports that Fort Resolution’s solid waste landfill was located slightly north-east from the airport (see Figure I).

In 1981, community decided that the site was in conflict with the "recreational needs of the community". Based upon a planning study completed by Ferguson, Naylor, Simek and Clark Ltd., the community relocated the waste site to a location 1.7 km southeast of Fort Resolution along the Pine Point Highway. This site operated satisfactorily from 1981 until 1985; however, during particularly rainy weather in 1985 to 1986, this site was subject to flooding over a wide area. There were environmental concerns raised that the surface run-off from the waste site was draining directly into Resolution Bay. In addition, trenches for the solid waste landfill could not be excavated because of the high water levels. Due to these issues, the community reverted to its original waste site, the site currently in use.

Another planning report was completed by Reid Crowther in 1987, which resulted in the development of a third waste site for sewage/solid waste disposal approximately 500 metres east of the original site. Site development works began to clear land and excavate a lagoon in 1991 and continued until 1994. During this time, the community continued to use the original (current) site until the infiltration rate slowed to a point where the sewage lagoon was at risk of overflowing. As a result, the community moved to the new site briefly until it, too, threatened to overflow in 1994 due to prohibitively high groundwater levels. Shortly thereafter, all site development work was stopped on the new site, and waste operations were once again moved back to the original site. The overall performance of the original lagoon system was improved by excavating and desludging the bottom of the lagoon and expanding the lagoon with the excavation of new cells.

3.0 SEWAGE INFRASTRUCTURE

3.1 Sewage Collection

The sewage collection in Fort Resolution is contracted out to a company owned by Bill Norn, with an annual contract value of approximately $150,000. Sewage is collected from 225 collection points around Fort Resolution and trucked 1.5 kilometers to the current lagoon site. The sewage is then emptied into the lagoon at the truck dump on the north side of the lagoon. Approximately 12-15 trucks with 9,100 litres of sewage are collected in the community each day, five days a week.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 4 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Government of the Northwest Territories

3.2 Sewage Treatment and Disposal

Fort Resolution's sewage lagoon operates as a facultative and infiltration (soil absorption) lagoon. In the warmer seasons, while retained in the facultative lagoon, sewage will undergo biodegradation by bacteria, algae and plants. Sun and wind-mixed oxygen near the surface of the lagoon permit photosynthesis and aerobic (oxygen-consuming) reactions. Anaerobic (oxygen-deficient) degradation can also occur in deeper areas of the lagoon.

Due to the porous, sandy soils around the Fort Resolution's lagoon, sewage flows down into the soil matrix and may percolate through the unsaturated soil layer into the saturated soil (groundwater). The wastewater will then enter the groundwater flow, as illustrated in Diagram 1. As sewage infiltrates through the soil, treatment occurs.

The unsaturated zone is the layer of soil between the ground surface and the water table. This zone has efficient treatment capabilities through filtration, biodegradation, absorption and adsorption; these processes will decrease coliform bacteria, biodegradable material, nitrogen and phosphorous. Studies suggest that the ideal unsaturated zone is between 0.9 to 1.2 metres of soil. However, a significant reduction of coliform bacteria has been measured in approximately 30 centimeters of unsaturated soil.

The saturated zone is the wet soil below the groundwater level. The saturated zone also facilitates treatment through filtration, biodegradation, absorption and adsorption, although not as efficiently as the unsaturated zone. In addition, denitrification may also occur, where organic carbon is available.

The groundwater table at the Fort Resolution site is very high; therefore the available unsaturated soil depth is limited. However, the saturated soil zone is extensive, both below the lagoon site, and to the north of the lagoon site toward the wetland area. Ultimately the saturated flow discharges to a wetland system approximately 400 metres north of the sewage lagoon over a time period of approximately twelve years.3 This wetland system ultimately discharges into Nagle Bay, and from there into Great Slave Lake.

Further polishing treatment of the wastewater will occur in the wetland system. Wetlands are well recognized for their treatment capabilities. Wetland vegetation consumes and captures nutrients, provides surfaces for attachment of bacteria, transfers oxygen into the water column and restricts sunlight, thus decreasing algae growth. Wetlands allow for the decrease of suspended solids, organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, trace elements including metals, and microorganisms.

Diagram 1 Infiltration Lagoon

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 5 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

3.3 Sewage Lagoon Site

Fort Resolution's sewage lagoon consists of a series of six cells. The first cell (the most northerly) was excavated in approximately 1979, and additional cells were sequentially excavated to the south during the history of the site usage (1979 – 1981, 1985 – present), whenever the lagoon appeared to be reaching capacity or when fill material was needed. The cells were constructed using an excavator; after a cell was constructed, a channel was excavated to connect the cell to the rest of the lagoon system. Former site operator Louis Balsillie reports that the excavated cells are approximately 20 feet (6 metres) deep. The final cell, Cell 6, was excavated in approximately 2003 (INAC report, 2004), to provide additional lagoon capacity, and provide sand for road work operations for the community.

Area estimates for each cell were calculated based on a high-definition satellite image of the lagoon and are presented in Table 2. The locations of each cell are shown in Figure II.

Table 2 Estimated Area of Sewage Lagoon

Cell Area (m2) Cell 1 338 Cell 2 660 Cell 3 520 Cell 4 230 Cell 5 336 Cell 6 798 Total 2,882

3.4 Sewage Generation

Based upon the population projection outlined in Section 2.5, the generation of sewage waste is estimated for the next twenty (20) years (starting from 2008) and is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Twenty-Year Sewage Generation

Planning Year Population Per Capita Community Daily Community Year Volume Sewage Volume Annual Sewage (m3/day) (m3/day) Volume (m3/year) 1 2008 510 0.150 76.5 27,926 2 2009 513 0.150 76.9 28,066 3 2010 515 0.150 77.3 28,206 4 2011 518 0.150 77.7 28,347 5 2012 520 0.150 78.1 28,489 6 2013 523 0.150 78.4 28,631 7 2014 526 0.150 78.8 28,774 8 2015 528 0.150 79.2 28,918 9 2016 531 0.150 79.6 29,063 10 2017 533 0.150 80.0 29,208 11 2018 536 0.150 80.4 29,354 12 2019 539 0.150 80.8 29,501

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 6 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

Planning Year Population Per Capita Community Daily Community Year Volume Sewage Volume Annual Sewage (m3/day) (m3/day) Volume (m3/year) 13 2020 542 0.150 81.2 29,648 14 2021 544 0.150 81.6 29,797 15 2022 547 0.150 82.0 29,946 16 2023 550 0.150 82.5 30,095 17 2024 552 0.150 82.9 30,246 18 2025 555 0.150 83.3 30,397 19 2026 558 0.150 83.7 30,549 20 2027 561 0.150 84.1 30,702 Notes: 1. Population projection data based on an annual 0.5% growth rate. 2. Per capita consumption estimated as 150 LCPD considering typical production of 140 LCPD in trucked areas and calculated consumption rates of between 153 LCPD to 191 LCPD based on trucking details provided by Bill Norn.

3.5 Sewage Characteristics and Lagoon Performance

Wastewater generated in Fort Resolution is primarily domestic in source and characteristics. The wastewater quality from the community may be considered to be a "high strength" waste because of the use of a trucked sewage and water system. The "high strength" condition is typical for trucked sewage and water systems due to the low water usage, which results in a low dilution of the raw sewage. Limited measurements have been completed on the raw sewage characteristics. Samples were taken on June 11, 2008 from the truck discharge location in Cell 1 ("Truck Dump"), and from the most southern accessible location of the lagoon ("Cell 6"). The lagoon results are tabulated in Table 4. The expected raw sewage characteristics for a high strength raw sewage entering the sewage lagoon are 600 mg/L for BOD, 725 mg/L for TSS, and 107 coliforms/100 mL for Total Coliforms.6

Table 4 Wastewater Characteristics of the Sewage Lagoon

Fort Resolution Sewage Lagoon Parameter Unit Truck Dump Cell 6 (2008) (2008)

5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) mg/L 421 151 Total Suspended Solids mg/L 224 190 E. Coli MPN/100 mL 1,600,000 110,000 Total Coliforms MPN/100 mL >1,600,000 1,600,000 Ammonia-N mg/L 66 23.8 pH pH Units 7.2 7.4

From the truck dump in Cell 1 to Cell 6, the sample analysis demonstrates a 93% reduction of E Coli; a 64% reduction in BOD5; a 64% reduction in ammonia; and a 15% reduction in suspended solids. The relatively low reduction in suspended solids is a result of the algae growth in the lagoon, which is responsible for the BOD5 and ammonia reductions.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 7 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

The wastewater strength of the sample taken from the truck dump was less than the expected raw sewage influent concentrations due to dilution. From the expected raw sewage influent concentrations to Cell 6, a 75% reduction in BOD5, a 73% reduction in total suspended solids and an 84% reduction in total coliforms are shown.

These reductions in BOD5, suspended solids and coliforms demonstrate that the retention in the facultative lagoon contributes significantly to the overall wastewater treatment process.

During the site visit, a water sample was collected from standing water in the area north of the lagoon, prior to the wetland system, which may be representative of groundwater characteristics as the sewage lagoon effluent ultimately discharges into the wetlands. The laboratory analysis for this sample is presented in Table 5 as "Surface Water Near Wetland".

As a part of the hydrogeological study performed by Environment Canada in 1993, eighteen (18) monitoring wells were installed and groundwater samples obtained in the vicinity of Fort Resolution's waste site. The average concentrations for various parameters of fourteen (14) of the groundwater samples taken in the vicinity of Fort Resolution's sewage lagoon are presented in Table 5 as "Groundwater Average" for comparison purposes. It is assumed that the "Groundwater Average" is representative of the conditions of the groundwater in the vicinity of the lagoon after wastewater has infiltrated into the groundwater, and prior to migrating toward the wetland.

Table 5 Groundwater and Surface Water Quality

Parameter Unit1 Groundwater Average2 Surface Water Near (22/09/92) Wetland (11/06/08) Conductivity uS/cm 1178.3 763 Total Hardness mg/L 491.8 450 pH pH 7.34 8.14 Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 636.5 445 Cadmium mg/L 0.00 NA Calcium mg/L 148.96 137 Iron mg/L 27.63 0.24 Lead mg/L 0.03 NA Magnesium mg/L 29.16 26 Manganese mg/L 0.43 0.08 Potassium mg/L 7.43 0.8 Sodium mg/L 370.41 4.6 Total Alkalinity mg/L 553.57 392 Chloride mg/L 43.20 35.9 Nitrogen - Ammonia mg/L 19.12 NA Nitrogen - Nitrite mg/L 0.01 <0.005 Nitrogen - Nitrate mg/L 0.0015 <0.01 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 22.3 1.7 Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.03 0.05 Ortho phosphorus mg/L 0.01 NA Sulphate mg/L 4.95 5.7 3 BOD5 mg/L 35.9 4 Total Organic Carbon mg/L 21.28 45.9 Total Carbon mg/L 165 NA Hydroxide mg/L NA <5 Carbonate mg/L NA <6 Bicarbonate mg/L NA 477

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 8 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

Notes: 1. Date is presented as (DD/MM/YY). 2. Units were assumed for "Groundwater Average". 3. BOD5 is the 5-day biochemical oxygen demand.

The BOD5 and nitrogen (in the form of ammonia) concentrations for the truck dump and for Cell 6 are included in Diagram 2 for comparison purposes, and are representative of the wastewater quality before the effluent infiltrates into the soil. The BOD5 and ammonia-nitrogen values may be indicative of the potential impact of the sewage lagoon on the groundwater system as the groundwater moves toward the wetland.

Diagram 2 BOD5 and Nitrogen in Ammonia Concentrations

450 421 400

350

300

250 BOD5 Ammonia Nitrogen 200 151 150

Concentration (mg/L) Concentration 100 66 36 50 24 19 4 0 0 Truck Dump Lagoon Groundwater Surface (2008) (Cell 6) Average Water Near (2008) (1992) Wetland (2008)

Sample Location

Notes: 1. Units were assumed for "Groundwater Average". 2. Nitrogen in ammonia is provided for the "Surface Water" sample as ammonium, which is equal and dependent on the pH of the solution prepared for laboratory analysis.

These results indicate a significant overall nitrogen removal from the lagoon system through the groundwater system, as well as significant removal from the groundwater average around the lagoon to the surface discharge near the wetland. The results also indicate a significant reduction in the BOD5 value from the groundwater average concentration to the surface water concentration, demonstrating that significant degradation occurs as wastewater travels down gradient with the groundwater.

Table 5 also shows a better than 80% reduction for manganese, potassium, sodium and iron, respectively, from the groundwater average near the lagoon to the discharge to the wetland ("Groundwater Average" to "Surface Water Near Wetland").

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 9 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

It should be noted that these observations are based upon a very limited number of samples of two (2) samples taken from the lagoon in 2008, an average of groundwater samples in 1992, and one (1) sample of standing water (representative of groundwater conditions discharging into the wetlands) in 2008.

3.6 Lagoon Capacity

The existing sewage lagoon configuration is nearing the end of its operating capacity. From AECOM site observations of freeboard (distance from the water level to the top of the lagoon pond) at the truckfill station on June 10, 2008, there was approximately 0.55 metres of freeboard remaining in the lagoon.

There is approximately 1,585 m3 of volume remaining in the lagoon system. Assuming a sewage generation of 150 litres per capita and a population of 510, this space is sufficient for approximately twenty-one (21) days, if no infiltration occurs.

Infiltration of wastewater into the soil will increase the actual remaining capacity of Fort Resolution's sewage lagoon. However, as no data exists on sewage infiltration rates for Fort Resolution, the amount of time left that the sewage lagoon may operate without breaching the lagoon cannot be accurately estimated at this time.

4.0 SOLID WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE

4.1 Solid Waste Collection

The solid waste collection in Fort Resolution is contracted out to a local individual. Solid waste is collected twice a week for an annual contract of approximately $15,000. Municipal solid waste is collected by truck and deposited at the solid waste landfill approximately 1.5 km north of the community.

4.2 Solid Waste Disposal

The current landfill area is a pit located on the south side of the waste site, south-southwest of the lagoon, in an area of approximately 5,000 m2 that had been cleared by an accidental forest fire in approximately 2003. The current landfill area is in an excavated pit approximately 3.3 metres deep and is surrounded by berms. The access road to the active area of the landfill has a gradual grade from the surrounding area.

Solid waste is disposed into the pit and is periodically pushed back towards the perimeter berms with a front end loader to raise and compact the solid waste and maintain a working area. The active area of the landfill is not covered to reduce windblown material or scavenger access.

4.3 Solid Waste Site

The area surrounding the landfill consists of dense bush with reasonably tall trees. The bush and trees capture wind-blown solid waste (including plastic bags), which is an aesthetic and environmental concern noted by the community council and community representatives.

Two adjacent landfill cells have been reclaimed by covering and leveling; these areas are evident as cleared grassy areas on the site. One cell lies on the north-east side of the site, south of the road, and the second cell lies north of the current active site. Both of these areas were reclaimed in early 2008, and after only a few months have a well established grass cover growing.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 10 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

An old metal waste deposit area dump is located in the south-east corner of the site. Slightly north of this metal deposit area there is also a landfill cell that has not been reclaimed. Both of these former active areas have standing water. There is also standing water in the area between these two cells and the eastern berm of the current operating area.

Some standing water has been observed in the current active area, particularly during the spring when the groundwater is presumed to be high. From the operation of pushing the solid waste back, the floor of the site is scraped as well, which incrementally lowers the base of the active area.

An unlocked fence surrounds the current active area. Scavenging for beverage containers occurs in the active area. Some recent dumping is also occurring in a separate location to the west of the site.

No waste diversion activity occurs in Fort Resolution other than participation in the Northwest Territories beverage container program as detailed in Appendix B.

Based on the site visit and interviews, the concerns regarding the activities in the current solid waste site are:

• A very large working area not periodically covered by soil, which results in more wind-blown debris and an increase in the hazard for a large fire. • Management of the active area by pushing the solid waste against the perimeter berms, rather than depositing the solid waste into cells which allow compacting and covering. • A periodically high groundwater table in the active area of the landfill. • No waste diversion practices at the site. • A large amount of wind-blown debris, particularly plastic bags. • No measures to control scavenging on the site or limit access to the site. • Multi-use (recreation and waste management vehicles) of the access road from the community, which generates the potential for accidents to occur.

4.4 Solid Waste Generation

Based upon the population projection in Section 2.5, the generation of solid waste is estimated for the next twenty (20) years. Table 6 presents a summary of anticipated waste generation volumes.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 11 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

Table 6 Solid Waste Volume Projection for Fort Resolution, 2008 – 2048

Planning Year Year Population Annual Uncompacted Cumulative Cumulative MSW Volume, m3/yr Uncompacted Compacted MSW MSW Volume m3 Volume (3:1) m3 1 2008 510 3,138 3,138 1,046 2 2009 513 3,155 6,293 2,098 3 2010 515 3,172 9,465 3,155 4 2011 518 3,190 12,655 4,218 5 2012 520 3,208 15,863 5,288 6 2013 523 3,225 19,088 6,363 7 2014 526 3,243 22,332 7,444 8 2015 528 3,261 25,593 8,531 9 2016 531 3,279 28,872 9,624 10 2017 533 3,298 32,170 10,723 11 2018 536 3,316 35,486 11,829 12 2019 539 3,334 38,820 12,940 13 2020 542 3,353 42,173 14,058 14 2021 544 3,371 45,544 15,181 15 2022 547 3,390 48,935 16,312 16 2023 550 3,409 52,344 17,448 17 2024 552 3,428 55,772 18,591 18 2025 555 3,447 59,219 19,740 19 2026 558 3,466 62,685 20,895 20 2027 561 3,486 66,171 22,057 Notes: 1. Population projection data based on 0.5 % growth rate. 2. Uncompacted MSW Volume, m3/yr = 365 V Pn (1+G) +0.084 V P12 (1+G)2n (NWT Guidelines, 2003). 3. V = Average MSW volume (m3/person/day); 0.015 m3/person/day (FSC, 2000). 4. P1 = Population in current year (number of persons served). 5. Pn = Population in nth year (persons). 6. G = Average population growth rate (persons/year); 0.02/year. 7. Compaction ratio 3:1 for Compacted Landfill Site.7

4.5 Solid Waste Characteristics

Based on a previous study of waste composition in the Northwest Territories, the estimated waste type and generation rate for Fort Resolution is presented in Table 7.

Table 7 Solid Waste Types and Estimated Volumes for the Community of Fort Resolution

2008 Annual Design Period Solid Waste Type % Compacted Solid 10 Years 20 Years Contributing Waste Generation 3 Cumulative Compacted (m ) Solid Waste Generation (m3) 1,046 10,723 22,057 Bulky Wastes 5 52 536 1,103 Metal Wastes including cans 10.6 111 1,137 2,338 Food Wastes 20.3 212 2,177 4,478 Paper Wastes including cardboard, 14 146 1,501 3,088 newsprint, etc. Plastic/Leather Wastes including tires 14 146 1,501 3,088 Glass, Ceramics 5.7 60 611 1,257 Wood Wastes 9.9 104 1,062 2,184

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 12 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

2008 Annual Design Period Solid Waste Type % Compacted Solid 10 Years 20 Years Contributing Waste Generation 3 Cumulative Compacted (m ) Solid Waste Generation (m3) Hazardous Wastes 2 21 214 441 Animal Carcasses 1 10 107 221 Other Wastes 8 84 858 1,765 Snow Accumulation 3 31 322 662 Fill Material 4 42 429 882 Note: 1. Waste composition is obtained from the 2003 Guidelines for Planning, Design, Operations and Maintenance of Modified Solid Waste Sites in the NWT, for a typical modified landfill (solid waste facility) in the Northern Communities7; the total may not be 100% due to averaging and rounding.

4.6 Landfill Capacity

The current landfill pit has been in operation for approximately five (5) years. Of the total estimated area of 5,500 m2, site observations and measurements indicate that approximately 3,500 m2 (65%) of the available area has been filled. Based upon this percentage of the area used in the past five (5) years (3500 m2 per five (5) years = 700 m2/year), the remaining active area may have capacity for as little as three (3) years.

The average depth for the landfill is estimated to be 3.3 metres, therefore, approximately 6,600 m3 (2,000 m2 x 3.3 m) of free volume remains in the current solid waste site. The calculated volume of uncompacted solid waste generated by the community for 2008 (as detailed in Table 6) is 3,100 m3 per year. This number also suggests that the active area of the landfill may have capacity for as little as two (2) years (6,600 m3 available space at 3,100m3/year) if no compaction occurs, or as much as six (6) years (6,600 m3 available space at 1,000 m3/year) if complete compaction occurs.

4.7 Waste Site Relocation Options

Fort Resolution has moved its waste site (solid waste and sewage) to three separate locations, including the current location, over a period of thirty (30) years. A problematic high groundwater table and environmental concerns expressed by the community have motivated these relocations, and ultimately a move back to the current operating site. On the basis of the past experience with the previous waste site locations, and a confirmation of the groundwater and other land use related issues during the community visit, the two (2) historic waste sites will not be considered further in the potential relocation options. In particular these sites are immediately south of the community (1 site), and east of the current waste site (1 site).

Potential relocation sites to the north of the current site are eliminated from consideration by the proximity of Nagle Bay and the adjacent wetlands of the Slave River delta. Potential relocation areas west of the airport are eliminated from consideration by the proximity to the Slave River, and community recreation and spiritual areas.

On the basis of this review and the information gathered during the community interview, three (3) potential locations will be considered for this study. The three (3) locations are: the existing site; a site 16 km to the south located in a gravel quarry; and a site 50 km to the southwest in the abandoned Pine Point mine.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 13 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

4.8 Maintaining The Current Location

During Earth Tech's site visit and interviews, community members expressed concerns regarding the current location of the site. Fort Resolution's community council has also received a letter from the Deninu Kue First Nation Band dated April 24, 2008 expressing environmental concerns regarding the waste site location and operation.

Though environmental concerns have been expressed by community members regarding the location of the sewage lagoon, wastewater in the lagoon experiences aerobic treatment while retained in the lagoon, treatment as the wastewater percolates through the sandy soil, and treatment as the water enters the groundwater flow to the wetlands approximately 400 m north. During retention time in the wetlands, further treatment occurs due to natural biological activity and settling.

Advantages to keeping the waste site in its current location are:

• Close proximity to the community resulting in economic hauling costs. • Successful history of operation and maintenance. • Available area for expansion.

Table 8 lists some possible reasons to move the waste site, some of which were expressed by the community, along with AECOM’s review and response to these concerns.

Table 8 Potential Concerns of Current Waste Site Location

Concern Analysis Environmental Impact There are some potential environmental concerns associated with the operation of any sewage lagoon or solid waste landfill. It is Earth Tech’s opinion that there is no risk to human health and very limited environmental risk otherwise. Environmental impact can be mitigated by improving the operation and maintenance of the solid waste landfill and sewage lagoon. Safety The lagoon should be fenced and operation and maintenance of the solid waste landfill can be improved to discourage scavengers. Aesthetic The lagoon and landfill are not visible from the road. Trees used to border the road by the landfill, which can be replanted. Operation and maintenance improvements to the solid waste landfill can lesson the unsightly windblown plastic bag debris. Proximity to Airport Transportation Canada recommends a minimum 8 kilometers setback between a solid waste disposal site (food wastes) and an airport. The GNWT has suggested a setback guideline of 3 kilometres may be more appropriate for northern communities.8 The 3 kilometers set back guideline is not achieved on this site. The solid waste landfill is only 1.5 km from the airport. During a fifteen-year period (1993 to 2007) there has only been one reported bird strike at Fort Resolution’s airport in 2003.9 Fort Resolution’s landfill proximity has not been highlighted as an issue by Arctic Airports.

As mentioned in Section 3.1, the current cost of trucking and hauling to the current waste site location 1.5 km north of the community is $150,000 per year for sewage and $15,000 per year for solid waste.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 14 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

4.9 Relocation to Site 16 km South of Town

Approximately 16 km south of the Fort Resolution community is an elevated area with a gravel deposit. This location has been recommended as a potential site for Fort Resolution's solid and liquid waste facilities.

Based on vegetation and the increase in elevation, it is estimated that this site will have a lower groundwater table, and thus the previously experienced problems due to high groundwater will not be encountered here. Additionally, this site is far enough from the community that community members will not be able to theorize that the site poses a direct health or environmental risk to the community.

Permission to use this land will have to be obtained. This will likely be a lengthy process, involving multiple stakeholders including senior governments, and First Nations representatives. It has been suggested that developing a waste site in this area will interfere with trapping interests of the community. In addition, the presence of a gravel deposit suggests a land use conflict with future gravel extraction.

Based on the current trucking costs, trucking the sewage and solid waste to this site 16 km outside of the community will cost $1,600,000 and $160,000 per year respectively. This is a general estimate and, considering the increasing costs of fuel, actual costs would likely be more.

4.10 Relocation to Pine Point Mine

Approximately 50 km southeast by road of Fort Resolution is the former Pine Point mine site. Pine Point mine was founded in 1951, and the mine continued to operate until 1988. There are apparently ongoing discussions on restarting the mine site on a limited scale.

Community Council members have suggested the idea of trucking Fort Resolution's solid waste and sewage to one of the abandoned pits at the mine site. It has also been suggested that Fort Resolution could partner with Hay River to develop this location as a waste site.

The mine site has large open pit excavations into bedrock which may limit waste site run-off from entering the groundwater system. In addition, this site is far from the community, and thus community members may have limited health or environmental concerns.

Permission to use the land will have to be obtained. This will likely be a lengthy process, involving multiple stakeholders including mining interests, senior governments, and First Nations representatives. As well, depositing waste in mine site could adversely impact future developments of the mine, should mining operations in the area be re-opened.

Based on trucking costs to the current site, trucking sewage and solid wastes 50 km to the Pine Point mine will cost an estimated $5,000,000 and $500,000 per year, respectively. This is a general estimate and, considering the increasing costs of fuel, actual costs would likely be more.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 15 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

4.11 Relocation Options Cost Summary

The estimated annual trucking costs for the three locations examined are presented in Table 9 below.

Table 9 Estimated Annual Trucking Costs to Proposed Waste Site Locations

Option Location Approximate Estimated Annual Trucking Cost Distance From The Sewage Solid Total Community (km) Waste 1 Current Site 1.5 $150,000 $15,000 $165,000 2 Former Gravel Pit on 16 $1,600,000 $160,000 $1,760,000 Elevated Ground 3 Pine Point Mine 50 $5,000,000 $500,000 $5,500,000

5.0 LAGOON REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

Fort Resolution’s current sewage lagoon is nearing the end of its capacity. Breaching of the lagoon is an immediate concern to the community and the temporary preventative measures detailed in Section 5.1 should be undertaken as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, Fort Resolution requires a new sewage lagoon. While desludging the current lagoon would remove some biosolids, it would not effectively remove the interface of sludge preventing sewage from infiltrating into the ground. Excavating a new lagoon cell will extend the life span of the current lagoon, but after that time infiltration rates will once again slow and the community will once again have to address this problem.

Fort Resolution’s sewage lagoon was excavated with limited engineering consideration. Cells have been excavated when the lagoon nears capacity or when fill material is required. This is a problematic method of operating a sewage lagoon facility. Engineering of a lagoon accommodates the best treatment of the sewage while mitigating potential impacts on the land or environment. Engineering also provides sufficient capacity to handle current and future demands, which reduces the need for 'stop-gap' measures. As such, AECOM recommends that Fort Resolution construct a new, engineered sewage lagoon. Two (2) possible designs are described in Sections 5.2 and 5.5.

After a new lagoon has been constructed, the current lagoon can be given time to allow the water level to lower. The current lagoon can be employed as a temporary sewage lagoon during regular maintenance of the new lagoon.

5.1 Immediate Recommendations

5.1.1 Cell Excavation

Since the process of engineering and constructing a new sewage lagoon may take several years to complete, Earth Tech recommends the immediate excavation of another cell to increase the volume and capacity of Fort Resolution’s existing sewage lagoon to provide time for engineering and construction of the new lagoon.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 16 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

A cell cannot be excavated along the west or south side of the lagoon due to the historical and current solid waste use. The north side of the lagoon is only about sixty (60) metres from the road. An existing access road to the truck dump is also located on the north side of the lagoon. The excavation of a cell on the north side of the lagoon should not be undertaken in order to:

• Maintain the distance from the road to the lagoon. • Preserve the truck dump area and the access road. • Avoid extensive berming required by the downslope of the road.

AECOM recommends that the cell be excavated along the east side of the existing lagoon. This area is currently dense bush, which would have to be cleared. AECOM suggests a cell be excavated to the east of Cell 1 and Cell 2, north of Cell 3, as shown in Figure V. A cell approximately 1000 m2 could be excavated in this area. The exact size, dimensions and location along the east side of the lagoon could be specified further by the community based on site conditions.

This cell should be no greater than three (3) metres in depth to act as a facultative pond in addition to an infiltration pond. A facultative pond will provide better treatment capability of the sewage while retained in the pond than a deeper cell. A shallower, facultative pond will also allow for easier removal of sludge.

Considering that Cell 6 is approximately 798 m2 in area and was excavated in the summer of 2003, thus increasing the life span of the lagoon by an estimated five (5) years, a new cell approximately 1000 m2 may increase the life span of the lagoon by approximately five (5) to seven (7) years.

Based on AECOM's findings, in order to increase the lagoon life span further the community has retained a contractor in September, 2008 to excavate the new cell to an area of 1,000m2.

5.1.2 Infiltration Monitoring

Earth Tech also recommends that Fort Resolution begin recording water levels in the lagoon to estimate the lagoon infiltration capacity. This can easily be done by hammering a stake with a tape measure attached, or a stake with dimensions marked in to act as a metre stick, into the lagoon berm. The location of the water level should be noted by recording the date and the measurement reading on the stake, and taking a corresponding photo of the stake over time. This will provide valuable information on infiltration rates of the lagoon and can serve as the basis for predicting when the lagoon will reach capacity. This would serve as a general estimate only because the wastewater level and infiltration rates may vary depending on season and weather conditions. This concept is illustrated in Diagram 3.

Diagram 3 Using Stakes to Estimate Change in Freeboard Over Time

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 17 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

5.2 Facultative / Infiltration Lagoon

The efficiency of an infiltration sewage lagoon decreases over time due to sludge build-up. Solids settle in the bottom of the lagoon, forming a low permeability barrier that reduces the available surface area for wastewater to infiltrate into the surrounding soil, as shown in Error! Reference source not found.. The sludge should be periodically removed from the lagoon ('desludged') to allow better infiltration of the lagoon.

One method of reducing the impact of sludge build-up in a lagoon is to have a 'settling cell'. This is a lagoon system consisting of two engineered lagoon cells, where the smaller, first cell provides retention time for solids in the sewage to settle before flowing to the second cell, where infiltration occurs.

AECOM proposes that Fort Resolution construct a lagoon with a similar settling area. Due to the cold northern climate, having the cells be connected with a pipe or channel is problematic. AECOM recommends that the lagoon be separated into two cells via a cobble berm. This will permit sewage to flow through the cobbles and reduce the risk of freezing blockage over winter. The top of the cobble berm will be below the outside perimeter, to allow sewage to travel over the cobble berm into the second cell should the permeability of the cobbles be reduced. This design will lessen the impact of sludge build-up on infiltration rates, and desludging may only be required in the first cell.

In the orientation of the infiltration lagoon, considering that the groundwater flows northward, the truck dump should ideally be located on the south side of the lagoon to provide longer treatment time of the sewage. The existing access road will need to be extended approximately 100 meters in order to reach the proposed truck discharge at south end of the settling cell.

A geotechnical and engineering investigation is required to determine the depth to groundwater and verify hydraulic loading rates. To allow for wastewater to percolate through the unsaturated soil matrix, the lagoon should not intersect the groundwater table. The sewage lagoon should be at least thirty (30) centimeters above the groundwater table. Thus, the lagoon may have to be extended above ground through use of berms.

Diagram 4 Sludge Build-Up In Infiltration Lagoon

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 18 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

Diagram 5 Two-Celled Infiltration Lagoon With Cobble Berm

5.3 Lagoon Sizing to Provide Cold Weather Retention

The twenty-year sewage production of Fort Resolution is calculated in Section 3.4 and listed in Table 3. The annual sewage production in twenty (20) years is estimated as 30,702 m3 in 2027.

As infiltration rates are expected to significantly decrease during colder months, the lagoon must be sized to be able to retain the community’s wastewater production for seven (7) months from October until April. Thus, the lagoon must have a capacity of at least 17,910 m3 to be sized for 2027. As detailed previously, for aerobic treatment of sewage while retained in the lagoon, the lagoon should be no more than three (3) metres deep. As such, to provide a volume of 17,910 m3, an area of at least 5,572 m2 is required.

5.4 Lagoon Sizing to Provide Warm Weather Infiltration

As wastewater infiltration is expected to primarily occur in the warmer months from May until September, the projected 2027 sewage production of 30,702 m3 must have the capacity to infiltrate into the soil over five (5) months.

The hydraulic loading rates of the soil at the Fort Resolution waste site as determined in 1994 range from 1.7x10-5 cm/s (0.0147 m3/m2day) to 4.6x10-3 cm/s (3.97 m3/m2day). The average loading rate of 6.7 x 10 4 cm/s (0.58 m3/m2day) is used for this calculation.

Due to higher solids content, wastewater loading rates are estimated to be between 10%-15% of hydraulic loading rates.3 An average of 12.5% of the hydraulic loading rate was assumed for the wastewater loading rate for Fort Resolution. Therefore, the wastewater loading rate is estimated to be 8.38x10-5 cm/s (0.0725 m3/m2day).

The annual loading rate is calculated by multiplying the wastewater loading rates by the number of days infiltration is anticipated to occur (May until September). Thus the annual loading rate is predicted to be 11.03 m3/m2 year. Given that the annual sewage production in 2027 is predicted to be 30,702 m3, to provide sufficient infiltration capacity the lagoon must be at least 2,783 m2.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 19 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

5.4.1 Lagoon Size Requirements

A three (3) metre deep infiltration lagoon with a volume of 17,910 m3 and an area of 5,970 m2 should provide sufficient volume and area for cold weather retention and warm weather infiltration of Fort Resolution's wastewater.

If the settling cell is 10% the volume of the infiltration cell, the settling cell should have a volume of 1,791 m3 and an area of 597 m2.

Thus, the size recommended is a three (3) metre deep lagoon with a volume of 17,910 m3 and an area of 5,970 m2. The actual length and width of the lagoon can be selected to best account for site conditions and tree clearing requirements. An example of a 6,000 m2 infiltration lagoon which is 50 m by 120 m is presented in Figure VI.

This lagoon size is an estimate for initial planning purposes. The hydraulic loading rates available vary by orders of magnitude, and may considerably affect the anticipated lagoon size. Further geotechnical studies are required to verify loading rates and to further engineer the recommended lagoon.

5.5 Retention Lagoon

In locations where ground conditions are not favourable for infiltration, such as instances of non-porous clay soils, lagoons are designed as retention lagoons which treat wastewater by providing sufficient retention time for biological breakdown. Effluent from these retention lagoons is discharged either on a continuous, annual or semi-annual basis.

The effluent from a surface discharge lagoon in northern climates should be discharged on an annual basis in the fall. Most biodegradation of sewage requires sun and warmer weather, and thus the majority of sewage treatment happens during summer months. Sewage discharged in the fall ensures that most of the sewage has been retained in the lagoon for a portion of the warmer summer season.

As the soil type at Fort Resolution's current site is mostly porous sand, to prevent sewage from infiltrating and ensuring surface discharge, an impervious liner is required for a retention lagoon. It is recommended that a surface discharge lagoon still be engineered with a cobble berm to separate out a settling tank, as described in Section 5.2.

A basic design of the retention lagoon is shown in Diagram 6.

Diagram 6 Two-Celled Retention Lagoon With Cobble Berm

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 20 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

5.6 Firewater Cell

As part of the stakeholder review process, a request was made by the NWT Fire Marshal’s office to incorporate a firewater cell into the current landfill site configuration.

A good location for the firewater cell would be the wet, previously excavated area to the east of the current solid waste landfill. It is assumed that this area was abandoned as a solid waste dump due to the high groundwater table. The area is already near the groundwater table and has previously been excavated; therefore minimal clearing would be required.

NWT Fire Marshal’s office has requested that the firewater cell be sufficient for 5,000 L/min over a period of thirty minutes. Therefore, a volume of 150m3 is required. A firewater cell that is 2 metres deep would require an area of 12 m x 13 m, to allow some extra capacity for a 1:3 depth:width sloping of the cell walls.

6.0 LAGOON OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

6.1 Fencing

For safety reasons, the installation of a fence around the sewage lagoon is needed. Fencing the sewage lagoon will limit access to the lagoon from passers-by. Fencing will also reduce wind-blown solid waste from the landfill from entering the lagoon and potentially reducing the infiltration capacity of the lagoon.

6.2 Monitoring Infiltration Rates and Wastewater Levels

Infiltration rates and the wastewater level should be consistently recorded on a routine basis and supported with photographs. This method is outlined in Section 5.1.2. This will provide historical information on the lagoon infiltration and will allow more accurate estimations of when desludging is required and when the lagoon is nearing capacity.

6.3 Desludging

Based on the indicated infiltration rates, Fort Resolution's lagoons should be desludged as needed. The engineered design introduced in Section 5.2 will minimize desludging requirements; however, this should be performed every five to ten years as a standard operational practice.6

6.4 Effluent Monitoring

To better provide information on the sewage treatment occurring in the lagoon, sewage samples should be taken once periodically during summer months and analyzed for parameters such as biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, coliforms, ammonia and pH.

7.0 SOLID WASTE SITE REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

7.1 Site Configuration – Current Landfill

Fort Resolution's current landfill site operates with solid waste being deposited in the cell and periodically pushed with a front end loader against the cell walls. There are a number of disadvantages to operating Fort Resolution’s landfill in this manner, including:

• Large active area • Easily accessible for scavenging

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 21 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

• Scraping of the base of the cell when solid waste is moved lowers cell elevation to near groundwater levels • Large amounts of wind-blown debris • Odour from large active area • Animal scavenging.

7.2 Cover and Compaction

Fort Resolution's solid waste site has had a successful history of reclaiming and covering past landfill areas. Covered landfills have, in a period of months, succeeded in having vegetation grow and the area look well aesthetically by covering the area with soil.

Earth Tech recommends that Fort Resolution operate their solid waste site with a more limited active surface area. Fill should be used to cover the "full" area along the south side of the excavation pit. This will reduce wind-blown debris and odour of the site, make the area look better aesthetically, and decrease the number of animal scavengers. The area to be covered should be first compacted with heavy machinery if available.

7.3 Reduce Active Area

Landfill operations should operate with a small active face. This reduces the problems mentioned above, and should discourage scavengers by decreasing their access areas. Thus it is recommended that the active area be reduced to one section of the landfill cell at a time, and that the areas not currently in use be covered with fill.

7.4 Engineering an Operating Cell

It is preferable to operate a waste dump by depositing material into a cell rather than by pushing material up into an embankment. After material is deposited into a cell, a caterpillar or similar large machine may be used to compact the solid waste. There will be less wind-blown debris, odour and other nuisances. Access to the active site will be limited, thus reducing scavengers at the site.

As such, AECOM recommends that Fort Resolution separate out cells using berms approximately 2 metres high in the existing landfill area. The berms will separate the landfill into individual cells. Solid waste would be dumped into one cell at a time and pushed against the cell wall. Once a cell is full, the community would switch to depositing solid waste in the next cell, and compact the solid waste in the first cell and add cover. This will provide more control and better management of the waste site and reduce the active face, thus reducing wind-blown solid waste and the fire hazard potential.

The pit is approximately 3.3 metres below grade and the cells would be bermed to 2 metres high. Therefore, once the cells are full and compacted, there would be remaining capacity of the remaining landfill pit of 1.3 metres. The community could create more cells by adding more berms and engineer a ‘drop’ (i.e. having people and trucks dump their solid waste into the cell from the surface grade, to then be compacted by the community).

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 22 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

7.5 Site Configuration – Future Landfill

7.5.1 Building "Up"

The current excavated area is estimated to last for another two (2) to six (6) years. The life span of this area of the landfill may be increased by creating cells on top of the current active area and creating a "mound". This mound should be no greater than two metres high, in order to maintain a slope for stability and safety. The concept of "building up" is illustrated below:

(Drawing obtained from Northwest Territories Municipal and Community Affairs, Guidelines for the Planning, Design, Operations and Maintenance of Modified Solid Waste Sites in the Northwest Territories, R. Kent, P. Marshall, L. Hawke, April 20037).

The current excavation area is approximately 5,450 m2 in area; by building up a two-metre mound, a spatial volume of 10,900 m3 is available. This will provide sufficient landfill space for an additional four (4) to nine (9) years of operation by Fort Resolution. The specific lifespan will depend on the ability of the community to compact solid waste and the amount of solid waste produced.

7.6 New Landfill Area – East of Current Landfill

On the east side of the current active pit are previously used landfill cells which contain standing water. It is a poor practice for solid waste to be immersed in standing water. In order to appropriately redevelop this excavated area as a landfill, the base of the cells needs to be elevated above the groundwater. Raising the base may be undertaken in combination with the excavation of a new sewage lagoon. Fill from the excavated lagoon can be added to the cell base until it is above the groundwater elevation. Once this area is no longer in standing water, it can be used as a solid waste landfill site. This area should be bermed into separate cells, and the solid waste, once deposited, should be compacted and covered on a routine basis.

This previously excavated landfill is approximately 2000 m2 in area. Assuming that after fill is added to raise the floor of the pit the landfill is 1.5 metres deep, this area will hold approximately 3,000 m3 of solid waste. This landfill may be sufficient for one (1) to three (3) years. A mounding of this area could also to provide additional landfill area for one (1) to three (3) years.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 23 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

7.7 New Landfill Area – Surrounding Area

AECOM recommends that future landfill areas be operated as excavated cells. An excavator will dig out a trench approximately 5 metres wide (or berm a location so as not to intersect the groundwater level), whereupon solid waste will be dumped into the excavated trench and compacted. The trench should be no deeper than 2 metres for the operations of the compacting machinery. This operation is illustrated below:

(Drawing obtained from Northwest Territories Municipal and Community Affairs, Guidelines for the Planning, Design, Operations and Maintenance of Modified Solid Waste Sites in the Northwest Territories, R. Kent, P. Marshall, L. Hawke, April 20037).

As there is plenty of available space to the south, east and west of the current site, there is plenty of room and options are available for future development of the current site.

A geotechnical program should be undertaken during the development of the landfill cells. This should provide the community information on groundwater levels. Future landfill cells should not intersect the groundwater table.

8.0 SOLID WASTE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

8.1 Waste Diversion

Waste diversion and recycling can reduce the solid waste generated by a community, increasing the life span of the landfill site and allowing the community to become more environmentally conscious and aware.

Potential waste diversion measures are highlighted in Table 10. A detailed analysis of waste diversion measures, including an examination of the City of Yellowknife as a case study and the amount of waste available for diversion for Fort Resolution, is provided in Appendix B.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 24 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

Table 10 Potential Waste Diversion Measures

Measure Analysis

Separating Out Household Highly recommended practice and a common practice in other Hazardous Waste communities in the NWT. Household hazardous wastes can potentially adversely impact the environment (see Section 8.2).

Beverage Container Fort Resolution is involved in this Northwest Territories Recycling Program program. However, this program has led to issues with scavengers looking for containers to return for their deposits at the landfill. Community members should be encouraged to recycle beverage containers themselves. Fundraising programs can be run based in the school or community center where bottles are collected and the proceeds go towards a charity or community event. Significantly reducing the amount of bottles entering Fort Resolution’s landfill will discourage scavengers, the associated liability and windblown plastic bag debris that they scatter.

Establishing a Community Feasible and Fort Resolution may break even on trucking costs. Recycling Program However, council members are skeptical as to whether there would be sufficient community support for such a program. Scrap metal from white goods (fridges, appliances) are worth the most money. Fort Resolution should start separating/recycling these for future diversion.

Separating Tires The Government of the Northwest Territories may, in the near future, implement a territory-wide strategy to recycle tires. However, until then separating out tires is a potential fire hazard, especially considering that there has been a history of people starting fires at the Fort Resolution landfill.

Solid waste Bag Limit The City of Yellowknife saw a significant reduction in household waste by imposing a three (3) solid waste bag collection limit per week per household, and providing $1 tags for each excess solid waste bag.

Fort Resolution’s community council would have to decide if this method would be similarly successful at Fort Resolution. There is nothing limiting access to the landfill site and this initiative may further encourage people to dump solid waste in other areas around the community.

Tipping Fees This may not be feasible due to lack of community support. People could dump their solid waste on neighbouring sites or areas around the community, which is to be discouraged.

Vehicle Removal Richmond Steel arranges for a crusher to travel to Yellowknife and various communities along the way to crush and remove vehicles at no cost to the community. Fort Resolution should investigate this further.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 25 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

8.2 Household Hazardous Waste

Household hazardous wastes are wastes produced by the municipality which can potentially impact the environment. Household hazardous wastes include paint and solvent cans (empty or full), batteries, oil, and gardening chemicals such as pesticides. As highlighted in Table 7, in twenty (20) years an accumulated 441 m3 of hazardous waste is anticipated.

Fort Resolution should provide household hazardous waste collection on a periodic (bi-annual) basis. An awareness program should be undertaken by the community to clarify what are household hazardous wastes and the importance of separating them from regular municipal waste.

The hazardous waste diverted from Fort Resolution must be transported for treatment and disposal at the Swan Hills Treatment Centre (SHTC) located in Alberta. The community could collect household hazardous waste twice a year during summer and winter, and store at a designated secure location at the solid waste landfill before shipping for proper disposal.

The compatibility between different types of wastes must always be considered before storage. The compatibility of wastes with their containers must also be considered. The compatibility of wastes with nearby materials and equipment is also very important, particularly when dealing with flammable wastes.

Hazardous wastes should be stored in a well ventilated area. If possible, most wastes should be stored outside in a shed which provides free air movement, though not all hazardous wastes should be stored outside. Wastes with high water content can experience freeze/thaw cycles and eventually crack and leak.

If stored outside, containers should be covered by a roof or tarpaulin, and preferably placed on an impermeable base. This prevents contact of rainwater and soil, keeps off the direct sunlight, and makes clean-up of any spills or leaks easier and cheaper. The area should be curbed or diked to collect spills, leaks, and precipitation.

The WHMIS (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information Sheet) guidelines should be followed in all cases when handling hazardous materials. Security precautions are also necessary to avoid theft, accidental discharge, or harm to the public.

Good record keeping must be maintained to achieve safe hazardous waste storage. If quantities and types of wastes are not recorded, serious problems may result in the future. Care should be taken to ensure that containers remain properly labeled during the entire time in storage.

8.3 Compaction and Waste Covering

Compaction will be necessary as the working face of the disposal area advances towards the access road in order to maintain a drivable area for vehicles and decrease the volume used. This can be accomplished by heavy machinery such as a bulldozer. If the solid waste is dumped into a cell, heavy machinery such as a caterpillar should be used to ride over and crush the solid waste. This compaction could be performed on a weekly or bi-weekly basis during the summer.

Three types of cover may normally be used in a solid waste disposal site: daily cover, intermediate cover, and final cover. A lack of access to machinery on a daily basis dictates that daily cover may not be possible.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 26 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

Intermediate cover is normally used when portions of a solid waste site are expected to remain open for a long period of time. Intermediate cover may be used to create a drivable surface as the working face of the solid waste disposal area advances or to cover areas of the landfill once full. Final cover is utilized to minimize infiltration of water into the solid waste material once waste disposal on the site is ceased. A multi-layer configuration is used for cover in which each layer has a distinct purpose. The first layer, closest to the solid waste, should consist of a granular material which is used to grade the site to provide drainage off the surface (a minimum 3% slope). The second layer is a barrier layer which provides a barrier for water infiltration into the solid waste material. This layer may consist of clay, a synthetic membrane, or amended soil (bentonite or similar material added).

8.4 Site Access and Road Maintenance

Access to the solid waste site should be controlled in a manner which is suitable to the community. Regular operating hours and closure of the site with the use of a gate may or may not be successful. The end result of gate controlled access could be indiscriminate dumping near the access road; however, a container outside the gate could minimize this problem.

The access road for the solid waste disposal site should be maintained properly at all times. The frequent use of heavy equipment may cause the road to deteriorate significantly. Adequate road maintenance should include the following points:

• Maintaining drainage on road surface. • Maintaining road surface reasonably free of ruts and potholes. • Application of soil amending material to create a stronger driving surface. • Maintaining a good granular base on the road. • Checking regularly the access road to the solid waste site, especially in winter, to ensure site is accessible. • Monitoring the condition of the road by the operator, and keeping the maintenance crew/council informed of the situation as to snow clearing or grading requirement.

It is important to make sure that the truck operators drive slowly and cautiously, especially during winter road conditions.

Controlling dust in the solid waste disposal site may be difficult. The heavy traffic may create dust problems within the site because of dry road material; watering the road may reduce dust, but it may also increase runoff within the site if not used in proper quantity. Site experience must be used regarding the quantity of water applied to the access road to reduce dust. A road treatment such as calcium chloride may also be used to stabilize the road surface.

8.5 Performance Monitoring and Recordkeeping

There are two purposes to monitor a solid waste disposal site. The first purpose is to find out whether a site is performing as designed, which will provide an early indication if problems develop so that corrective action can be taken before problems become unmanageable. The second purpose is to judge whether the site is conforming to regulatory requirements.

The design performance should include routine inspections and judgment on the site development features in reflection of the intended design performance. Action to improve upon the development features should also be undertaken on a routine basis to improve the design performance.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 27 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

The regulatory performance should satisfy the concerns of the various relevant regulatory agencies with regular monitoring and reporting as deemed necessary by these agencies. The regulatory performance monitoring may only include the sampling and analysis of the runoff (leachate) to determine the degree of contamination, if any. Any appropriate means of controlling the runoff discharge can then be determined upon consultation with the regulatory agencies.

The record keeping for a solid waste disposal site is an important aspect to overall site operation and maintenance. The record keeping of the site may include:

• Date when solid waste is being compacted. • Final depth of compacted solid waste above ground. • Number of trips per week and number of vehicles. • Number of hours per week of hauling solid waste. • Number of operators.

8.6 Fencing and Signage

Fencing the landfill along the top of the berm is recommended as a method to reduce wind-blown debris. This could also provide more control on access to the site, reducing the number of scavengers and fires.

Fort Resolution should also install signs, directing traffic to the various deposit points at the landfill and warning of the potential hazards in a solid waste landfill.

If Fort Resolution starts to implement waste diversion, including household hazardous waste, areas should be clearly signed so operators and residents will separate their solid waste appropriately.

8.7 Aesthetic Concerns

The area surrounding Fort Resolution's landfill site is strewn with wind-blown plastic bags, which has been cited as an aesthetic nuisance of the landfill. Reducing the number of plastic bags in Fort Resolution's landfill would require community support and participation. Promoting this strategy could be best started in the school.

Reducing the number of windblown bags could be undertaken by implementing the operation and maintenance strategies as outlined previously, including putting frequent cover on the active site of the landfill, reducing the active area, discouraging scavengers and installing fencing at the top of the perimeter berm of the landfill.

The plastic bags currently scattered in the landfill area should be collected. This could be done as a clean-up program at the school by encouraging the school to allow the children a half-day of work outside the classroom to collect plastic bags from this area. Alternatively, someone could be hired by the community for a few days to clean this area.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 28 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

9.0 ASSESSMENT OF ABANDONED WASTE SITES AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATED SOIL

9.1 Assessment and Remediation of Abandoned Waste Sites

Fort Resolution has two historical landfill sites which may be considered for assessment and remediation activities: the 1985 site located 1.6 km south of the community and the 1994 site located 500 m east of the current landfill site. The 1985 site is of higher concern as it is closer to residential area of the community. Locations west of the current landfill site where community members have been dumping may also be considered candidates for assessment and site remediation.

To minimize potential environmental impact, the settlement should collect and deposit all solid waste debris scattered around the 1994 site and the solid waste debris scattered around the area west of the current site to the current solid waste landfill.

The Settlement should conduct an environmental assessment of these former sites to determine the presence/absence, and quantify any environmental impact on the surrounding land.

The initial step if the remediation of Fort Resolution’s historical waste sites should be contacting the Environmental Division (ED) of the Environment and Natural Resources (ENR). The settlement can provide the ED site information, from which the ED will offer guidance on the future direction of site remediation.

It is expected that the assessment of the sites will start with a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). While Phase I ESAs evaluate potential contamination, as the site was a historical landfill it can be assumed that the site may have been adversely impacted, and thus a Phase I ESA would not be the best use of community resources.

A Phase II ESA, performed by qualified persons, will have soil and groundwater sampling through a drilling or test pitting program and include the installation of monitoring wells. After the soil and groundwater samples are analyzed, results for the concentrations of each parameter are compared to regulatory guidelines. A Phase II ESA will highlight what, if any, exceedences there are of the applicable guidelines.

Depending on the exceedences found, the next step would likely be the settlement working with the ED and qualified persons to establish a Tier 3: Risk Based Approach Remedial Action Plan to determine allowable concentrations of contaminants of concern. The risk assessment will consider neighboring land usage when determining allowable concentrations.

If concentrations of the parameters of concern are higher than regulatory guidelines or higher than can be justified with a risk based approach, a Phase III – site remediation will be the next step. This may include in situ treatment – i.e. installing a system in place to treat the groundwater – or ex situ treatment – i.e. digging out/excavating the areas of concern.

The general outline of the steps in an environmental site assessment and remediation program is presented in Appendix G.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 29 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

9.2 Management of Contaminated Soil

In the summer of 2008, the community of Fort Resolution accepted approximately 720 m3 of soil from the Northern Territories Power Corporation (NTPC). This soil was taken from the NTCP Power Plant in Fort Resolution. This soil is assumed to be contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons due to a spill of 1,700 litres of bunker fuel and water mixture in 1986 and a fuel oil spill of 55 litres in 1987.

The land use of the NTPC site is considered Parkland, and therefore soil left on-site would have to meet the Parkland land use standards for petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC).

The land use of the landfill site may be characterized as industrial, defined in the Environmental Guideline as: the primary activity is related to the production, manufacture or storage of materials. This does not include institutions. The public does not usually have uncontrolled access to this type of land.10

The Environmental Guidelines for Contaminated Site Remediation standards for residential/parkland land use and for industrial land use are listed below: 10

Petroleum Hydrocarbon Maximum

Allowable Concentration (mg/kg)

Land Use Fraction F1 Fraction F2 Fraction F3 Fraction F4 Residental/parkland Land Use 30 150 400 2800 (coarse-grained soil) Industrial/Commercial Land Use 310 760 1700 3300 (coarse-grained soil)

Soil which did not meet the industrial land use standard was hauled by NTPC to the Hazco landfarm in Hay River. Soil which did not meet the agricultural land use standard but met the industrial land use standard was stockpiled at the Fort Resolution landfill, in the north-east side of the site, intended for future use as landfill cover.11

The NTPC should be able to provide waste classification sample results for the stockpiled soil to verify that it meets the guidelines for industrial land use, prior to using the soil as cover material. The community should verify with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) that soil passing the industrial land use standard can be used for landfill cover. The soil should not be used in residential or agricultural land.

Before the community of Fort Resolution agrees to accept contaminated soil to the landfill, a waste classification of the soil should be provided by the original owner detailing the concentration of contaminants of concern in the soil (if applicable - BTEX, PHC F1-F4, leachable metals, chlorides). For example, if soil is from an old gas station, it should be sampled for at least BTEX and PHC F1-F4.

Before accepting contaminated soil, and therefore liability for the soil, the community should also request for financial compensation.

If the soil meets the Environmental Guidelines for Contaminated Site Remediation standards for industrial land use, the community may use the soil for landfill cover if so verified by ENR. If the soil does not meet the standards, the community should recommend the soil be taken to the Hazco bio-remediation facility in Hay River. Contaminated soil should be stored on liners to prevent seepage into the ground. Contaminated soil could be aerated by occasionally mixing/moving the stockpiles.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 30 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

10.0 COST ESTIMATES FOR SEWAGE LAGOON

The cost estimates for the immediate recommendations to the current sewage lagoon and the cost of a new infiltration lagoon and a new retention lagoon are presented in Table 11. The community of Fort Resolution may chose to undertake the fencing of the lagoon themselves, as fencing material is available from the former bison ranch. As such, cost estimates are broken down without and with fencing costs by a contractor.

Table 11 Cost Estimates for Sewage Lagoon Upgrades Price Current Lagoon Infiltration Lagoon Retention Lagoon Per # of # of # of 1 Unit Unit Units Cost Units Cost Units Cost 2 Clearing - Thick m $1.25 6 6 1,870 $2,338 7,000 $8,750 11,234 $14,043 Vegetation Excavation and Berm m3 $30 3,184 $95,520 17,910 $537,300 30,702 $921,060 Construction (Cut and Fill) Extend Gravel Road m $450 NA 100 $45,000 100 $45,000 Truck Dump NA $15,000 $15,000 Cobble Berm1 NA $2,000 $2,600 Liner2 NA NA $78,800 Liner Installation - NA NA $25,500 Personnel and Expenses3 Portable Pump for Annual NA NA $12,900 Discharge4 Pipeline to Wetlands m NA NA $56,000 (350 m) Discharge Structure into NA NA $15,000 Wetlands Engineering and $19,572 $243,220 $474,360 Contingency Cost5 Total Cost $117,429 $851,270 $1,660,260 Chain Link Fencing m $60 383 $22,980 340 $20,400 450 $27,000 Engineering and $4,596 $8,160 $10,800 Contingency Cost5 Total Cost Including $145,005 $905,590 $1,698,060 Fencing Notes: 1. Price per unit based on estimate provided from Stan Dean and Sons of Hay River in July, 2008. Cost per cobble berm is estimated based on the cobble source being approximately 1.5 km away (near the airport) and cobble being provided for free for the community. 2. Based on quote provided by Layfield Environmental Systems on July 22, 2008. 3. Personnel costs estimated based on quote provided by Layfiend Environmental Systems on July 22, 2008, assuming five twelve-hour days of work for lagoon lining, twelve-hours of total travel time and $4,500 travel expenses for two employees. 4. Cost associated with pump based on quote of $6,432 for an NS3102.185 MT 463 model pump from ITT Water and Wastewater, and assuming the costs for hose, float and controller would equal that of the cost of the pump. 5. Engineering and contingency costs are assumed to be 20% of the total to upgrades made to the existing lagoon (excavating a new cell and fencing) and 40% of the total for the proposed new lagoons. 6. An additional 1,000m2 of clearing is assumed to clear area to approach future lagoon site from current waste site. 7. NA - not applicable.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 31 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Fort Resolution's waste sites have been relocated three times in recent history due to problematic interference with high groundwater tables.

The community's sewage lagoon, composed of six (6) cells excavated as required, is nearing capacity with very little freeboard. This has been expressed as a concern by regulators.12 A breach of the lagoon would be very problematic and preemptive measures are strongly recommended. Immediate recommendations as detailed in Section 5.1 are excavating a seventh cell three (3) metres deep and with an area of approximately 1000 m2 and performing infiltration monitoring. The community is retaining a contractor to begin the work in September 2008. The cost of excavating a seventh cell is estimated to be $117,429 ($97,858 pre-engineering and pre-contingency), and the cost of fencing the current lagoon with chain link fencing is approximately $27,580.

Three (3) locations were considered for future development of the waste site: the current location 1.5 km north of the community; an elevated former gravel pit approximately 16 km south of the community; and a Pine Point mine approximately 50 km south-west of the community. Based on current trucking costs, annual trucking costs for the three options are estimated as $165,000, $1,760,000, and $5,500,000, respectively. Relocating the site to the second or third options investigated is considered prohibitively expensive for the community. As such, keeping the site in the current location is recommended.

The current site has successfully operated for approximately twenty-five (25) years and there is plenty of available land space in the area. A redevelopment of the current site and improved operation and maintenance practices may address community concerns regarding the site location.

Water samples were obtained during the course of this study, and it was observed that while retained in the lagoon there was a significant reduction of E Coli, BOD5 and ammonia concentrations. Groundwater and surface water samples suggest a significant reduction in nitrogen and BOD5 concentrations attributed to the infiltration process.

Wastewater from the lagoon experiences aerobic treatment while retained in the lagoon, infiltrates the sandy soil, where treatment occurs in the soil matrix, and enters the groundwater flow to the wetlands approximately 400 m north. During retention time in the wetlands, further treatment occurs due to natural biological activity and settling.

The sewage lagoon is close to the end of its service life, and a new lagoon will need to be constructed. Excavating an additional cell will increase the lifespan of the current lagoon, however in several years’ time the community will face the same problem when their lagoon will again be out of capacity. Desludging the existing lagoon will not effectively remove the biosolid interface limiting wastewater from infiltrating into the ground. After a new lagoon is constructed, the old lagoon may be allowed to rest and the water level to lower. The old lagoon may then be used on a temporary basis when maintenance is performed on the new lagoon. Two (2) potential lagoon options were examined in this study: a facultative/infiltration lagoon and a facultative retention lagoon. The results are summarized below:

Option Lagoon Volume Area Comments Estimated Cost1 Type Required Required 1 Facultative 17,910m3 5,970m2 Lagoon should be no more than $905,590 /Infiltration three (3) metres deep and should not intersect groundwater table. Further geotechnical studies required.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 32 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

Option Lagoon Volume Area Comments Estimated Cost1 Type Required Required 2 Retention 30,702m3 10,234m2 Lagoon should be no more than $1,698,060 three (3) metres deep and will have to be lined to maintain sewage retention. Annual discharge will occur in fall to wetlands to the north. Further studies of wetlands required. Notes: 1. Estimated cost is the estimated cost including contractor fencing – the community may wish to undertake the fencing themselves due to the availability of fencing materials.

As the soil in Fort Resolution is porous sand historically capable of handling the loading of the community's sewage which discharges with the groundwater into a wetland, an facultative/infiltration lagoon is recommended. This option is also less expensive than a retention lagoon.

Both the current lagoon and future lagoon should be fenced. Records should be kept and water monitoring periodically done. Desludging should be performed every five (5) to ten (10) years.

The solid waste landfill area is operated by the solid waste being dumped from the floor of the pit, and then pushed against the cell walls. AECOM has recommended that the cell be reconfigured to include two (2) berms approximately 2 metres tall each dividing the remaining area into three (3) cells. The community would then fill one (1) cell at a time, pushing the solid waste against the cell walls. This would limit the active face of the solid waste and decrease windblown debris and the fire hazard potential. Once a cell was full, the cell could be compacted with heavy machinery and cover added. After all three (3) cells were full, the area could again be divided into cells and a 'drop' configured.

The current solid waste landfill pit is estimated to have enough capacity for another two (2) to six (6) years. Once the current site is full, it is recommended that the community cover and level the landfill, and then continue to use the area by "building up" approximately two metres. This should provide an additional five (5) to ten (10) years of use.

After the current landfill site is filled and built up, the community can expand the landfill to the wet excavated area to the east by first covering the area with sufficient fill to raise the floor above the water table. This should be organized with a series of bermed cells, with solid waste being deposited into the cell and routinely compacted. Once a cell is full, cover should be applied. Once this pit is full, solid waste can then be "built up" approximately 2 metres in this area.

The community may also expand the landfill to the west, east or south by clearing and excavating cells. Trenches ("cells") approximately five (5) metres wide, no deeper than two (2) metres and not infringing on the groundwater level should be dug. After this, solid waste should be dumped into the trench and routinely compacted. Once the trench is full, cover should be applied and a new trench dug.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 33 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT November 21, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

The capacity for the various future options is outlined below.

Location Estimated Capacity Estimated Capacity (m3) (Years)

Current Landfill Pit 6,253m3 2-6 "Building Up" of Current Landfill Site 10,900m3 4-9 Excavated Wet Area East of Current Landfill (after 3,000m3 1-2 adding fill to raise floor above groundwater) "Building Up" of Area East of Current Landfill 4,000m3 1-3 New Excavated Trenches As required As required

Operation and maintenance recommendations for the solid waste site are detailed in Sections 7.1 and 8.0.

Relocating the Settlement’s waste sites have resulted in previous waste sites which should be considered for remediation. These sites should be assessed within the current three phase environment framework, as discussed in Appendix G, and appropriately remediated.

A proposed timeline for lagoon improvements and a new, engineered lagoon is detailed below.

Date Task

August 2008 to October 2008 Excavate additional cell in lagoon Monitor infiltration rates Install fencing around lagoon Desludge first cell October 2008 to June 2009 Complete a geotechnical study, including installing boreholes or testpits to verify groundwater levels and hydraulic loading rates June 2009 to September 2009 Complete an engineering design of lagoon September 2009 to March 2010 Gain regulatory approval for lagoon March 2010 to September 2011 Clear land Excavate new lagoon Complete all supporting structures (truck dump, road extension, fence) Commission lagoon

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 34 104148-03 AECOM Final Report – Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT October 27, 2008 Waste Management Planning Study Report Title Government of the Northwest Territories

12.0 REFERENCES

1 Reid Crowther & Partners Limited: "Fort Resolution NWT. Water and Sanitation Planning Study". January, 1987. 2 EPEC Consulting Western Ltd.: "Fort Resolution Groundwater Study, Fort Smith Region, Northwest Territories". February, 1984. 3 D.C. McNaughton, Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection, Environmental Protection Service: "Hydrogeological Investigation of a Sewage Infiltration Pit, Fort Resolution, Northwest Territories". May, 1993. 4 Northwest Territories Bureau of Statistics, "Fort Resolution – Statistical Profile." 2006. http://www.stats.gov.nt.ca/Profile/Profile%20PDF/Fort%20Resolution.pdf 5 Starling, Wayne, Inspector Under the Northwest Territories Act, Department of Indian and Northern Development, Fort Smith Sub-District, "Update Report. Settlement of Fort Resolution. Water Supply and Waste Disposal". August 15, 2000. 6 Municipal Guidelines Sub-Group of the NWT Water Board Technical Advisory Committee: "Report on the Upgrading of the Guidelines for Municipal Type Wastewater Discharges in the Northwest Territories". March 1986. 7 Municipal and Community Affairs, Government of Northwest Territories: "Guidelines for the Planning, Design, Operations, and Maintenance of Modified Solid Waste Sites in the Northwest Territories". April, 2003. 8 Soberman, R.M., Lovicsek, M. and Heinke, G.W., Northwest Territories Municipal and Community Affairs: "Guidelines for the Siting of Solid Waste Disposal Sites in the Vicinity of Community Airports in the Northwest Territories". 1990. 9 Transport Canada, "Bird Strike Summary Report". 1993 – 2007. http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/AerodromeAirNav/Standards/WildlifeControl/summaries/menu.htm 10 Government of Northwest Territories, “Guideline for Contaminated Soil Remediation”, November 2003. 11 Email from Joshua Clark, NTPC, to Keith Morrison, Manager, Community Infrastructure Planning, August 1, 2008 12 Starling, Waye and Wilson, Anne. "Fort Resolution Sewage Lagoon". Emails dated August 23, 2006 and August 24, 2006

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\081121 Fort Resolution Waste Study FINAL.doc 35 104148-03

Appendices

Appendix A

Hay River Annual Temperatures

Appendix A

Hay River Normal Temperatures (1971 - 2000) and Historical Extreme Temperatures 120 km West of Fort Resolution

Temperature Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

Daily Average (°C) -23.1 -20.2 -14.4 -2.7 6.1 12.6 15.9 14.5 8.5 0.4 -11.9 -20.3 -2.9

Daily Maximum (°C) -18.4 -14.7 -8.2 3 11.6 18 21.1 19.6 13.2 4.1 -7.9 -15.8 2.1

Daily Minimum (°C) -27.6 -25.6 -20.6 -8.4 0.7 7 10.6 9.3 3.8 -3.3 -15.9 -24.8 -7.9

Extreme Maximum (°C) 10.7 13.9 15.6 24.1 33.3 34 35 36.7 30 25 15 12.2

Extreme Maximum Date (yyyy/dd) 1985/02 1968/28 1944/29 1989/28 1948/30 1989/13 1975/02 1981/09 1951/06 1987/02 1949/04 1944/13

Extreme Minimum (°C) -47.8 -48.3 -44.4 -38.9 -18.9 -5.6 1 -1.1 -11.7 -24.3 -40.8 -47.2

Extreme Minimum Date (yyyy/dd) 1962/16 1947/01 1945/02 1954/06 1954/01 1951/03 1995/10 1948/25 1974/30 1984/30 1985/25 1946/14

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix A Temperatures.xls

Appendix B

Waste Diversion Strategies

Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix B Waste Management Study September 2008

1.0 BACKGROUND

Waste diversion from a landfill operation is a fundamental waste management practice in many communities across Canada. Waste diversion not only saves the limited landfill space for the municipality, but also has benefits by protecting the environment. Although the climate and geography of northern Canada may impose significant constraints, some Northern communities have achieved significant waste diversion during the past several years.

In this Appendix, waste reduction programs undertaken by the Northwest Territories are briefly examined, and the City of Yellowknife is presented as a case study. Waste diversion is further examined with respect to the Settlement of Fort Resolution.

2.0 NORTHWEST TERRITORIES REGIONAL MEASURES

2.1 Beverage Container Program

The Beverage Container Program is a program established by the Environmental Division of the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources of the Government of the Northwest Territories. Started in November 1, 2005, it has already succeeded in recycling 82% of beverage containers from the Northwest Territories and returning 2.6 million dollars to recycling consumers. Recovered containers are glass, plastics, aluminum, metals, waxed cardboard and mixed materials. These containers include juice, pop, bottled water, beer, wine, and liquor bottles. Milk and milk product containers are not included. From April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007, over 27 million beverage containers were distributed in the Northwest Territories, of which almost 25 million empty containers were returned through this program.

A refundable deposit and handling fee is charged when on all beverages purchased except for milk or milk products.1 Refunds and fees are outlined below:

Table 1 Surcharge and Refundable Deposit for Beverage Containers Content Amount Material Refundable Non- Total Deposit Refundable Fee Handling Fee Beverages other than Wine or Spirits Less than 1 Materials $0.10 $0.05 $0.15 Litre other than Glass Beverages other than Wine or Spirits Less than 1 Glass $0.10 $0.10 $0.20 Litre Beverages other than Wine or Spirits 1 Litre or All $0.10 $0.10 $0.20 More materials Wine or Spirits Any Size All $0.25 $0.10 $0.35 materials Note: • Obtained from the Environmental Protection Division, Government of the Northwest Territories, Beverage Container Program, Annual Report, 2006-2007.1

A depot has operated in Fort Resolution from November 2005 by Gabriel Lafferty, and since June 2006 by Frank Lafferty. Recycled containers are transported from the depot to the regional processing centre in Hay River, and from there to southern recycling markets.

Fort Resolution's beverage container program has been very successful. Since November 2005, Fort Resolution has recycled 324,559 beverage containers (approximately 129,800 per year).2

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix B Waste Diversion Plan Fort Rez.doc 1 Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix B Waste Management Study September 2008

Fort Resolution should encourage community participation in this program. Individuals receive a cash refund and help the environment. Ultimately, less solid waste is sent to the community landfill, increasing the life span of the landfill. Community participation will decrease the number of containers sent to the dump, thus decreasing the number of scavengers looking for containers for a refund. A fundraising program could be set up at the school or community centre to encourage recycling, where proceeds go towards community events or charity.

2.2 Future Programs

Based on a discussion with a regional environmental protection officer, future recycling programs within the Northwest Territories are anticipated. Currently, a summary report on potential recycling measures has been drafted and sent for review with minister. It is anticipated that new recycling programs could come into effect as early as fall 20083.

Potential recycling programs within the Northwest Territories could include the recycling of:

• Milk containers • Tires • Cardboard • Computers and e-waste • Batteries.

The Government of Yukon has implemented a Used Tire Management Program, aimed to divert tires from landfills by sending them to locations in Alberta or British Columbia for processing. To fund the program, a $5 recycling fee is levied on all tires bought in the Yukon.4 Currently, ARMA allows the processors in Alberta to accept the scrap tires from the Yukon. The Yukon Department of Environment issues annual contracts for the collection of tires from community waste disposal sites and transportation of the tires to a processor.

The diversion of tires saves capacity at a landfill site and reduces the potential fire and subsequent pollution impacts. The scrap tires may be recycled, shredded and reproduced into other products, such as highway and walkway surfaces.

These programs are aimed to make recycling easier and accessible for communities. Encouraging community participation of future programs helps the environment and ultimately results in less waste being sent to the solid waste landfill. The council of Fort Resolution should stay informed of new recycling developments within the Environmental Division of the Northwest Territories from their web site http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/eps/ or by phone at (867) 873-7654.

Additionally, segregating Fort Resolution's solid waste, such as tires, e-waste and batteries, allows for easier future removal should an applicable recycling program come into effect. However, it should be noted that separating out tires can pose a fire hazard, especially as Fort Resolution has a history of fires being started in their landfill site.

3.0 CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE: A CASE STUDY

Yellowknife, with a population of 18,700 5 is located on the north shore of the Great Slave Lake, approximately 145 km by air and 630 km by road from Fort Resolution. Yellowknife has implemented a 40%, 15-year waste reduction target. Currently, though community participation, Yellowknife is achieving approximately an 11% waste diversion.6 Due to the geographic proximity to Fort Resolution and its history of waste diversion, the City of Yellowknife was examined as a case study.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix B Waste Diversion Plan Fort Rez.doc 2 Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix B Waste Management Study September 2008

3.1 Recycling Infrastructure

Though the City of Yellowknife currently does not offer a door-to-door recycling pick-up, five (5) depots are located around the town where residents can drop off their recycling into bins. These depots rely on the citizens to properly sort their recycling. Additionally, the private companies Yellowknife Recycling Service offers door-to-door pick-up for a fee, and Document Securities Systems Inc. will pick up paper recycling from companies.

Table 2 The City of Yellowknife 2006 Amount of Solid Waste Diversion

Item Example Estimated Waste Disposal Waste Diversion Waste Annual 2006 2006 Waste Composition Disposal Recycling Recycling Diversion (%) (Tonnes) (bales) (Tonnes) by Material Stream (%) Newspapers Newspaper, Pamphlets 4.68% 421 93 69 14% Corrugated Corrugated Cardboard, 13.31% 1,198 663 333 22% Cardboard Brown Paper Bags, Brown Envelopes, Brown Packing Paper Boxboard Cereal, Granola, and 2.56% 230 9 28 11% Cracker Boxes, Magazines, Catalogues, Coloured Paper, Egg Cartons, Posters, Calendars Plastics #2 Milk Jugs, Cloudy 0.29% 26 16 4 13% Cloudy HDPE Water Jugs, Windshield Washer Containers White Paper White Paper, White 9.61% 865 - - -- Envelopes, Letterhead, Computer Paper Tin Cans Soup Cans, Fruit Cans, 0.82% 74 10 10 12% Coffee Cans White Goods Fridges, Stoves, 0.02% 2 137 137 99% (Appliances) Dishwashers, Dryers, Washers, Hot-water Heaters Batteries 0.02% 2 44 90 98% Glass Glass containers Stockpiled for Future Use & Recycling Note: • Obtained from City of Yellowknife Waste Composition Study & Waste Reduction Recommendations, Bruce Underhay and Gartner Lee Limited, September 2007 presentation7

From the recycling depot, recyclable waste is bailed using the city baler and stored. Once enough bales have been collected for a truckload, the diverted waste is shipped to the south and sold to various companies as listed in Table 3. Though this operates at a slight loss financially, benefits include helping the environment and reducing the solid waste sent to the City's landfill.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix B Waste Diversion Plan Fort Rez.doc 3 Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix B Waste Management Study September 2008

The City of Yellowknife, starting in 2005, arranged with Richmond Steel in Richmond, BC, to be sent a crusher to crush old vehicles. The city operator, Bruce Underhay, as a member of a regional waste committee arranged for the crusher to travel to other northern communities during its operation in the north. Fort Providence and Hay River are among the communities that the crusher traveled to, and is scheduled to travel to Fort Smith in the summer of 2008. In return for the scrap metal of the vehicles, Richmond Steel arranges for the vehicles to be crushed and trucked to the south at no cost to the communities. By crushing and removing disposed vehicles alone, it is estimated that the City of Yellowknife has extended its landfill life span by several years.8

Table 3 Destination of Yellowknife's Recycled Materials6

Item Strategy Final Destination Newspapers Baled Metro Materials, Edmonton Corrugated Cardboard Baled Metro Materials, Edmonton Boxboard Baled Metro Materials, Edmonton Plastics #2 Cloudy HDPE Baled Metro Materials, Edmonton White Paper -- -- Tin Cans Baled -- White Goods Baled Richmond Steel, BC Vehicles Crushed Once Every Two Years Richmond Steel, BC Batteries -- Maple Leaf Metal Industries Ltd. Glass Crushed Segregated in Municipal Solid Waste Dump for Future Reuse & Recycle Note: • -- information not obtained.

3.2 Tipping Fees

In an effort to discourage dumping and promote recycling, the City of Yellowknife charges tipping fees for items to be dumped at the municipal dump. Each vehicle dumping at the waste site is charged a fee of $5 unless only tagged bags are to be dumped.9 Additional rates are provided below:

Table 4 Tipping Fees for Dumping of Residential Solid Waste

Type of Residential Waste Fee Domestic Vehicles $100 per vehicle Fridges $35 each Other Appliances $10 each Oil Tanks (250 Gallons) $100 each Small Tires $4 each Large Tires (Greater Than 20" Diameter) $8 each

While this strategy has worked for the City of Yellowknife, it would likely not be successful at Fort Resolution due to the lack of staff to enforce these fees and the probability that people would dump their waste in other areas of the community than the dump site to avoid paying a fee.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix B Waste Diversion Plan Fort Rez.doc 4 Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix B Waste Management Study September 2008

3.3 User Pay System

In order to encourage recycling, Yellowknife accepts three bags of solid waste per week per household. Additional bags must be tagged. Tags are sold at various stores in Yellowknife and cost one dollar each. The City is currently considering lowering the limit to two bags per week per household. The purpose of this is to motivate residents to produce less municipal solid waste. This measure alone has proven extremely successful, reducing municipal solid wastes by 20%.6

The Town Council of Fort Resolution will have to evaluate this option. There is a good chance that charging for garbage pick-up over a certain number of bags will cause people to dump there garbage around the community.

3.4 Other Measures

The City of Yellowknife has extended the number of recycling depots available to residents in a move to make recycling easier and more convenient. The city is also encouraging residents to use backyard composting.6

3.5 Future Strategies

The City of Yellowknife has recently completed a recycling study to highlight future areas of improvement.6 Future measures and areas of investigation include:

• In January 2009 the City is planning on banning cardboard from being dumped as solid waste from large commercial businesses. The City is planning on encouraging smaller companies to recycle their cardboard waste. • The study highlighted that compostable organic matter accounted for up to 40% of municipal household waste within the City. As such, the City is investigating a city-wide composting program. A study was performed for the City on composting in northern climates. • The City is investigating a door-to-door recycling program. • The City is investigating banning dumping recyclable materials.

4.0 FORT RESOLUTION: SOLID WASTE DENSITY AND COMPACTION

The estimated and projected solid waste volume produced for Fort Resolution is detailed in Section 4.3.

A municipal solid waste density of 0.099 tonnes per cubic meter for uncompacted waste is the identified density for planning purposes from the report "Guidelines for the Planning, Design, Operations and maintenance of Modified Solid Waste Sites in the Northwest Territories".10 Thus, the total estimated weight of solid waste generated per year in Fort Resolution is:

3,138 m3/year × 0.099 tonnes/m3 = 311 tonnes in 2008 3,920 m3/year × 0.099 tonnes/m3 = 388 tonnes in 2048

The solid wastes generated in the Northwest Territories communities generally have the composition shown in Table 5. The major waste compositions are food waste, paper products and plastic products. This data is the basis for calculating the potential waste diversion in Fort Resolution.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix B Waste Diversion Plan Fort Rez.doc 5 Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix B Waste Management Study September 2008

Table 5 Estimated Landfill Waste Compositions in Fort Resolution

Waste Material Percentage Weight (Tonnes) 2008 Food Waste 20.3% 63.1 Cardboard 9.8% 30.4 Newsprint 2.4% 7.5 Other Paper Products 14.8% 46.0 Cans 4.4% 13.7 Other Metal Products 6.2% 19.3 Plastic, Rubber and Leather 14.0% 43.5 Glass, Ceramics 5.7% 17.7 Textiles 3.7% 11.5 Wood 9.9% 30.8 Diapers 3.8% 11.8 Dirt 4.9% 15.2 Total 100% 311.0

5.0 WASTE DIVERSION POTENTIAL

In principle, 80% of the waste could be diverted from the solid waste landfill in Fort Resolution based on a very aggressive recycling program (as shown in Table 6). The diverted wastes include food waste, paper products, metal and plastic products, and wood. In practice, by setting up a community recycle program, a significant portion of recyclable waste may be diverted. This section details the components of the waste which could be diverted from the landfill.

Household waste is organic matter including food waste and paper; composting activity may process organic material to create an organic soil supplement. Diversion of waste to recycling potentially includes paper products, metals, plastic and rubber, wood and glass. Approximately 254.4 tonnes of waste annually (based on 2008 waste production calculations) are available to be diverted from landfill at this time (as shown in Table 6); however, the actual diversion ratio largely depends on the involvement of public and education of the public, the waste recycle strategies, and efforts from the community and senior governments.

Table 6 Potential Waste Diversion from Landfill for Fort Resolution in 2008 Waste Material Percentage Total Available Waste for Assumed Diversion Weight Diversion (Tonnes) Percentage Weight Percentage Weight (Tonnes) (Tonnes) Food Waste 20.3% 63.133 100% 63.133 50% 31.5665 Cardboard 9.8% 30.478 100% 30.478 50% 15.239 Newsprint 2.4% 7.464 100% 7.464 50% 3.732 Other Paper Products 14.8% 46.028 100% 46.028 30% 13.8084 Cans1 4.4% 13.684 100% 13.684 50% 6.842 (4.17) Other Metal Products 6.2% 19.282 100% 19.282 50% 9.641 Plastic, Rubber and 14.0% 43.54 100% 43.54 30% 13.062 Leather1 (8.80) Glass, Ceramics 5.7% 17.727 - - - - Textiles 3.7% 11.507 - - - - Wood 9.9% 30.789 100% 30.789 30% 9.2367 Diapers 3.8% 11.818 - - - - Dirt 4.9% 15.239 - - - - Total 100% 311 81.8% 254.4 33.2% 103.1

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix B Waste Diversion Plan Fort Rez.doc 6 Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix B Waste Management Study September 2008

Notes: • It is assumed that Fort Resolution is currently recycling 6.4 tonnes of beverage containers – approximately one-third of which are assumed to be cans and two-thirds plastic PET bottles. • Values in brackets are assumed amount available for diversion discounting current beverage container recycling program.

To calculate the potential waste for diversion from the landfill, the following assumptions are made:

• 50% of food waste may be diverted for composting; • 50% of cardboard, newsprint and metals may be diverted for recycling; • 30% of plastic products, wood and other paper products may be diverted for recycling.

These assumptions are based on the recovery of waste generated in other Canadian communities and the statistical recovery of MSW in 1997 from U.S. EPA. Table 4-2 summarizes the percentage of recovery of recyclable municipal solid waste in the United States. These recovery rates were calculated by actual amount recovered materials divided by the total materials generated in the municipal waste stream.

Considering the isolation and climate of Fort Resolution, the above assumptions may be a reasonable objective. The estimated percentages of plastic and wood waste for Fort Resolution are higher than those of 1997 U.S. EPA statistics. U.S.EPA data was calculated from the nation wide waste recycling practices and has a large range of variability between communities.

Table 7 Recovery of diverted MSW From Landfill in U.S.

Diverted Waste Recovery Percentage Paper and paper board 41.7% Metals Ferrous 38.4% Aluminum 31.2% Other metals 65.4% Total metals 39.1% Plastic, Rubber and Leather 8.5% Wood 5.1% Total 28.0%

6.0 WASTE DIVERSION STRATEGIES

There are a number of different areas which could be considered for waste diversion and recycling. These include:

• Household Hazardous Wastes • Organics • Paper Products • Metals (including white goods) • Plastic Containers (including milk jugs) • Wood Wastes • Tires • e-Waste

It is recommended that Fort Resolution begin diverting household hazardous wastes as detailed in Section 10.2 to reduce potential environmental impact of the landfill.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix B Waste Diversion Plan Fort Rez.doc 7 Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix B Waste Management Study September 2008

7.0 BALING OF RECYCLED WASTE

Diverted wastes sent to the southern markets for recycling must be baled for transportation. The cost of a vertical "down stroke" baler can start from approximately $8,000 to $13,000.11 This type of baler must be hand fed and is labour intensive, and could accommodate up to approximately one (1) tonne of material per hour. While larger balers with a range of features are available, a very basic baler should be able to meet the needs of Fort Resolution.

8.0 TRANSPORTATION AND RECYCLING COSTS

A trucking quote was provided as $1,710 for Manitoulin Transport for transporting approximately 30 tonnes from Fort Resolution to Edmonton, and is used as the basis below for providing an estimate of recycling costs. Fort Resolution may also consider transporting baled recyclable materials by train from Hay River.

Table 6-2 Waste Diversion Costs For Transportation, Disposal and Revenue From Sale Item Waste Diverted Unit Disposal Market Revenue Transportation Net Cost Of Materials Waste Per Fee Value Per From Sale Cost By Truck Diversion By Year 1 Tonne6 Truck 1 Cardboard 15.2 tonne - $75 $988 $1,710 5 Net Gain of 2 Newsprint 3.7 tonne - $75 $278 $356 3 Other paper 13.8 tonne - $58 $800 products 4 Cans 4.2 tonne - $80 $336 $1,710 6 Net Gain of 5 Other metal 9.6 tonne - $80 $768 $1,154 products 6 Plastic, Rubber 8.8 tonne - $200 $1760 and Leather 7 Tires 2 2 tonne $600 - - $684 7 Cost of $6,261 8 Hazardous 630 kg $2,772 - - waste 3 9 e-Waste 4 3,150 kg $2,205 - - 10 Total 68.0 tonne $5,577 - $4,930 $4,104 Cost of $4,742

Notes: 1 The weight of diverted waste are referred to Table 4-1. 2 Assume 500 tires are disposed each year (no historical data available). 3 Assume 4 persons per family and 5 kg household hazardous waste generated per family. 4 Assume 25 kg e-Waste generated per family per year. 5 Assume one annual truckload of diverted cardboard, newsprint and other paper products. 6 Assume one annual truckload of cans and other metal products and plastic, rubber and leather. 7 Assume one truckload every five years at double the cost for increased handling constraints for tires, hazardous waste and e-waste.

9.0 PRIORITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION

To achieve a successful waste diversion program, the efforts and actions must be implemented from general public, the community and territorial governments and local businesses. One of the key elements is public education and awareness of waste diversion program.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix B Waste Diversion Plan Fort Rez.doc 8 Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix B Waste Management Study September 2008

An affordable goal for Fort Resolution to start the waste diversion from landfill is to introduce the diversion program to the community in an incremental manner as listed below:

1. Evaluate the number of disposed vehicles available to be crushed and transported 2. Contact Richmond Steel or the City of Yellowknife to determine the feasibility of the disposed vehicles being crushed and collected in additional to of their summer 2008 program to Fort Smith, or their anticipated summer, 2009 program to Yellowknife. In exchange for the scrap metal, Richmond Steel will pay for crushing and transportation costs. 3. Public education for household hazardous waste diversion program initiative 4. Implement household hazardous waste diversion

If enough support is available from the community to implement a recycling program, the following measures can be considered

• Set up a community waste diversion management center to organize various activities to promote the waste diversion program to the community • Promote composting within the community, through subsidizing the cost of backyard composters or providing a door-to-door community composting pick-up or drop-off depot. • Continue to promote the beverage container diversion program and encourage community members to participate by incorporating fundraising drives with bottle collection • Initiate a paper products diversion program • Initiate a tire diversion program (if potential liability of tire fire addressed) • Initiate a metal waste diversion program • Initiate an e-waste diversion program.

In practice, the startup of waste diversion program could be the diversion of household hazardous waste. Diverting household hazardous wastes should be a priority, as they have the most potential to negatively impact the environment, especially considering that the high groundwater table in Fort Resolution may promote seepage. Diverting hazardous waste is also extremely important because it is a legislated requirement. The community should endeavor to participate in any recycling programs to be implemented by the Northwest Territories. There is no other equipment or costs associated with scrap tire diversion and hazardous waste, such as baling machine or sorting.

If Fort Resolution has enough community support, they can investigate waste diversion further. Purchasing a bailer and shipping recyclable materials to the south is feasible for the community, however more labour is required to bale and community initiative is vital.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix B Waste Diversion Plan Fort Rez.doc 9 Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix B Waste Management Study September 2008

10.0 REFERENCES

1 Environmental Division, Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/eps/ Beverage Container Program, Annual Report 2005 – 2006 and Annual Report 2006 – 2007. 2 Email from Diep Duong, Environmental Protection Division, Northwest Territories, June 17, 2008. 3 Conversation with Diep Duong, Environmental Protection Division, Northwest Territories, May 29, 2008. 4 Environment Yukon, "Used Tire Management Program", http://www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca/monitoringenvironment/EnvironmentActandRegulations/546. php 5 Statistics Canada, "Selected Trend Data for Yellowknife". 2006 6 Conversation with Bruce Underhay, Chief Operator for the City of Yellowknife NT, May 29, 2008. 7 Bruce Underhay and Gartner Lee Limited, City of Yellowknife: "Waste Composition Study & Waste Reduction Recommendations". September 2007 http://www.yellowknife.ca/_shared/assets/City_of_Yellowknife_Waste_Composition_Study_Waste_R eduction_Recommendations_Presentation6158.pdf. 8 Phone Conversation with John Rae, Richmond Steel, Richmond, BC. May 29, 2008 9 City of Yellowknife. http://www.yellowknife.ca/. 10 Ferguson Simek Clark Engineers & Architect: "Guidelines for the Planning, Design, Operations and maintenance of Modified Solid Waste Sites in the Northwest Territories". 2003. 11 Phone Conversation with Steve Barczai, Metro Waste, Edmonton, AB.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix B Waste Diversion Plan Fort Rez.doc 10

Appendix C

Fort Resolution Grain Size Analysis

From:J R Paine &Associates LTD 780 489 0800 06/24/ 2008 06:14 tt149 P.002/002 ----~ .--- w• '•··----

J.R. Paine & Associates Ltd. CONSULTING AND TESTING ENGINEERS EDMONTON - GRANDE PRAIRIE - WHITEHORSE - PEACE RIVER SCREEN ANALYSIS Client: Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. Sample: __S:;...A_4 _;.4_6_Depth:______Project: General Testing - 104148 Fiie: Edmonton General Location: ------Made By: .:.B::.:L:;__~/J'H------­ Ck'd By: f Jl Date: June 23, 2008 Speciftl!atlons Percent Finer Than Basis Sieve No. Size of Opening ml lllmetresa----.;__~-----i Percent Finer Than Minimum Maximum Orlglnal Sample 50,000 50.0 40,000 40.0 25,000 25.0 20,000 20.0 12,500 12.5 10,000 10.0 5,000 5.0 2 500 2.5 100.0 2,.000 2.0 99.9 1,250 1.25 99.9 800 0.800 99.8 630 0.630 99.7 400 0.400 99.2 315 0.315 98.4 160 0.160 18.4 80 o.oiio 1.0 Description of Sample: Method of Preparation: Dry 0 Washed 0 Sand Moisture Content: 6.1 % 2 Face Crush Count = % Remarks: Sample Delivered by Client --- Attention: Tricia Hamilton Time of Sieving: 15 minutes Fax: 488-2121

63 50 40 25 20 12.5 10 5.0 2.5 2.0 12(5() 800 630 400 315 160 BO 100

90 I 80 \ \ 70 \ \ c \ r="' 60 .,..... \ i! 50 1: ' ~ 40 ct \ 30 \ I

20 ·

10

0 100 10 0.1 0.01 Grain Size - mllllmetres

Appendix D

Laboratory Results June 11, 2008 Sampling

Lot: 624494 COC Control Number AQ 6 Q4 9 8 Sample Information Sheet odyco· I 11111111111 : Proper completion of this form Is required In order to proceed with analysis See reverse for your nearest Bodycote location and proper sampling protocol Billing Address: of Report To: Copy of Invoice: D Company: G'w '""- \ e c.lv\ Company: fOr+h l<2~ h Mail Invoice to this QNQC Report address for approval D A d dress: D Address: \ t ;:lo3 _\ o3 A..r<.. /3Jry..""~ A~ W.o.f)\\ \~ Report Results: . \5$ If-I Report Results: Attention: .1 Fax Fax D Kw o"'" ~~ /rc\{.~CA.. D Attention: ~ic.:. c.:.. \c.lMi.\~/kui ~!iO') Phone: Mail D Phone: 1-So 1-f t$8 CoBco MailD Fax: Courier D Fax: -=reo L.tr.@<2~r ~\<-.... L. . '-~ e-mail 0 e-m ail: e-Service D e-ma il:+t; c :c. , ,.. m ·,\~" tvec.r-\"1 ~~ \i. '--°"- e-Service D

Information to be included on Rush Please contact the laboratory Sample Custody (Please Print) Report and Invoice to confirm rush dates and times Sampled by: ~ before submitting samples. Companf.C:- 1 -<" "- Signatureg"'j ,. - I authorize Bodycote to proceed with the Project ID: l o t; l"i Upon filling out this section, client accepts that e work indicated on this form: surcharges will be attached to this analysis Project Name: ~ort- ~'\ o\v\\~ ~-=4' ,f\ RUSH A ll analysis As ind icated 1 or Received by: Sample oc L egal L ocation: required on: D D IL> I Temp. f_ <2 -Waybill#------,------PO#: Date Required: Date,.,. J ~'-'~· -12..BH_B~':i. Proj. Acct. Code: Signature: ------Company IS 1Time Agreem ent ID: Bodycote Authorization: rG I Special Instructions I Comments FOR LAB USE ONLY D Check here if Bodycote is required Condition of containers I to report results directly to a regulatory body coolers upon arrival at lab (Please include contact information) D Check here if you're testing POTABLE WATER for HUMAN CONSUMPTION.

-(/) o~ ~ ~ Q) J 0 ~ ·~ ::t - Ee ~ 1- ~ Please indicate which regulations you are required to meet: ~8 3 .1 ~ - ~ #~ Sample Identification Location Depth DatefTlme Matrix Sam piing Enter tests above IN CM M Sampled Method ~ ( v relevant samples below) ~...... ,<\ ..... t. ~ ~ IA'.t ~ 1 -1'~,.\~-- ~- - .... -q~~ ,_ - k K:. ft ...1 ~~ \~:-.~ ~ ~ - · I \ - ~ - 2 ..;~-:/\ f..=JP.,. j~ ti' Q )(, ~ -\rue.\.. ...-( • J ""-" ~11 I ~ >< \ ,,,~ \I ~ 'I \ I '>( 3 (' ~\\ L, \Y -rvk I~ ~ x: 4 v- ''.I 'V ' V g ¥ o( ~ ,.., ...... A -NA x 'f '¥. \ 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - ci 15 - z E .P NOTE: All hazardous samples must be labeled according to WHMIS guidelines. Page __ of __ Report Transmission Cover Page

Bill To: Earth Tech Canada Inc. Project: Lot ID: 624494 Report To: Earth Tech Canada Inc. ID: 104148 Approval Status: Approved 17203 - 103 Avenue Name: Fort Resolution Invoice Frequency: by Lot Edmonton, AB, Canada Location: Lagoon COD Status: T5S 1J4 LSD: Control Number: A060498 Attn: Ken Johnson P.O.: Date Received: Jun 12, 2008 Sampled By: Acct code: Date Reported: Jul 21, 2008 Company: Earth Tech Report Number: 1134569

Contact Company Address Ken Johnson Earth Tech Canada Inc. 17203 - 103 Avenue Edmonton, AB T5S 1J4 Phone: (780) 488-6800 Fax: (780) 488-2121 Copies Delivery Format Email: [email protected] M 1 Post 1 Email - Single Report PDF Tricia Hamilton Earth Tech Canada Inc. 17203 - 103 Avenue Edmonton, AB T5S 1J4 Phone: (780) 488-6800 Fax: (780) 488-2121 Copies Delivery Format Email: [email protected] 1 Email - Single Report PDF

______PAGES IN THIS TRANSMISSION

Notes To Clients: • This report was issued to include addition of NH4 analysis on sample 3 requested by Trisha of Earth Tech on July 15, 2008. Report 1134569 is an addendum to report 1126934. • Analysis was performed on samples 3 that exceeded the recommended holding time for NH4 analysis.

Reports associated with this Lot Id/Format/Report Date Id/Format/Report Date Id/Format/Report Date 1126934 Env2 3 Smp & DL 20-Jun-08

The information contained on this and all other pages transmitted, is intended for the addressee only and is considered confidential. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission by error, or if this transmission is not satisfactory, please notify us by telephone. Bodycote Testing Group www.bodycote.com www.bodycotetesting.com 7217 Roper Road NW · Edmonton · AB · T6B 3J4 · Canada · Tel: +1 (780) 438-5522 · Fax: +1 (780) 438-0396 Terms and Conditions: www.bodycotetesting.com/terms&conditions Sample Custody

Bill To: Earth Tech Canada Inc. Project: Lot ID: 624494 Report To: Earth Tech Canada Inc. ID: 104148 Control Number: A060498 17203 - 103 Avenue Name: Fort Resolution Date Received: Jun 12, 2008 Edmonton, AB, Canada Location: Lagoon Date Reported: Jul 21, 2008 T5S 1J4 LSD: Report Number: 1134569 Attn: Ken Johnson P.O.: Sampled By: Acct code: Company: Earth Tech

Sample Disposal Date: June 27, 2008

All samples will be stored until this date unless other instructions are received. Please indicate other requirements below and return this form to the address or fax number on the bottom of this page.

Extend Sample Storage Until (MM/DD/YY)

The following charges apply to extended sample storage: Storage for 1 to 5 samples per month $ 10.00 Storage for 6 to 20 samples per month $ 15.00 Storage for 21 to 50 samples per month $ 30.00 Storage for 51 to 200 samples per month $ 60.00 Storage for more than 200 samples per month $ 110.00

Return Sample, collect, to the address below via:

Greyhound Loomis Purolator Other (specify)

Name Company Address

Phone Fax

Signature

Bodycote Testing Group www.bodycote.com www.bodycotetesting.com 7217 Roper Road NW · Edmonton · AB · T6B 3J4 · Canada · Tel: +1 (780) 438-5522 · Fax: +1 (780) 438-0396 Terms and Conditions: www.bodycotetesting.com/terms&conditions Page 1 of 4 Analytical Report

Bill To: Earth Tech Canada Inc. Project: Lot ID: 624494 Report To: Earth Tech Canada Inc. ID: 104148 Control Number: A060498 17203 - 103 Avenue Name: Fort Resolution Date Received: Jun 12, 2008 Edmonton, AB, Canada Location: Lagoon Date Reported: Jul 21, 2008 T5S 1J4 LSD: Report Number: 1134569 Attn: Ken Johnson P.O.: Sampled By: Acct code: Company: Earth Tech

Reference Number 624494-1 624494-2 Sample Date Jun 11, 2008 Jun 11, 2008 Sample Location Sample Description Fort Resolution / Fort Resolution / Cell Truck Dump 6 Matrix Water Water Analyte Units Results Results Results Nominal Detection Limit Microbiological Analysis Total Coliforms MPN MPN/100 mL >1600000 1600000 Escherichia coli MPN MPN/100 mL 1600000 110000 Physical and Aggregate Properties Solids Total Suspended mg/L 224 190 1

Bodycote Testing Group www.bodycote.com www.bodycotetesting.com 7217 Roper Road NW · Edmonton · AB · T6B 3J4 · Canada · Tel: +1 (780) 438-5522 · Fax: +1 (780) 438-0396 Terms and Conditions: www.bodycotetesting.com/terms&conditions Page 2 of 4 Analytical Report

Bill To: Earth Tech Canada Inc. Project: Lot ID: 624494 Report To: Earth Tech Canada Inc. ID: 104148 Control Number: A060498 17203 - 103 Avenue Name: Fort Resolution Date Received: Jun 12, 2008 Edmonton, AB, Canada Location: Lagoon Date Reported: Jul 21, 2008 T5S 1J4 LSD: Report Number: 1134569 Attn: Ken Johnson P.O.: Sampled By: Acct code: Company: Earth Tech

Reference Number 624494-1 624494-2 624494-3 Sample Date Jun 11, 2008 Jun 11, 2008 Jun 11, 2008 Sample Location Sample Description Fort Resolution / Fort Resolution / Cell Fort Resolution / Truck Dump 6 Pond Matrix Water Water Water Analyte Units Results Results Results Nominal Detection Limit Aggregate Organic Constituents Biochemical Oxygen 5 Day mg/L 421 151 4 4 Demand Inorganic Nonmetallic Parameters Ammonium - N mg/L 0.08 0.05 Ammonia - N Dissolved mg/L 66 23.8 0.005 Kjeldahl Nitrogen Total mg/L 1.70 0.06 Phosphorus Total mg/L 0.05 0.05 Organic Carbon Total Nonpurgeable mg/L 45.9 0.5 Routine Water pH @ 25 °C pH 7.20 7.40 pH 8.14 Temperature of observed °C 22.6 pH Electrical Conductivity µS/cm at 25 C 763 1 Calcium Dissolved mg/L 137 0.2 Magnesium Dissolved mg/L 26.0 0.2 Sodium Dissolved mg/L 4.6 0.4 Potassium Dissolved mg/L 0.8 0.4 Iron Dissolved mg/L 0.24 0.01 Manganese Dissolved mg/L 0.082 0.005 Chloride Dissolved mg/L 35.9 0.4 Nitrate - N mg/L <0.01 0.01 Nitrite - N mg/L <0.005 0.005 Nitrate and Nitrite - N mg/L <0.01 0.01 Sulfate (SO4) Dissolved mg/L 5.7 0.9 Hydroxide mg/L <5 5 Carbonate mg/L <6 6 Bicarbonate mg/L 477 5 P-Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L <5 5 T-Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 392 5 Total Dissolved Solids Calculated mg/L 445 1 Hardness Dissolved as CaCO3 mg/L 450 Ionic Balance Dissolved % 103

Approved by: Anthony Neumann, MSc Laboratory Operations Manager Bodycote Testing Group www.bodycote.com www.bodycotetesting.com 7217 Roper Road NW · Edmonton · AB · T6B 3J4 · Canada · Tel: +1 (780) 438-5522 · Fax: +1 (780) 438-0396 Terms and Conditions: www.bodycotetesting.com/terms&conditions Page 3 of 4 Methodology and Notes

Bill To: Earth Tech Canada Inc. Project: Lot ID: 624494 Report To: Earth Tech Canada Inc. ID: 104148 Control Number: A060498 17203 - 103 Avenue Name: Fort Resolution Date Received: Jun 12, 2008 Edmonton, AB, Canada Location: Lagoon Date Reported: Jul 21, 2008 T5S 1J4 LSD: Report Number: 1134569 Attn: Ken Johnson P.O.: Sampled By: Acct code: Company: Earth Tech

Method of Analysis Method Name Reference Method Date Analysis Location Started Alkalinity, pH, and EC in water APHA * Conductivity, 2510 13-Jun-08 BTG Edmonton Alkalinity, pH, and EC in water APHA * Electrometric Method, 4500-H+ B 13-Jun-08 BTG Edmonton Alkalinity, pH, and EC in water APHA * Titration Method, 2320 B 13-Jun-08 BTG Edmonton Ammonium-N in Water APHA * Automated Phenate Method, 4500- 16-Jul-08 BTG Edmonton NH3 G Ammonium-N in Water (color Surrey) APHA * Phenate Method, 4500-NH3 F 16-Jun-08 BTG Surrey Anions (Routine) by Ion APHA * Ion Chromatography with Chemical 13-Jun-08 BTG Edmonton Chromatography Suppression of Eluent Cond., 4110 B Approval-Edmonton APHA Checking Correctness of Analyses, 12-Jun-08 BTG Edmonton 1030 E BOD in water (surrey) APHA * 5 Day, 5210 B 14-Jun-08 BTG Surrey Carbon Organic (Total) in water (TOC) APHA High-Temperature Combustion 12-Jun-08 BTG Edmonton Method, 5310 B Chloride in Water APHA * Automated Ferricyanide Method, 4500- 16-Jun-08 BTG Edmonton Cl- E Coliforms- MPN (Enviro) APHA Escherichia coli Procedure (Proposed), 13-Jun-08 BTG Calgary 9221 F Coliforms- MPN (Enviro) APHA Standard Total Coliform Fermentation 13-Jun-08 BTG Calgary Technique, 9221 B Kjeldahl Nitrogen & Phosphorus (Total) APHA * Automated Ascorbic Acid Reduction 13-Jun-08 BTG Edmonton in Water Method, 4500-P F Metals Trace (Dissolved) in water APHA Hardness by Calculation, 2340 B 13-Jun-08 BTG Edmonton Metals Trace (Dissolved) in water APHA * Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) 13-Jun-08 BTG Edmonton Method, 3120 B pH in water (Surrey) APHA * Electrometric Method, 4500-H+ B 14-Jun-08 BTG Surrey Solids Suspended (Total, Fixed and APHA * Total Suspended Solids Dried at 103- 19-Jun-08 BTG Surrey Volatile) 105'C, 2540 D Total and Kjeldahl Nitrogen (Total) in ISO * Water Quality - Determination of 13-Jun-08 BTG Edmonton Water nitrogen, ISO/TR 11905-2

* Bodycote method(s) based on reference method References APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater ISO International Organization for Standardization Comments: • This report was issued to include addition of NH4 analysis on sample 3 requested by Trisha of Earth Tech on July 15, 2008. Report 1134569 is an addendum to report 1126934. • Analysis was performed on samples 3 that exceeded the recommended holding time for NH4 analysis.

Bodycote Testing Group www.bodycote.com www.bodycotetesting.com 7217 Roper Road NW · Edmonton · AB · T6B 3J4 · Canada · Tel: +1 (780) 438-5522 · Fax: +1 (780) 438-0396 Terms and Conditions: www.bodycotetesting.com/terms&conditions Page 4 of 4 Methodology and Notes

Bill To: Earth Tech Canada Inc. Project: Lot ID: 624494 Report To: Earth Tech Canada Inc. ID: 104148 Control Number: A060498 17203 - 103 Avenue Name: Fort Resolution Date Received: Jun 12, 2008 Edmonton, AB, Canada Location: Lagoon Date Reported: Jul 21, 2008 T5S 1J4 LSD: Report Number: 1134569 Attn: Ken Johnson P.O.: Sampled By: Acct code: Company: Earth Tech

Comments: • This report was issued to include addition of NH4 analysis on sample 3 requested by Trisha of Earth Tech on July 15, 2008. Report 1134569 is an addendum to report 1126934. • Analysis was performed on samples 3 that exceeded the recommended holding time for NH4 analysis.

Please direct any inquiries regarding this report to our Client Services group. Results relate only to samples as submitted. The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. Bodycote Testing Group www.bodycote.com www.bodycotetesting.com 7217 Roper Road NW · Edmonton · AB · T6B 3J4 · Canada · Tel: +1 (780) 438-5522 · Fax: +1 (780) 438-0396 Terms and Conditions: www.bodycotetesting.com/terms&conditions

Appendix E

Quotes For Liner For Retention Lagoon Option

ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS LTD.

11603 – 180 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5S 2H6 Canada ● Phone: (780) 453-6731 ● Web: www.geomembranes.com ● Fax: (780) 452-9495 ● E-Mail: [email protected] ● Toll Free: 1 800 840-2884

Date: July 22, 2008 Email: [email protected] To: Earth Tech Pages: (4) Attn: Michael Richardson Quote # P8079

Re: Layfield Environmental System Ltd’s Budgetary Price Submission for the Supply Only of Geosynthetics and the Provision for Services for the Installation of Geosynthetic Products for the Fort Resolution Lagoon Liner

Layfield Environmental Systems Ltd. (Layfield) is pleased to provide our Preliminary Cost Estimate for the supply of geosynthetic products and the provision for installation services for the above noted project, as detailed below.

Pricing: Item 1) Supply Only of 60 mil Smooth High Density Polyethylene (HDPE): Given the information provided, a quantity of 11,000 m2 of 60 mil Smooth HDPE is required to complete the Fort Resolution Lagoon Liner. We have added a 150mm seam overlap (2.3% allowance), 10% wastage and have rounded to the nearest full roll. These factors render a bulk shipment quantity of 12,933 m2. The shipment will consist of 12 rolls, each roll with dimensions as follows: 0.6 m diameter x 6.86 m in length, and weighing 1,815 kg per roll. Each roll contains 1,077 m2 of material when fully deployed.

12,933 m2 x $ 6.00 / m2 = $ 77,598.00
F.O.B. Edmonton, Alberta

Item 2) Supply of HDPE Geomembrane Installation Consumables: Geomembrane consumables include: 5 - 20 lb. box of rags; 5 – 15lb. spools of HDPE welding rod; and 600 sandbags. (no other mechanical attachment hardware or pipe boots are included)

Supply Only of Geomembrane Installation Consumables = $ 1,170.00
F.O.B. Edmonton, Alberta

Installation Services Item 3) Supply of Supervisor and Welding Technician a) Travel Time/ Weather Delays/Standby* Rate per Hour (portal to portal) = $ 250.00 per hour

Notes Item 3a)*: i. The Minimum Daily Charge is ten (10) hours, which may be a combination of travel, weather delays, standby, or working hours. ii. The hourly rates are for two Layfield Personnel, and does not include airfare, meals, accommodations, taxi, or any other charges relating to travel to site from Edmonton, and

1 LS-03-QF-009

return to Edmonton. Additional charges, if incurred by LES or our representative(s), will be charged at cost plus 10%. b) Installation Supervisor and Technician, On-Site** Rate per Hour = $ 300.00 per hour

Notes Items 3b) **: iii. The Installation Supervisor and Technician rates include the equipment required for the installation, while on site. We anticipate the HDPE geomembrane installation production of 2,000 - 2,500 m2 per fair weather day. Estimated time to complete the HDPE component of the project is 4-5 fair weather days. These are only estimated time frames as Layfield is not privy to your scheduling information.

Our Preliminary Cost Estimate is subject to the following Project Clarifications and our Standard Terms and Conditions as stipulated in Appendix A.

Project Clarifications a) Our Pricing is based upon: 1. the preliminary information received from Michael Richardson at Earth Tech; 2. safe, complete and clear access to and around the site at all times during the installation of geosynthetic components of the Work; b) Layfield has not included the following allowances in our pricing (to be provided by the General Contractor, at no charge to Layfield; or charged as an extra to our contract): 1. a labour crew of five (5) construction grade laborers to assist for the duration of the geomembrane installation (approx. 4-5 days); 2. daily transportation from supplied camp to the work site; 3. a suitable piece of fuelled, maintained and operated equipment (front end loader) for the purpose of unloading and daily deployment of material (dedicated to Layfield for a period of two (2) to four (4) hours per day of intermittent use); 4. attachment of the liner to structures of any kind (pipes, piles, concrete structures, etc); 5. 10 cubic metres of sand for sandbags (liner ballasting); 6. dewatering and snow removal, for the purposes of maintaining the geosynthetic installations work area dry and free from standing water; 7. all freight from Edmonton to Site for materials; 8. Equipment freight to site and return to Edmonton. The installation equipment and consumables portion for the installation must be shipped just prior to the commencement of the actual installation. Details of the equipment and consumables for the installation project are detailed below. Please note that the freight component, in all instances, will be the responsibility of the General Contractor. Equipment includes: 2 wedge welders; 2 Leisters; 1 air lance test kit; 1 tensiometer; 2 extrusion welders; and small tools. The equipment will be loaded on one (1) pallet, weighing approximately 350 kgs. The equipment will be charged at a rate of $220.00 per day while in transit, to and from the site. for time in excess of one week, each way prior to and after completion of each phase of the project. 9. one portable generator (6500W 220V) and one portable air compressor; 10. all earthworks, subgrade preparation, piping systems installations, structures, anchor trench excavation & backfill and sand bedding and/or backfill; 11. garbage disposal and sanitary toilets for the duration of Layfield’s work; 12. provide a weather tight and secure (under lock and key) storage area or facility for our equipment for the duration of the liner installation; and 13. accommodation and subsistence on site for our personnel.

2 LS-03-QF-009

c) Layfield will require a minimum of six (6) weeks notice in order to procure materials and to schedule the arrival of our Installation Crew at the site. Project Final Design drawings shall be issued to Layfield, prior to the placement of the order and shipment of materials, so that the quantities stipulated in our Quotation can be reconciled.

We trust that our Preliminary Cost Estimate meets with your current needs. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you have any questions.

Regards, Layfield Environmental Systems Ltd.

Tara Reeves, CET Fred Cross Estimating Supervisor Construction Manager [email protected] [email protected] Ph 780-732-4592 Ph 780-451-7230

3 LS-03-QF-009

Appendix A Standard Terms and Conditions 1) Layfield Environmental Systems Ltd. (“Layfield”) is a non-union contractor. We have not based our labour rates on a union scale or on Fair Wages legislation. 2) The Owner or General Contractor shall ensure that earthworks and civil construction activities proceed in such a manner so that continuity of the Liner installation is maintained and our Work can proceed, from start to finish, without delay. The site shall be ready to receive the geosynthetic materials, prior to Layfield’s arrival on-site and in sufficient time to allow for the completion of Layfield’s work in accordance with the project schedule. Additional Mob./Demob. cycles and Standby, for delays and downtime resulting from actions or occurrences beyond the control of Layfield, shall be charged as an Extra. If the prepared earthwork and subgrade surfaces are deficient in any way and such deficiency(ies) delays Layfield, then all associated costs with the delay, (including, but not limited to: crew downtime, dewatering assistance, standby, extra subsistence charges and/or mobilization expenses) shall be added to our Contract Price. 3) Layfield’s Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) program shall be used during the progress of the work and shall conform to the standards in the Contract Documents subject to any exceptions or clarifications in Layfield’s Proposal, Quotation or Tender. 4) Terms : Prices do not include G.S.T. or P.S.T., unless otherwise noted Prices are F.O.B. Jobsite, unless otherwise noted Prices are firm for 30 days Prices presented are based on the scope of work stated herein, in its entirety Payment net 30 days O.A.C. Interest charged on overdue accounts at 1.5% per month (18% per annum) 5) The prices submitted herein are based on plastic resin prices of today’s date. Layfield’s prices may be adjusted to reflect an increase in the price of resin, without allowance for overhead and profit. Layfield’s prices may also be equitably adjusted to reflect any additional costs resulting from foreign currency fluctuations which impact on Layfield’s costs, without allowance for overhead and profit. 6) The installation of geosynthetics is extremely weather dependant and any amount of precipitation and/or winds greater than 20 km/hr may hamper proper and safe installation as determined by Layfield’s on-site supervisor. Layfield will not be responsible for any costs, including but not limited to, crew downtime, standby, subsistence, mobilization, consultant fees, liquidated damages, etc. incurred by the General Contractor and/or Owner as a result of weather delays. 7) Layfield has not included in its price the costs of any Bonds. We will, upon reasonable notice, supply the same as an extra to the Contract, at Layfield’s cost plus ten percent (10%). 8) Layfield’s warranty obligations shall apply only to the installation of the geosynthetic components. Any warranty of the geosynthetic materials to be installed or supplied hereunder shall be provided by the manufacturer of materials, and Layfield shall have no obligations with respect to the same. 9) Layfield’s installation warranty shall commence upon acceptance of the geosynthetic components, by the Owner or its representative, as such components are completed. The installation warranty period shall be one (1) year and shall only cover geosynthetics installation workmanship. 10) Layfield shall not be responsible or held liable for defects, damage and/or deficient materials and installations, either in whole or in part, should these arise or result from the use of poor quality, inappropriate or unsuitable earthworks material, including the use of inappropriate methods employed to construct the earthworks in contact with the completed geosynthetic installation, or from misuse, vandalism or acts of God. 11) Layfield’s warranty shall cover only the cost of replacement and/or repair of defective installations, determined or agreed to be the responsibility of Layfield, provided that such warranty work shall be performed only to the same standards and scope of Work as set out in the Contract Documents. Layfield shall not be liable for any damages, including without limitation, any special, direct, indirect or consequential damages arising from the loss of integrity of a part or all of the geosynthetics installation, howsoever caused. 12) All additional costs incurred by Layfield to accommodate “Winter Conditions” installation, shall be added to the Contract Price. Further information can be provided upon request. 13) Layfield agrees that the Owner or Contractor may maintain a holdback pursuant to Builder’s or Mechanic’s Lien legislation applicable to the place of the Work until forty-five (45) days following Total Performance of the Work hereunder. Release of any holdback shall be made at that time, notwithstanding that the Contractor may not have received or be entitled to receive holdback release from the Owner. 14) Layfield’s Quotation is based on using the Canadian Construction Association CCA1-2001 Stipulated Price Subcontract as the Form of Agreement between Layfield and the Contractor. Article 3B shall be modified to include Layfield’s Quotation in the Contract Documents. Layfield reserves the right to modify its proposal, to negotiate acceptable terms and conditions with the Contractor, or to refuse to execute the subcontract in its entirety if the Contractor imposes any other form of agreement.

4 LS-03-QF-009

Appendix F

Fort Resolution Site Photos: Site Visit June 9-11, 2008

Settlement of Fort Resolution Waste Study Site Visit June 9-11, 2008

Road to Waste Site – Lagoon and Landfill

Sewage Truck Discharging Solid Waste Dump Truck Current Lagoon – Truck Current Lagoon Dump

Current Lagoon – Cells 4, 5, 6 Current Lagoon – Cells 1,2,3 Current Landfill 1991 – 1994 Lagoon

Dumped Garbage in Neighbouring Land East of Current Site

Garbage Debris Around 1991-1994 Site Area Under Standing Water – East of Current Landfill

Reclaimed Land – Former Landfill

Appendix G

Environmental Site Assessment Framework

Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix G Waste Management Study October 2008

1.0 SITE ASSESSMENT

The Environmental Division (ED) of the Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) of the Government of the Northwest Territories is the relevant contact for remediation of contaminated sites. ED programs are mostly relevant to Commissioner’s land, municipal lands or lands involving GNWT activities. The ED may be contacted for relevant information, for guidelines, and to provide advice on site remediation.1

The process of performing an environmental investigation and remediation of a site is a multi-phase process:

1.1 Initial Notification

After a spill occurs or contamination is found, the ENR must be notified. ENR may review site findings or conduct a site visit to evaluate whether the contamination may poses a risk to health or the environment. If such a risk potential exists, ENR may require action to be taken by the responsible parties. ENR may instruct the services of a qualified person to be obtained.1

As the sites in question are historical landfill sites, the ENR should be contacted to for relevant information, for guidelines and for advice.

1.2 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

The purpose of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is to identify actual and potential site contamination. This typically includes a review of historical records, background information, site visits and interviews to determine if the site in question has experienced potential environmental contamination. They may be used to make informed decisions about the site and as a basis for future investigations and remediation.

Other factors that should be included in the Phase I Assessment of the sites include:

• Proximity to Residents • Land use • Proximity to body of water • Nature of nearest water body (i.e. lake, river) • Type (if applicable) of potential environmental contamination.

When a historical landfill site is under question, it is generally agreed that the site could potentially have impacted the environment. As such, if enough information already exists on the potential contamination, often a Phase I ESA is not required and the evaluation will proceed automatically to a Phase II ESA.

1.3 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

A Phase II is a field sampling program which will verify the presence or absence of environmental contamination and will delineate (determine the amount/location) of contamination. Phase II ESAs will provide the basis for future remedial activities. If performed, the contaminants being looked for are outlined in the Phase I ESA. The Phase II ESA may include the following elements:

• Soil drilling and/or test pitting (minimum 3-5 boreholes) • Geophysical analysis • Soil vapour surveys • Soil sampling • Surface water sampling • Groundwater sampling (minimum 3 samples) • Subsurface vapour sampling.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix G Site Remediation.doc 1 Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix G Waste Management Study October 2008

The soil and groundwater sample results will be compared to government guidelines, and any parameters or chemicals which exceed the guidelines will be highlighted.

1.3.1 Phase II Sampling Method

Phase II ESA sampling often performed using a directional drill rig with a hollow or solid-stem auger. The drill rig augers a borehole into the ground. Approximately every two to three feet (0.6 to 0.9 metres) a soil sample will be obtained using a clean split spoon or from the soil being conveyed up off the auger. The soil sample will be jarred and bagged, the soil type classified and any staining of the soil due to potential contaminants noted. If available, vapour measurements of the soil will be obtained. The “blow counts” (amount of force required to drive the split spoon into every six inches of ground) can be recorded for soil density information. The split spoon will be cleaned between sampling.

The soil sample deemed “worst-case”, based either on vapour monitoring or technician observation (colour, staining, odour), will be the one selected for laboratory analysis.

Once the borehole has been drilled into the groundwater table, a monitoring well will be installed. The monitoring well is generally PVC pipe, with perforated slits in the “screened” portion in the groundwater table, and solid riser otherwise. The screened portion should rise above the estimated level of the groundwater. The borehole should be filled with porous sand to a level above the perforated pipe. The hole should then be backfilled with bentonite if deep, or, if allowable by applicable regulations and the borehole is shallow (3 metres deep or less), backfilled with excavated soil.

Groundwater levels and, if available, vapour concentrations should be monitored for each monitoring well. A groundwater sample will be obtained from applicable monitoring wells, maintaining sampling integrity by purging the water from the well prior to sampling to ensure that the groundwater is not stagnant and by using clean and new sampling equipment.

Alternatively, soil samples can be obtained through a test-pitting program. An excavator is used to excavate a hole. Every few feet, the soil is sampled and bagged as outlined above, and the soil type recorded. Care should be taken that the soil sampled is representative of the soil depth under investigation. Monitoring wells may also be installed in the test-pitted hole using the same backfilling procedure as above.

The number and depth of boreholes and monitoring wells will be determined in the Phase II ESA. The majority of the investigation should be performed down gradient of the anticipated groundwater flow direction.

1.4 Remedial Investigation1

A remedial investigation should be performed when a Phase II ESA identifies contamination that exceeds applicable regulations, is considered dangerous to human health, or the client decides is unacceptable. Remedial Investigations identify and evaluate options to address the environmental contamination. These options may include in-situ monitoring or risk management studies.

Remedial investigations may include:

• Assessment of storage, removal, disposal and treatment alternatives • Quantitative risk assessment for various contaminations • Human and environment exposure estimation • Computer modeling of contaminant • Development of site-specific criteria.

Further phases may include detailed design, contract tendering, monitoring, permitting, and public consultation.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix G Site Remediation.doc 2 Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix G Waste Management Study October 2008

There are three methods that can be taken when developing Site-Specific Remediation Goals: Tier 1; Tier 2; and Tier 3.

Tier 1 approach requires that the contamination be brought to below government guidelines. Tier 2 approach examines the government guidelines and justifies a higher allowable concentration due to the site conditions being different from the government conditions. Tier 3 approach is a Risk Assessment, which justifies a higher allowable concentration of parameters/chemicals by examining the land use and determining that there are no adverse effects (to health or the environment) by allowing a higher concentration than the government guidelines.

1.4.1 Tier 1: Criteria-Based Approach

Tier 1 remediation use the remediation criteria outlined by the applicable ministry for each contaminant as the remediation goal. When a Tier 1 approach identifies exceedences of contaminants, remedial action is required unless a Tier 2 approach justifies the application of site-specific objectives and management.

1.4.2 Tier 2: Modified-Criteria Approach

Tier 2 approach adopts modified remediation criteria as the remediation objective. Modified criteria can be adopted in situations where site conditions, land use, receptors, or exposure pathways differ from the assumed in the development of the generic criteria. Details on site modifications and Tier 2 implementation are found in the Guidance Manual for Developing Site-Specific Soil Quality Remediation Objectives for Contaminated Sites (CCME 1996).

1.4.3 Tier 3: Risk-Based Approach

In situations where criteria-based approach is not suitable for a site, a Risk Assessment may be required to develop Site-Specific Remediation Objectives. The Risk Assessment identifies the concentration of substances which are an acceptable risk to human or ecological receptors. These are then used as the remediation goal of the site.

Site specific remediation objectives should be utilized when there are:

• Ecological concerns (ie critical or sensitive habitats, threatened species) • Data gaps about contaminant (exposure limits, hazard levels) • Special site characteristics (high remediation cost, site conditions differ from those assumed in criteria).

If the site-specific remediation criteria are not exceeded, it may be concluded that no further action is required based on approval by ENR.

1.5 Remedial Action Plan1

After a Phase II ESA is complete, stakeholders and qualified persons will review the assessment to verify contamination of site and to determine if the site should be remediated to generic government criteria or if site-specific criteria should be evaluated using a risk assessment.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix G Site Remediation.doc 3 Settlement of Fort Resolution, NT Appendix G Waste Management Study October 2008

After the criteria (goals) are determined, the qualified parties must create a remedial plan on the actions to be taken to meet the applicable criteria. Remedial action plans must include:

• Contact information of all parties involved • Detail of all identified contaminants • Media affected (soil, groundwater, surface water) • Methodology in determining plan, as well as evaluation of options considered • Action to be taken and feasibility • Schedule and implementation plan • Fate of contaminants.

The remedial action plan must be submitted to ENR for approval. After approval is obtained, the action plan is carried out. Once all parties and qualified persons are satisfied with the end result, a closure report is to be forwarded to the ENR.

1 Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories: “Environmental Guideline for Contaminated Site Remediation”. November, 2003.

L:\work\104000\104148\03-Report\Report\Appendix G Site Remediation.doc 4

Appendix H

Figures

AECOM

Fort Resolution Waste SbJdy CURRENT LANDFILL AND LAGOON SITE AECOM "' ~ Fort Resolution Waste Study =~ t;~(~ EXISTING E =>z E2".._" .. SEWAGE i ~ ~ i:; 0 ~ LAGOON s z ~ 0 7.5 22.5 ~~g Government of lhe Northwest Territories Cltr.., Fort Resolution, NWT FILE NAME: ORN PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE NO. ~~~ Scale for 11x17 sheet 1:750 Flgures.dwg MDS 104148 0712008 FIG II ~5·~ ~------Foler ome: L:\WOIU<\ 1~ •0. 00\104 146\02A-OD\ ·VAT\Cl' ~PENT DRAl\'NGS\FIC ~FIES.OWG .....------Za

•sr- '' _ ,, _ , - 1· - ·· -:i

i REMAINING AREA :!-- -- - : OF ACTIVE SITE ~ -- t = 1895m2 \ --- -, --- .... ---

AECOM

Fort Resolution Waste Study EXISTING SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ,__ ,

·fB

AECOM

1111m· _ Fort Resolution Waste Study 1111n·a.·--·· m SITE LOCATION OPTIONS rtftJl.·..,,_'u_ ..... , & t 1· HISTORIC WASTE SITE LOCATION S ;; 0 Vl" 0a: / 0 0 <'<

AECOM

Fort Resolution Waste Study EXISTING SEWAGE LAGOON AND PROPOSED CELL 7 £

iREMAINING : OF ACTIVE 2 I = 1895m ij~]:1 \

4i 0 0 (J)

,. 0 I N I U1 0 ~

~ "Ow

AECOM

Fort Resolution Waste Study PROPOSED INFILTRATION LAGOON iREMAINI : OF ACTIV I= 1895m2 v \ 0 (/)" ---

0 "'I

"'I 0 "'0 "'

AECOM

Fort Resolution Waste Study PROPOSED RETENTION LAGOON ', -- ',,~ --- --...,_; .:::·· -- ...... ····==:::::::·::.:-- ...... ------.... ·····=;~ ...... -- ...... :. : -- ...... ::..... ' ...... ------

LEGEND AECOM POTENTIAL AREAS FOR . FUTURE LANDFILL EXPANSION AREA AVAILABLE TO. . Fort Resolution Waste Study "BUILD UP" IN FUTURE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF 0 10 30 50m SOLID WASTE LANDFILL

About AECOM AECOM (NYSE: ACM) is a global provider of professional technical and management support services to a broad range of markets, including transportation, facilities, environmental and energy. With more than 40,000 employees around the world, AECOM is a leader in all of the key markets that it serves. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation, and technical excellence in delivering solutions that enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural, and social environments.

AECOM 17203-103rd Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T5S 1J4 T 780.488.6300 F 780.488.2121 www.aecom.com