Centre for Alternative
Wastewater Treatment
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
Draft Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal
Wastewater Effluent
Nunavut Regional Impact
Analysis
Prepared for Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
© 2008 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
Prepared by Brent Wootton, Agata Durkalec, Susanna Ashley
Centre for Alternative Wastewater Treatment, Fleming College, Lindsay, Ontario
January 28, 2008
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 4
2 REGIONAL RESPONSE TO THE STRATEGY .............................................................................................................. 4
2.1 CONSULTATION PROCESS ........................................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE STRATEGY ..................................................................................................... 5
3 REGIONAL CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT OF REGION ..................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.1 Brief summary of relevant wastewater legislation ................................................................................................. 10
3.2 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT OF REGION ............................................................................................................ 11
3.2.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated .......................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.3 Government of Nunavut ......................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.4 Institutions of Public Government.......................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.5 Municipal ............................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3 FINANCIAL CONTEXT OF REGION......................................................................................................................... 17
3.3.1 General financial context ....................................................................................................................................... 17
3.3.2 Source of infrastructure and wastewater operation funds ..................................................................................... 21
4 REGION AND COMMUNITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 22
4.1 CURRENT COMMUNITY POPULATIONS AND GROWTH ................................................................................... 22
4.2 MAP OF NUNAVUT SHOWING LOCATION OF COMMUNITIES ......................................................................... 24
4.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF REGION ................................................................................................................ 25
4.4 SOCIO-ECONOMICS OF REGION ............................................................................................................................. 25
4.5 TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................................................... 26
5 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................................................................... 26
5.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGIES ......................................................................................................... 26
6 OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................... 27
6.1 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ............................................................................................................ 27
6.2 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AND CHALLENGES .............................. 30
6.3 DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIVITIES AND CHALLENGES .............. 33
7 PERFORMANCE AND COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................................................... 34
7.1 PERFORMANCE AND COMPLIANCE OF EXISTING WASTEWATER PROCESSES ......................................... 34
8 RESOURCE NEEDS AND AVAILABILITY .................................................................................................................. 35
8.1 DESCRIPTION OF TRAINING ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES............................................................................ 35
8.1.1 Nunavut Municipal Training Organization............................................................................................................ 35
8.1.2 Nunavut Arctic College .......................................................................................................................................... 37
8.2 COMMUNITY CAPACITY AND TRAINING CHALLENGES ................................................................................. 37
9 ANALYSIS OF DRAFT STRATEGY AND IMPACTS ON NUNAVUT ..................................................................... 38
10 ANALYSIS OF TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT 1 AND IMPLICATIONS FOR NUNAVUT................................... 44
11 ANALYSIS OF TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT 2 AND IMPACTS ON NUNAVUT ................................................. 47
12 ANALYSIS OF TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT 3 AND IMPACTS ON NUNAVUT ................................................. 53
2
13 OVERVIEW OF IMPLICATIONS OF DRAFT STRATEGY FOR REGION .......................................................... 55
13.1 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................................. 56
14 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 57
15 APPENDIX 1: ESTIMATED TOTAL AND PER CAPITA WATER USE IN NUNAVUT COMMUNITIES ....... 69
16 APPENDIX 2: WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AND LICENSING DATA PER COMMUNITY . 70
17 APPENDIX 3: WATER AND SEWAGE EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE BY COMMUNITY ....................... 94
3
1 Introduction
Nunavut—our land in Inuktitut—is the homeland of Inuit in the eastern regions of the Canadian Arctic.
The Territory of Nunavut was established on April 1, 1999 as a result of the Nunavut Land Claims
Agreement (NLCA). The NLCA was signed in 1993, after decades of negotiations between Inuit and
the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories. The Agreement is based on the following
objectives, as stated in the preamble:
1. to provide for certainty and clarity of rights to ownership and use of lands and resources and
of rights for Inuit to participate in decision-making concerning the use, management and
conservation of land, water and resources, including the offshore,
2. to provide Inuit with wildlife harvesting rights and rights to participate in decision-making
concerning wildlife harvesting,
3. to provide Inuit with financial compensation and means of participating in economic
opportunities,
4. to encourage self-reliance and the cultural and social well-being of Inuit.
The Territory spans the two million square kilometers of Canada, extending north and west of
Hudson’s Bay. Comprising one-fifth of Canada’s overall area, Nunavut is comparable in size to all of
Western Europe. The territory is divided into three regions: Qikiqtaaluk, Kitikmeot and Kivalliq.
Approximately 84% of Nunavut residents are Inuit.
2 Regional Response to the Strategy
2.1 CONSULTATION PROCESS
Representatives from Nunavut were invited by Environment Canada to an Iqaluit consultation on the
Strategy on Nov. 20, 2007, and a Nunavut-specific consultation session was held in Iqaluit after this.
Participation by Nunavut representatives at the meeting was considered adequate; participants included
representatives from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), the Government of Nunavut (GN), the Nunavut
Water Board (NWB), and community members.
ITK and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) are providing feedback on the Strategy to the best of their
ability given the limited funding and an extremely short time period provided by EC. However, the
short timeframe prevented ITK and NTI from meeting internal consultation requirements, and
precluded direct consultation with the three regional Inuit organizations in Nunavut and Nunavut
communities—the owners and operators of wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, ITK, NTI, the
regional Inuit organizations, and Nunavut municipalities reserve the right to change conclusions at any
time, particularly after the draft regulations have been made public.
Under the NLCA, the federal government is required to consult in a meaningful way with the Inuit of
Nunavut when making decisions that affect them. The insufficient consultation timeframe illustrates a
lack of consideration for the constraints in the Northern context and the consultation requirements that
the regional and national Inuit organizations must abide by. From an Inuit perspective, this consultation
4
process has been inadequate and has not fulfilled the Crown's duty to consult.
2.2 REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE STRATEGY
Nunavummiut—Inuit of Nunavut—are very concerned about protecting the ecological integrity of the
Arctic landscape. This concern extends to the impacts of sewage effluent on land, waters and animals.
Most Nunavut communities obtain municipal drinking water from surface sources, and many
Nunavummiut continue to obtain raw drinking water from lakes and creeks in the summer and melt ice
and snow in the winter (Nickels et al., 2006). In 2001, 21% of Inuit adults felt that there were times of
the year when the water in the community was contaminated (ITK 2007). Also, the majority of
Nunavummiut continue to harvest animals and fish from the land (termed country food). Some
residents of Arviat have suggested that local pollution, such as dumping garbage on the ice and
allowing sewage effluent from lagoons and treatment to seep into the ocean, has led to declining
numbers of fish and sea mammals (Tyrell, 2006, p. 377).
Clearly, the protection of surface and marine waters in Nunavut from pollution is of importance to the
residents of Nunavut. However, when considered in the greater context of environmental and health
concerns and infrastructure needs in Nunavut, municipal wastewater management is not a top priority.
Nonetheless, for the principle goals of the CCME Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of
Municipal Wastewater Effluent (hereafter the Strategy) to be achievable in Nunavut, it is essential that
the particular social, environmental, economic and political context of the region be taken into account.
The financial and human resource capacity limitations in each municipality and in the territorial
government mean that implementation of Strategy, according to the current timelines and objectives, is
unrealistic.
An effective wastewater management strategy for Nunavut must be grounded in the realities of
Northern life, developed in partnership with Northerners—particularly Inuit—and stewardship-based as
opposed to punitive. While regulations need to be based on environmental and health risks, it must also
be recognized that the primary obstacle facing Northern communities attempting to achieve goals such
as those outlined in the Strategy relate to levels of funding and community capacity. Abiding by
regulations depends on adequate funding and realistic timelines; while the Strategy acknowledges this,
it is particularly critical for Inuit regions, where the challenges related to effective wastewater
management are greater than, or at least substantially different from, those experienced in southern
Canada. In short, for a wastewater management strategy to be successful in Nunavut, the entire strategy
must be Northern-specific—that is, it must be informed by the social, environmental, and economic
conditions in the North.
5
3 Regional context
3.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT OF REGION
TABLE 1. Legislation Relevant to Municipal Wastewater Treatment in Nunavut
Level of
Legislation
Summary
Government
Government of
Nunavut Land Claims
 The Result of decades of
Canada
Agreement Act
negotiations, this Act established the
Nunavut Land Claims Agreement
(NLCA)
 Provides for the establishment of the
Nunavut Water Board (NWB), and
mandates that all water use or
disposal of waste into water must be
approved and licensed by the NWB,
except for domestic or emergency
purposes
 Provides for the establishment of the
Nunavut Impact Review Board
(NIRB) to review the ecosystemic
and socio-economic impact of
proposed projects and make
recommendations to the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern
Development (INAC) as to whether
or not projects should proceed
 Given Royal Assent on June 10, 1993
 Administered by INAC
Nunavut Act
 Establishes the Territory of Nunavut
and its geographical boundaries
 Establishes the Government of
Nunavut, and grants it legislative and
judicial powers
 Establishes the laws of the Northwest
Territories as the laws of Nunavut,
“to the extent that they can apply in
relation to Nunavut, with any
modifications that the circumstances
require”
 Given Royal Assent on June 10, 1993
Administered by INAC
Nunavut Waters and Nunavut  An Act respecting the water
6
TABLE 1. Legislation Relevant to Municipal Wastewater Treatment in Nunavut
Level of
Legislation
Summary
Government
Surface Rights Tribunal Act
resources of Nunavut and the
(NWNSRTA)
Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal
 Gives effect to the provisions of the
NLCA relating to the management of
waters in Nunavut, and to the
creation of a Surface Rights Tribunal
 Establishes the Nunavut Water Board
(NWB) and gives it full licensing
powers (though not enforcement
powers)
 Provides that regulations made
pursuant to the Northwest Territories
Waters Act will continue to apply in
Nunavut until they are replaced or
repealed under the NWNSRTA
 Only applies to inland waters
 Given Royal Assent April 30, 2002
 Compliance and enforcement
administered by INAC
Fisheries Act
 An Act respecting the management,
protection and control of fisheries
 Regulates the conservation and
protection of fish populations and
fish habitats from pollution and other
negative effects
 Regulates and/or prohibits the
deposition of deleterious substances
into fish-bearing waters, or
watercourses that may eventually
enter fish-bearing waters
 Administered by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and
Environment Canada
Canada Water Act
 An Act respecting the management
of Canadian water resources
 Regulates the development,
utilization, and conservation of these
resources
 Administered by Environment
Canada
 An Act respecting pollution
Canadian Environmental
7
TABLE 1. Legislation Relevant to Municipal Wastewater Treatment in Nunavut
Level of
Legislation
Summary
Government
Protection Act (CEPA)
prevention and the protection of the
environment and human health in
order to contribute to sustainable
development
 Governs the release of toxic
substances into the environment, and
enables regulations to control or
eliminate use of these substances
 Administered by Environment
Canada
Canadian Environmental
 An Act mandating that federal
Assessment Act (CEAA)
departments, agencies and crown
corporations must conduct
environmental assessments for
proposed projects where the federal
government is the proponent or
where the project involves federal
funding, permit, or licence
 Administered by Environment
Canada
Arctic Waters Pollution
 An Act respecting the prevention of
Prevention Act
pollution of waters adjacent to the
mainland and islands of the Canadian
Arctic
 Governs the disposal of waste
onshore and at sea in arctic waters
 Administered by INAC, Transport
Canada, and Natural Resources
Canada
Government of
Environmental Protection Act  An Act respecting the protection of
Nunavut
(EPA)
the environment, which includes
water
 Regulates the discharge of
contaminants into the environment
 This Act is binding on the
Government of Nunavut
 Administered by the Department of
Environment (DOE)
 Guarantees the right of individuals to
the protection of the environment
 Provides for mandatory reporting of
environmental contamination
Environmental Rights Act
(ERA)
8
TABLE 1. Legislation Relevant to Municipal Wastewater Treatment in Nunavut
Level of
Legislation
Summary
Government
 Provides for mandatory inspection
where there is suspicion by any two
adult members of the public that
environmental contamination has
taken place in contravention of
relevant legislation, including the
EPA and the PHA
 Administered by DOE
Public Health Act (PHA)
 An Act respecting the promotion and
protection of public health and safety
 Provides for the establishment of
regulations around the construction,
maintenance and operation of
wastewater systems
 The following regulations relating to
water management are provided for
under the Public Health Act:
o General Sanitation
Regulations
o Public Sewerage Systems
Regulations
 Administered by the Department of
Health & Social Services
Hamlets Act
 Sets provision for developing
municipal by-laws in respect of
sewage and drainage systems
 Administered by the Department of
Community and Government
Services (CGS)
Cities, Towns and Villages
 Sets provisions for developing
Act
municipal by-laws in respect of
sewage or drainage systems
 Administered by CGS
Planning Act
 Gives municipal councils the
authority to determine how
municipalities may be organized and
developed
 Administered by CGS
Municipalities
By-laws under the Hamlets
 Individual municipalities have the
Act and the Cities, Towns and
authority to make by-laws relating to
Villages Act
wastewater systems
9
3.1.1 Brief summary of relevant wastewater legislation
The Territory and Government of Nunavut were established under the Nunavut Act, in accordance with
the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act (NLCA), which were both given Royal Assent on June 10,
1993. Implementation of the NLCA is an ongoing process: though the Agreement was put into force in
1993, Nunavut itself was not established as a territory until 1999, and many of the provision of the
NLCA are still being implemented. Full implementation of the NLCA is projected for 2009, at which
point the Government of Nunavut will be fully established (Nunavut Planning Commission, 2007).
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act is the single most significant piece of legislation affecting
wastewater management in Nunavut. Under the NLCA, the Inuit of Nunavut are granted title to
approximately 350,000 square kilometres of land, of which 32,250 square kilometres include mineral
rights. The NLCA provides a detailed self-governance model for the nascent Territory, which includes
the establishment of multiple bodies mandated to encourage environmental protection while fostering
social and economic development and protecting traditional Inuit ways of life. Many of these bodies
have jurisdiction over water resources, including the Nunavut Water Board (NWB), the Nunavut
Planning Commission (NPC), and the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB). Under the NLCA, Inuit
are guaranteed equal representation with government on these new resource, wildlife and
environmental management boards (NWB, NPC, NIRB, and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board
(NWMB)).
An extremely important aspect of the NLCA is that it functions to incorporate Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit
(IQ)—Inuit traditional worldview, values, knowledge, and practices—into policy decisions.
The Nunavut Waters and Surface Rights Tribunal Act (NWSRTA) gives effect to provisions of the
NLCA relating to water management. The NWSRTA governs the use of inland waters, disposal of
waste into such waters, and physical alterations to inland water bodies. In order to conduct any of these
activities, it is generally necessary to obtain a Water License. The Nunavut Water Board was
established under the NWSRTA as a licensing body, governed by the NLCA and the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).
Currently there is no federal legislation pertaining directly to the discharge of municipal wastewater
effluent. However, the discharge of municipal wastewater effluent in Nunavut falls under the
jurisdiction of several pieces of federal legislation, variously administered by multiple federal
government departments, particularly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Environment
Canada (EC), and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).
With the signing of the Nunavut Act in 1993, the laws and regulations of the Northwest Territories in
effect at that time became the initial laws of Nunavut. With respect to water, Section 173 of the
Nunavut Waters and Surface Rights Tribunal Act specifically provides that regulations made pursuant
to the Northwest Territories Waters Act (NWTA) will continue to apply in Nunavut until they are
replaced or repealed. In 2002, section 5 of the NWTA, which permits some water use and waste deposit
activities without a license, was deemed to be inconsistent with section 13.7.1 of the NLCA, which
states that, with the exception of domestic or emergency use, all water use or deposit of waste into
water must be licensed, and was thus repealed. In other words, the vast majority of water use in
Nunavut must now be licensed through the Nunavut Water Board, with very few exceptions.
10
The Nunavut Water Board (NWB, the “Board”) was established under the Nunavut Waters and
Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act (NWNSRTA) pursuant to Article 13 of the Nunavut Land Claims
Agreement (NLCA).
3.2 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT OF REGION
3.2.1 Federal
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) is the primary representative of the Government of
Canada in Nunavut, and administers activities on over 80% of land in Nunavut in which the surface and
subsurface rights are held by the Crown. INAC has regulatory responsibilities for waters, and the Water
Resources Division of the Nunavut Regional Office participates in this capacity in the environmental
assessment and water licensing processes of the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Water
Board, respectively. INAC also inspects water licenses for communities and industry, and ensures
compliance (INAC, 2007).
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), through its Fish Habitat Management Program, reviews works
and undertakings in or near water that may impact to fish habitat, and DFO Conservation and
Protection staff monitors for compliance and enforces the fish habitat protection provisions of the
Fisheries Act. Environment Canada also promotes compliance with the Fisheries Act, and ensures that
the release of wastewater is in compliance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
3.2.2 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) represents and safeguards the interests of the Inuit of Nunavut
under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. NTI was formed in 1993 to replace the Tunngavik
Federation of Nunavut. The organization is governed by a 10-member Board of Directors; the
executive officers are elected directly by Inuit in Nunavut, and the remaining directors are made up of
elected leaders of the regional Inuit organizations in Nunavut—the Kitikmeot Inuit Association, the
Kivalliq Inuit Association and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association. The principle office for NTI is in
Iqaluit, and other offices are in Rankin Inlet, Cambridge Bay and Ottawa (NTI, 2006a; Berger, 2006,
p.9).
NTI manages all Inuit-Owned Lands in Nunavut. It also manages funds stemming from the settlement
on behalf of the Inuit, including capital transfer payments of $1.148 billion payable over a 14-year
period. These funds are held in trust on behalf of Inuit beneficiaries, to be used for programs that
benefit Nunavummiut (Berger, 2006, p.9)
Together with the regional Inuit organizations, NTI fosters Inuit economic, social and cultural wellbeing through the implementation of the Agreement (Berger, 2006, p. ii). Its programs include support
to Inuit development corporations and community economic development organizations, an Elders
pension plan, a harvester support program, and a bereavement travel program (NTI, 2006a). Preserving
and fostering the growth of Inuktitut use is a primary objective of NTI.
While NTI does not have jurisdiction for water on municipal lands, under the NCLA, NTI and the
regional Inuit organizations have the exclusive right to use water flowing in, on, or through Inuit
11
Owned Lands, as well as the right to have this water be substantially unaffected in quality, quantity and
flow.
Additionally, the Land Administration, Planning and Management Division of NTI has been
participating in the development of federal legislation to govern the Nunavut Planning Commission and
the Nunavut Impact Review Board, which are involved in the water licensing process.
3.2.2.1 Regional Inuit Organizations
Nunavut has three regional Inuit organizations—the Kivalliq Inuit Association (KivIA), the Kitikmeot
Inuit Association, (KitIA), and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA). These organizations are
democratically constituted with accountability to Inuit communities and voters and carry out
implementation responsibilities under the NLCA (Berger, 2006, p.9).
The associations have ownership and responsibility for administering surface lands in the region, and
the responsibility to defend, promote and develop the social, cultural and economic interests of Inuit in
the region.
3.2.3 Government of Nunavut
The Government of Nunavut (GN) came into existence on April 1, 1999. It is a public, non-ethnic form
of self-government. Several departments have roles associated with municipal wastewater
management.
3.2.3.1 Department of Community and Government Services
The Department of Community and Government Services (CGS) delivers programs and services that
support Nunavut municipalities, including community development and training for municipal
employees and programs and funding for capacity-building to enhance local service delivery. CGS has
several divisions related to wastewater infrastructure and operations.
Firstly, the Capital Planning and Technical Services branch is responsible for providing comprehensive
government asset life cycle management, including: planning and assisting clients and stakeholders
with identifying their long-term capital requirements, developing suitable technical standards for
infrastructure, design management services for government projects, as well as maintenance and
management of the inventory of government-owned and leased facilities (GN 2007, p. J-5). The
Community Development division offers initiatives that develop the capacity of communities to
operate services. Finally, the Community Infrastructure division addresses the protection of public
health as it relates to municipal infrastructure through the supply and treatment of potable water, the
treatment and disposal of waste water, provision of infrastructure in support of fire protection, technical
assistance in response to civil emergencies and provision of public buildings and mobile equipment to
address all facets of municipal operations (CGS, 2007c).
CGS also has a regional office in each of the three regions of Nunavut (Qikiqtaaluk, Kitikmeot and
Kivalliq), which offers assistance with technical aspects of community operations, support for hamletdriven capital projects, and assistance with developing capacity.
12
CGS provides water and sewage subsidies to municipalities, based on a benchmark of efficiency, the
subsidized volume (90 L/capita/day for trucked service and 225 L/capita/day for piped service), and a
community uniqueness factor that accounts for particular conditions which may affect the efficient
delivery of water and sewage services (CGS, 2004).
3.2.3.2 Department of Environment
The Department of Environment is mandated to protect land, air, water, parks and wildlife, in
partnership with others and through avatimik kamattiarniq (environmental stewardship). The
Department also promotes the sustainable use of renewable resources (GN, 2007a).
The Department houses an environmental protection program that provides and facilitates
environmental protection and enforcement in all Nunavut communities, including environmental
monitoring and ensuring legislative and regulatory compliance. The Environmental Assessment and
Land Use program reviews environmental assessments of proposed developments, and provides input
and direction into permit applications. This role includes reviewing water license applications
(Department of Environment, 2006).
3.2.3.3 Department of Health and Social Services
The mission of the Department of Health and Social Services (HSS) is to promote, protect and enhance
the health and well-being of all Nunavummiut, incorporating Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit at all levels of
service delivery and design (GN, 2007a). Under the authority of the Minister, the Directorate provides
leadership and direction to the department and monitors health and social service program delivery to
the public, including health and disease surveillance (GN, 2007a).
HSS provides a broad range of services, include primary and acute health, child protection, family
services, mental health, health promotion and protection, and injury prevention. HSS also has an
environmental health program, under which it guides the regional health officers in the monitoring of
drinking water supplies and developing and implementing programs to prevent disease caused by
environmental factors, including sanitation. While the role of HSS is limited with regards to
wastewater, it does carry out inspections of the facilities to ensure that they do not pose a health hazard.
3.2.4 Institutions of Public Government
The NLCA established institutions of public government, or co-management boards, responsible for
resource, wildlife and environmental management of Nunavut, and mandated that these boards work in
co-operation to achieve their mutually supporting goals on environmental and social sustainability.
13
3.2.4.1 Nunavut Water Board
The Nunavut Water Board (NWB) was established on July 9, 1996, and its powers were further defined
with the adoption of the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act (NWNSRTA) on
April 30, 2002, pursuant to Article 13 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). The object of
the Board, as stated in section 35 of the NWNSRTA, is “to provide for the conservation and utilization
of waters in Nunavut, except in a national park, in a manner that will provide the optimum benefit from
those waters for the residents of Nunavut in particular and Canadians in general.”
The NWB is a co-management body: in accordance with section 14 of the NWNSRTA, membership on
the nine-member Board is divided equally between Inuit and government (both federal and territorial)
representatives, with a Chairperson appointed on a consensus basis. In order to fulfill its mandate under
the NLCA the Water Board works in close collaboration with other co-management bodies, particularly
the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission.
The Water Board is primarily responsible for the licensing of inland water use in Nunavut – lakes,
rivers, wetlands, ground water, etc. – and does not manage marine areas. However, the NWB has some
input into the regulation of marine areas, as a member of the Nunavut Marine Council, along with the
Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Wildlife
Management Board (NWB, 2007a).
Depending on the particular circumstances surrounding an application, the NWB has the power to
issue, amend, renew or cancel a license for inland water use with or without a public hearing. However,
if a license is issued following a public hearing it must be approved by the Minister of the Department
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (INAC). Also, the NWB is to give due regard and weight
to Inuit culture, customs and knowledge during public hearings.
Under section 20.2.4, it is to ensure that Inuit Owned Lands are not substantially affected by the
licensed activities. Section 20.3.2 provides a provision for compensation to the appropriate Inuit
association in case of water degradation or loss on Inuit Owned Lands.
While the Board has full licensing powers, it is not responsible for legislative enforcement. Once the
NWB issues a license its jurisdiction ceases. Compliance and enforcement of water licenses and
provisions of the NWNSRTA , along with federal water legislations, fall under the jurisdiction of
INAC, which appoints Inspectors for the purposes of enforcement (NWB, 2007b). Also, although water
use and waste disposal into water requires NWB approval, the NWB does not have the capacity to
monitor and enforce this clause (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2006, p. 104).
14
Fig. 1 Nunavut Water Board License Process (Nunavut
Water Board, 2007)
15
, 2005)
3.2.4.2 Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal
The Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal was established under the land and resources management
regime of the NCLA, and its powers were officially delineated in 2002 through the Nunavut Waters
and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act (NWNSRTA). The Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body that
arbitrates disputes over access to lands and land compensation claims in the Nunavut Settlement Area.
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal includes compensation for damage to wildlife harvesting opportunities
due to any development activity, including activities carried out by municipal, territorial, and federal
governments or industry (Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, 2007).
3.2.4.3 Nunavut Impact Review Board
The Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) was established under article 12 of the NLCA. NIRB
screens project proposals to determine the potential impacts that they may have on the Nunavut
Settlement Area (NSA), and conducts environmental and socio-economic assessments when
appropriate, and monitors projects. NIRB’s authority applies to both land and marine areas within the
NSA and to the Outer Land Fast Ice Zone (NIRB, 2007). NIRB is required to consider the well-being
of residents of Canada outside the NSA.
As per the NCLA, the Nunavut Planning Commission forwards project proposals to NIRB for
screening after it has approved them. It also coordinates its work with the NWB if a water application
is referred for a review, to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts.
Legislation has yet to be enacted for the NIRB, which has been identified as a significant gap in the
implementation of the NLCA. It is estimated that a bill will be introduced in 2008 at the earliest
(PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2006, p. 89).
3.2.4.4 Nunavut Planning Commission
The Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) was established under article 11 of the NLCA and is
responsible for land use planning in Nunavut, including water, wildlife, and offshore areas, as well as
various aspects of environmental reporting and monitoring. The NPC develops land use plans and
policies to guide resource use and development within the NSA, so as to protect the present and future
well-being of Nunavut residents (NPC, 2007).
In accordance with the NWNSRTA, the NPC receives recommendations from the NWB, and the NWB
is to coordinate its consideration of projects with NPC’s review of projects.
As discussed in the Second Independent Five Year Review of the Implementation of the NLCA, there
continues to be an absence of legislation governing the NPC, creating perceptions of uncertainty with
regard to final decisions pertaining to resource management in Nunavut. Also, to date only two of six
land use plans have been completed, primarily attributed to a lack of capacity and adequate financial
support. Similar capacity issues affect the ability of GN and NTI to respond to draft plans
(PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2006, p. 79).
16
3.2.5 Municipal
Municipal corporations in Nunavut exercise full authority and responsibility for the delivery of water
and sewage services in their communities, and are accountable to residents of the municipality for the
quality and cost of water and sewage services. Under the Hamlets Act or the Cities, Towns and Villages
Act, a municipality can enact a by-law setting out the economic rates for different categories of users.
According to the CGS Water and Sewage Subsidy Policy, basic water and sewage services should be
affordable, unique local conditions should be recognized in the cost of services, and water should be
used conservatively. Municipalities are also responsible for their own land use planning.
3.3 FINANCIAL CONTEXT OF REGION
3.3.1 General financial context
17
18
FIG. 3. Capital expenditures in the 2008-2009 budget for the Government of Nunavut (GN, 2007a, p.
viii)
19
(thousands)
FIG. 4. Overall financial position (including funds and reserves) for Nunavut municipalities in
2005/2006 (MTO, 2006, p.7)
(thousands)
FIG. 5. Overall financial position less reserves for Nunavut municipalities in 2005/2006 (MTO, 2006,
p.7)
20
3.3.2 Source of infrastructure and wastewater operation funds
Of the 25 communities in Nunavut, Iqaluit is tax-based and all others are non-tax-based. A large part of
the revenue for non-tax based communities is derived from the GN, delivered through a municipal
funding program. Iqaluit receives funding through an equalization grant. Recently, the GN formed a
partnership with the Nunavut Association of Municipalities to plan and implement municipal
infrastructure projects, using territorial and federal funding (Treff and Perry, 2005).
TABLE 2: Expenditures over the next 5 years related to wastewater infrastructure from the
Government of Nunavut 2008-2009 Capital Estimates budget (Adapted from GN 2007a)1
Detail of Capital
2007/
2008 Revised
Budget
($000)
2008/
2009
Planned
($000)
2009/ 2010
Planned
($000)
2010/ 2011
Planned
($000)
5 -Year Capital Plan, CGS
Resolute Bay Sewage and Water
Works
Rankin Inlet Sewage Treatment Plant
Kugaaruk Sewage Lagoon
Kugluktuk Sewage Lagoon and Solid
Waste
5-Year Gas Tax Projects, NCIAC/CGS
Capital Projects
Arctic Bay sewage lagoon
Clyde River new sewage lagoon
Igloolik sewage/solid waste
Kimmirut reclamation of abandoned
lagoon and solid waste sites
Chesterfield Inlet sewage lagoon
Cambridge Bay sewage lagoon
5-Year Strategic Infrastructure Fund
Projects, NCIAC/CGS Capital Projects
Arctic Bay sewage lagoon
Clyde River new sewage lagoon
Igloolik sewage/solid waste
Kimmirut reclamation of abandoned
lagoon and solid waste sites
Chesterfield Inlet sewage lagoon
Cambridge Bay sewage lagoon
500
102
-
-
3,627
984
1,746
1,050
500
2,500
4,450
70
32
150
-
1,500
-
250
750
50
100
2,250
450
900
-
250
150
1,500
850
750
-
1,500
-
250
750
50
100
2,250
450
900
-
250
150
1,500
850
750
-
In the 2008-2009 budget, Community and Government Services was allocated 23.5% of GN capital
dollars, the second largest share of any GN department after education (26.0%) (GN, 2007a).
1
CGS; Community and Government Services. NCIAC; Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee
21
4 Region and Communities
4.1 CURRENT COMMUNITY POPULATIONS AND GROWTH
By 2017, the Inuit population in Nunavut is projected to be between 33,700 and 35,800, up to 52%
TABLE 3: Capital expenditures for wastewater infrastructure from the Government of Nunavut
2008-2009 Capital Spending Budget for the Department of Community and Government
Services (Adapted from GN 2007a)
Project
Number
507075
514057
507545
507537
Detail of Capital
Resolute Bay Sewage and Water Works
Rankin Inlet Sewage Treatment Plant
Kugaaruk Sewage Lagoon
Kugluktuk Sewage Lagoon and Solid Waste
2008-2009
Capital
Estimates
($000)
102
1,050
500
2,500
2009-2013
Capital Plan
($000)
4,600
70
32
Prior Years
Cost
($000)
1,974
4,350
2,430
2,015
greater than the 2001 figure of 23,000 (Statistics Canada, 2005: 62). Inuit comprise 84% of the
population of Nunavut, but outside of the major centres of Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet, the percentage of
Inuit is closer to 95% (Berger, 2006).
The population change from 2001 to 2006 per community is detailed in Table 4. All communities are
listed apart from the settlements of Nanisivik and Umingmaktok (in Qikiqtaaluk), and Bathurst Inlet (in
Kitikmeot). In 2006, the populations of Nanisivik, Umingmaktok and Bathurst Inlet were 0 (reduced
from 2001 levels of 77, 5, and 5, respectively) (Statistics Canada, 2006).
22
TABLE 4. Population statistics in Nunavut by community (Statistics Canada, 2006)
Total
private
dwellings
Avg #
ppl
per
house
-hold
Media
n age
% of
pop.
aged 15
and
over
Total
population
2006
Total
population
2001
2001 to
2006
change
(%)
Kitikmeot
Cambridge Bay
Gjoa Haven
Kugaaruk
Kugluktuk
Taloyoak
1,477
1,064
688
1,302
809
1,309
960
605
1,212
720
12.8
10.8
13.7
7.4
12.4
524
246
137
407
205
2.8
4.3
5.0
3.2
3.9
26.3
19.9
18.0
23.8
19.6
69.3
62.0
58.4
69.2
61.1
Qikiqtaaluk
Arctic Bay
Cape Dorset
Clyde River
Grise Fiord
Hall Beach
Igloolik
Iqaluit
Kimmirut
Pangnirtung
Pond Inlet
Qikiqtarjuaq
Resolute
Sanikiluaq
690
1,236
820
141
654
1,538
6,184
411
1,325
1,315
473
229
744
646
1,148
785
163
609
1,286
5,236
433
1,276
1,220
519
215
684
6.8
7.7
4.5
-13.5
7.4
19.6
18.1
-5.1
3.8
7.8
-8.9
6.5
8.8
190
356
183
55
154
370
2,460
116
433
335
156
83
169
3.6
3.5
4.5
2.6
4.2
4.2
2.5
3.5
3.1
3.9
3.0
2.8
4.4
20.8
22.1
20.8
22.1
19.7
18.9
28.8
22.1
21.9
20.8
26
22.7
20.4
65.2
65.6
62.2
64.3
60.3
58.8
74.8
67.1
64.2
63.5
70.2
66.7
61.1
2,060
1,728
1,899
1,507
8.5
14.7
497
478
19.5
22
60.2
65.0
332
345
-3.8
120
4.1
3.6
2.8
24
66.7
769
2,358
748
353
712
2,177
612
305
8
8.3
22.2
15.7
242
776
136
93
3.2
3.0
5.5
3.8
18.9
23.9
18.9
19.1
59.7
67.1
60.4
60.0
29,474
31,612,897
26,745
30,007,094
10.2
5.4
9,041
13,576,855
3.3
2.3
23.1
39.5
66.1
82.3
Kivalliq
Arviat
Baker Lake
Chesterfield
Inlet
Coral Harbour
Rankin Inlet
Repulse Bay
Whale Cove
Nunavut
Canada
23
4.2 MAP OF NUNAVUT SHOWING LOCATION OF COMMUNITIES2
2
Kugaaruk shown under previous name of Pelly Bay. Image from NRCan, adapted by Joanna Durkalec.
24
4.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF REGION
Nunavut spans a vast Arctic territory; the most northerly community is Grise Fiord at 76°25'N, and the
most southerly community is Sanikiluaq, at 56°31’N. In Resolute, one of the more northerly
communities, the daily average temperature is -16.4°C, with 275.9 days per year below 0°C, and 150
mm of annual precipitation. In most communities, freeze up usually occurs in November but may
happen as early as September or October. Spring thaw is generally between late May and June. All
communities are located on continuous permafrost, and every community is coastal apart from Baker
Lake.
4.4 SOCIO-ECONOMICS OF REGION
The median income for an Inuit individual in Nunavut was $13,090 in 2001, while the median income
for a non-Inuit individual was $50,128 (Statistics Canada, 2001 in NTI, 2006). Tables 5 and 6 describe
additional employment statistics.
In 2003, 54% of Inuit in Nunavut lived in overcrowded circumstances, a rate 7 times higher than the
national average, and in 2004, 38.7% of households in Nunavut were in core need because housing was
substandard, inadequate or unaffordable (Statistics Canada, 2003 and Nunavut Housing Corporation,
2004 in NTI, 2006). In 2006, the federal government allocated $200 million over three years for 800
housing units in Nunavut.
TABLE 5. Unemployment rates for Inuit and non-Inuit adults, 2001 (adapted from ITK 2007)
Inuit
Non-Inuit
Male (%)
Female (%)
Male (%)
Female (%)
Nunavut
25.1
20.7
2.9
3.4
Canada
24.7
19.4
7.6
7.2
TABLE 6. Average and median individual incomes ($) for adults in selected provinces and
territories, 2007 (adapted from ITK 2007)
Inuit adults
All Canadian adults
Average ($)
Median ($)
Average ($)
Median ($)
Nunavut
19,686
13,090
26,924
17,270
Canada
19,878
13,699
29,769
22,120
The life expectancy of Inuit in Canada has declined since the early 1990s; in 2001, the life expectancy
of Inuit in Nunavut was 68.7, compared to the national average of 79.3 (Government of Nunavut, 2002,
25
in NTI, 2006). The tuberculosis rate in Nunavut was 17 times the national average in 2002, and the
suicide rate was six times the national average in 2005 (NTI, 2006).
In 2001, 85.6% of the total Inuit population in Nunavut spoke Inuktitut as a first language, and 79.2%
of Inuit spoke mainly or only Inuktitut at home (Statistics Canada, 2003 in NTI, 2006). 73% of Inuit
households in Nunavut consumed country food (‘wild foods’ such as caribou, Arctic char, whale, seal,
wild berries, etc.) at least half the time in 2001(ITK, 2007, p.8).
4.5 TRANSPORTATION
Air transportation operates year-round in Nunavut, and is the primary method of intercommunity
travel. The major air transportation hubs in Nunavut are Rankin Inlet, with connections to Churchill
and Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Iqaluit, with connections to Ottawa. Nunavut has 21 km of
intercommunity roadway (Lewis Gidzinski, personal communication). Sealift (marine shipping) is the
only means of transporting large or heavy cargo, and operates during the ice-free season from July to
October.
5 Existing Infrastructure
5.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGIES
Twenty-one communities in Nunavut utilize lagoon and/or wetland treatment for their domestic
wastewater, while four communities (Resolute, Pangnirtung, Rankin Inlet, and Iqaluit) have a
mechanical system. A table of water use per community is in Appendix 1, and a detailed table
describing wastewater facilities per community is in Appendix 2.
FIG. 6. Sewage discharge point (retention cell) in Baker Lake, with treatment wetlands in the
background (Agata Durkalec, 2007).
26
6 Operations
6.1 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Sewer operation and maintenance costs are generally high in the Arctic. The most expensive municipal
water and sewer service per capita is in Grise Fiord, Nunavut, at $2240 per person, of which $670 per
person is the portion for sewer services (2002) (Ken Johnson, personal communication). This rate is
approximately ten times greater than average costs in southern Canada. A number of factors contribute
to high operation costs, including high fuel prices, infrastructure degradation and breakdown due to
climate, economies of scale, local conditions, and so on.
Twenty-two communities in Nunavut have water and sewage services provided by truck. Rankin Inlet,
Resolute Bay and Iqaluit provide the majority of their water delivery and sewer collection services by
utilidor. Water and sewage services are required to be self-funding; municipalities cover operations and
maintenance costs and reserve funds for purchase of water/sewer trucks. Revenues are derived from
user fees, grants, contributions, and operating assistance from the Government of Nunavut (MTO,
2006). Appendix 3 lists water and sewage revenues and expenditures by community.
FIG. 7. Comparison of water and sewage delivery expenditures in 2005/2006 and the average from
2000/2001 to 2005/2006 by community3 (adapted from MTO, 2006)
3
Data for Rankin Inlet and Iqaluit not available
27
FIG. 8. Comparison of net water and sewage revenue4 in 2005/2006 and the average from 2000/2001 to
2005/2006 by community5 (adapted from MTO, 2006)
FIG. 9. Estimate of water delivered per person per day in Nunavut communities in 2005/20064 (adapted
from MTO, 2006)
4
Net water and sewage revenue is calculated as total user fees, grants, contributions, contracts and operating assistance
from the Government of Nunavut, minus total operation and maintenance expenditures.
5
Data for Rankin Inlet and Iqaluit not available.
28
FIG. 10. Estimate of total water delivered in Nunavut communities in 2005/20066 (adapted from MTO,
2006)
FIG. 11. Economic rate per litre for water and sewage services in Nunavut communities in 2005/20066
(MTO, 2006, p. 38)
6
Data not available for Rankin Inlet and Iqaluit, and data includes water delivery to commercial and government buildings.
29
6.2 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AND CHALLENGES
TABLE 7. Wastewater facility operation and maintenance plans, activities and challenges for select
Nunavut communities7
Cambridge
Bay
Gjoa Haven
Kugaaruk
Kugluktuk
Taloyoak
Arctic Bay
7
8
Sewage treatment O&M
manual in place
Sewage treatment O&M activities and challenges
Required since 2002;
submission not
confirmed (not on NWB
FTP site).
Required since 2003;
submission not
confirmed (not on NWB
FTP site).
Waste visible on shore of lagoon in 2004.
Required since 2007 or
earlier; submission not
confirmed (not on NWB
FTP site).
Submitted and approved
by NWB in 2006.
Unconfirmed (not on
NWB FTP site).
In 2004, the lagoon developed leaks. Repairs were made, but
breaching of the berms was not eliminated.
Required since 2003;
submission not
confirmed (not on NWB
FTP site).
In 2006, a section of the lagoon wall had washed away and
collapsed, with sewage leaking onto surrounding wetlands;
some signage missing as well. In 2003, the lagoon was filled
above the freeboard limit.
Not specified.
In 2003, the sewage truck discharge station became
dangerous due to erosion. Old honeybag8 pit to be
decommissioned in 2002, but unclear if plans were made or
approved by the NWB for this.
In May 2003, there was an unauthorized effluent release and
no spill report was filed. There was breaching of the lagoon
berm/seepage in Aug. 2003. In Jan. 2004, there was an
unauthorized release of effluent (spill at new lagoon). Repair
work was carried out several times. In Aug. 2006, sewage
was released untreated into environment. Runoff was
diverted around lagoon and waste management area and
retention dykes were constructed to reduce/slow floes off
seepage from lagoon area down slope to the roadway and
marine environment. Work was completed as an emergency
measure to prevent loss of lagoon system.
Please refer to the References section for a list of sources by community.
Honeybag refers to a plastic or heavy paper bag that fits into a bucket toilet used to collect toilet waste.
30
TABLE 7. Wastewater facility operation and maintenance plans, activities and challenges for select
Nunavut communities7
Sewage treatment O&M
manual in place
Sewage treatment O&M activities and challenges
Cape Dorset
Requested for new
lagoon in 2006;
unknown if submitted
(not on NWB FTP site).
Clyde River
Required since 2003;
unknown if submitted
(not on NWB FTP site).
Grise Fiord
Required since 2003;
unknown if submitted
(not on NWB FTP site).
During the 2006 inspection, neither of the sewage lagoons
were working properly. The new 3 cell lagoon was not in
operation, and the old lagoon was being used again under
direction of the Manager of Operations (use began in July
2006), although it was too small and does not provide
sufficient holding time.
During the 2007 inspection, a channel from the toe or bank
of the first and second cells of the lagoon was allowing
sewage to flow overland (roadway) down the bank and into
Telik Inlet, at the access road to the third cell. The Hamlet
took action to fix the cell wall the following morning;
however, the same issues were observed during the 2006
inspection. Algae were still visible in the stream running
down from the third cell of the lagoon into Telik inlet and
algae were also visible along the shoreline and wall of
Kingait mountain where the runoff enters the inlet.
There was insufficient freeboard during the 2001 inspection.
During the 2006 inspection, the lagoon did not have
sufficient freeboard and appeared to be ready for decanting;
no signs of seepages from the toe of the lagoon but both
standing and flowing water were visible in the wetlands area
below the lagoon. Leachate seepages from the dump were
visible with sufficient runoff from either side of the dump to
carry contaminants out onto wetlands area and down to
ocean.
Insufficient freeboard during 2001 inspection. During the
2006 inspection, freeboard was sufficient, and there was no
visible seepage from the toe of the lagoon.
Hall Beach
Required since 2004;
unknown if submitted
(not on NWB FTP site).
Igloolik
Kimmirut
During the 2006 inspection, only one of two cells contained
effluent; the lagoon did not appear to have sufficient holding
time for proper treatment. Effluent discharge quality was
unacceptable.
Required since 2003;
During the 2001, a warning was issued for failing to
unknown if submitted
maintain the sewage lagoon in such a manner as to prevent
(not on NWB FTP site). structural failure. The hamlet also failed to notify the NWB
before the construction of an additional sewage cell between
2001 and 2003.
Required since 2003; not In 2002, discharge from the lagoon was washing away some
submitted.
of the cover material at the dump. In 2003, the hamlet was
asked to relocate the sewage truck discharge station by 15 m
31
TABLE 7. Wastewater facility operation and maintenance plans, activities and challenges for select
Nunavut communities7
Sewage treatment O&M
manual in place
Pangnirtung
Pond Inlet
Qikiqtarjuaq
Resolute
Sanikiluaq
Sewage treatment O&M activities and challenges
as the location was on top of an old honeybag storage area,
and erosion had uncovered a considerable portion of the old
honeybags. In 2007, the hamlet was advised to relocate the
sewage discharge point by 10 m to minimize the flow of
sewage through the dump.
Required since 2003; not In 2007 and prior, operational problems being experienced
submitted. Sludge
due to inadequately sized bio-reactors relative to the organic
management plan
load, low oxygen levels in the bioreactors (shallow aeration
required since 2002; not tank), and a misunderstanding of the activated sludge
submitted.
treatment process. There were problems with the EQ feed
and sludge pumps due to debris clogging (required high
maintenance). Insufficient ventilation was creating odour
and corrosion problems as well as difficulty with the
instrumentation and controls due to lack of protection from
high humidity. There was a lack of locally qualified
technicians to maintain the 600 V electrical system.
Upgrades to the plant and O&M processes currently being
considered to address these issues. Also, there was a lack of
signage for monitoring stations. Further, at the old sewage
pump out station, no remedial efforts had taken place to
restore the area, exposing built up sludge (unknown if
decommissioning and restoration plans have been submitted
to NWB).
OM plan required since
Seepage from the sewage lagoon as well as leachate from
1990; unknown if
the waste metal area were both visible in 2006
submitted (not on NWB
FTP site).
Submitted with 2007
The lagoon had sufficient freeboard and was in proper
license application;
working condition in 2006.
revised plans to be
submitted.
Unknown (not on NWB During the 2007 inspection, the SAO and operators
FTP site).
conveyed observations of an algal bloom both on and under
the ice in the bay in front of the community at discharge
point; during the inspection there was an obvious odour of
sewage at the discharge pipe.
Required since 2003; not During the 2002 inspection, sewage trucks were discharging
submitted.
at an unauthorized location across from the sewage lagoon;
there was litter in the water and high levels of ammonia in
the effluent.
32
6.3 DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT MONITORING AND REPORTING ACTIVITIES AND
CHALLENGES
While effluent quality monitoring is required by water licenses issues by the NWB, most
municipalities Nunavut do not monitor effluent quality, instead relying on compliance monitoring or
sampling by contractors during infrastructure upgrades to alert them to treatment problems. Annual
reporting is inconsistent in the region, and most annual reports only contain data on volumes of water
collected and sewage discharged (Table 8).
Limited resources and capacity, characteristics of the treatment system, and logistical issues are the
main reasons that monitoring is a challenge for most Nunavut communities. Both financial means and
technical expertise are limited in the majority of communities, and in some communities the
municipality is understaffed. Lagoons and wetlands, which are an appropriate treatment technology for
the North as they are robust, practical and relatively affordable, also have characteristics that make
monitoring difficult—such as finding the outflow. Further, there are no accredited laboratories in
Nunavut, so all samples must be flown to a laboratory in Ottawa, Yellowknife, Edmonton or Calgary.
Monitoring has to be coordinated with flight schedules, and not all hamlets have direct or frequent
flights. In addition, the municipality must pay for flying samples to the laboratory. Depending on the
scope of effluent quality monitoring, costs can range from $5 to 10K per year (Ken Johnson, personal
communication).
TABLE 8. Monitoring and reporting activities in select Nunavut communities
Annual reporting by municipality to
Monitoring results for municipality
NWB
No results on NWB FTP site; unknown No report received for 2002 to 20066
Cambridge Bay
if monitoring occurring
No results on NWB FTP site. No
Reports received for 2000 and 2001;
Gjoa Haven
monitoring in 2006; unknown if
annual reports not submitted for 2002 to
monitoring occurred past years
2006
No results on NWB FTP site; unknown No annual report received 1996 to
Kugluktuk
if monitoring occurring
2001; 2001 to 2006 unconfirmed
No results on NWB FTP site; no
Unconfirmed
Taloyoak
monitoring 2002 to 2005, 2006
unknown
No results on NWB FTP site; unknown No reports received 2002 to 2005; 2006
Arctic Bay
if monitoring occurring
report completed
No results on NWB FTP site. No
Annual reports received for 2002 to
Cape Dorset
monitoring in 2006; unknown if
2006 inclusive
monitoring occurred past years
No results on NWB FTP site. No
Unconfirmed
Clyde River
monitoring in 2006; unknown if
monitoring occurred past years
No results on NWB FTP site; unknown Unconfirmed
Grise Fiord
if monitoring occurring
No results on NWB FTP site. No
Unconfirmed
Hall Beach
monitoring in 2006; unknown if
33
TABLE 8. Monitoring and reporting activities in select Nunavut communities
Annual reporting by municipality to
Monitoring results for municipality
NWB
monitoring occurred past years
No results on NWB FTP site; unknown No annual reports received 1998, 1999
Igloolik
if monitoring occurring
and 2000; other years unconfirmed
Recent monitoring results not available
Report received for 2006 and 1998;
on NWB FTP site but all parties agree
1999 to 2005 inclusive not received (not
Iqaluit
that WWTP will be out of compliance
available on NWB FTP site)
with license until Phase 2 of WWTP is
complete (Phase 2 will commence 2008)
No results on NWB FTP site; unknown 2002 to 2006 received
Kimmirut
if monitoring occurring
In 2007, sampling carried out by
2002 and 2003 received, 2004 to 2006
consultant. No other results on NWB
not received
Pangnirtung
FTP site; unknown if monitoring is
occurring
No results on NWB FTP site; unknown No report submitted 1999 and 2000;
Pond Inlet
if monitoring occurring
other years unconfirmed
No results on NWB FTP site; unknown 2006 annual report submitted but
Qikiqtarjuaq
if monitoring occurring
incomplete; other years unconfirmed
No results on NWB FTP site. No
Unconfirmed
Resolute
monitoring 2006; other years unknown
No results on NWB FTP site; unknown Unconfirmed
Sanikiluaq
if monitoring occurring
7 Performance and Compliance
7.1 PERFORMANCE AND COMPLIANCE OF EXISTING WASTEWATER PROCESSES
There is very little scientific, peer-reviewed literature on performance of lagoons and wetlands in the
Arctic. Monitoring and compliance results suggest that lagoons and wetlands can treat effluent to
desirable levels, but detailed data on performance is not available, particularly across seasons. The
majority of Nunavut communities have water licenses; communities that are currently unlicensed or
have expired licenses are listed in Appendix 2. It is unknown if the treated effluent meets the regulated
parameter requirements at all times, particularly during the spring freshet, as compliance sampling is
generally carried out in the summer.
34
8 Resource Needs and Availability
8.1 DESCRIPTION OF TRAINING ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES
8.1.1 Nunavut Municipal Training Organization
The Nunavut Municipal Training Organization (MTO) is a non-profit society formed as a partnership
between CGS and the Nunavut Association of Municipal Administrators. MTO develops and
implements programs that enhance the skills and knowledge of municipal staff, so as to improve
service delivery. MTO offers a Works Foreman course in maintenance planning and management,
capital planning and project management, water, wastewater and solid waste (MTO, 2007). In
2006/2007, 68 individuals attended the Works Foremen training sessions offered by MTO (MTO,
2007).
FIG. 12. Amount spent on registration fees for staff training per Nunavut community in 2005/2006
(MTO, 2006, p. 5)
35
FIG. 13. Amount spent on registration fees for staff training per Nunavut community in 2005/2006 as a
percentage of overall wages (MTO, 2006, p. 5)
FIG. 14. Total number of MTO staff training days per community in 2005/2006 (MTO, 2006, p. 6)
36
8.1.2 Nunavut Arctic College
Arctic College offers a two year diploma program in environmental technology at its Iqaluit campus,
which provides training in laboratory and field work related to sustainable development, resource
management, wildlife conservation, marine resource development, and land use planning and parks
management. The program does not have a wastewater section, but it does cover the related areas of
fisheries management, environmental impact assessment, spill response and management skills (Arctic
College, 2007).
8.2 COMMUNITY CAPACITY AND TRAINING CHALLENGES
Communities in Nunavut are dispersed over a large territory, and travelling for training is costly and
time consuming. Scheduled flights do not take place every day from each community, and weather
delays are frequent for much of the year. In some cases, communities do not have enough qualified
staff to maintain their operations in the community while a staff person is attending training. Further,
poor staff retention, due to trained staff leaving to higher paying jobs, means that training must be
frequently redelivered. There are no degree-granting post-secondary institutions in Nunavut, nor is
there a trade school.
Thomas Berger described Nunavut’s human resource and education problem in his 2006 Conciliator’s
Final Report. Under article 23 of the NLCA, the Government of Nunavut is required to ensure that
Inuit are proportionately represented in the public service, and it has not been able to achieve this goal
despite considerable efforts to do so. Berger asserts that the issue is not on the demand side, but on the
supply side, as only 25% of Inuit youth graduate from high school—about 100 Inuit high school
graduates every year. At the same time, many jobs have unavoidable educational requirements. There
are a variety of reasons that the education system in Nunavut has been failing many of its youth,
include the abrupt change in grade 3 from Inuktitut to all English instruction. Berger outlines an
approach to bilingual education in English and Inuktitut that is critical to the alleviation and eventual
resolution of the education and human resources situation in Nunavut. Clearly, the challenges with
regard to education and training are widespread, systemic, and long-standing, and are implicated in the
capacity issues at the municipal level. Any increase in the demands on municipalities to meet
regulations will have to address these training and capacity challenges.
37
9 Analysis of Draft Strategy and Impacts on Nunavut
Elements of Draft Strategy
Details on Objectives/Deliverables/Timelines
Impacts or Significance to Region
1.2 National Performance NPS do not apply to Arctic conditions
Standards
NPS do not apply but how much of the rest of the
framework applies?
NPS will be incorporated into each jurisdiction’s
regulatory framework.
How will NPS be incorporated in Nunavut?
Standards will be in a regulation developed under
the Fisheries Act.
How will these regulations under the Fisheries Act be
enforced? Who will do the enforcing?
Timelines:
All new and upgraded facilities will meet NPS
immediately.
Will Nunavut communities be exempt from this for new
facilities?
Low risk facilities must meet NPS within 30 years.
Medium Risk within 20 years and High Risk within
10 years.
All Nunavut facilities are currently “very small” or
<500m3/day with the exception of Rankin Inlet which is
small” at between 500 and 2,500 m3/day and Iqaluit which is
“medium” or > 2,500 m3/day. Iqaluit also will likely be
characterized as having industrial inputs into it (industrial
effluent from city businesses). It is unknown if any of the
remaining communities have landfill leachate entering their
facilities at rates greater than 5% of dry weather flow.
With the exception of Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet and Baker Lake,
most communities are likely to score as “low risk” facilities
but because of the weight given to CBOD5/TSS and
Ammonia levels, many communities could score anywhere
from low to high risk. Not until thorough effluent
characterizations are done will risk be known. Also, the
point of measurement for final discharge will have a very
significant impact on scoring of risk.
Implementation of NPS will be based on risk,
available funding, and financial sustainability of
How will these implementation mitigating factors be
evaluated in Nunavut?
38
Elements of Draft Strategy
Details on Objectives/Deliverables/Timelines
Impacts or Significance to Region
municipalities/communities.
NWT, NT, and federal government will undertake
research to develop NPS within 5 years.
1.2.1 Considerations for
Arctic Conditions
Because of extreme climate and remoteness of
Canada’s Arctic, alternative performance standards
for Arctic conditions will be proposed within five
years. This will allow further investigation of the
constraints associated with meeting NPS.
Definition of Arctic is under discussion by the
Development Committee. Consideration to date in
defining Arctic include number of growing degree
days, mean annual near surface ground temperature,
temperature and number of ice-free days.
1.3 Site-Specific Effluent
Discharge Objectives
(EDOs)
Site-specific environmental risk assessments of the
receiving environment, where municipal wastewater
effluent is discharged will guide the development of
site-specific EDOs for substances in wastewater
effluent, including those not covered by the NPS.
Jurisdictions will use the results of these
assessments to set more stringent discharge
requirements for those parameters already covered
by NPS.
How will this be done? How will it adequately and
thoroughly address all systems in all communities? How can
this possibly be done in time for implementation if done
concurrently?
What will be the process for proposing Arctic/Alternate
Performance Standards (APS)?
What are the terms of reference? Who will determine the
APS and how? What constraints will be considered?
Who is the Development Committee? What is the process
for defining Arctic? If both climate and remoteness are
reasons for APS why are only climatic definitions
considered?
Will political or jurisdictional boundaries be considered? Is
there a risk of exclusion of any community (e.g. Sanikiluaq)
through a climatic definition of Arctic? Having two
performance standards would pose significant challenges
and unnecessarily complicate management and compliance.
If APS are developed and are less stringent than 25/25/0.02
(CBOD; TSS; TRC) how will EDOs be developed in such a
way that does not circumvent the purpose of APS? Will
there be Arctic specific EDOs that reflect not only sitespecific environment risk factors but also climatic and
remoteness factors that constrain treatment efficacy?
Jurisdictions will manage their own EDOs.
Who will be responsible for setting, managing, and
enforcing EDOs in Nunavut?
Timelines:
All risk assessments will be complete within 5
Timeline is not realistic for Nunavut communities given
financial and logistical limitations.
39
Elements of Draft Strategy
1.4 Combined Sewer
Overflows and Sanitary
Sewer Overflows
1.5 Monitoring
Details on Objectives/Deliverables/Timelines
Impacts or Significance to Region
years. A one year initial characterization will be
completed as part of the environmental risk
assessment.
Combined sewer overflows pose risks during
overflows caused by storm events.
There are no known CSOs in Nunavut.
All wastewater facilities are required to monitor
their effluent discharge according to Technical
Supplement 2.
There are very few monitoring data available.
Are there accredited facilities in the territory?
The only CAEAL accredited lab in Nunavut is the Queen’s
University lab stationed in Iqaluit and has accreditation for a
small number of metals only. All water and wastewater
samples must be shipped south or west.
Timelines:
Monitoring of wastewater effluent quality and
reporting is to be implemented immediately.
Standards in current permits will be retained.
Capacity is limited in some communities.
In the draft strategy it indicates that in Canada’s
Arctic, “monitoring will be implemented
immediately”. However in the monitoring section
for the rest of Canada it states that
‘within one year all facilities will begin to monitor
effluent quality” and that all samples monitoring for
NPS and EDOs must be sent to an accredited
laboratory.
Is there a more stringent monitoring requirement for Arctic
communities?
Monitoring for impacts in the receiving
environment required within five years.
Will this be a requirement for Nunavut communities?
Toxicity monitoring.
Will this be a requirement for many Nunavut communities?
Iqaluit and Qikiqtarjuaq are currently the only communities
40
What is the definition of “accredited”? Does this mean
CAEAL accreditation? Is PT accreditation sufficient as it is
some provinces? The Iqaluit Water License requires
ISO/IEC Standard 17025 and does not list CAEAL.
Elements of Draft Strategy
Details on Objectives/Deliverables/Timelines
Impacts or Significance to Region
1.6 Toxicity
All medium, large, and very large wastewater
facilities are required to complete whole effluent
acute and chronic toxicity testing in accordance with
Technical Supplement 2.
required by its license to measure acute toxicity.
Iqaluit has the only known “medium” facility in Nunavut
but it is unclear whether any community has industrial
inputs (including landfill leachate) greater than 5% of total
dry weather flow.
Toxicity testing may be required on a site-specific
basis for small and very small facilities where a risk
has been identified by the jurisdiction or owner.
It is unknown whether or not there are any small or very
small facilities that may be identified as requiring toxicity
testing.
Do industrial inputs to facility automatically result in
mandatory toxicity testing?
1.7 Reduction at Source
Reducing substances at source is an important
aspect of the Strategy.
1.8 Regulatory Reporting
The results of monitoring activities will be reported
to the jurisdiction.
1.9 Science and Research
Timelines:
Within 1 year, all facilities will begin to report the
results of the monitoring requirements to
jurisdictions.
More research is needed and research will be
disseminated through an independent national
wastewater research coordination committee.
Timelines:
Within 2 years, EC will lead a process to engage a
41
Because of remoteness, accredited toxicity tests are not
available in Nunavut.
Communities in Nunavut vary in water consumption and
wastewater production. Generally speaking, households with
trucked water are already conservative in use. Opportunities
for reduction at source will be limited.
Communities that produce less wastewater but of higher
concentrations of NPS may be under more pressure to meet
higher treatment efficacies.
Which jurisdiction(s) will that be in Nunavut? Will it
continue as it currently is administered through the Nunavut
Water Board with enforcement primarily through INAC?
Feasibility questionable considering existing monitoring and
reporting capacity. Clarification needed on requirements for
all communities in Nunavut.
How will research be done that addresses issues specific to
the Arctic and specific to Nunavut (e.g. High Arctic)?
Will Arctic research be included? Will Nunavut
Elements of Draft Strategy
Details on Objectives/Deliverables/Timelines
Impacts or Significance to Region
diversity of organizations to investigate and
determine the feasibility of setting up an
independent national wastewater research
coordination committee.
communities benefit from this process or will there be a
continuing separate northern research process?
Research on whether CBOD5 and TSS are the most
appropriate measures for the north (COD is an alternative).
2.1 Governance
2.2 Public Reporting
3.0 Funding
Regulatory requirements for source controls and
releases to surface waters to be harmonized.
Timelines:
Within 3 years, jurisdictions will establish bi-lateral
federal-provincial and federal-territorial agreements.
For NWT and NT, an agreement on governance
issues in this territories will be developed among the
jurisdictions, taking into account the regulatory role
of the various water boards.
Within 5 years, all owners of facilities will report
NPS and EDO performance results to the public on
an annual basis.
Funding principles include a consideration for
sustainability at all levels, a consideration of
territorial factors, (including fiscal and human
resource capacity), the promotion of self-funding
opportunities for municipalities, and a consideration
of risk.
No other wording on this in the Strategy so difficult to gage
potential impacts of “harmonized” requirements and
implementation.
Will the current mechanisms in Nunavut suffice (e.g. NWB
FTP website)?
Environmental, economic, and social sustainability is
important for Nunavut communities. Fiscal and human
resource capacity and the ability to self-fund are very
limited in Nunavut. Environmental risk is projected to be
low.
Municipal-based funding approaches are prioritized.
Self-funding opportunities Nunavut are very limited,
particularly for the majority of smaller hamlets (see analysis
of Technical Supplement 1).
Senior government assistance is encouraged, with
consideration for the financial capacity and
constraints of owners of small facilities.
Financial assistance from senior levels of government for
capital, non-capital (operation and maintenance), and
compliance monitoring costs is critical for the successful
implementation of the Strategy.
42
Elements of Draft Strategy
Details on Objectives/Deliverables/Timelines
Impacts or Significance to Region
Timelines:
Within 6 years, jurisdictions will estimate the actual
costs of implementing the Strategy and develop
investment priorities based on this.
This may be difficult to complete in 1 year after the Arcticspecific Strategy elements are established. Municipalities
will require technical assistance to carry out this
requirement, as they have limited human resource capacity.
Who will compile this information and how will it be used?
Will it result in funding? Municipalities will already have
incurred high costs for compliance monitoring. Will this be
considered before year 6 as far as funding support?
Within 3 years, jurisdictions will establish the
requirements and provide the tools needed to
implement the Strategy.
The Arctic-specific Strategy elements will be established in
5 years, and it is not clear what other elements of the
Strategy will or will not apply to the Arctic, which impacts
on the capacity to fulfill this requirement.
Within 1 year, senior levels of government should
consider short-term funding for high-risk facilities
(including for environmental risk assessment), and
within 6 years, governments should consider other
means of assistance to owners of small and very
small facilities (e.g., planning, capacity building).
The majority of facilities in Nunavut are projected to be
low-risk; however, in order to carry out the compliance
monitoring and risk assessment requirements within 5 years,
funding from senior levels of government will be required
before year 6.
Owners should report accurately and publicly their
current level of wastewater expenditure, the value of
their asset base and the investment needed for their
wastewater system.
Municipalities have capacity constraints that will impact on
their ability to fulfill this requirement. The GN has technical
expertise to assist communities with this requirement, but
may also have capacity limitations.
43
10 Analysis of Technical Supplement 1 and Implications for Nunavut
Element of Technical
Supplement 1
3. Jurisdictional Costs
3.3 Summary of Costs
Details on Objectives/Requirements
Impacts or Significance to Region
All orders of government—federal, provincial,
territorial, municipal—must bear the capital and
non-capital implementation costs of the Strategy.
Municipal and territorial governments rely primarily on
outside funding for capital costs, and do not have the
financial capacity to absorb additional non-capital costs.
Operation and maintenance costs are not included.
Operation and maintenance costs can be up to an order of
magnitude higher in the Arctic, and should be considered
when calculating costs. For example, in Grise Fiord in 2002,
water and sewage service was $2240 per person or 6.4 cents
per litre, of which the sewage portion was $670. (Ken
Johnson, personal communication, Jan. 8, 2008).
Administrative costs are not included.
Many hamlets in Nunavut do not have sufficient
administrative capacity to implement the Strategy,
particularly the requirements for risk assessment, monitoring,
reporting, and capital planning. Costs to set up and expand
these administrative support systems will be significant.
Capital costs will be $7.5 to 9.3 billion over 30
years, depending on inflation.
Capital costs are relatively high in the Arctic due to the price
of shipping materials, labour, fuel, etc. Constructing a lagoon
treatment system can range from one to several million
dollars, while basic mechanical systems may cost over $20
million.
Non-capital (compliance monitoring) costs will be
$2.8 billion to $3.8 billion. Estimated total
compliance monitoring costs are based on an
assumption for small systems of a one-time initial
characterization cost of $16,000, a one-time
44
The estimates of compliance monitoring costs are low for the
North. The actual potential range is $20-30K for initial
characterization, $20-30K for the environmental risk
assessment, $5-10K per year for annual monitoring, and $1020K every 5 years for environmental monitoring at the
watershed level (Ken Johnson, personal communication, Jan.
Element of Technical
Supplement 1
Details on Objectives/Requirements
Impacts or Significance to Region
environmental risk assessment cost of $3,500, an
annual monitoring cost of $4,000/year, and an
environmental monitoring at the watershed level
cost of $3,500/5 years.
8, 2008). For all 25 communities, the total range for
compliance monitoring for a 5 year period would be
$1,875,000 to $3,250,000 (including the environmental
assessment and environmental monitoring at the watershed
level, and not considering inflation).
4. Funding
Considerations
Capital costs will be loaded towards the early and
mid-periods of implementation. High risk facilities
will be dealt with in years 6-10 of the Strategy.
Most hamlets in Nunavut are likely to be low-risk, so would
be considered low priority for capital funding.
4.1 Jurisdictional
Considerations
The federal government has a small role with
respect to responsibility for constructing and
operating wastewater infrastructure.
Federal funding will be key to the success of the Strategy in
Nunavut.
Provincial governments do not own the majority of
facilities, but depending on the geography and size
and distribution of the population, providing
funding for facilities may be challenging.
Nunavut municipalities own wastewater treatment facilities.
All communities apart from Iqaluit are non-tax based and
operate on a limited budget. As communities are small and
dispersed, many cost-saving options are not realistic (e.g.,
sharing infrastructure, public-private partnerships, etc.). All
communities rely on the GN for water and sewage subsidies.
Municipalities own the majority of facilities, and
self-funding/financing projects depends on the
community size, potential to increase rate base,
whether sustainable asset management practices are
in place, financial position of the municipality, the
growth prospects of the community, and the
environmental risk ranking of the community.
Nunavut hamlets are very small, non-tax based, and generally
are not positioned strongly financially. Population growth
varies amongst communities, with some shrinking while
others experience high growth (e.g., Repulse Bay grew 22%
from 2001 to 2006). The majority of communities in Nunavut
are expected to be low-risk.
Funding options include transportation
revenues/incentives (i.e., Gas Tax Fund),
government service partnerships, strategic budget
allocations, full cost recovery, debt financing, public
private partnerships, and grants.
Nunavut municipalities receive capital funding from the Gas
Tax fund and other infrastructure funding programs, and
operation and maintenance support from the GN, but there is
still a funding shortfall. Municipalities cannot achieve
economies of scale as they are small and far from each other.
4.2 Funding Sources and
Mechanisms
45
Element of Technical
Supplement 1
Details on Objectives/Requirements
Impacts or Significance to Region
The high service costs and limited tax base mean that
strategic budget allocations and full cost recovery are not
generally feasible. The debt financing potential of Nunavut
municipalities is unknown. Public private partnerships are
unrealistic for Nunavut municipalities. Grants from the
federal and territorial government will be a critically
important source of funding for all the communities.
See above.
5.1 Recommendations
46
11 Analysis of Technical Supplement 2 and Impacts on Nunavut
Element of Technical
Supplement 2
2.1 National
Performance Standards:
Considerations for
Canada’s Arctic
Details on Objectives/Requirements
Impacts on Nunavut
Strategy recognizes that Canada’s Arctic faces
unique concerns due to its extreme climatic
conditions and remoteness. Alternative
National Performance Standards for Arctic facilities
will be proposed within five years.
A number of factors such as ice-free days are being
explored to determine which ones may affect the
achievement of any proposed NPS. Data availability
is a limiting factor.
The basis for NPS of 25mg/L CBOD5, 25mg/L of TSS and
0.02mg/L of TRC is not specified and seems arbitrary and
thus raises the question of how APS will be developed or
chosen.
Risk-based approach will continue to be used to
manage municipal wastewater effluent. Standards in
use in current permits in the Arctic will be retained.
The conventional discharge standards for existing water
licenses for Nunavut communities have been 120mg/L for
BOD5, and 180mg/L for TSS. The new standards for
Qikiqtarjuaq after commissioning of upgrades will be 45mg/L
for BOD5 and 45 mg/L for TSS. In Iqaluit the new standards
after commissioning of the upgraded WWTP will be 30 mg/L
for BOD5 and 30 mg/L for TSS. While performance data are
rare and/or difficult to obtain, anecdotal reports suggest wide
ranges of existing treatment performance. Many small
communities will find standards as low as 45:45 or 30:30
very difficult to meet without massive facilities upgrades but
are probably unwarranted in many locations given the actual
loadings.
Further research will be conducted within the next
five years to identify the factors that affect
performance of lagoons and wetlands in Arctic
conditions and how lagoons and wetlands can be
improved.
Once adequate information is available within the
five year period, NPS for Arctic conditions will be
developed.
3.0 Environmental Risk
Assessment – Single
Discharge Approach
Environmental Risk Assessments are required under
the strategy. EDOs are expressed as concentrations
and/or loads of substances.
47
Regulation by loading does not appear to happen in any
community in Nunavut as judged by existing water licenses.
Regulating by loads is an added burden (need accurate
discharge flows) but makes compliance more equitable
because communities that use less water and have more
concentrated effluent will be more at risk of violating
Element of Technical
Supplement 2
Details on Objectives/Requirements
Impacts on Nunavut
regulations. Additionally, in some communities,
concentrations could be very high but actual loads would
remain extremely minimal (e.g., Resolute Bay).
3.1 Completing an
Environmental Risk
Assessment
Goals are to determine potential impact of
wastewater effluent in receiving water and to help
limit substance concentrations and loads “at the end
of the discharge pipe” in order to protect all uses of
receiving water.
3.2 Environmental
Quality Objectives
EQOs must be defined by identifying all uses of a
particular water body – derivation of EQOs is tied to
these uses.
Assessment of mixing zones required – defined as
“the area contiguous with a point source (effluent
discharge site) or a delimited non-point source
where the discharge mixes with ambient water and
where concentrations of some substances may not
comply with water quality guidelines or objectives”
3.3 Mixing Zone and
Dilution Assessment
3.4 Determining the Need
for Effluent Discharge
Objectives and 3.5
Developing Effluent
Discharge Objectives
EQOs are desired characteristics or benchmarks that
if attained will protect all water uses for a particular
water body. Effluent Discharge Objectives (EDOs)
are implemented in situations where it is projected
or calculated that EQOs may be exceeded at the
edge of the mixing zone.
“End of pipe” framework is problematic for many facilities in
Nunavut. Effluent from lagoons is discharged to wetlands in
almost all communities. Doing the risk assessment as outlined
in the strategy will be difficult without directions on assessing
diffuse discharges such as on to treatment wetlands.
Particularly if the wetlands are considered part of the
treatment as they are in most communities.
Uses of water bodies can readily be identified. Establishing
and measuring EQOs will be difficult given resources and
remoteness.
Conditions in Nunavut communities range from no holding
cell or lagoon, to small holding cell, to small lagoon, to large
lagoon, to lined lagoon, to WWTP, all of which may or may
discharge through a pipe or as is more often the case, through
exfiltrating through a berm to a wetland where effluent passes
diffusely through vegetation and soils before entering
receiving waters. Only a few communities (Rankin Inlet,
Pangirtung, Resolute, Iqaluit) discharge through a pipe from
mechanical plants or from annual decants (e.g. Grise Fiord).
This makes identification of mixing zones and plumes
extremely difficult for most facilities in Nunavut. Effluent
that is discharged onto a wetland which allows for more
treatment must be considered in this section of the strategy.
Arctic specific EQOs should be developed through science
and research mandate. While some Arctic ecosystems are
fragile, the massive potential for dilution and overall large
assimilative capacity for nutrients may result in unique Arctic
EQOs.
100m prescriptive mixing zone measurements do not reflect
48
Element of Technical
Supplement 2
Details on Objectives/Requirements
Impacts on Nunavut
any objective science based criteria and in diffuse wetland
based systems will be difficult to measure.
Establishing background loads within existing natural
wetlands used to treat lagoon effluent will also be difficult
and surrogate studies done elsewhere should be considered as
a basis for reasonable guidelines especially for communities
that will have limited capacity for assessing and developing
need for EDOs.
Uses can be readily identified.
EQOs can be developed but special considerations for Arctic
conditions may be needed.
Edge of mixing zone will be difficult or impossible to
establish in some locations.
EDOs could be established but if they cannot be met and
source reduction is not possible and treatment efficacy cannot
be improved what choices remain for community?
In most cases, cumulative impacts within a watershed are not
significant. Communities are sole source of municipal
effluent. In some cases, landfill discharge may contribute to
watershed loadings of some substances but water licenses
already consider all sources within a hamlet or community.
3.6 Summary
1. Identify uses of receiving waters.
2. Determine EQOs for substances of concern.
3. Characterize effluent. Identify which substances
have a reasonable potential to exceed EQOs at the
edge of the mixing zone.
4. Establish EDOs for substances of concern.
4.0 Environmental Risk
Assessment – Watershed
Approach
Identifying total loadings from all sources in a
watershed.
5.0 Effluent
Characterization and
Monitoring
Effluent characterization will be broken down by
facility size.
Based on water licenses, all Nunavut facilities will be
considered “very small” with the exception of Rankin Inlet
which will likely be classified as “small” and Iqaluit which
will likely be classified as “medium”.
5.1 Initial
Characterization of
Effluent
A one year initial characterization of the effluent
discharge will determine which substances are of
concern for the particular wastewater facility and
will therefore need EDOs.
For Very Small Facilities, CBOD5, TSS, Pathogens
Broad spectrum characterization of all parameters listed in
strategy (e.g. organics, all metals, phenolics, etc.) is generally
unwarranted given the cost and difficulty of sampling in
Nunavut unless landfill leachate or industrial inputs are also
received into facility. The strategy does say that “very small”
49
Element of Technical
Supplement 2
5.2 Compliance
Monitoring of NPS
5.2.1 Continuous
Discharge Facilities
5.2.2 Intermittent
Discharge Lagoons
Details on Objectives/Requirements
Impacts on Nunavut
and Nutrients must be sampled monthly with 24
hour composite samples for continuous discharges.
For Small Facilities, CBOD5, TSS, Pathogens, and
Nutrients must be sampled monthly with 24 hour
composite samples for continuous discharges and
Acute and Chronic Toxicity must be sampled
quarterly.
and “small” facilities “are not required to complete the series
of tests required for larger facilities” but it does say that
toxicity sampling is required for all but “very small”
facilities. Toxicity testing should therefore only be required at
Iqaluit or for those communities currently required to do
toxicity testing (e.g. Qikiqtarjuaq).
Composite samples will be difficult and expensive to acquire.
Sampling locations must be well chosen – particularly for
lagoons that discharge into treatment wetlands.
These restrictions, if applicable to Arctic regions, is unfairly
biased because per capita usage of water is usually
significantly lower for “trucked” communities than it is for
southern Canadian communities. This results in higher
concentrations but not necessarily higher loadings. Final
effluent diluted to average per capita water usage may result
in NPS compliant discharges including for toxicity standards.
Dilution, however, is usually not an option given the cost of
water but where possible it may be an economic alternative
for very small communities.
Effluent discharge characteristics must be compared
with the NPS through effluent compliance
monitoring. When NPS are not achieved,
wastewater facilities must look for opportunities to
reduce the discharge of substances at the source
and/or improve the facility or its operation so the
standards can be achieved. Effluent may not be
diluted to achieve NPS or any other discharge limit.
All monitoring samples are taken at the discharge,
before the effluent enters surface waters.
The strict requirement to take samples “at the discharge” may
be difficult to interpret for facilities that exfiltrate diffusively
or that enter wetlands or wetland/lake/pond complexes.
Flow monitoring should be accurate to within 15%
This will be difficult or impossible for most communities to
of the measured flow.
achieve.
For lagoon systems that discharge only when
One of the difficulties with taking samples during “last half
lagoons are emptied, typically once or twice a year, of the discharge period” is getting samples to the airport in
one sample is required during each discharge period. time as flights generally only leave once a day or only a few
The sample must be taken during the last half of the times per week. This restricts when samples can be taken.
discharge period and analysed for TSS, and CBOD5. “Generally accepted engineering principles” needs to be
Where wastewater is trucked rather than piped, flow defined.
may be estimated using generally accepted
engineering principles.
50
Element of Technical
Supplement 2
5.3 Monitoring of EDOs
5.4 Toxicity Testing
5.5 Sampling and
Analytical Testing
Methods
Details on Objectives/Requirements
Impacts on Nunavut
Based on the initial characterization results and the
risk assessment, EDOs are established for certain
substances on a site-specific basis. When EDO
substances are consistently below 80% of the EDO
value monitoring is not required with the exception
of phosphorus, ammonia, and pathogens where
monitoring is always required if identified as an
EDO.
Very Small and Small Facilities with industrial
inputs including landfill leachate greater than 5% of
dry weather flow must be routinely monitored for
acute and chronic toxicity.
Strategy says that “monitoring frequency would not
necessarily be the same for all substances since some
substances are very expensive to measure and/or analytical
expertise may not be available locally”. This phrase should be
clearer especially in the context of the 80% rule.
All testing should be done in accordance with the
most recent edition of Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater.
Appendix A, Sampling Preservation and Storage (in
draft strategy) states:
CBOD5 can be stored for up to 7 days.
Toxicity testing is not likely to be required by communities in
Nunavut other than Iqaluit, Qikiqtarjuaq, and possibly other
such as Rankin Inlet, but where required would constitute a
significant additional burden (Note: samples would have to
be flown south and may not reach southern labs within
required time)
Standard Methods states for BOD5 (CBOD5): “In no case
start analysis more than 24 h after grab sample collection.
When samples are to be used for regulatory purposes make
every effort to deliver samples for analysis within 6 h of
collection.” Standard Methods states for TSS: “Refrigerate
sample at 4°C up to the time of analysis to minimize
microbiological decomposition of solids. Preferably do not
hold samples more than 24 h. In no case hold sample more
than 7 d.”
TSS can be stored for up to 14 days.
Where do the longer storage times in the draft strategy come
from? Do they result in biased results if followed?
Strategy states that all testing should be done by an
accredited laboratory (CAEAL or CAEAQ in
Quebec).
51
CAEAL has Proficiency Testing certification program and a
wastewater program which are far less stringent and costly
than full accreditation. Some jurisdictions such as Ontario
allow wastewater to be tested in PT only accredited labs. The
difference in standards of accreditation could mean the
difference in doing analyses in a community or regional
centre and sending them south. This requirement should be
clarified.
Element of Technical
Supplement 2
5.6 Toxicity Failures
6.0 Risk Management
Decision-Making and 6.1
Risk Management
Decision Process
6.2 Reduction at Source
6.3 Municipal
Wastewater Treatment
7.0 Environmental
Monitoring
8.0 Combined Sewer
Overflows
9.0 Implementation
Timelines
Details on Objectives/Requirements
Impacts on Nunavut
Toxicity test failures result in stepwise repeat
toxicity testing through a complex process.
The Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) may be overly
onerous for communities that have limited resources to
respond to a toxicity failure. Ability to respond quickly to
over limit toxicants such as ammonia will be limited.
Any risk management decision-making process needs to be
adapted to circumstances unique to northern communities.
The draft strategy outlines a risk management
decision making process for occurrences when
EDOs are exceeded.
Communities should make efforts to reduce at
source.
Most Nunavut communities will have limited opportunities to
reduce effluent at source. Growing communities will have
even more difficulty reducing at source.
Northern constraints must be taken into account and
standards that will result in chronic failures to comply will
not improve the situation. All agencies need to cooperate to
find meaningful made in the north solutions to municipal
wastewater effluent.
The draft strategy describes resources for optimizing Constraints and circumstances unique to the Arctic must be
municipal wastewater treatment for facilities in
identified and wastewater treatment practices across Canada’s
southern Canada.
Arctic need to be thoroughly researched and best practices
disseminated.
Environmental monitoring program should be
Environmental monitoring programs need to be adapted to
implemented to confirm EDO modeled outcomes.
constraints and circumstances in Arctic communities.
Details will be provided within 5 years.
No mention in strategy about how forthcoming environmental
monitoring guidelines will be adapted to the north.
Combined sewer carries both storm water and
CSOs are not known to exist in Nunavut
wastewater.
Strategy has scoring system that ranks risk level.
Facilities could score anywhere from low to high risk
depending on results of CBOD5, TSS, and Ammonia levels.
Facilities scoring high risk will be required to have an
accelerated implementation timeline of 10 years.
52
12 Analysis of Technical Supplement 3 and Impacts on Nunavut
Element of Technical
Supplement 3
1.2 Standard Method
Objective and 1.3 A Stepby-Step Standard
Method
2.0 Substances of
Potential Concern
Details on Strategy Objectives/Requirements
Impacts on Nunavut
The draft strategy has a standard method or
methodology for implementing the requirements of
the strategy.
A standard method should be developed for Arctic
communities.
Primary treatment is estimated to reduce CBOD5
and TSS by 30% and 60% respectively.
Primary treatment, through lagoon treatment is standard
approach. Additional treatment is achieved through wetland
treatment in some communities. 30% reduction in CBOD5 is
unlikely to meet NPS.
The strategy imposes the measurement of CBOD5 as the main
sewage strength indicator. No explanation or justification for
this parameter is provided other than it is a conventional
parameter. Many wastewater researchers are leaning toward
adoption of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) as a more
consistent method of measuring sewage strength. BOD5
originated as a method in England because maximum travel
time of rivers in England is 5 days and can be highly
inconsistent between samples because of biological activity
and sample transport requirements. COD, however, can be
adequately correlated with CBOD5 and is far easier to
analyze. CAEAL now accredits “test in the tube” methods for
COD that can be done with only 20mL of sample and done
with a benchtop heating block and spectrophotometer in less
than 2 hours. Hamlet employees could be trained to measure
COD in the community or could send samples to a regional
municipal lab allowing for far more frequent monitoring that
would also eliminate sample quality problems associated with
transportation. CBOD5, however, is sufficiently complicated
to require dedicated commercial labs to perform the test but is
in fact less reliable. TSS is more complicated than COD but
could also be undertaken by a municipality with some upfront
capital costs and employee training. A cost-benefit analysis
53
Element of Technical
Supplement 3
Details on Strategy Objectives/Requirements
Impacts on Nunavut
should be undertaken to see if communities in Nunavut
should establish a dedicated COD/TSS lab in the region for
the purposes of municipal wastewater monitoring. It should
be noted that this would only be feasible if CAEAL PT
accreditation was sufficient. Requirements for full
accreditation would be prohibitively expensive. Cost savings
through combined in-house drinking water analyses would
also be prohibitively expensive because of the extra
requirements for drinking water lab accreditation.
See above.
3.0 Initial
Characterization
Program
3.1 Facility
Categorization
3.2 Perform MWWE
Characterization
See above.
Comments in strategy on assessing effects of weather
conditions must be adapted to Arctic conditions and
constraints.
For example, the supplement recommends sampling during
and after high precipitation events but this is the most
probable time for fly delays and cancellations in the Arctic.
See above.
4.0 Implementation of
Initial Characterization
Program
5.0 Environmental Risk
Assessment – Single
Discharge Approach
6.0 Environmental Risk
Assessment – Watershed
Approach
7.0 Selection of
Substances for
Compliance Monitoring
Appendix A Sampling,
Preservation and Storage
See above.
See above.
See above.
See above.
54
13 Overview of Implications of Draft Strategy for Region
The majority of Nunavut communities have limited community capacity to meet current monitoring
and reporting requirements. The capacity shortfall does not only exist at the community level—there is
limited capacity within all levels of government in the Arctic to monitor, assess, interpret and enforce.
A five year window has been created for researching treatment efficiencies of lagoons and wetlands in
the Arctic, for the development of Arctic or Alternate Performance Standards (APS). Within the same
window, communities will be required to complete risk assessments, including initial characterization.
The implementation timeline for this requirement is not realistic for communities in Nunavut, based on
current financial and human resource capacity. Further, short-term funding mechanisms prioritize high
risk facilities; as most communities are likely to be low-risk, according to the Strategy, assistance from
senior levels of government will not be available until after the 5-year window, when the risk
assessment and initial characterization are to be completed. At the same time, the cost for completing a
site-specific environmental risk assessment and initial characterization are much higher in the North
than the Strategy suggests, at approximately $20 to 30K each (Ken Johnson, personal communication).
All but three communities in Nunavut have only trucked water service, which is associated with a
much lower per capita water use than for piped—the GN design values for per capita water
consumption are 90 L/person/day for trucked water delivery, and 225 L/person/day for piped delivery.
If the APS are concentration-based, this could in effect penalize communities with trucked service for
using less water than communities with piped delivery. Higher concentrated effluent could also skew
toxicity testing failure rates. In addition, the appropriateness of the rainbow trout toxicity test is
questionable, as it is a non-native species and the test could be extremely onerous for communities. As
the majority of communities have lagoons and some form of treatment wetlands, there may be
difficulties identifying the final discharge point. Further technical issues are identified for each element
of the Strategy in Section 10 to 12.
Taken together, these implications clearly point to the need for an alternate approach, grounded in
Northern social, economic and environmental realities. An Arctic-specific wastewater management
framework must be developed in collaboration Northern partners, including Inuit, to ensure that the
important goal of protecting the environment and human health from the impact of wastewater is
achieved.
55
13.1 RECOMMENDATIONS
The National Position Paper presented by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami to Environment Canada provides
both general and specific comments and recommendations on the proposed framework and regulations.
Specific recommendations pertaining to Nunavut include:
1) More consultation should occur in the three regions in Nunavut and the timeframe for rolling
out the framework and regulations should be expanded significantly and in response to
demonstrated capacity.
2) All of Nunavut should be considered “Arctic” under the regulations and all communities should
be managed within the same regulatory framework. A climatic definition that would exclude
some communities should be avoided.
3) All of the proposed framework and regulations should be adapted to Arctic conditions and
capacity – not solely the National Performance Standards. Consultation should occur on
adapting the EQO and EDO framework to suit Arctic conditions and capacity. Other proposed
requirements such as monitoring and risk assessments should be re-evaluated for the Arctic.
4) Research on wastewater treatment technologies as well as social science research should occur
in each region in Nunavut where wastewater research conducted to date by Environment
Canada’s Northern Research Working Group is limited. Research priorities should be set in
consultation with NTI and regional representatives.
5) Funding is needed to enhance training in Nunavut and a realistic and achievable plan for
infrastructure and operation and maintenance is needed for the region.
6) There should be a 5 year public education campaign for each region in Nunavut, designed with
input from the communities regarding the content, target audiences and method of delivery.
This is not an exhaustive list of recommendations and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. reserves the right to
make additional comments and recommendations pertaining to the proposed Canada-Wide Strategy for
the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent.
56
14 References
Berger, T.R. (2006). Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Implementation Contract Negotiations for the
Second Planning Period 2003-2013. Conciliator’s Final Report: The Nunavut Project. March
1, 2006. Vancouver: Bull, Housser and Tupper.
Canada. Nunavut Act. (1993). S.C. c. 28. N-28.6. Accessed at
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/N-28.6/bo-ga:l_I-gb:s_3//en#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_3
Canada. Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act. (1993). S.C. c. 29, N-28.7. Accessed at
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/N-28.7///en?page=1
Canada. Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. (2002). S.C. c. 10. Accessed at
www.canlii.org/ca/sta/n-28.8/whole.html
Gartner Lee Ltd. (2002). Municipal Water Management in Nunavut. Prepared for Indian and Northern
Affairs Canada, Nunavut Regional Office. Burnaby: Author.
Government of Nunavut. (2006). Nunavut Capital Estimates 2007-2008. 3rd Session of the 2nd
Legislative Assembly, November 2006. Iqaluit: Department of Finance.
Government of Nunavut. (2007a). Government of Nunavut Capital Estimates 2008-2009. 4th Session of
the 2nd Legislative Assembly, October 2007. Iqaluit: Department of Finance.
Government of Nunavut. (2007b). Government of Nunavut Main Estimates 2008-2009. 4th Session of
the 2nd Legislative Assembly, March 2007. Iqaluit: Department of Finance.
Government of Nunavut. Department of Environment. (2006). Accessed Jan. 10, 2008 at
www.gov.nu.ca/env/environment.shtml
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). (2002). Municipal Water Management in Nunavut.
Prepared by Gartner Lee Limited. Iqaluit: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2006). Water Resources Division. Accessed at http://www.aincinac.gc.ca/nu/nuv/cvx_e.html
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. (2005). Freshwater in Inuit communities. Environment Bulletin 3. Ottawa:
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. (2007). Inuit in Canada: A statistical profile. Ottawa: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.
Municipal Training Organization. (2004). Nunavut Municipal Knowledge Network. Accessed Jan. 10,
2008 at http://mto.web.ca/public/en_whoweare.html
57
Nickels, S., Furgal, C., Buell, M., Moquin, H. (2006) Unikkaaqatigiit—Putting the Human Face on
Climate Change: Perspectives from Inuit in Canada. Ottawa: Joint publication of Inuit Tapiriit
Kanatami, Nasivvik Centre for Inuit Health and Changing Environments at Université Laval
and Ajunnginiq Centre at the National Aboriginal Health Organization.
Nunavut Association of Municipalities. (2004). Infrastructure planning for Nunavut’s communities.
Interim report. Prepared by The Conference Board of Canada. Iqaluit: Nunavut Association of
Municipalities.
Nunavut. Department of Community and Government Services. (2004). Water and Sewage Services
Subsidy Policy. Iqaluit: Author.
Nunavut Impact Review Board. (2007). Guide to the Nunavut Impact Review Board. Cambridge Bay:
Author.
Nunavut Planning Commission. (2007). Nunavut Government Structure and Political Development.
Accessed at www.npc.nunavut.ca/eng/nunavut/gov.html
Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal. (2007). Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal. Accessed at
http://www.nunanet.com/~nsrt/.
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. (2006a). Accessed Jan. 12, 2008 at
www.tunngavik.com/english/about.html
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. Department of Social and Cultural Development. (2006b).
Iniksaqattiarniq Inuusiaqattiarniq. Annual report on the state of Inuit culture and society
2003/2004 and 2004/2005. Iqaluit: Author.
Nunavut Water Board. (2005). Nunavut Water Board Licence Process. Accessed December 23, 2007 at
http://www.nunavutwaterboard.org/en/files/3135-030_Water_chart_ENG.pdf.
Nunavut Water Board. (2007). Commonly Asked Questions. Accessed at
www.nunavutwaterboard.org/en/faq.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (2006). Second Independent Five Year Review of Implementation of the
Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Final Report. May 11, 2006. Toronto: Author.
Statistics Canada. (2005). Projections of the Aboriginal populations, Canada, provinces and
territories: 2001 to 2017. Catalogue no. 91-547-XIE. Ottawa: Minister of Industry.
Treff, K. and Perr, D.B. (2005). Finances of the Nation 2005. A review of expenditures and revenues of
the federal, provincial, and local governments of Canada. Toronto: Canadian Tax Foundation.
Tyrell, M. (2006). Making sense of contaminants: a case study of Arviat, Nunavut. Arctic, 59(4): 370–
380.
58
Arctic Bay
Hamlet of Arctic Bay. (2006). Annual report for the Hamlet of Arctic Bay. Submitted to the Nunavut
Water Board. Arctic Bay: Author.
Hamlet of Arctic Bay. (2006). Municipal Water License Renewal Application. Submitted to the
Nunavut Water Board. Arctic Bay: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2006). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Arctic Bay, NWB3ARC02078. August 20, 2006. Iqaluit: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2002). Municipal Water License 3BM-ARC0207 for the Hamlet of Arctic Bay.
Gjoa Haven: Author.
Nunavut Water Board. (2005). Amendment 1 to Municipal Water License NWB3ARC0207 for the
Hamlet of Arctic Bay. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Nunavut Water Board. (2007). Assessment of Administrative Compliance for Municipal Water License
Renewal for the Hamlet of Arctic Bay, 3BM-ARC0207. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Roy, B. (2007). Technical Summary of Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Management for the
Hamlet of Arctic Bay. Prepared for the Nunavut Water Board. Pond Inlet: Community and
Government Services.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Arviat
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2004). Municipal Water License NWB3ARV0308 for the Hamlet of Arviat. Gjoa
Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
59
Baker Lake
Hamlet of Baker Lake. (2005). Annual report for the Hamlet of Baker Lake. Submitted to the Nunavut
Water Board. Baker Lake: Author.
Hamlet of Baker Lake. (2005). Municipal Water License Renewal Application. Submitted to the
Nunavut Water Board. Baker Lake: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunami Jacques Whitford Ltd. (2006). Interim Report on the Environmental Study and Evaluation of
the Water and Sewage System. Prepared for Community and Government Services for
Qamani’tuaq, Nunavut. Rankin Inlet: Author.
Nunavut Water Board. (2002). Municipal Water License 3BM-ARC0207 for the Hamlet of Arctic Bay.
Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Cambridge
EarthTech Canada Inc. (2007). Hamlet of Cambridge Bay, Nunavut: Background Report for Water
License Renewal. Submitted to the Nunavut Water Board. Edmonton: Author.
Hamlet of Cambridge Bay. (2007). Municipal Water License Renewal Application. Submitted to the
Nunavut Water Board. Cambridge Bay: Author.
Hamlet of Cambridge Bay. (2007). Municipal Water License Renewal Supplementary Questionnaire.
Submitted to the Nunavut Water Board. Cambridge Bay: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2004). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for Cambridge
Bay, NWB3CAM0207. July 20, 2004. Iqaluit: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2002). Municipal Water License NWB3CAM0207 for the Hamlet of Cambridge
Bay. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Cape Dorset
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2007). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Cape Dorset, 3BM-CAP0207. September 25, 2007. Iqaluit: Author.
60
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2006). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Cape Dorset, 3BM-CAP0207. August 2, 2006. Iqaluit: Author.
Hamlet of Cape Dorset. (2006). Annual report for the Hamlet of Cape Dorset. Submitted to the
Nunavut Water Board. Cape Dorset: Author.
Hamlet of Cape Dorset. (2006). Municipal Water License Renewal Application. Submitted to the
Nunavut Water Board. Cape Dorset: Author.
Murdock, J. (2006, May 24). Fw: 060524 NWB3CAP Cape Dorset O+M Manual. Email archived at
ftp://nunavutwaterboard.org.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2002). Municipal Water License NWBCAP0207, for the Hamlet of Cape
Dorset. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Nunavut Water Board. (2007). Assessment of Administrative Compliance for Municipal Water License
Renewal for the Hamlet of Cape Dorset, 3BM-CAP0207. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Roy, B. (2007). Technical Summary on the Wastewater Treatment by Lagoon of the Hamlet of Cape
Dorset, Baffin Region, Nunavut. Prepared for the Nunavut Water Board. Pond Inlet:
Community and Government Services.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Clyde River
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2006). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Clyde River, NWB3CLY0308. August 8, 2006. Iqaluit: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2003). Municipal Water License NWB3CLY0308 for the Hamlet of Clyde
River. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Chesterfield Inlet
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
61
Nunavut Water Board. (2003). Municipal Water License NWB3CHE0308 for the Hamlet of Chesterfield
Inlet. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Coral Harbour
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2002). Municipal Water License NWB3COR0207 for the Hamlet of Coral
Harbour. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Gjoa Haven
Hamlet of Gjoa Haven (2000). Annual Report for the Hamlet of Gjoa Haven. Submitted to the Nunavut
Water Board. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Hamlet of Gjoa Haven (2001). Annual Report for the Hamlet of Gjoa Haven. Report to the Nunavut
Water Board. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2006). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for Gjoa Haven,
NWB3GJO0409. September 20, 2006. Iqaluit: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2002). Municipal Water License NWB3CJO0409 for the Hamlet of Gjoa
Haven. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Grise Fiord
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2006). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Grise Fiord, NWB3GRI0308. August 19, 2006. Iqaluit: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board (2003). Municipal Water License NWB3GRI0308 for the Hamlet of Grise Fiord.
Gjoa Haven: Author
62
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Hall Beach
Abernethy, D. (2006, November 29). Re: 3BM-HAL- Hamlet of Hall Beach - Submission of As-built
and Tender for the Decommissioning of a Sewage Lagoon. Indian and Northern Affairs
intervener letter archived at ftp://nunavutwaterboard.org.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2006). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Hall Beach, NWB3HAL0308. August 9, 2006. Iqaluit: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2003). Municipal Water License NWB3HAL0308 for the Hamlet of Hall Beach.
Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Trow and Associates Inc.. (2005). Hall Beach Sewage Lagoon Decommissioning. Prepared for the
Government of Nunavut, Community and Government Services. Ottawa: Author.
Igloolik
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board (2003). Municipal Water License NWB3IGL0308 for the Hamlet of Igloolik.
Gjoa Haven: Author
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Iqaluit
City of Iqaluit. (2007). Annual report for the City of Iqaluit. Submitted to the Nunavut Water Board.
Iqaluit: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2006). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the City of
Iqauit, 3AMIQA0611. October 11, 2006. Iqaluit: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2007). Inspector’s Direction: Deposit of Waste in Contravention
of Water License 3AMIQA0611-Type “A”. March 6, 2007. Iqaluit: Author.
63
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2006). Municipal Water License 3AM-IQA0611 for the City of Iqaluit. Gjoa
Haven: Author.
Nunavut Water Board. (2006). Reasons for Decision Including Record of Proceedings in the Matter of
the City of Iqaluit, Application for Type “A” Water License. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Kimmirut
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2001). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Qikiqtarjuaq, N5L4-1441 (expired). October 2, 2001. Iqaluit: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada .(2002). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Qikiqtarjuaq, NWB3KIM0207. August 1, 2002. Iqaluit: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2007). Assessment of Administrative Compliance for Municipal Water License
Renewal for the Hamlet of Kimmirut, NWB3KIM0207. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Nunavut Water Board. (2007). Letter acknowledging receipt of Municipal Water License Renewal
from the Hamlet of Kimmirut. September 6, 2007. Archived at ftp://nunavutwaterboard.org.
Roy, B. (2007). Technical Report of the Sewage Lagoon of the Hamlet of Kimmirut. Prepared for the
Nunavut Water Board. Pond Inlet: Community and Government Services.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Kugluktuk
Hamlet of Kugluktuk. (2006). Municipal Water License Renewal Application. Submitted to the
Nunavut Water Board. Kugluktuk: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nuna Burnside Engineering and Environmental Ltd. (2005). Schematic Design for the Improvements to
the Sewage Lagoon and Solid Waste Disposal Facility. The Hamlet of Kugluktuk, Nunavut.
Rankin Inlet: Author.
64
Nunavut Water Board (2003). Municipal Water License NWBKUG0308 for the Hamlet of Kugluktuk.
Gjoa Haven: Author.
Nunavut Water Board. (2007). Amendment 1 to Municipal Water License 3BM-KUG0308 for the
Hamlet of Kugluktuk. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Pangnirtung
Hamlet of Pangnirtung. (2007). Municipal Water License Renewal Application. Submitted to the
Nunavut Water Board. Pangnirtung: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2006). Re: August 2, 2006 Municipal Water License
NWB3PAN0207 - Report. September 27, 2006. Iqaluit: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2006). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Pangnirtung, NWB3PAN0207. August 2, 2006. Iqaluit: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2007). Re: July 19, 2007 Municipal Water License
NWB3PAN0207- Report. October 10, 2007. Iqaluit: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2002). Municipal Water License NWB3PAN0207 for the Hamlet of
Pangnirtung. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Nunavut Water Board. (2007). Assessment of Administrative Compliance for Municipal Water License
Renewal for the Hamlet of Pangnirtung, NWB3PAN0207. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Roy, B. (2007). Technical Summary of Pangnirtung Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Management.
Prepared for the Nunavut Water Board. Pond Inlet: Community and Government Services.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Pond Inlet
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2006). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Pond Inlet, NWB3PON0409. August 8, 2006. Iqaluit: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2004). Municipal Water License NWB3PON0409 for the Hamlet of Pond Inlet.
Gjoa Haven: Author.
65
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Qikiqtarjuaq
Hamlet of Qikiqtarjuaq. (2004). Municipal Water License Application. Submitted to the Nunavut Water
Board. Qikiqtarjuaq: Author.
Hamlet of Qikiqtarjuaq. (2006). Annual report for the Hamlet of Cape Dorset. Submitted to the
Nunavut Water Board. Qikiqtarjuaq: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2006). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Qikiqtarjuaq, NWB3QIK0712. August 2, 2006. Iqaluit: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2007). Re: July 12, 2007 Municipal Water License
NWB3QIK0712- Report. November 30, 2007. Iqaluit: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2007). Municipal Water License 3BM-QIK0712 for the Hamlet of
Qikiqtarjuaq. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Rankin Inlet
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2002). Municipal Water License NWB3RAN0207 for the Hamlet of Rankin
Inlet. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Repulse Bay
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2004). Municipal Water License NWB3REP0409 for the Hamlet of Repulse
Bay. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
66
Resolute Bay
Dillon Consulting Ltd. (1999). Volume 3 – Sewage Treatment and Future System Expansion for
Resolute Bay, NT. Final Report – Revision 1. Submitted to the Government of Northwest
Territories, Public Works and Services. Yellowknife: Author.
Ferguson Simek Clark. (2003). Resolute Bay Water License Application. Prepared for the Hamlet of
Resolute Bay. Submitted to the Nunavut Water Board. Yellowknife: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2006). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Resolute Bay, unlicensed. August 19, 2006. Iqaluit: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (2007). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Resolute Bay, unlicensed. November 27, 2007. Iqaluit: Author.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Sanikiluaq
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board (2003). Municipal Water License NWB3SAN0308 for the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq.
Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Taloyoak
Government of the Northwest Territories. (1995). Taloyoak Land Use Plan. Cambridge Bay: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2002). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Taloyoak, unlicensed. August 22, 2002. Iqaluit: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2003). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Taloyoak, unlicensed. September 4, 2003. Iqaluit: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2004). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Taloyoak, unlicensed. July 22, 2004. Iqaluit: Author.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2005). Municipal Water Use Inspection Report for the Hamlet of
Taloyoak, unlicensed. July 28, 2005. Iqaluit: Author.
67
Livingstone, T. (2005). Letter to INAC regarding unlicensed status of Taloyoak. August 15, 2005.
Archived at ftp://nunavutwaterboard.org.
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
Whale Cove
Natural Resources Canada (2007). The Atlas of Canada. Accessed January 3, 2008 at
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/index.html.
Nunavut Water Board. (2002). Municipal Water License NWB3WHA0207 for the Hamlet of Whale
Cove. Gjoa Haven: Author.
Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 92-591-XWE. Accessed January 4, 2008 at
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E.
68
15 Appendix 1: Estimated total and per capita water use in Nunavut communities9
Community
Grise Fiord
Resolute Bay
Whale Cove
Chesterfield Inlet
Kimmirut
Qikiqtarjuaq
Arctic Bay
Hall Beach
Repulse Bay
Sanikiluaq
Kugaaruk
Coral Harbour
Taloyoak
Clyde River
Gjoa Haven
Cape Dorset
Pond Inlet
Kugluktuk
Pangnirtung
Cambridge Bay
Igloolik
Baker Lake
Arviat
Average
9
2005
Population
147
233
316
366
470
552
662
678
686
742
770
780
851
868
1116
1193
1298
1324
1324
1387
1404
1683
2319
Total litres
delivered
5,993,869
11,810,022
10,301,707
12,369,346
12,940,564
16,498,850
14,707,673
17,969,474
21,126,709
22,849,056
18,713,557
22,536,840
27,954,720
16,975,500
23,057,143
37,861,040
27,580,200
37,080,561
46,247,031
45,701,125
35,346,817
58,365,083
46,880,353
2005/2006
Annual
L/person/day
L/capita
40,775
112
50,687
139
32,600
89
33,796
93
27,533
75
29,889
82
22,217
61
26,504
73
30,797
84
30,794
84
24,303
67
28,893
79
32,849
90
19,557
54
20,661
57
31,736
87
21,248
58
28,006
77
34,930
96
32,950
90
25,176
69
34,679
95
20,216
55
29,600
81
Total litres
delivered
2,686,062
8,290,220
9,590,840
10,784,185
9,934,421
17,570,467
13,981,044
17,106,281
20,640,564
20,229,639
17,519,467
21,143,940
27,445,240
16,907,439
21,682,459
39,024,420
28,697,633
30,591,230
44,094,804
45,955,833
34,381,317
44,638,146
44,824,305
2004/2005
Annual
L/person/day
L/capita
18,273
50
32,768
90
27,324
75
25,677
70
19,633
54
29,333
80
17,071
47
23,306
64
29,403
81
25,414
70
26,385
72
22,140
61
30,360
83
19,501
53
20,002
55
28,822
79
18,732
51
19,660
54
26,136
72
29,068
80
22,011
60
27,487
75
23,237
64
24,424
67
Total litres
delivered
3,209,581
9,556,400
9,399,987
10,314,815
12,537,136
22,963,583
14,756,767
15,467,526
19,705,727
20,815,843
16,426,043
21,126,580
26,354,920
15,748,242
20,782,066
37,697,160
28,841,233
26,872,025
41,996,637
41,180,146
25,937,433
54,598,778
45,260,022
2003/2004
Annual
L/capita
19,691
44,448
30,820
29,898
28,954
44,246
22,843
25,398
32,199
30,433
27,150
29,672
36,604
20,061
21,648
32,837
23,640
22,172
32,913
31,459
20,169
36,230
23,834
29,014
L/person/
day
54
122
84
82
79
121
63
70
88
83
74
81
100
55
59
90
65
61
90
86
55
99
65
79
Source: MTO, 2006. No. litres extrapolated from other data; includes residential, commercial and governmental buildings. Data not available for Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet.
69
16 Appendix 2: Wastewater treatment facilities and licensing data per community10
Latitude
Longitude
Population in
2006
Grise Fiord
76°25'0"N
82°53'44"W
Resolute Bay
74°41'44"N
94°49'45"W
Chesterfield Inlet Whale Cove
63°20'20"N
62°10'14"N
90°42'5"W
92°34'40"W
Kimmirut
62°50'48"N
69°52'18"W
Qikiqtarjuaq
67°33'16"N
64°1'41"W
Hall Beach
68°47'25"N
81°14'14"W
141
229
332
353
411
473
654
NWB3CHE0308
NWB3WHA0207 NWB3KIM0207
3BM-QIK0712
NWB3HAL0308
B
B
B
B
Dec. 15, 2003
Sept. 1, 2002
(landfarm license
Sept. 27, 2007)
01-Sep-02
B
May 9, 2007
(amendment
Sept. 27, 2007
for solid waste
upgrades;
previous license
expired Dec. 31,
2006)
Expired August
31, 2007 (license
renewal filed in
2007; in review)
May 31, 2012
Mar. 31, 2008
Wastewater
License #
NWB3GRI0308
License type
B
Effective date of
license
Nov. 15, 2003
(previously
unlicensed by
NWB)
Unlicensed
(Hamlet has
applied for
license with GN,
date unknown)
B
N/A
23-Apr-03
Expiry date of
license
Nov. 15, 2008
N/A
Dec. 31, 2008
Expired Aug. 31,
2007 (landfarm
license Sept. 30,
2012)
Water source
Glacier run-off
No Name Lake
(Char Lake in
2002)
First Lake
Fish Lake
Fundo Lake
Tulugak
river/reservoir
Water reservoir/
Sapo Lake
Annual quantity
of water use
licensed
6200 m3
N/A
20,000 m3
30,000 m3
30,000 m3
37,500 m3
35,000 m3
Annual quantity
water used
5,658 m3
(projected 2003),
5,924 m3
For utilidor
system: 13,140
m3 (2002); for
11,379 m3
(2003), 17,248
m3 (projected
10
3
17,515 m
Sources for data listed in References section under community names
70
20,678 m3
(2006), 32,000
m3 (2004),
Grise Fiord
(projected 2008)
Sewage
collection
Trucked
Annual quantity
of wastewater
5,658 m3
projected 2003;
5924 m3
projected 2008
Treatment
system
Number of cells
Single-cell
engineered
annual decant
lagoon; overland
(wetlands) to
ocean
One
Resolute Bay
trucked system,
1,326 m3 (2002);
2007 projected is
15,474 m3
Utilidor system
(shallow-buried
pipe system,
electrically heattraced piping,
owned by GN),
Approx. 40 ppl
serviced by truck
and airport
serviced by truck
For utilidor
system: 13,140
m3 (2002); for
trucked system,
1,326 m3 (2002);
2007 projected is
15,474 m3
Basic macerator,
piped discharge
to ocean for
utilidor system;
domestic trucked
waste put in
solid waste area
and covered with
lime and gravel;
sewage from
airport put in
holding tank
N/A
Chesterfield Inlet Whale Cove
2008)
Kimmirut
Qikiqtarjuaq
26,915 m3
(projected 2013)
Hall Beach
Trucked
Trucked
Trucked
Trucked
17,515 m3
19,024 m3
Natural
depression
(holding cell),
exfiltrates into
natural wetland
area
One (holding
cell)
Trucked
Facultative
lagoon and
treatment wetland
One
71
Small retention
pond and
treatment
wetland. (Access
road being
redesigned for
lagoon built in
2001 that has
never been used
due to road
safety issues)
Facultative
lagoon and
treatment
wetland
Engineered primary
lagoon (constructed
1998, has been
incorporated into
new lagoon system)
and wetlands. (Old
two-cell system
decommissioning
began 2005)
One
Two (one cell is
old lagoon,
second cell is
new lagoon)
One
Grise Fiord
Resolute Bay
Chesterfield Inlet Whale Cove
Kimmirut
Discharge type
Discontinuous
Continuous via
outfall pipe
directly into
ocean at high
tide water edge
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Lagoon retention
time
Not confirmed
N/A
Very limited
Not confirmed
None/very
limited
Lagoon capacity
and dimensions
5000 m3
Location relative
to community
1.4 km W
Wetland area
and flow path
Not confirmed
Receiving body
Ocean
Industrial input
Freeboard
requirements
None known
Geotechnical
inspection
requirements
Hall Beach
Not confirmed
Not confirmed
15,000 m3
38,850 m3 total
capacity (old
lagoon cell
10,558 m3
capacity)
2649 m2 area (when
build 1998);
recently expanded,
final dimension
unknown
3.1 km W
0.7 km SW
2.3 km
1.0 km N
165,000 m2 area;
900 m flow path
700 m flow path
100 m
22 ha; 1 km flow
path
Hudson Bay
Hudson Bay
Ocean
Davis Strait
Foxe Basin
None known
None known
None known
None known
None known
1m
1m
1.0 m
1.0 m
1.0 m
Not specified
Annual
inspection to be
carried out in
July by an
engineer
Not specified
N/A
N/A
Resolute Bay
for utilidor
system; Meretta
and Resolute
Lake system for
Airport
None known
1.0 m
Not specified
Qikiqtarjuaq
Annual
discharge June to
Oct via designed
flow control
structure
(exfiltration
berm and
perforated
drainage pipe)
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
72
Continuous
Grise Fiord
Resolute Bay
Chesterfield Inlet Whale Cove
Kimmirut
Qikiqtarjuaq
1 x 104 CFU/100
mL at QIK-6
until wetland is
commissioned; 1
x 102 CFU/100
mL at QIK-12
after wetland is
commissioned
120 mg/L at
QIK-6 until
wetland is
commissioned;
45 mg/L at QIK12 after wetland
is commissioned
180 mg/L at
QIK-6 until
wetland is
commissioned;
45 mg/L at QIK12 after wetland
is commissioned
Hall Beach
Maximum
effluent fecal
coliforms
1 x 106 CFU/dl
1x104 CFU/dl
1x106 CFU/dl
1 x 106 CFU/dl
Maximum
effluent BOD5
120 mg/L
80 mg/L
120 mg/L
120 mg/L
Maximum
effluent total
suspended solids
180 mg/L
100 mg/L
180 mg/L
180 mg/L
Between 6 and 9
Between 6 and 9
Between 6 and 9
Between 6 and 9
Between 6 and 9
Between 6 and 9
No visible sheen
No visible sheen
No visible sheen
No visible sheen
No visible sheen
No visible sheen
Acute toxicity
requirement
No requirements
No requirements
No requirements
No requirements
No toxicity to
rainbow trout or
daphnia
No requirements
Raw sewage
volume
monitoring
stations
GRI-3, raw
sewage at truck
offload point
CHE-3, raw
sewage at truck
offload point
Not specified
Not specified
QIK-3; raw
sewage from
pump-out truck
HAL-3, raw sewage
at discharge point
Effluent quality
monitoring
stations
GRI-4, final
discharge point
of the sewage
disposal facilities
CHE-4, final
discharge point
WHA-3, final
discharge point
KIM-3, effluent
discharge from
the sewage
disposal facilities
QIK-6, discharge
from the sewage
disposal facilities
at the controlled
HAL-4, effluent
discharge from the
sewage disposal
facilities
Maximum
effluent pH
Oil and grease
requirement
73
1 x 106 CFU/dl
120 mg/L
180 mg/L
Grise Fiord
Resolute Bay
Chesterfield Inlet Whale Cove
Kimmirut
CHE-3, monthly
and annual
measurement
Monthly and
annual volumes
of raw sewage;
annual volumes
of sewage solids
Additional
monitoring
stations
Volume
monitoring
requirements
GRI-3, monthly
and annual
volumes of raw
sewage; annual
quantity of
sewage solids
Monthly and
annual quantity
of raw sewage
74
Qikiqtarjuaq
Hall Beach
point of release
following
treatment; QIK7, current
sewage disposal
facilities effluent
5 m prior to
entering ocean;
QIK-12, the final
discharge point
of the wetland
treatment area
QIK-4, run-off
below the
abandoned
sewage disposal
area prior to
discharge to
ocean; QIK-5,
ocean water 5 m
from point where
effluent enters
(abandoned site);
QIK-9, QIK-10,
and QIK-11,
unnamed streams
located between
the sewage
facilities and the
solid waste
disposal facilities
QIK-3, monthly
and annual
volumes of raw
sewage
HAL-3, monthly
and annual volumes
of raw sewage;
annual volume of
sewage solids
Grise Fiord
Resolute Bay
Chesterfield Inlet Whale Cove
Kimmirut
Effluent quality
monitoring
frequency
GRI-4, monthly
May to August
inclusive for
BOD, FC, pH,
CHE-4, monthly
May to Aug
inclusive
WHA-3, monthly
May to Aug
inclusive
KIM-3, monthly
May to August
inclusive
Effluent quality
monitoring
parameters
BOD, TSS, pH,
FC, NO3-NO2,
conductivity,
NH3-N, oil and
grease (visible),
sulphate,
potassium,
calcium, total
phenols, sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total
iron, total
mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel
BOD, TSS, pH,
FC, NO3-NO2,
conductivity,
NH3-N, oil and
grease (visible),
sulphate,
potassium,
calcium, total
phenols, sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total
iron, total
mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel
BOD, TSS, pH,
FC, NO3-NO2,
conductivity,
NH3-N, oil and
grease (visible),
sulphate,
potassium,
calcium, total
phenols, sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury,
total zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel
BOD, TSS, pH,
FC, NO3-NO2,
conductivity,
NH3-N, oil and
grease (visible),
sulphate,
potassium,
calcium, total
phenols, sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total
iron, total
mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel
Toxicity
monitoring
(Rainbow Trout
and Daphnia
magna)
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
75
Qikiqtarjuaq
QIK-6, QIK-7,
QIK-12, once at
the beginning,
middle and near
the end of
discharge
BOD, TSS, pH,
FC, NO3-NO2,
conductivity,
NH3-N, oil and
grease (visible),
sulphate,
potassium,
calcium, total
phenols, sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total
iron, total
mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel,
chloride, total
organic carbon,
total cobalt, total
hardness, total
aluminium, total
alkalinity, total
manganese
QIK-6 or QIK12 (as
determined to be
the final
discharge point),
once annually
Hall Beach
HAL-4, monthly
May to August
inclusive
BOD, TSS, pH, FC,
NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total lead,
total nickel
Not specified
Grise Fiord
Ground
temperature
Location of
parameter
analysis
Reporting
requirements
Resolute Bay
Chesterfield Inlet Whale Cove
Kimmirut
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
Annual report;
inform inspector
10 days before
decant
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
Annual report;
inform inspector
10 days before
decant
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
Annual report;
inform inspector
10 days before
decant
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
Annual report;
inform inspector
10 days before
decant
76
Qikiqtarjuaq
midway through
discharge
Thermistors
within each berm
structure and
foundation;
frequency of
readings as
necessary to
allow for thermal
modeling of the
berms
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
Annual report;
advise inspector
10 days before
decant
Hall Beach
Not specified
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
Annual report;
inform inspector 10
days before decant
Kugaaruk
68°32'4"N
89°49'29"W
688
Arctic Bay
73°1'59"N
85°10'0"W
690
Sanikiluaq
56°31'59"N
79°13'59"W
744
Repulse Bay
66°31'59"N
86°15'0"W
748
Coral Harbour
64°7'59"N
83°10'0"W
769
Wastewater License
#
3BM-PEL0712
3BM-ARC0207
NWB3SAN0308
NWB3REP0409
NWB3COR0207
License type
B
Sept. 7, 2007
B
Nov. 28, 2003
(previously had
never been
licensed)
B
June 11, 2004
(amendment Sept.
27, 2007 for solid
waste upgrades)
B
Effective date of
license
Expiry date of
license
Dec. 31, 2012
B
Nov. 1, 2002
(emergency
amendment Mar 2,
2005)
Expired Oct. 31,
2007 (new
application filed
Oct. 5 2006,
application in
review)
Nov. 15, 2008
May 31, 2009
Expired Oct. 31,
2007 (amended Feb.
17, 2005)
Unlicensed
Water source
Kugajuk River
Marcil Lake
Sanikiluaq Lake
Nuviq Luktujuq
Lake
Rock-blast
reservoir; Post
River
Water Supply Lake
Annual quantity of
water use licensed
35,000 m3
45,000 m3
34,000 m3
24,000 m3
35,000 m3
Latitude
Longitude
Population in 2006
Annual quantity
water used
Sewage collection
Annual quantity of
wastewater
Trucked
22,000 m
578,871 gallons
(2005); 373,798
cubic feet (2004);
29,998 (2002)
Trucked
Trucked
Trucked
Trucked
27,394 m3 projected
for 2003; 31,231 m3
projected for 2008
22,000 m3
22,312 m
Trucked
3
22,312 m
Nov. 1, 2002
40,000 m3 (size of
reservoir)
27,394 m3 projected
for 2003; 31,231 m3
projected for 2008
3
Taloyoak
69°32'9"N
93°31'14"W
809
Unlicensed (license
application process
began with GNCGS in 2005)
B
77
3
Treatment system
Number of cells
Kugaaruk
Facultative lagoon
(new lagoon to be
constructed, and will
have wetland
treatment area, and
packaged two-stage
temporary treatment
plant to be used)
Two (original cell
construced 14 years
ago, second cell added
by Hamlet crews and
has little capacity)
Arctic Bay
Primary lagoon
with very limited
wetland (new
lagoon will be
constructed 2008
next to old lagoon,
commissioned
2009)
Sanikiluaq
One
Coral Harbour
Taloyoak
Natural lake (Annak
Lake), undefined
Natural wetlands
wetland
Natural wetlands,
small pond
Lagoon and
extensive wetland
One
N/A
N/A
One
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Very limited
N/A
Continuous onto
land
Discharge type
Lagoon retention
time
Capacity not
confirmed; noted
that capacity too
small, as per design
in 1980s
Lagoon capacity
and dimensions
Location relative to
community
Wetland area and
flow path
Receiving body
1.0 km
Wetland flow path
from new lagoon will
be 160 m, contained
by rock outcroppings
and consisting of
multiple channels
with 3 to 4 ponding
areas
Ocean
Ocean
Repulse Bay
21,600 m3
None
2.9 km W
1.4 km E
3.6 km north
2.5 km NW
64,000 m2 area;
1400 m flow path
70,000 m2 area;
1150 m flow path to
small pond area
Not confirmed
Hudson Bay
Hudson Bay
Ocean
Hudson Bay
78
37,500 m2 area
Kugaaruk
Arctic Bay
Sanikiluaq
Repulse Bay
Coral Harbour
Taloyoak
Industrial input
None known
None known
None known
None known
None known
None known
Freeboard
requirements
1.0 m
Not specified
1.0 m
1m
1m
N/A
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
1 x 106 CFU/dl
1 x 106 CFU/dl
1x10 4 CFU/dl
1x10 6 CFU/dl
N/A
120 mg/L
120 mg/L
80 mg/L
120 mg/L
N/A
180 mg/L
180 mg/L
100 mg/L
180 mg/L
N/A
between 6 and 9
between 6 and 9
between 6 and 9
between 6 and 9
between 6 and 9
N/A
no visible sheen
no visible sheen
no visible sheen
no visible sheen
no visible sheen
N/A
Geotechnical
inspection
requirements
Maximum effluent
fecal coliforms
Maximum effluent
BOD5
Maximum effluent
total suspended
solids
Maximum effluent
pH
Oil and grease
requirement
Acute toxicity
requirement
Annual geotechnical
inspection to be
carried out in July by
a geotechnical
engineer
1 x 104 CFU/100 mL
at PEL-3 until wetland
is commissioned; 1 x
104 CFU/100 mL at
PEL-4 after wetland is
commissioned
120 mg/L at PEL-3
until wetland is
commissioned; 45
mg/L at PEL-4 after
wetland is
commissioned
180 mg/L at PEL-3
until wetland is
commissioned; 45
mg/L at PEL-4 after
wetland is
commissioned
No toxicity to rainbow
trout or daphnia
79
Kugaaruk
Arctic Bay
Sanikiluaq
SAN-3, raw sewage
at truck offload
point
Repulse Bay
REP-3, raw sewage
at truck offload
point
Coral Harbour
Taloyoak
Raw sewage volume
monitoring stations
PEL-2, raw sewage
from pump-out truck
Not specified
Not specified
N/A
Effluent quality
monitoring stations
PEL-3, discharge
from the sewage
disposal facilities at
the controlled point of
release following
treatment (including
the temporary
packaged sewage
treatment plant
operation during
construction);
PEL-4, final discharge
point of the wetland
treatment area;
PEL-5, ocean water 5
m from point where
effluent enters ocean
ARC-3, effluent
from the sewage
disposal facilities
SAN-4, final
discharge point of
the sewage disposal
facilities at Annak
Lake
REP-4, final
discharge point
COR-3, final
discharge point
N/A
Monthly and annual
volumes of
freshwater collected
as proxy of
measuring sewage
volume; annual
quantity of sewage
solids removed
from disposal
facilities
Volume monitoring
requirements
PEL-2, monthly and
annual volumes of
raw sewage; annual
quantity of sewage
solids removed from
sewage disposal
facility
SAN-3, monthly
and annual
measurement of
quantities of raw
sewage
REP-3, monthly and
annual quantity of
raw sewage
Monthly and annual
quantity of raw
sewage
N/A
Effluent quality
monitoring
frequency
PEL-3, PEL-4, PEL-5, ARC-3, monthly
monthly May to
May to August
August inclusive
inclusive
SAN-4, monthly
May to August
inclusive
REP-4, monthly
May to Aug
inclusive
COR-3, monthly
May to Aug
inclusive
N/A
80
Effluent quality
monitoring
parameters
Kugaaruk
BOD, TSS, pH, FC,
NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3-N,
oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols, sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total copper,
total iron, total
mercury, total zinc,
total chromium, total
cadmium, total lead,
total nickel, chloride,
total organic carbon,
total cobalt, total
hardness, total
aluminum, total
alkalinity, total
manganese
Arctic Bay
Sanikiluaq
Repulse Bay
Coral Harbour
Taloyoak
BOD, TSS, pH, FC,
NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total lead,
total nickel
BOD, TSS, pH, FC,
NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total lead,
total nickel
BOD, TSS, pH, FC,
NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total lead,
total nickel
BOD, TSS, pH, FC,
NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total lead,
total nickel
N/A
Toxicity monitoring
(Rainbow Trout and
Daphnia magna)
PEL-4 once annually
midway through
discharge
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
N/A
Toxicity (Daphnia
magna)
PEL-4 once annually
midway through
discharge
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
N/A
Ground
temperature
Thermistors within
each berm structure
and foundation;
frequency of readings
as necessary to allow
for thermal modeling
of the berms
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
N/A
81
Kugaaruk
Location of
parameter analysis
CAEAL or other
approved by Analyst
Reporting
requirements
Annual report; advise
inspector 10 days
before decant
Arctic Bay
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
Annual report
Sanikiluaq
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
Annual report;
advise inspector 10
days before decant
82
Repulse Bay
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
Coral Harbour
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
Taloyoak
Annual report
Annual report
N/A
N/A
Latitude
Longitude
Population in 2006
Wastewater
License #
License type
Effective date of
license
Clyde River
70°28'5"N
68°35'39"W
820
Gjoa Haven
68°37'29"N
95°52'40"W
1064
Cape Dorset
64°13'59"N
76°32'30"W
1,236
Kugluktuk
67°49'36"N
115°05'35"W
1302
Pond Inlet
72°41'59"N
77°57'39"W
1,315
Pangnirtung
66°8'39"N
65°42'55"W
1,325
NWB3CLY0308
NWB3GJO0409
3BM-CAP0207
3BM-KUG0308
NWB3PON0409
NWB3PAN0207
B
B
B
B
B
B
Sept. 15, 2003
Jan. 8, 2004
Sept. 1, 2002
Nov. 20, 2003
Jan. 15, 2004
Dec. 1, 2002
Nov. 20 2008
(Amendment
submitted Jan 1,
2004, approved
Aug. 20, 2007)
Jan. 31, 2009
Expired Nov. 31,
2007 (new license
applied for Nov.
19, 2007)
Expiry date of
license
Sept. 15, 2008
Jan. 31, 2009
Expired Aug. 31,
2007 (amendment
issued Sept. 22,
2004 for disposal
into emergency
sewage facilities;
license renewal
submitted in 2006
for the old
facilities, until the
new lagoon at Plake is constructed
and commissioned.
License application
in review.)
Water source
Water Source Lake
Swan Lake,
reservoir
Tee Lake
Coppermine River
Salmon River and Water
Lake
Duval River
Annual quantity of
water use licensed
38,000 m3
62,000 m3
70,000 m3
64,000 m3
67,000 m3
100,000 m3
44,487 m3 in 2003;
19,484 m3 in 2001;
29,728 m3 in 2000;
70,000 m3 (2006
water application);
44,148 m3 (2006
annual report);
2007 projected
61,448 m3
Annual quantity
water used
2003 projected
32,086 m3; 2008
projected 36,638
m3
83
27,200 m3
Sewage collection
Annual quantity of
wastewater
Clyde River
Gjoa Haven
Cape Dorset
Kugluktuk
Pond Inlet
Pangnirtung
Trucked
Trucked
Trucked
Trucked
Trucked
Trucked
19,484 m3 in 2001;
29,728 m3 in 2000
70,000 m3 (2006
water application);
44,148 m3 (2006
annual report);
2007 projected
61,448 m3
67,000 m3
100,000 m3
Primary (modified
natural water body);
discharge in stream to
ocean (very limited
wetlands). At time of
2004 license, the Hamlet
was discharging to a
temporary area
(Kitingujaat) under an
amendment to its 1999
license, in order to repair
and expand the lagoon.
Mechanical WWTP
(originally
constructed in
2003) modified
from a rotating
biological contactor
to an activated
sludge system.
Upgrades planned
over the next 7
years; design phase
scheduled to begin
shortly.
One
N/A
Continuous
Bagged sludge
disposed of in
landfill.
2003 projected
32,086 m3; 2008
projected 36,638
m3
Treatment system
Single-cell
engineered
exfiltration lagoon
and undefined
natural wetland
Primary lagoon and
undefined treatment
wetlands
Multi-cell lagoon
Lagoon with gravel
berm and
undefined wetland;
new lagoon will
have lined top and
slope (not bottom),
fenced.
Number of cells
One
One
Three
One; new lagoon
will be adjacent
Discharge type
Lagoon capacity
and dimensions
Discharge over
three months
(summer)
Current lagoon:
4,648 m3 capacity,
60 m (L) x 40 m
(W) x 2 m (D).
New lagoon:
130,000 m3
capacity, 223 m (L)
x 223 m (W) x 3 m
Continuous
3
19,500 m3
22,700 m (at
capacity)
84
New lagoon: 90,000 m3
capacity
N/A
(construction/commission
date unknown)
Location relative to
community
Wetland area and
flow path
Receiving body
Industrial input
Freeboard
requirements
Geotechnical
inspection
requirements
Maximum effluent
fecal coliforms
Maximum effluent
BOD5
Maximum effluent
total suspended
solids
Clyde River
Gjoa Haven
1.5 km W
1.5 km SE
Cape Dorset
Kugluktuk
(D)
Pond Inlet
5 km W
1.6 km N
Pangnirtung
Ocean
Ocean
Telik Inlet
10 ha; 3 km
flowpath
Coronation Gulf
Not confirmed
Not confirmed
Not confirmed
Not confirmed
Not confirmed
1.0 m
1.0 m
1.0 m
1.0 m
1.0 m
N/A
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
N/A
1 x 106 CFU/dl
1 x 104 CFU/dl
1 x 106 CFU/dl
1 x 106 CFU/dl
1 x 106 CFU/dl
1 x 103 CFU/dl
120 mg/L
80 mg/L
120 mg/L
120 mg/L
120 mg/L
120 mg/L
180 mg/L
100 mg/L
180 mg/L
180 mg/L
180 mg/L
180 mg/L
1000 m flowpath
85
N/A
Ocean
N/A
Commercial fish
processing waste
stored at municipal
dump (licensed)
next to bagged
municipal sludge,
with some washout
from the area. Input
of fish processing
waste into
municipal
wastewater
unknown.
Clyde River
Gjoa Haven
Cape Dorset
Kugluktuk
Pond Inlet
Pangnirtung
between 6 and 9
6 to 9
between 6 and 9
6 to 9
between 6 and 9
between 6 and 9
no visible sheen
no visible sheen
no visible sheen
no visible sheen
no visible sheen
no visible sheen
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
N/A
CLY-3, raw
sewage at truck
offload point
GJO-3, raw sewage
at truck offload
point
Not specified
PON-3, raw sewage at
truck offload point
Not specified
Effluent quality
monitoring stations
CLY-4, effluent
discharge point of
the sewage disposal
facilities
GJO-4, effluent
discharge from the
final discharge
point of the sewage
disposal facilities
CAP-3, effluent
discharge from
sewage disposal
facilities
PON-4, final discharge
point of the sewage
disposal facilities
PAN-3, effluent
from the sewage
treatment plant;
PAN-4, runoff
from the sludge
disposal facility
Volume monitoring
requirements
CLY-3, monthly
and annual
volumes of raw
sewage; annual
quantity of sewage
solids removed
from sewage
disposal facility
GJO-3, montly and
annual volumes of
raw sewage; annual
quantities of
sewage solids
removed from the
sewage disposal
facilities
PON-3, monthly and
annual volumes of raw
sewage
PAN-3, monthly
and annual
volumes \raw
sewage; annual
quantities of
sewage solids
removed from the
sewage disposal
facilites
Maximum effluent
pH
Oil and grease
requirement
Acute toxicity
requirement
Raw sewage
volume monitoring
stations
Monthly and
annual volumes of
sewage discharged
86
KUG-3, raw
sewage at truck
offload point
KUG-4, point of
effluent discharge
from the sewage
disposal lagoon
onto the wetland
treatment area;
KUG-5, effluent
discharge for the
final discharge
point of the
wetland treatment
area, immediately
prior to discharge
to the marine
receiving water
KUG-3, monthly
and annual
quantities of raw
sewage
Clyde River
Gjoa Haven
Cape Dorset
Kugluktuk
Pond Inlet
Pangnirtung
Effluent quality
monitoring
frequency
CLY-4, montly
May to August
inclusive
GJO-4, monthly
May to August
inclusive
CAP-3, monthly
May to August
inclusive
KUG-4 and KUG5, monthly May to
Aug inclusive
PON-4, monthly May to
August inclusive
PAN-3, monthly;
PAN-4, monthly
May to August
inclusive
Effluent quality
monitoring
parameters
BOD, TSS, pH,
FC, NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel
BOD, TSS, pH, FC,
NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel
BOD, TSS, pH,
FC, NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel
BOD, TSS, pH,
FC, NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel
BOD, TSS, pH, FC,
NO3-NO2, conductivity,
NH3-N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium, total
phenols, sodium,
magnesium, total arsenic,
total copper, total iron,
total mercury, total zinc,
total chromium, total
cadmium, total lead, total
nickel
BOD, TSS, pH,
FC, NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel
Toxicity monitoring
(Rainbow Trout
and Daphnia
magna)
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Ground
temperature
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Location of
parameter analysis
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
CAEAL or other
approved by Analyst
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
Reporting
requirements
Annual report;
inform inspector 10
days before decant
Annual report;
inform inspector 10
days before decant
Annual report;
inform inspector 10
days before decant
Annual report;
inform inspector 10
days before decant
Annual report; advise
inspector 10 days before
decant
Annual report
87
Latitude
Longitude
Population in 2006
Wastewater License #
License type
Cambridge Bay
69°06'50"N
105°03'10"W
1477
NWB3CAM0207
B
Igloolik
69°22'59"N
81°47'59"W
1,538
NWB3IGL0308
B
Sept. 1, 2003
(original license
Oct 21, 1998 to
Sept 1, 2003)
Baker Lake
64°19'9"N
96°1'14"W
1728
NWB3BAK9904
B
Arviat
61°6'29"N
94°3'29"W
2060
NWB3ARV0308
B
Rankin Inlet
62°49'0"N
92°4'59"W
2358
NWB-3GRA0207
B
Iqaluit
63°45'0"N
68°31'0"W
6,184
3AM-IQA0611
A
Oct. 1, 1999
Jan 9, 2004
Dec. 1, 2002
May 15, 2006
Dec. 31, 2008
Expired Nov. 30,
2007
May 15, 2011
Wolf Creek
Steel reservoir;
Nipissar Lake
Lake Geraldine
81,000 m3
400,000 m3
1,100,000 m3
Effective date of
license
Sept. 1, 2002
Expiry date of license
Aug. 31, 2007
(renewal
application
submitted Aug 28,
2007)
Aug. 31, 2008
Expired Oct. 1,
2004 (renewal
submitted Nov. 16,
2005)
Water source
Water Lake
Reservoir; water
pumped from
South Lake and
supplemented in
summer with
Airport Lake
Baker Lake
Annual quantity of
water use licensed
70,000 m3
70,000 m3
87,600 m3
57,756 m3
projected for 2003,
66,142 m3
projected 2008
Annual quantity water
used
Sewage collection
Trucked; 5
buildings served by
pipe
Trucked
64,693 m3 (2005)
Trucked
88
64,871 m3
721,680 m3
Trucked
20,000 metres of
sewers and
forcemains and 4
sewage pumping
trucks. 62% of the
population has piped
service and 38%
serviced by truck.
95% piped
(collection by
HDPE mains), 5%
trucked
Cambridge Bay
Igloolik
Baker Lake
Arviat
Annual quantity of
wastewater
87,600 m3 (20
trucks per day,
9000 L tank per
truck)
57,756 m3
projected for 2003,
66,142 m3
projected 2008
62824m3
64,871m3
Treatment system
Series of natural
lagoons joined by
creeks/wetland
area; proposal
developed in Apr
2007 to add some
engineered features
(runoff diversion
berms, retention
berm, seasonal
discharge, move
outfall)
Multi-cell
exfiltration lagoon
system, undefined
wetland
Holding cell,
exfiltrates through
series of wetland
and pond areas
(200 m wetland,
Lagoon Lake, 300
m wetland, Finger
Lake, 1000 m
wetland, Airplane
Lake, Garbage
Creek, final
discharge into
Baker Lake)
Engineered lagoon,
exfiltrates into
natural wetland
area
Treatment plant
(wastewter pumped
by 2 lift stations
through a 1 mm
mesh drum screen),
outfall 450 m into
Prairie Bay, depth
of 10 m.
Screenings
landfilled.
Number of cells
Six ponds of
varying sizes; first
is largest
Four (only 3
approved by NWB)
Four (one holding
cell, three ponds
along wetland flow
path)
One
N/A
One
Continuous
Discontinuous for
lagoon and
continuous for
WWTP both to bay in
ocean
Discharge type
Continuous
July/Aug, limited
in winter
Continuous
Continuous
89
Continuous
Rankin Inlet
Iqaluit
449,710 m3 but
current plant only
operational starting
May 2006 - estimate
would be 720,000 m3
per year given
average of 60,000 per
month; approx. 648
m3 of sludge
generated
Primary lagoon and
preliminary and
primary treatment
plant. Phase I of the
treatment facility will
provide primary
treatment of sewage
(will also violate the
Fisheries Act.) The
second phase (not yet
planned) will provide
secondary treatment
and the third phase to
expand the capacity of
the plant to service a
population of 12,000
and meet regulated
parameter limits.
Cambridge Bay
Igloolik
Lagoon retention time
Baker Lake
Arviat
Rankin Inlet
Very limited
Not confirmed
N/A
55,000m3
N/A
2.8 km
N/A
Within community
200 m flow path
N/A
n/a
Hudson Bay
Hudson Bay
None known
None known
Frobisher Bay
Not specified but past
practices may have
seen some industrial
inputs existing
industrial inputs
occurring to some
extent.
1m
1m
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
N/A
Lagoon capacity and
dimensions
Location relative to
community
Wetland area and
flow path
Receiving body
72,000 m3 capacity
(sum of all ponds)
Cambridge Bay
Foxe Basin
97,000 m2 area;
2100 m flow path
Baker Lake
Industrial input
None known
None known
None known
1.0 m
1.0 m
Not specified
Not specified
1 x 106 CFU/dl
1 x 106 CFU/dl
1x104 CFU/dl
1x106 CFU/dl
not specified
Maximum effluent
BOD5
100 mg/L
120 mg/L
80 mg/L
120 mg/L
120 mg/L for lagoon;
30 mg/L for WWTP
Maximum effluent
total suspended solids
120 mg/L
180 mg/L
100 mg/L
180 mg/L
Maximum effluent pH
between 6 and 9
between 6 and 9
between 6 and 9
between 6 and 9
Oil and grease
requirement
no visible sheen
no visible sheen
no visible sheen
no visible sheen
Freeboard
requirements
Geotechnical
inspection
requirements
Maximum effluent
fecal coliforms
17,000 m3 + 2000
m3 for 4th cell
Iqaluit
Not specified Lagoon is now only to
be used as an
emergency overflow.
1.5 km NE
1.4 km N
Not confirmed
Not specified
90
180 mg/L for lagoon;
30 mg/L for WWTP
between 6 and 9 for
both
no visible sheen for
both
Cambridge Bay
Igloolik
Baker Lake
Arviat
Rankin Inlet
Iqaluit
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Rainbow Trout test
for undiluted effluent
Raw sewage volume
monitoring stations
Not specified
IGL-3; raw sewage
from truck offload
point
Not specified
ARV-3, raw
sewage at truck
offload point
Not specified
Effluent quality
monitoring stations
CAM-3, effluent
discharge from the
sewage disposal
facilities
IGL-4; effluent
discharge from
sewage disposal
facilities
BAK-2, inflow into
Airplane Lake
(compliance testing
point); BAK-3,
outlet of Airplane
Lake
ARV-4, final
discharge point
GRA-3, discharge
from sewage
treatment plant
Volume monitoring
requirements
Monthly and
annual volumes of
raw sewage; annual
quantities of
sewage solids
removed from
sewage disposal
facilities
IGL-3, monthly
and annual
volumes of raw
sewage
ARV-3, monthly
and annual
measurement of
quantities of raw
sewage
GRA-3, monthly
and annual quantity
of raw sewage
May-Aug ARV2,
ARV-4
May-Aug GRA-3
Acute toxicity
requirement
Effluent quality
monitoring frequency
CAM-3, monthly
May to August
inclusive
IGL-4, monthly
May to August
inclusive
May-Aug ARV2,
ARV-4
91
effluent is monitored
at WWTP, estimated
at lagoon
IQA-02 final
discharge point from
sewage lagoon; IQA03 influent to sewage
lagoon; IQA-04; final
discharge point from
WWTP; IQA-05
influent to WWTP;
IQA-06 sludge at
WWTP;
Flow to be measured
at IQA-02, IQA-04,
IQA-06; monthly
IQA-02, IQA-04, bimonthly; IQA-06
monthly;IQA-02,
IQA-03, IQA-04 and
IQA-05 annually
Effluent quality
monitoring
parameters
Cambridge Bay
Igloolik
BOD, TSS, pH,
FC, NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel
BOD, TSS, pH,
FC, NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel
Baker Lake
Arviat
BOD, TSS, pH, FC,
NO3-NO2,
conductivity, NH3N, oil and grease
(visible), sulphate,
potassium, calcium,
total phenols,
sodium,
magnesium, total
arsenic, total
copper, total iron,
total mercury, total
zinc, total
chromium, total
cadmium, total
lead, total nickel
Rankin Inlet
Iqaluit
BOD, FC, pH,
conductivity, TSS,
Ammonia, Nitrate,
BOD, TSS, pH, FC,
Nitrate, Total
NO3-NO2,
Phosphorus,
conductivity, NH3Orthophosphate:
N, oil and grease
IQA-02, IQA-04, bi(visible), sulphate,
monthly; IQA-06
potassium, calcium,
monthly; Total ICP
total phenols,
metal scan shall
sodium,
include the following
magnesium, total
at a minimum: Al,
arsenic, total
Sb, As, Ba, Be, Cd,
copper, total iron,
Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb,
total mercury, total
Li, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se,
zinc, total
Sn, Ag, Sr, Tl, Ti, U,
chromium, total
V, Zn, Hg at IQA-02,
cadmium, total
IQA-03, IQA-04 and
lead, total nickel
IQA-05 annually;
IQA-04 quartlerly;
IQA-06 monthly
Toxicity monitoring
(Rainbow Trout and
Daphnia magna)
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
IQA-02, IQA-03,
IQA-04 and IQA-05
annually for rainbow
trout only
Ground temperature
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
N/A
Location of parameter
analysis
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
CAEAL or other
approved by
Analyst
IQA-02, IQA-04, bimonthly; IQA-06
monthly;IQA-02,
IQA-03, IQA-04 and
IQA-05 annually
92
Reporting
requirements
Cambridge Bay
Igloolik
Annual report;
inform inspector 10
days before decant
Annual report;
inform inspector 10
days before decant
Baker Lake
Arviat
Annual report;
inform inspector 10
days before decant
93
Rankin Inlet
Iqaluit
All laboratory
analyses shall be
performed at a
Annual report;
laboratory accredited
inform inspector 10
according to
days before decant
ISO/IEC Standard
17025. CAEAL not
specified in license.
17 Appendix 3: Water and sewage expenditures and revenue by community
Total water and sewage revenues by community (adapted from MTO, 2006)
2005/2006 2004/2005
2003/2004 2002/2003
($)
($)
($)
($)
Grise Fiord
611,974
479,462
398,630
367,193
Resolute Bay
531,451
414,511
430,038
427,530
Whale Cove
772,628
719,313
704,999
676,420
Chesterfield Inlet
1,001,917
873,519
835,500
755,648
Kimmirut
1,032,657
755,016
739,691
710,980
Qikiqtarjuaq
989,931
1,054,226
1,377,815 1,256,949
Arctic Bay
1,169,260
1,111,493
1,173,163 1,065,382
Hall Beach
1,024,260
975,058
881,649
947,240
Repulse Bay
1,161,969
1,135,231
1,083,815
992,357
Sanikiluaq
1,137,883
1,007,436
1,036,629
964,837
Kugaaruk
1,309,949
1,226,358
1,149,823
936,463
Coral Harbour
1,126,842
1,057,197
1,056,329 1,021,711
Taloyoak
1,397,736
1,372,262
1,317,746 1,441,771
Clyde River
1,120,383
1,115,891
1,039,384 1,048,604
Gjoa Haven
1,614,000
1,322,630
1,267,706 1,257,338
Cape Dorset
1,893,052
1,951,221
1,884,858 1,791,398
Pond Inlet
1,654,812
1,721,858
1,730,474 1,579,516
Kugluktuk
2,050,555
1,691,695
1,486,023 1,355,699
Pangnirtung
2,242,981
2,138,598
1,873,050 1,586,395
Cambridge Bay
2,193,654
2,205,880
1,976,647 2,061,472
Igloolik
2,120,809
2,062,879
1,556,246 1,505,650
Baker Lake
2,101,143
2,022,108
1,965,556 1,830,037
Arviat
2,123,680
2,030,541
2,050,279 1,873,821
94
2001/2002
($)
372,159
431,820
661,675
643,704
716,338
976,026
962,931
924,729
984,148
892,126
985,778
963,519
1,443,999
1,019,924
1,160,751
1,625,439
1,581,397
1,363,814
1,433,567
2,007,981
1,410,289
1,721,153
1,704,740
2000/2001
($)
349,436
441,890
651,162
602,710
682,374
853,472
910,487
882,657
887,699
859,310
976,245
960,314
1,240,260
765,777
1,311,809
1,612,944
1,173,611
1,312,379
1,406,857
1,764,736
1,339,961
1,628,173
1,657,055
Total water and sewage expenditures by community (adapted from MTO, 2006)
2005/2006
2004/2005
2003/2004 2002/2003 2001/2002
($)
($)
($)
($)
($)
Grise Fiord
427,924
529,562
401,712
370,918
365,655
Resolute Bay
564,614
489,689
550,565
471,793
451,463
Whale Cove
695,525
701,997
627,606
559,133
587,462
Chesterfield Inlet
810,112
688,902
724,915
593,749
518,649
Kimmirut
781,820
951,617
819,546
728,533
544,807
Qikiqtarjuaq
745,859
816,932
962,273
957,107
850,580
Arctic Bay
1,148,951
1,099,663
980,898
980,944
926,410
Hall Beach
941,784
770,996
701,488
769,938
853,118
Repulse Bay
953,537
1,088,822
971,862
862,734
792,198
Sanikiluaq
1,192,529
1,090,597
973,475
964,247
849,974
Kugaaruk
1,092,706
904,296
868,937
900,763
965,923
Coral Harbour
1,102,776
977,943 1,047,239
876,271
986,034
Taloyoak
1,467,612
1,362,691 1,261,986 1,310,822
1,368,489
Clyde River
1,059,000
1,040,958
939,558
929,176
796,873
Gjoa Haven
1,607,604
1,460,794 1,296,701 1,240,767
1,184,749
Cape Dorset
1,434,101
1,812,129
2,041,728 1,654,341
1,795,431
Pond Inlet
1,688,446
1,492,945 1,451,876 1,227,389
1,290,086
Kugluktuk
1,596,780
1,621,740 1,535,120 1,369,945
1,312,539
Pangnirtung
2,129,348
1,994,127 1,664,335 1,492,712
1,495,342
Cambridge Bay
2,162,172
2,033,077 1,985,433 1,994,064
1,854,738
Igloolik
1,612,463
1,769,613 1,636,645 1,280,689
1,369,398
Baker Lake
2,109,679
1,893,733 1,827,040 1,752,924
1,583,984
Arviat
1,860,930
1,918,623 1,748,526 1,604,855
1,424,642
95
2000/2001
($)
334,590
412,078
551,429
551,308
494,960
775,104
815,479
870,573
865,903
818,473
926,326
977,828
1,172,834
827,787
1,192,405
1,200,083
1,267,330
1,388,657
1,409,819
1,817,291
1,335,850
1,540,848
1,432,448
Net water and sewage revenues (difference between revenues and expenditures) (adapted from MTO,
2006)
2005/2006 2004/2005
2003/2004 2002/2003 2001/2002
2000/2001
($)
($)
($)
($)
($)
($)
Grise Fiord
184,050
-50,100
-3,082
-3,725
6,504
14,846
Resolute Bay
-33,163
-75,178
-120,527
-44,263
-19,643
29,812
Whale Cove
77,103
17,316
77,393
117,287
74,213
99,733
Chesterfield Inlet
191,805
184,617
110,585
161,899
125,055
51,402
Kimmirut
250,837
-196,601
-79,855
-17,553
171,531
187,414
Qikiqtarjuaq
244,072
237,294
415,542
299,842
125,446
78,368
Arctic Bay
20,309
11,830
192,265
84,438
36,521
95,008
Hall Beach
82,476
204,062
180,161
177,302
71,611
12,084
Repulse Bay
208,432
46,409
111,953
129,623
191,950
21,796
Sanikiluaq
-54,646
-83,161
63,154
590
42,152
40,837
Kugaaruk
217,243
322,062
280,886
35,700
19,855
49,919
Coral Harbour
24,066
79,254
9,090
145,440
-22,515
-17,514
Taloyoak
-69,876
9,571
55,760
130,949
75,510
67,426
Clyde River
61,383
74,933
99,826
119,428
223,051
-62,010
Gjoa Haven
6,396
-138,164
-28,995
16,571
-23,998
119,404
Cape Dorset
458,951
139,092
-156,870
137,057
-169,992
412,861
Pond Inlet
-33,634
228,913
278,598
352,127
291,311
-93,719
Kugluktuk
453,775
69,955
-49,097
-14,246
51,275
-76,278
Pangnirtung
113,633
144,471
208,715
93,683
-61,775
-2,962
Cambridge Bay
31,482
172,803
-8,786
67,408
153,243
-52,555
Igloolik
508,346
293,266
-80,399
224,961
40,891
4,111
Baker Lake
-8,536
128,375
138,516
77,113
137,169
87,325
Arviat
262,750
111,918
301,753
268,966
280,098
224,607
96