solid waste management in small arctic communities · waste management in finland is very different...
Post on 26-Mar-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SMALL ARCTIC COMMUNITIES
Simone Sebalo, MS ssebalo@zendergroup.org
Lynn Zender, PhD lzender@zendergroup.org
Presenting on behalf of Aleut International Assoc.
Arctic-Barents Seminar on Waste Management
Helsinki, Finland
5 November 2018
DESK STUDY INTENT
• Scope small and remote Arctic community waste management
— No site visits carried out with exception of Finland
• Identify two best practice communities each from Alaska, Canada, Finland
— Community permission granted
• Provide a preliminary slate of best practice options
DELIVERABLES
Report containing:
• List of candidate best practice communities
• Selection matrix for top best practice communities
• Community case studies
• Framework of best practice decisions
• Recommendations
Challenging and costly transportation
+ small populations to pay for it
What makes waste management here unique?
What are the end-results?
Open Burning
Landfill School
Proximity Increased risk of exposure
• Poor Design
• Poor Management
• Inadequate equipment
• Difficult seasonal access
Sprawl Local
environmental
impact
Hazardous Waste
Poor infrastructure to store
harmful and hazardous wastes
Infrequent or unaffordable
backhaul opportunties
Water
contamination Water contamination
Safety operators and
community
One study found short term ill health symptoms
associated with:
• Less than ½ mile from the site associated
• Being able to smell the site (wind direction)
• Using a burn barrel next to homes
• Visiting the site
Another study found negative birth outcomes
associated with greater hazardous site contents
and more hazardous site conditions, including a
four-fold greater chance of certain types of
birth defects
The impacted environment is not just a living
space to these communities. It is a way to live.
These studies are in line with what other
studies have found for communities living near
hazardous sites in other countries
HEALTH RISKS
BEST PRACTICES DEFINITION
• Primary: Mitigate or prevent human or environmental exposure to
harmful contaminants and disease vectors.
• Secondary: Reduce blight and financial burden for positive impact on
community mental and economic wellness.
Relevancy: Best practice exhibited is impactful to significant health,
environment, or economic concerns
Replicability: Absence of unique factors playing a substantial role in
best practice feasibility such as tourism base, nearby regional waste
facility, specialized equipment.
Applicability: Population size and remoteness of community
CRITERIA
Criteria used to select two remote and small population communities from the full country
list for further scoping included:
BEST PRACTICES
Safer waste burning policies and strict procedures
Landfill access control
Mandatory collection program
Landfill & equipment maintenance
Safe handling of hazardous and other harmful wastes
Use of available regional special waste facilities & programs
Program design based on community behaviors and values
o Enforcement, education, and setup
FORMATIVE FACTORS
Accessibility and frequency of transportation
Economies-of-scale
Regional and national programs
Tax base & private or public philanthropy
Performance & design of capital infrastructure
Recent Landfill Cleanup
HUMAN DRIVERS
These internally-controllable forces can broaden a community’s best practice options and
can loosen its infrastructural and financial constraints at the same time.
Motivated & trained landfill operator overriding facility inadequacies.
Local champion convincing residents and local officials to improve financial
contributions, disposal habits, enforcement, and more.
Engaged and informed community meeting their financial and behavioral
responsibilities and potentially reducing and detoxifying the wastestream.
Local government leadership that prioritizes a health-protective waste
management system, and develops and supports the system’s legal, infrastructural, and
financial obligations.
ALASKA
Focus: Off-road system, non-jet communities.
Interviews: Members of the Solid Waste Alaska Taskforce (SWAT), an
umbrella organization made up of individual solid waste service providers
form State, Federal, Tribal, and NGO entities.
Asked to identify best practices and communities which best exemplified
these practices.
ALASKA
Community Population Access In-Out
of Community Golovin 172 Barge, fly-in only White Mountain 212 Barge, fly-in only Igiugig 57 Barge, fly-in only Ekwok 98 Barge, fly-in only Gustavus 544 Barge, fly-in only Tanana 225 Barge, fly-in only Beaver 63 Barge, fly-in only Iliamna 100 Barge, fly-in only Chignik Lake 68 Barge, fly-in only Nulato 239 Barge, fly-in only Rampart 54 Barge, fly-in only Manokotak 487 Barge, fly-in only
ALASKA CASE STUDY #1 - GOLOVIN
Location: Northwest Alaska
Highlight: Their operator is a major force behind
their success. Highest scoring rural landfill inspection
in the state (99%).
Summary of Best Practices:
• No uncontained open burning. Use a burnbox
with burning policy and procedures. Landfill and
salvage area have good signage.
• A landfill operator (and backup operator) carry
out regular landfill maintenance.
ALASKA CASE STUDY #1 - GOLOVIN
Summary of Best Practices cont.:
• Hazardous wastes separated from the municipal waste stream and
stored in a secured area and backhauled out through a regional program.
• Have a well organized dedicated salvage area for spent vehicles and bulky
waste which residents can use for parts.
Human Drivers: Local champion, City and Tribe work together
Formative Factors: Access to a regional backhaul program for
hazardous wastes, access to gravel (cover source)
ALASKA CASE STUDY #2 – WHITE MOUNTAIN
Location: Northwest Alaska
Highlight: The community (not an individual) is their champion.
The Tribe, City, and Tribal Corporation work together in a Solid
Waste Workgroup.
Summary of Best Practices:
• Hazardous wastes and recyclables are separated from the
municipal waste stream, stored in a secured area, and
backhauled out.
• Landfill is fenced and gated and they will soon be
implementing set business hours, and locking it.
ALASKA CASE STUDY #2 – WHITE MOUNTAIN
Summary of Best Practices cont.:
• Operate a collection program (minimizes residents contact
with waste at the landfill)
• A landfill operator carries out regular landfill maintenance.
Human Drivers: No local champion and frequent solid waste
staff turnover. The community is their champion. Strong
community support and respect for their improved landfill.
Formative Factors: Access to a regional backhaul program
for hazardous wastes, access to a cover source. Received
federal funding for a clean-start cleanup and infrastructure.
CANADA
Focus: Primarily Nunavut and Northwest Territories, and included
Yukon, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan to identify
communities meeting selection criteria. timeframe.
Interviews: Indigenous Services Canada, CIRNAC, Environment
and Community & Municipal Affairs/Services Departments at all
government levels, Recycling & EPR organizations, various
government consultants and community researchers
CANADA
Community Population Access In-Out of Community Community Population
Access In-Out of Community
Nunavut British Columbia
Arviat 2657 Barge, fly-in only Kwadacha 610 Float planes or barge. Difficult logging road.
Cape Dorset 1441 Barge, fly-in only Kitkatla 490 Float planes or boat
Northwest Territories Bella Bella 1450 Air and barge
Paulatuk 265 Barge, fly-in only Saskatchewan
Ulukhaktok 396 Barge, fly-in only Black Lake 1614
Fly in during the summer. Ice road in the winter
Trout Lake
92 Fly-in, winter only road Fond Du Lac 1790
Air year round, by boat in the summer and by an ice road in winter
Yukon Manitoba
Carcross 301 Klondike Highway St Teresa Point 3262 Air or winter ice roads
Mt Lorne 437 Klondike Highway Northlands 629 Fly in only, no roads
Marsh Lake 696 Alaska Highway Tadoule Lake 360 Air or winter ice roads
CANADA CASE STUDY #1 – ULUKHAKTOK
Photo Credit: Golder Associates Ltd., & Hamlet of Ulukhaktok
Location: North in the Northwest Territories
Highlight: Partnered with the territorial government to carry out a
clean-start and shipped out hazardous waste and scrap vehicles.
Summary of Best Practices:
• Eliminated open burning of unseparated trash. Only burn paper
and cardboard in a contained area – use burning policies.
• Operate a collection program – full time trash collector picks up
waste 5 days/week and separated out hazardous wastes.
• A trained landfill operator carries out regular landfill maintenance.
CANADA CASE STUDY #1 – ULUKHAKTOK
Photo Credit: Golder Associates Ltd., GNWT, Hamlet of Ulukhaktok
Summary of Best Practices:
• Hazardous wastes are separated from the municipal waste stream and
stored in a secured area, away from the landfill.
• Electronic waste is managed and shipped out through the government
EPR program. Vehicles and appliances are depolluted and stored at a
salvage area of the landfill.
Human Drivers: Dedicated Operator/Forman. Supportive Hamlet
Formative Factors: Access to an EPR program for electronic wastes.
Access to cover source. Received funding for a clean-start cleanup.
CANADA CASE STUDY #2 – KITKATLA
Photo Credit: Gitxaala Nation
Location: British Columbia, west coast of Victoria Island
Highlight: Involved and supportive community.
Experienced operator.
Summary of Best Practices:
• Eliminated all burning of waste.
• Used to have a landfill, now use innovative storage
bins for waste, which are transported by barge to
Prince Rupert.
• Operate a waste collection program.
Pre-2012
2013
Today
CANADA CASE STUDY #2 – KITKATLA
Photo Credit: Gitxaala Nation
Summary of Best Practices cont.:
• Operate a household recycling program for cardboard, paper, and
plastics.
• Officially a registered Recycle BC Collector
• Have a comprehensive depolluting program for scrap vehicles and
appliances.
Human Drivers: Two local champions – operator and public
works manager. Supportive community and government
Formative Factors: Regional EPR program for recyclables. Access
to year round barge for shipping out
FINLAND
Focus: Entities in northern Finland
Interviews: Saami Council, Finnish Environment Institute, Centre
for Economic Development, Transport, and the Environment of
Lapland, CEO’s from northern Waste Management Companies, Keep
Lapland Tidy, Metsähallitus Forest Management, University of Lapland,
Reindeer Herder’s Association
FINLAND
Waste Management in Finland is very different to Alaska and Canada!
• All communities are connected by the road system
• Collection programs for municipal waste are available to everyone
• In rural areas, households can often choose between curbside or district collection.
Photo Credit: Tuija Ahrikkala
FINLAND
Issues identified so far:
• Some individuals find waste fees expensive and would rather manage waste themselves
(such as burning in barrels or burying waste locally).
• Littering (trash scatter) in remote places.
• Some people don’t bring hazardous wastes to sorting centers/service points even though
there is a system in place for them and they are accepted for free. The wastes are
sometimes dumped in forests or in the communities.
FINLAND
Next Steps:
• Finalize interviews and site visits while in Finland
• Select Case Study Communities
• All will be included in the final report
FINLAND
From the in-person interviews and site visits we learned even more about some great
best practice successes that could be replicable in other areas.
Some Example Best Practices Include:
• An area in Northwest Finland uses an annual pre-paid card system instead of a pay as you go system
for collection centers and they now see twice the amount of hazardous and bulky waste coming in
as a result.
• Another area uses an enforcement system with simple motion sensor hunting cameras at collection
centers which has been helpful for compliance.
• Incentives in the form of payment discounts for waste sorting or home composting have also been
successful.
POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS
Broaden the scope of best practices and include other Arctic
countries.
Connect communities on Arctic waste issues:
• Website targeted for Arctic small communities
• Cross-Arctic workshop to share common challenges, best practices,
training resources
POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS CONTINUED
Delve Deeper Into
• How human drivers are formed
- How do we foster motivation and knowledge at every level?
• What makes effective education and outreach
• Which set of circumstances call for which best practice(s)
• What the health outcomes are for various practices and circumstances
• What the best EPR Program practices are
• What the cost reduction potential is for coordinated trans-Arctic waste backhaul
and/or recycling.
Questions?
Simone Sebalo, MS ssebalo@zendergroup.org
Lynn Zender, PhD lzender@zendergroup.org
Zender Environmental Health and Research Group
400 D Dt St 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
USA
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No one size fits all.
top related