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.