quigley sustainable landfill study – phase 1€¦ · conducting a sustainable landfill is never...

Conservation Klondike Society

Quigley Sustainable Landfill Study – Phase 1

Summer 2008

Jacob Larsen


- 1 – Jacob Larsen

1.0 Introduction Conservation Klondike Society (CKS) has a long-standing partnership with the City of Dawson to encourage recycling in the community and latterly to initiate waste diversion programs to reduce the volume of waste that is deposited at the Quigley Landfill site. The society also introduced a two-year EcoAction funded and City supported Sustainable Landfill Initiative (SLI) to investigate methods to reduce waste and increase waste diversion. As part of this programme CKS hired a Landfill Research Assistant to collect data on the quantity and composition of waste deposited at the landfill. In addition, landfill users were surveyed on their attitudes and practices towards waste diversion and disposal. This report represents the culmination of the first of a two-year study aimed at designing more sustainable landfill practices. The Quigley Landfill began its life as a gravel pit during the 1970s and 1980s, operated by the Yukon Territorial Government (YTG). In 1987, it was established by the YTG as a temporary solid waste disposal site for areas in and around the Klondike Valley. At this time, Quigley was located outside city limits; however, a boundary expansion in 1994 brought the pit within municipal boundaries and in 1997 Quigley replaced the former Dome site as the principal landfill for the area. It is presently estimated that only six or seven years remain at current levels before the volume of construction wastes reach capacity. It is hoped that through increased public awareness of waste management issues and well-supported diversion strategies the landfill and the entire Dawson City area may chart a course to a more sustainable future. Acknowledgements While there is only one name listed as the author of this report, many hands and minds contributed to its creation. I would like to personally thank the CKS Board of Directors and Program Manager, Cholena Smart, for their support and assistance. Additionally, Francis Poulin, Landfill Attendant; Edgar Blattler, waste hauler; Norm Carlson and Jeremy Lancaster, Public Works, City of Dawson; and Max Liboiron, KIAC Artist-in-Residence all lent a hand in many ways, large and small. Finally, thanks to landfill users who kindly allowed me to inspect their waste and provided their thoughtful responses to the users’ survey.



2.0 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction and Acknowledgements……………………………… 1 2.0 Table of Contents…………………………………………………… 2 3.0 Methodology………………………………………………………… 3 3.1 Sampling domestic waste…………………………………... 3 3.2 Surveys……………………………………………………… 4 3.3 Entry Point Data Collection……………………………….. 4 4.0 Estimation of Volumes……………………………………………... 5 4.1 Diversion Rates……………………………………………… 6 4.2 Generation Rates……………………………………………. 6 5.0 Waste Composition…………………………………………………. 8

5.1 Domestic Waste……………………………………………... 8 5.2 Commercial Waste………………………………………….. 9 5.3 Tourist Waste……………………………………………….. 9 5.4 Construction Waste………………………………………… 9 5.5 Salvaging…………………………………………………….. 10

6.0 Survey Results………………………………………………………. 12 6.1 User Types…………………………………………………... 12 6.2 User Location……………………………………………….. 13 6.3 User Frequency……………………………………………... 13 6.4 Waste Disposal Practices…………………………………… 14 6.5 Waste Collection……………………………………………. 14 6.6 Recycling Practices…………………………………………. 15 6.7 Concerns Regarding Landfill………………………………. 16 7.0 Landfill Usage Frequency…………………………………………... 16 8.0 Hours of Operation………………………………………………….. 17 9.0 Full Cost Accounting……………………………………………….. 17 9.1 Placer Mining……………………………………………….. 17 9.2 Dawson-Area Residents…………………………………….. 17 10.0 Recommendations…………………………………………………… 18 Appendix A – References…………………………………………… 20 Appendix B – Survey Comments…………………………………… 21 Appendix C – Vehicle Load Description Form……………………. 23 Appendix D – Landfill User Survey……………………………….. 24

3.0 Methodology Conducting a sustainable landfill is never an easy task, particularly in a community like Dawson, where human and financial resources are stretched thin. While it is useful to be familiar with landfill studies from other communities, techniques for sampling and surveying that are appropriate to Dawson are required. Whitehorse, for example, employed between six and eight summer students just for waste sampling, whereas this is only one of the many tasks of the sustainable landfill summer researcher here in Dawson. In this section I will describe some the techniques I used for sampling, surveying and recording usage of the Quigley Landfill site. All forms used can be found in the appendix section of this report. 3.1 Sampling domestic waste This can be by far the most unpleasant task you will be asked to do, however with adequate preparation, it can be pretty painless and even fun. For the remainder of this section, I will address my comments in the second person to the future landfill researcher, as it will no doubt be this person for whom these observations will be most useful. First off, make friends with the city-contracted garbage collector. This will make your job much easier and more fun and he/she can help you acquire other figures such as numbers of loads, etc. Plan a day or so in advance when you think you will take a domestic sample so you can arrange for a truckload to be dropped in a separate pile, preferably on the upper, gravel-capped area of the domestic pile. This will allow for access to all parts of the load for a more randomized sampling and will make the task of sampling infinitely less unpleasant. Do it the day it is dumped; garbage that is fresh (eg. not baked in the sun for several days and strewn about by ravens) is much more pleasant to work with. Be sure to check whether the load is commercial or residential waste or both, as it will affect the composition. (See composition analysis of this report.) For a sorting area, I found the tailgate of the pickup truck covered by a large piece of cardboard works well. For personal safety, work gloves should be worn, with a pair of latex medical gloves underneath. By keeping your sorting area organized, no heavy-duty protective gear should be required. As no weigh scale was available, volume was the de facto mode of measurement. I found that paper liquor store bags (see Figure 1) provided a convenient unit for later calculations. Bags measuring 30cm x 17.5cm x 42cm, or 22 litres were used. Thus, if a particular sort produced three bags of a particular material, 3 x 22 litres = 66 litres.

Figure 1

3.2 Surveys Surveys can be a useful way of collecting some information about users of the landfill. However, this method should be restricted to attitudes about personal waste disposal and recycling, and more controlled conditions should be used for assessing quantities and



composition of waste (the one page survey which was used in 2008 is included as an appendix). Some questions in this final draft were included in a previous draft and some are new, thus more data is available for certain questions. 3.3 Entry Point Data Collection Stationed at the entrance, the Recycling Research Assistant is the first point of contact for users of the landfill. They have the opportunity to politely inform users of proper landfill procedures and prevent misuse. This is also the prime location to assess the contents and quantity of waste material being delivered. This is a delicate task, however, as the Research Assistant has no real authority to inspect anyone’s vehicle, so all such inquiries must be framed as polite requests. It is also an opportune moment to briefly introduce the landfill study and hand out a survey for the user to complete during his/her visit to the dump. In addition to quantitative and descriptive data about dump loads, this interaction allows the Research Assistant to gauge the public’s attitudes on recycling, separation of waste and other waste management initiatives.

Estimating diverse types of waste in all kinds of vehicles is a tricky task, especially when there are multiple vehicles waiting to enter. One method used in a past study involved estimating the cubic metres of waste, roughly based on size of vehicle (see Quigley Solid Waste Disposal Facility Site Assessment, Lorimer and Associates, 1997.) My technique was to estimate quantities of various waste types based on the size of one bag of domestic garbage, or Garbage Bag Equivalents (GBEs) (see figure 2). Thus, one load may contain 4 GBEs of domestic waste, 6 GBEs of construction and 2 GBEs of burnables. Such a load (containing 12 GBEs in total) would fill an average one-half tonne pickup truck to the level point.

Figure 2 The drawback to estimating volumes in this way is the difficulty presented by bulky waste, such as construction debris and large amounts of brush. These wastes do not usually end up in bags, so visual estimation is necessary. One advantage to this method is that it allows the Researcher to identify the proper drop off points of the various waste types. 4.0 Estimation of Volumes The primary means by which waste enters the landfill is the City-contracted waste hauler, whose vehicle has a capacity of 16 cubic yards, or 12.23 cubic metres (1 cubic yard x 0.76). Thus, total monthly estimates are based on the number of loads per month multiplied by the volume of the vehicle, assuming a full load each time. Table 1 also indicates volumes of self-hauled waste (domestic and construction only, as other types



such as metals, tires, etc. may be sold as commodities or recycled). These values are converted to m³ by estimating that 10 GBEs = 1m³.

Waste quantities landfilled and diverted, July 2007-July 2008 (m³)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Diverted at Rec. Depot (averaged) 35.97 35.97 35.97 35.97 35.97 35.97 9.6 18.78 13.08 40.5 30.24 88.5 51.12

Landfilled waste (contractor hauled) 440.36 293.58 318.04 244.65 305.81 318.04 232.41 244.65 305.81 244.65 293.58 489.29 366.97

Combusted cardboard (contractor hauled) 244.65 183.48 134.56 146.79 183.48 195.72 146.79 122.32 183.48 146.79 146.79 220.18 146.79

Landfilled, self-hauled waste (adjusted) 264.71 176.47 191.18 147.06 183.83 191.18 139.71 147.06 183.83 147.06 176.47 230.24 284.48

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July

Table 1

Yearly waste totals (m³) & %Data on self-hauled waste is based only on loads entering the landfill documented by the Landfill Research Assistant during working days at the landfill. Data was collected 17 open days out of 20 during the month of June, and 13 out of 22 in July, and was adjusted to account for missing days. Also, no account of quantities leaving the landfill was taken, as this category is largely considered statistically insignificant (Lewis Rifkin, pers. comm.). Detailed data for quantities diverted at the CKS operated Quigley Recycling Centre and the in-town Recycling Depot is available from CKS, but not fully incorporated into this report. Therefore, monthly averages for recycled waste diversion from those operations were used.

Table 2

Self-hauled garbage (landfilled),

2463 27%

Contractor-hauled garbage (landfilled),

4097 44%

Contractor-hauled cardboard (burned),

2201 24%

Diverted at Depot, 467 5%



4.1 Diversion rates Diversion rates are based on the total volume of materials which were diverted from the landfill through recycling, reuse or composting. The diversion rate illustrated in Table 2 is based on six months of recyclables shipped out at the in-town Recycling Depot, averaged over one year. While the stated diversion rate is 5%, the actual number is likely between 7-10%, considering the high number of home composters in the area, in addition to diversion through recycling at the Quigley Recycling Centre and Liquor Store. This figure does not include cardboard which, as a combusted item is not considered officially diverted. Including cardboard, diversion rates are approximately 28%. 4.2 Generation rates Waste generation rates in Canada are typically expressed as a weight per capita (tonnes per person per year). As the Quigley Landfill is not equipped with a weigh scale, the estimated volumes (m³) were converted to weight (tonnes) based on an average weight composition, (Estimation of Waste Quantities at Landfills Without Weigh Scales, 1990). Therefore, to obtain the generation rate one must know the net disposal and the population creating that waste. As of June 2008, the population of residents claiming Dawson as their permanent address is 1,889 (Monthly Statistics, Yukon Government, Department of Statistics, June 2008). The population increase from tourists and seasonal visitors during the summer must also be accounted for. Yearly, approximately 60,000 visitors pass through the Klondike area, staying an average of 1-2 nights. Assuming a one day visit from each visitor, that corresponds to an equivalent annual population increase of approximately 165. Volume (m³) Weight (tonnes)

Contractor-hauled 6299.64 655.16 Self-hauled 2463.27 256.18 NET GENERATION 8762.91 911.34 Diversion (no cardboard) 467.64 48.63 NET DISPOSAL 8295.27 862.71

Volumes of self-hauled waste during the study period were adjusted for days when no entrance data was recorded, such as days off and when other landfill duties were performed. As no volumes were recorded for self-hauled waste for the ten months of the year when the Landfill Research Assistant was not collecting data, self-hauled volumes were estimated for that period based on a proportion of the waste collected by the professional waste hauler. Thus, volumes for each month where no data is available are estimated by multiplying the volume of professional-hauled waste by 0.6011 (total documented summer self-hauled waste divided by total professionally hauled summer waste). This rate likely underestimates self-hauled waste, as some loads went undocumented throughout the summer, and some major deposits of demolition and



construction waste (usually as a result of fire or accidental damage) took place outside of the sampling period. The annual net generation rate is therefore approximately 0.45 metric tonnes per person per year. This is significantly lower compared to other municipalities. In the years 1993/94, for example Whitehorse averaged 0.94 tonnes per person per year. Previous studies and comparisons to other jurisdictions yield a value of 2.0 kg/capita/day (equating to 0.73 tones per year) as a reasonable estimate for waste generation planning purposes. It must be realized, however, that generation rates are very sensitive to inaccuracies in the estimates of waste volumes and the population producing that waste. 5.0 Waste Composition 5.1 Domestic Waste

Table 3





Over five separate occasions, a total of 142 liquor store bags were filled, totaling a volume of 3130 litres of sorted domestic waste. Samples taken from both residential and commercial waste reveals that plastic film (plastic bags, stretchable plastic wrap, etc.) accounts for approximately 30% of the waste composition and is the single largest contributor by volume to the landfill. (This figure may be considered high as plastic can be compacted to greater degree than other landfill waste). Anecdotally, many landfill users expressed surprise when informed that bags are collected for recycling. Compostable items account for 20% of waste composition; likewise, recyclable paper and cardboard accounts for 20% as well. In total 73% of domestic waste is potentially recyclable, a considerable diversion rate. While refundable items account for 7% of the capacity of domestic waste, they also represent a monetary value on items for which a deposit was paid. In total, 226 litres of sampled refundable items revealed a refund value of $24.15.* Extrapolated to reflect the documented volume of waste disposed in one year, at least $30,000 in refundable items are landfilled annually.** As these figures are based on a low generation rate and contractor hauled garbage only, the actual value of refundable items yearly landfilled is expected to be greater than that amount and would likely reach $50,000 per annum. These figures are certainly worthy of note. It is surprisinging that the community is literally throwing away tens of thousands of dollars each year, and likely has been since the landfill has been in operation. The refunds on these items are easy to collect at either recycling depots and, one would imagine, bring much needed income for families and community members. Alternatively, the refundables could be donated to CKS which would bring additional community benefits through increasing the society’s ability to address waste reduction and diversion. * This estimate of approximately 10¢ per litre volume of refundables is considered realistic, equating to refunds for a litre bottle, or three aluminium cans or small liquor bottles - the refundable value exceeding 10¢. ** Based on a waste contractor-hauled domestic deposition rate of 4100 tonnes per year and a 7% refundables content. 5.2 Commercial Waste In Dawson City, the tourism industry is the largest contributor by sector of commercial waste. However, as commercial and residential wastes are often mixed together in one truckload, it can be difficult to assess the composition of each respective category. However, according to the City-contracted waste hauler, commercial waste accounts for six truckloads during the busiest part of the summer and residential only three. This is likely due to the high amount of cardboard in commercial waste. The City of Edmonton, for example, conducted a study of its waste in 1992 and found that 45% of commercial waste was cardboard.

5.3 Tourist Waste Anecdotally, one truckload of commercial (hotel) waste was found to have a significantly higher quantity of refundable items (11% as opposed to an average of 3-6% found in other audits). These results are consistent with findings on tourist waste composition from the City of Whitehorse (SWAP, 1995). As refundable aluminum cans, bottles and tetra packs retain much of their volume after land filling, this category should be targeted for specific recycling initiatives. One RV campground that regularly brought its waste to the landfill provided an excellent case study for the potential of revenue generation and waste reduction offered when commercial waste is separated. One especially dedicated woman spent several hours each day separating refundable items and cardboard from their guests’ waste. She estimated a 50% reduction in actual waste and earned approximately $2700, with an estimated 18 loads over the course of the summer, each worth on average $150. 5.4 Construction Waste While a few attempts were made to document types of waste entering the construction pile, no methodologically sound means of sampling its contents were found during the course of the study. The primary reason for this was the size of materials and limited human resources. In lieu of this data, an attempt was made to illustrate the growth of the pile using past aerial photography (Gartner Lee, 2005) and Google Earth images. Figures 3 and 4, taken in 2005 and 2006, respectively, illustrate the rapid growth of the pile toward the landfill’s perimeter fence. The construction pile will be the first area within the landfill to reach its capacity – likely within five to seven years (per. comm. Jeremy Lancaster) unless targeted diversion measures are not taken. Approximately one half of the construction pile is comprised of combined materials waste which are not easily diverted (plastic and metal; upholstery and metal; wood and drywall). It contains treated wood (painted, pressure treated, plywood) and untreated in approximately equal proportions. These wood categories account for 20-30% of its contents, with the remainder of the construction pile’s contents comprised of hard and soft plastics, fiberglass insulation, and miscellaneous items.

Landfill users "Just shopping"5.5 Salvaging

Just shopping Other visitsSalvaging is a grey area in the subject of waste management and Dawson City is no exception. While officially prohibited at the landfill, Quigley is home to a busy Free Store and an active scavenging community. As illustrated by Table 4, 15% of visits to the landfill during the summer were those “just shopping”; this



Table 4

15% 85%

number does not include those dropping items off as well as “shopping”. Approximately one half of “shoppers” came for the Free Store, while the remaining half browsed mostly the construction and metals piles. 5.6 Growth of construction pile

Figure 3 (2005)

Figure 4 (2006)



6.0 Survey Results Landfill users were asked to complete a survey as they entered the gate to drop items off. Only those depositing waste were surveyed; no free store shoppers are included. While results should be considered relatively accurate, landfill users hostile to the presence of the landfill researcher were generally not surveyed. As the information sought in the landfill study evolved over the survey period, the questions changed accordingly. Thus, there are survey questions for which a high number of responses are available, and those for which there are significantly fewer. Also, there were certain questions which were unanswered or voided by lack of clear response.

Landfill survey respondents6.1 User Types 107 respondents

Household78%

Construction Co. 3%

Placer mining 5%

Gov't institution 3%

Landfill users were asked to select one of the adjacent categories and confine their responses to that category. Business

11% The household category is overrepresented in comparison with actual number of residential users (66%. See following).



Landfill users(recorded at entrance)

Landfill users

(recorded at entrance)

This graph shows a comparison of the types of survey respondents with actual numbers of users recorded at the landfill entrance.

Personal, 377, 66%

Commercial, 101, 17%

Institutional/Gov't, 100,17%

In this breakdown, ‘commercial’ includes subcategories such as placer mining and construction companies. Note: Types of landfill users were recorded toward the end of the study period, so these results should be considered accurate, yet incomplete.

6.2 User Location Where are dump users from?

Dredge Pond3%

Bear Creek6%

Henderson10%

W. Dawson10%

Other12% Dawson (town)

42%

Rock Creek9%

Callison8%

93 respondents The total number of landfill users from outside city limits (all areas outside Dawson proper, excluding Callison Industrial Subdiv.) equaled those from within city limits. Unsurprisingly, communities outside city limits which do not have domestic pickup are overrepresented.



How often do you bring waste material to the landfill?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

once a year twice a year every threemonths

every month every week ormore

6.3 User Frequency Residential Non-residential 100 respondents More residential users chose ‘every month’ than any other category. Non-residential users (commercial and institutional) were four times more likely to visit the landfill ‘every week or more’ than any other category.

6.4 Waste Disposal Practices 114 respondents Do you dispose of your

waste products yourself?

burn barrel for household waste

13%

burn barrel for wood/yard waste

only25%

composting31%

N/A31%

Responses reveal a fairly high degree of waste elimination at home. Notably, responses indicate a high participation in household composting and relatively low degree of household waste burning. 6.5 Waste Collection Is your home/work serviced by waste collection?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Household Business Gov't institution Placer mining Construction Co.

Serviced by waste collection Unserviced by waste collection 107 respondents A total of 43 respondents are serviced, while 64 are not. Unsurprisingly, those without collection service are over-represented at the landfill.



6.6a Recycling Practices Does your home or business currently

recycle refundable items? 45 survey respondents.

Never0%

Sometimes 4%

Always74%

Mostly22%

Note high level of participation in recycling programs for refundable items. 6.6b Does your home or business recycle

non-refundable items? 45 respondents

Always35%

Mostl y33%

Never 16%

Note sharp decrease in those who ‘always’ participate in recycling programs for non-refundable items (-39%). Sometimes

16% The second largest shift was from respondents who ‘never’recycle non-refundables (+16%), a category that was unrepresented for refundables. 6.6c What changes do you believe would encourage

recycling non-refundable items? 56 respondents



Recycling centre on Klondike Hwy

25%

on-site rinse facilites

11%

other5%

Informational mail

outs25%

pay-per-bag for garbage

5%

Curbside pickup29%

No singular strategy for encouraging -recycling stands out, however more convenient collection and informational mail-outs are strong favorites.

What are your primary concerns concerning the

landfill?

groundwater contamination

44%

increasing taxes for future site

21%

Fumes from incineration

9%other9%potential for

personal injury4%

risk of tire fires13%

6.7 Concerns Regarding Landfill 56 respondents This question was included towards the end of the survey period to understand general concerns regarding the landfill. Environmental concerns were foremost (groundwater contamination), followed by economic (increasing taxation). 7.0 Landfill Usage Frequency The table below indicates the average number of vehicles entering the landfill per day and the number of weekly vehicles per hour. Overall usage and frequency and usage peaked in late June but remained high until early August.

Summer Landfill Usage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

June 3-7*

June 10-14

June 17-21

June 23-28

July 1-5* July 8-12 July 22-26

July 29-Aug 2

# of

use

rs

avr.#veh./dayveh./hr





8.0 Operating Hours This Summer saw a change in the way the landfill was operated with the introduction of longer public opening hours and no public access when the site was unattended. Despite some initial concerns from user and contractors, the new system worked very well with little complaint from those that previously had unlimited access. On-site segregation increased as the attendant was on hand to advise users and identify incorrect dumping practices. Safety at the landfill improved considerably with staff able to supervise user practices and dumping, greatly reducing the potential for dangerous or hazardous materials being burned. The increased hours allowed the attendant more time to better manage and organize the site, improvements that have noted by users. It is expected longer public-hours during the Winter months will have the same benefits. 9.0 Full Cost Accounting Full cost accounting involves the identification of all costs associated with solid waste management practices and recovering those costs to ensure the landfill is financially self-sufficient. Without full cost accounting, waste disposal costs are artificially low, making it more convenient and cost effective for users to send their waste to the landfill instead of participating in waste reduction programs. If the Quigley Sustainable Landfill Initiative is to achieve its objectives several challenges will have to be overcome, notable among them financial. For 2008, un-audited landfill expenditures for the City of Dawson*** totaled $120,000, or approximately equal to the total which is generated by the waste management fee ($80/house) charged to Town residents. This leaves virtually no margin for additional waste reduction programs, capital investment or contingency plans. Based on estimates of annual waste, Dawson residents pay $70/tonne, once territorial subsidies are factored in. In addition to the waste management fee, residents also contribute to the $122,000 cost of waste collection through their annual property tax assessment. However, there are other possibilities that should be examined for revenue generation. *** Un-audited City of Dawson Landfill Expenditures 2008 ($) Attendant position 41,500 Equipment/rental 42,500 Supplies 7,000 Heating 1200 Labour 25,000 9.1 Placer mining According to YTG, Environment, Mines and Resources and the Water Baord, there are over 200 active placer mines in the region. While many of these are small operation employing local residents, Lorimer and Associates estimated in 1997 that between 400 to



700 people relocate to the Dawson area during the summer in support of the mining industry. Given the consistently high price of gold in recent years, that figure is likely even higher at present. As these operations lay outside municipal boundaries, they are exempt from waste management fees, even though they often produce high volumes of waste oil and other special wastes. As the regulating body for placer mines, EMR could collect a waste management fee from active placer mines to cover the cost of handling their operational and personnel waste. 9.2 Dawson-area Residents According to Yukon Statistics figures based on health care coverage, 1,889 permanent residents are listed within the Y0B 1G0 postal code area, which includes the City of Dawson, West Dawson/Sunnydale, and Klondike Valley residents and a few individuals as far up the Dempster Highway as Eagle Plains. According to a study by Gartner Lee environmental consultants (2005), 250 of the 2000 individuals they estimated to live in the Dawson area are outside the city limits. While these residents comprise one half of landfill visitors (see survey results section) no waste management fee is collected. Assuming two individuals per residence, the introduction of a management fee corresponds to an additional $10,000 in operating funds for waste management practices. 10.0 Recommendations As a two-year study project, conclusions from the first year of the Sustainable Landfill Initiative are divided into two sections: suggestions for the second phase of the project and recommendations intended for long and medium-term improvement of waste management practices and. Following this first year of strictly data collection, it is recommended that the second phase of the study be a combination of action and research including, but not limited to:

• Developing a sound methodology for auditing construction waste contents. • Targeting specific waste generators based on the data collected in this report and

previously collected information. Recycling bins in hotels, for example, would provide a relatively easy way to reduce the quantity of refundable and recyclable items entering the landfill.

• Continue to collect data on waste composition, although time spent recording vehicles and loads entering landfill could be better spent on specific diversion projects.

• Further detailed study of on-site composting in conjunction with the community Solid Waste management Committee.

• Efforts should continue to be made to educate residents on proper recycling procedures through a variety of means, including well-designed informational mail-outs and clear simple signage.



Long and medium-term efforts should include:

• Additional personnel to work with landfill attendant on education and public outreach.

• Renovations to the Quigley Recycling Centre should include horizontal metal bars to suspend large fiber bags to facilitate an orderly sorting area for recyclable items.

• Proceed with implementing recommendations of the Solid Waste Management Committee, including item-specific tipping fees, out-of-municipality user fees, and E-waste area.

• Support home-based, in-town and regional, compost sites for residential compostable waste.

• White and coloured office paper is a commodity and should be collected by CKS staff from government, educational and business offices around town for recycling.

• As the most voluminous item entering the domestic area, the campaign against plastic bag and plastic film consumption should continue to be supported by the Society, and other bodies encouraged to participate in or develop initiatives.

• As per the original Quigley Solid Waste Management Plan, 1997, permanent survey points (or GPS, if available) should be established in order to annually the measure and record the growth in both domestic and construction piles.

• A feasibility study should be conducted to examine the possibility of extending the area available for domestic and construction wastes and expediting the collection of recyclables in other piles.

• Connection to the hydro supply would bring enormous benefits to both existing and potential operations at the landfill. Funding options should continue be investigated, in partnership with local governments.

• Connection to the main water supply would improve staff and user handing practices and increase on-site safety. Funding options should be investigated, in partnership with local governments.

• Investigations into solid waste compaction units (compactor and baler) and appropriate funding should continue, which would greatly extend the use of this and alternative/future sites.

• A feasibility study should be undertaken to examine the possibility of utilizing waste materials to provide heat to the landfill office and recycling centre.

• Yukon Government should be encouraged to increase funding for solid waste management, recycling and diversion.

• Residential and commercial kerbside pick-up of recycling and compost should be initiated.

• An increase in frequency of the removal of tires, white goods and waste oil/hazardous waste should be encouraged.

• On-site burning of waste should be prohibited and alternative methods of waste diversion and disposal encouraged.

• Continue the extended landfill attendant-supervised public hours for Summer and Winter.



Appendix A – References Preliminary Landfill Operation Review, Gartner Lee and Assoc., 2005. Quigley Solid Waste Disposal Facility Management Plan, Site Assessment, Lorimer and

Associates, 1997. Quigley Solid Waste Disposal Facility Management Plan, Management Plan, Lorimer

and Associates, 1997. Solid Waste Management Plan, Quigley Solid Waste Disposal Facility, Dawson City,

Yukon, City of Dawson; Government of Yukon, Community Services, 2003. Solid Waste Action Plan, City of Whitehorse, 1995; 1998. Dawson City, Solid Waste Management Committee, Draft Recommendations, May 2008. Monthly Statistics, Yukon Government, Department of Statistics, June 2008. Estimation of Waste Quantities at Landfills Without Weigh Scales. B.C.: Ministry of Environment, 1990. Visitor Exit Survey, Yukon Government, Department of Tourism and Culture, 2004.

http://www.library.for.gov.bc.ca/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=1LX0H74407569.2898363&profile=mof&uri=search=TL%7E%21Estimation%20of%20Waste%20Quantities%20at%20Landfills%20Without%20Weigh%20Scales.&term=Estimation%20of%20Waste%20Quantities%20at%20Landfills%20Without%20Weigh%20Scales.&aspect=basic_search&menu=search&source=%7E%21forest



Appendix B - Survey comments -Proper recycling processing equipment (ie. Bailer/compactor for plastics, cardboard. Facilites to recycle newsprint, boxboard ledger. Am-ten machine to crush light metals – tin, aluminum, fridges, stoves, microwaves,, ect. A small fork lift would also be needed as well as storage area for processed materials. -chemical disposal compound (ventilated) -drywall recycling bin -I don’t know – I think you guys are doing a pretty fair job despite the ignorance of some of the public. -Keep up the good work -a weigh scale for pay use -Just the sign placed before the turn-off, please -I love this dump!! -New hours - great; compost pile – I’d like to see it strictly enforced with no garbage so it can be used as a soil amendment; domestic pile – more enforcement for recyclables, too many cans and bottles ending up there; burn barrel – I’ve had to throw brush in there (told to by staff) while barrel is burning – NOT PLEASANT!! I don’t want to do that again – fine when not burning. -Open 7 days a week in summer -Need more community awareness of recycling materials and separation prior to arriving at landfill. -Make explosive mats out of used tires (make good $) -Whenever I have needed to bring stuff here I have found it very easy to know where to put things or there has been someone there to ask. Very well run landfill. -Easier access to burn barrel – too hot to get near; more frequent removal of the recyclables so you can feel like you are getting somewhere. -Somewhere to deposit recyclable stuff or hope it is recyclable one day -I am pleased with the landfill operations; it has improved a lot over the last few years -No comment other than to make sure people should have access in recycling or reusing any material discarded by others -Being from Henderson, I would like to see it open at least one day a week at 7AM so I don’t have garbage in my truck all day to feed the ravens in town. - Fill in trenches – safety for trucks; place signs at each dump site; place for toxic waste (battery, fuel) -I think the changes of the years have been very good. Emphasis in town about not using so much plastic is great too. -I can see that you could use extra help with the amount of traffic going thru for the disposal of their garbage. - I don’t come a lot so I think it’s good. -City should support the facility 100% -to help maintain the recyclables, idea: what about having the clothing free store at the depot in town where it could be kept in order better? Have you ever looked into exporting the clothes scraps for rags? WIN store in Victoria BC does this successfully… have no idea how.



-Keep it going, get more funding hopefully; keep letting people scrounge!! It’s a good way to recycle. -I would really like to recycle more garbage: plastic wrapping, Styrofoam trays, and other garbage with recycling logos on it. -Dump is getting better every year -Good job folks. It’s about time to improve things! You’re one of a kind and on the right track. Please keep up the good work; more info (ad in Klondike Sun; info flyer, ect) -weigh scale for paying for use of and making better and more beautiful dump. -I think the dump, is taking care good. -Dome should have recyclable drop off -Keep up the good work with the free store, it’s the best organized I’ve ever seen it! -Educate people attempting to reach the conscience of those who don’t recycle. -Non-bio-degradables – a better pit should be built for auto-household liquid containers. Pit like vicfrox??? Brewery Cr.) containment pits. - I already pay a yearly fee for garbage but do not get garbage picked up so would not want to pay fees on top of this. -potential for tire recycling? -Ravens tracking food to the river, tailings and across road. Wind blowing garbage and visual from highway. -Community drop-off for compostables would be very helpful. Compost that can be shared for gardens and community beautification projects. -Am glad to have increased hours of the dump this summer. This makes is easier to access and recycle. -Larger bins -A cleaner recycling area – when the bins are filled it makes it more difficult to get the job done. -Keep recycling depot open in town. -It looks pretty organized out here. Good job. -User fee in lieu of city dump fee $100/yr -Thanks for asking. Thanks for taking care of all of us. -Hmm.. interpret Robert Service school parents and other community associations to raise consciousness. -Francis rocks! - First teach locals children, Dawson businesses & Gov. people to recycle first, then waste my time.



Appendix C – Vehicle Load Descriptions Form

Date Time dom const met free burn recy shop other P/C/I* NOTES

1 * P/C/I = personal/commercial/institutional

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45



Appendix D – Quigley Landfill User Survey Quigley Landfill User Survey The Conservation Klondike Society is undertaking a study at the Quigley Landfill site. The results will be used to develop more effective recycling/diversion procedures and promote more sustainable landfill practices. Your participation in this survey is greatly appreciated. All comments and data collected are confidential. 1. I am completing this survey on behalf of a: (Please circle one response and confine your responses to that category) a) household b) business c) governmental institution d) placer mining operation e) construction company f) other _________ 2. Where is your home/business located? (Please circle one): a) Dawson (town) b) Bear Creek c) Rock Creek d) Dredge Pond sub. e) Callison f) Henderson f) West Dawson g) other: ________ 3. How often do you bring waste material to the landfill site? (Please circle one)

a) once a year b) twice a year c) every three months d)every month e) every week or more

4. Do you dispose of your waste products yourself? (Circle all that apply) a) burn barrel for household waste b) burn barrel for wood//yard waste only c) composting 5. Are you serviced by municipal waste collection? ( Y / N )

6. Does your home or business currently recycle refundable bottles and cans for return? (Circle one) a) never b) sometimes c) mostly d) always 7. Does your home or business recycle non-refundable items (tin cans, plastics containers, milk cartons)

a) never c) sometimes d) mostly d) always 8. What changes do you believe would encourage recycling non-refundable items? (Circle all that apply) a) informational mail-outs b) on-site rinse facilities c) recycling centre on Klondike Hwy.

d) curbside pick-up e) pay-per-bag for garbage disposal f) other ___________________ 9. What are your primary concerns concerning the landfill? (Circle all that apply) a) fumes from incineration b) increasing taxes for future site c) groundwater contamination

d) risk of tire fires e) potential for personal injury f) other ____________________ Comments? Suggestions? (Use reverse side for additional space) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

quigley sustainable landfill study – phase 1€¦ · conducting a sustainable landfill is never...

Documents