quantity of solid waste that must ultimately be disposed of. In general,

Figure 1 — Open Burning on the Earth

The burning and incineration procedure used is a major factor in determining what kind of waste can be safely and efficiently disposed of. The methods widely utilized in Nunavut contain open burning off the floor, unmodified burn barrels and assorted mechanical incineration systems.  Other helpful methods include the use of burn boxes and modified burn barrels. Each procedure is discussed individually in the subsequent sections.

2.1.1    Open Burning

Open burning means the burning of waste at which limited or no control over the combustion process can be exercised by the operator. This method involves burning solid waste right on the open floor or in burn boxes or burn barrels and often does not attain the temperatures or holding time needed for complete combustion of the waste to occur.  This results in the formation of potentially hazardous pollutants and ashes, which are likely to affect nearby land and water. Food waste that is not entirely burnt through open burning can also be a powerful attractant for creatures.

The various open burning methods can also pose a risk of uncontrolled plant and tundra fires throughout the release of hot sparks or embers. The amount of fire risk is contingent on the sort of open burning utilized, its place, the art of the operator and the environmental conditions that exist at the time (i.e. dryness of the surrounding vegetation( end ). It is the policy of this Department of Environment to remove or minimize open burning of mixed solid waste to the extent practicable and to promote more acceptable methods of disposal and incineration.

Open Burning on the Ground

Open burning on the floor involves burning solid waste that’s been piled right on the surface of the floor or placed in a tiny open pit. Most large and Tiny districts and communities operators at Nunavut continue to practice open burning on the floor as a
Evenly spaced holes or vents cut over the base of the barrel supply heat. These attributes provide for increased passive under-fire ventilation and promote better contact between the waste being burnt and incoming air. The basket fit is wrapped with a hinged lid and a chimney vent for attachment of an exhaust pipe or stack. The lid helps to improve heat retention and holding time inside the barrel while also allowing for easier loading and mixing of this waste. The removable mesh basket allows entry to this unburned bottom ash.

Modified burn barrels can be built using commonly available substances. They can either be pre-built locally or hauled to the site for meeting. Detailed construction plans are provided in Appendix 2.

Although modified burn barrels are intended to make an edge over open burning off the floor, burn boxes and unmodified burn barrels through achieving greater burn temperatures and enhanced turbulence and controlling time, stopping combustion of waste and the release of  pollutants to the air continue to be possible. In reality, emissions testing by Environment Canada to a modified burn barrel in April 2011 imply that these devices don’t provide any improvement over open burning off the floor in terms of

Figure 4 — Modified Burn Barrel

emissions quality, especially if wet food waste is added to the waste mixture. Other common  problems include readily overfilling the unit and loading waste that should not be burnt (refer to section 3.2).  Wet or suspended masses of waste are especially hard to burn along with the resulting partly burned food waste could still attract animals. The appropriate operation of modified burn barrels is critical to achieving the best burn potential. Basic operating instructions are offered in section 4.1.

Burn barrels are effective at burning only tiny volumes of solid waste. Like burn boxes, they reduce the risk of fire spreading to plant and tundra by comprising the burning waste to a certain site.

The unmodified burn barrel is generally a 45 gallon, or 205 litre, metal fuel or oil drum with the top removed. These devices typically operate at a very low temperature leading to incomplete combustion of the waste and generation of large volumes of smoke and fly ash.

A modified burn barrel is a 45 gallon metallic gas or petroleum drum that’s been affixed with features or devices which bring about higher burn temperatures, better mixing of the air and also a longer holding time.
Constructed with hinged shirts to enable easier loading and cleaning.

Unlike open burning off the floor, burn boxes help to contain the burning waste within a particular place reducing the possibility of fire spreading to other disposal areas or surrounding tundra, while still enabling moderate amounts of solid waste to be burnt.

Burn Barrels

There are two standard types of burn barrels — the unmodified burn barrel and modified burn barrel.

Burn Boxes

There are two standard types of burn boxes. The enclosed burnt box is constructed using heavy sheets of metal or other alloy whereas the open burn box has been constructed using expanded metal grating. The latter kind is often referred to as a burn cage. These devices aren’t commercially-available in Nunavut, but can be built using locally available materials. For example, the enclosed metal burn box displayed in Figure 2 is created from a dump truck bed and steel plating.

Photo courtesy of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Burn boxes are regarded as a modification of open burning. Combustion air is provided passively using a pure draft making power unnecessary. Burn boxes are single chambered units.  Waste is raised off the bottom of the box by putting it on grates inside the unit. Unburned bottom ash falls through the grate through burning off making removal easier once a decent amount has accumulated. Combustion air in enclosed burnt boxes is usually provided by cutting holes near the base of the box allowing for better mixing together with the burning waste.

Open burn boxes, or burn off cages, are still an improvement over enclosed burnt boxes because the waste is subjected to natural drafts throughout the metal grating on all surfaces such as the bottom. This permits air to better mix together with burning waste and promotes more efficient combustion during the burning interval.

Figure 4 – Modified Burn Barrel

emissions quality, particularly if wet food waste is added to the waste mixture. Other common  problems include easily overfilling the unit and loading waste that should not be burned (refer to section 3.2).  Wet or frozen masses of waste are particularly difficult to burn and the resulting partly burned food waste may still attract animals. The proper operation of modified burn barrels is critical to achieving the most efficient burn possible. Basic operating instructions are provided in section 4.1.

Burn barrels are capable of burning only small volumes of solid waste. Like burn boxes, they reduce the risk of fire spreading to vegetation and tundra by containing the burning waste to a specific location.

The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District is suing Maxxam Analytics International Corp. and Covanta Burnaby Renewable Energy ULC for Supposedly failing to properly test fly ash samples in the district waste-to-energy facility in Burnaby.

The district filed a notice of civil conflict in BC Supreme Court on October 16. Covanta, according to the claim, works the incinerator plant under contract with the district, and the facility generates fly ash that has to be treated before leaving the plant tested monthly to guarantee compliance with hazardous waste regulations.

Non-hazardous fly ash is accepted and disposed of at the Cache Creek landfill, the claim says. Samples examined by Maxxam at the summer and fall of 2012, however, came back suggesting elevated levels of cadmium that exceeded acceptable amounts allowed for disposal at the landfill.

The outcome, the district asserts,”called into question the effectiveness of the treatment of fly ash” at the facility, forcing the plaintiff to incur costs by requiring more sampling and analyzing, investigating the cause of the elevated cadmium levels and finding another disposal site for fly ash in Alberta. Following the Ministry of Environment struck on the district using an advisory letter of non-compliance, the plaintiff hired”consultants, experts and legal counsel” to help investigate.

An audit of Maxxam’s lab found that it did not follow proper methods, known as the”Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure” and the”United States Environmental Protection Agency Method 1311″ to test the fly ash, according to the lawsuit. The Ministry of Environment’s assessment found Maxxam’s results unreliable because of improper testing procedures and found that”Covanta’s quality control and quality assurance protocols at the WTEF [Waste-to-Energy Facility] were not sufficiently developed to determine if leachability was occurring or if a problem with the treated fly ash and/or the treatment system was occurring,” the claim states. Additionally, the ministry found that Covanta couldn’t easily”provide assurance that the treated fly ash fulfilled the toxic waste requirements under the Hazardous Waste Regulation.”

The district seeks damages for negligence, misrepresentation, negligent operation of a service and breach of contract. The allegations have never been proven in court and the defendants hadn’t filed responses to the promise by press time.