An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village

Sanitation

May 1994

OTA-ENV-591

NTIS order #PB94-181013

GPO stock #052-003-01372-0
Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, An Alaskan

Challenge: Native Village Sanitation, OTA-ENV–591 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, May 1994).
Foreword

M

ore than 20,()()() rural Native residents in Alaska live in communities without running water and where homes, local government offices, commercial buildings, and even medical clinics use plastic

buckets for toilets-euphemistically called “honey buckets.” The

waste from these toilets is often spilled in the process of hauling it to disposal

sites, and these spillages have led to the outbreak of epidemic diseases such as

Hepatitis A.

This OTA assessment, requested by Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, reviews

the status of federal government efforts to provide safe sanitation to Alaskan

Natives and the technologies that have been used or proposed for this purpose.

Information about similarly relevant efforts by State and Native governments

is also provided. A significant portion of this research also focuses on the geographic, social, and economic settings of the Natives and their remote communities. Finally, the work examines the legislative and institutional setting for

the waste sanitation problems, and the criteria that need to be applied in selecting and implementing new technologies.

Providing safe water and waste sanitation systems to Alaskan Native villages has been more difficult, expensive, and time consuming than in any other

region of the United States—particularly because of the unusual technical

constraints. Despite considerable efforts by the Indian Health Services and

others, only half of the 191 Native villages have adequate sanitation.

Two major types of measures appear to be needed to support the development and application of cost-effective alternatives in the long-term: 1 ) a comprehensive Federal research, development, and testing program for innovative

sanitation technologies; and 2) increased financial support for operation and

maintenance and technical assistance programs.

OTA’s staff received splendid support from Federal, State, and Native organizations and private sector individuals during the preparation of this report.

Of special significance is the assistance provided by Native leaders, sanitation

experts, and v illage residents during our visit to rural Alaska. Invaluable assistance and guidance was also provided by the Alaska Area Native Health Service, the Village Safe Water, and the University of Alaska-Anchorage.

aw= .

ROGER C. HERDMAN

Director

. . .

Ill
Reviewers

Mike Black

Alaska Department of Community

and Regional Affairs

J.P. Godfrey

Alaska Science and Technology

Foundation

John Schaeffer

NANA Corporation

Herb Schroeder

John Bouzoun University of Alaska Anchorage

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Cold Regions Research and

Engineering Laboratory

Hollis D. Hall

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Paul Sherry

Samuel E. Hardin Alaska Native Health Board

Farmers Home Administration

Patrick A. Brown Palmer, Alaska

CHETS International

Seward. Alaska

Dave Shoultz

Yukon Kuskokwim health

Thomas Joyce Corporation

ACTION — Region 10

Greg Capito

Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation

John Spriggs

Julie Kitka Maniilaq Association

Alaska Federation of Natives

John W. Sibert

Alaska Science and Technology

Foundation

Roger Clark

City of Selawik

Ed McKiernan

SeaLand Technology, Inc.

Tom Coolidge

Alaska Area Native Health

Service

Kathleen Vietch

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Region 10

Larry Merculief

Alaska Sanitation Task Force

John Olofsson

James Crum University of Alaska Anchorage

Alaska Area Native Health

Service

Ann Walker

Alaska Native Health Board

James Peterson

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Region 10

Orie Wiliiams

Yukon Kuskokwim Health

Corporation

Tudor Davies

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

Anchorage, Alaska

Bernhard Richert

Economic Development

Administration

Anchorage, Alaska

Peter Williams

City of Napaskiak

Chuck Eggener

Chuck Eggener Consulting

Engineers

Anchorage, Alaska

Randy Romenesko

Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation

iv
Clyde Behney GERMAN E. REYES

Assistant Director, OTA Project Director

Health, Education, and

Environment

Robert W. Niblock

Environment Program

Director

CONTRIBUTORS

Robert Friedman

Preject Staff

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Kathleen A. Beil

Office Administrator

Kimberly Holmlund

Administrative Secretary

Peter Johnson

Robert Niblock

Sharon Knarvik

Secretary

CONTRACTORS

John Olofsson and Barbara Bradley

Jeffrey Schroeder Secretary

University of Alaska Anchorage

Florence Poillon

Editor
workshop Participants

Mike Black

Alaska Department of Community

and Regional Affairs

Greg Capito

Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation

Tom Coolidge

Alaska Area Native Health

Service

James Crum

Alaska Area Native Health

Service

Chuck Eggener

Chuck Eggener Consulting

Engineers

Anchorage, Alaska

J.P. Godfrey John W. Sibert

Alaska Science and Technology Alaska Science and Technology

Foundation Foundation

John Olofsson Ann Walker

University of Alaska Anchorage Alaska Native Health Board

Randy Romenesko Orie Williams

Alaska Department of Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corp.

Environmental Conservation

John Schaeffer

NANA Corporation

Herb Schroeder

University of Alaska Anchorage
contents

1 Executive Summary 1

Native Villages of Rural Alaska: Their Setting and

Sanitation Problems 1

Mission and Accomplishments of Agencies

Responsible for Sanitation 3

Capital Construction for Sanitation Facilities 6

Factors Contributing to Inadequate Operation and

Maintenance of Existing Sanitation Facilities 7

Congressional Oversight Considerations

or Options 11

Conclusion 21

-

2 Alaskan Native Villages and Their

Sanitation Problems 23

Geographic Setting 23

Modern Alaska and Emergence of Native

Corporations 28

Sanitation in Native Communities of Rural

Alaska 31

Water Availability and Sanitation in Rural Alaska 36

Conclusion 38

3 Roles and Responsibilities of

Alaska Natives 39

Operation and Maintenance of Existing Piped

Sanitation Technologies 39

Economic Health and Culture of Native Villages 40

Role of Native Communities in Operation and

Maintenance of Sanitation Projects 45

Factors That Hamper Successful Operation and

Maintenance in Native Communities 48

Funding of Operation and Maintenance Activities 49

Conclusion 50

vii
4 Roles and Responsibilities of Federal

and State Agencies 51

Introduction 51

Institutional and Regulatory Framework Relevant to

Alaskan Village Sanitation 52

Capital Construction Funding 55

Project Planning, Design, and Construction 61

Training and Certification of Sanitation Facility

Operators 63

Technical Assistance 64

External Subsidies for Operation and Maintenance

Activities 68

Conclusion 69

5 Alternative Sanitation Technologies 71

Introduction 71

Description of New Advanced Systems Currently

Proposed for Alaskan Villages 72

Summary of Technology Issues and Needs 91

Conclusion 93

References 95

APPENDICES

A

B

c

The Land Claims and Tribal Movements

of Alaska Natives 111

Hepatitis A Outbreaks in Alaskan Native

Villages, 1988 116

Current Distribution of Sanitation

Technologies Among Rural Alaskan

Villages and Native Population

Served 118

. . . Vlll
Overview

and

Findings 1

NATIVE VILLAGES OF RURAL ALASKA:

THEIR SETTING AND SANITATION PROBLEMS

About one-fourth of Alaska’s 86,000 Native residents live without running water and use plastic buckets for toilets+ euphemistically called ‘*honey buckets” (figure l–l). This report examines

the status of waste sanitation among Native villages of rural Alaska, identifies the socio-economic factors contributing to sanitation inadequacy, and discusses the technological solutions that

have been used and proposed to date. Honey buckets are the predominant means of sanitation for Native residents in 89 villages

in the Ahtna, Bering Straits, North Slope, Northwest Arctic, Tanana Chiefs, and Yukon-Kuskokwim regional areas (figure 1-2)

(127). ]

Throughout rural Alaska, but particularly in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and the Northwest Arctic, the outbreak of diseases,

including hepatitis A, bronchitis, impetigo, and sometimes meningitis, is believed to be partially attributed to the exposure to human waste caused by inadequate sanitation facilities. Because of

the frequent spillage of human waste that occurs on community

roads and boardwalks during its transportation to disposal sites or

sewage lagoons, the exposure of residents, particularly children,

1 As many as 239 total Alaskan villages have been reported in the past; the actual number, however, IS generally difficult to quantify. In its 1992 directory, for example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Juneau Area Ofllce, listed a total of219 village governments. For

the purp)se of this rep)rt, OTA focused on only the 191 Native villages on the Indian

Health Service’s database.

II
2 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

North slope

Northwest Arctic

Bering Straits

Yukon Kuskokwim

Tanana Chiefs

Ahtna

Remaining regions

I r 1 I

o 2 4 6 8 10

Thousands of Natives

SOURCE Jim Crum, Director, Diwsion of Sanitation Facilities, Alaska

Area Native Health Service, personal cornmunication, November 9,

1993

to such waste is frequent. The fact that diseases

such as hepatitis A occurs in epidemics has

raised questions about both their exact mechanism of transmission and the overall level of

disease eradication that can be achieved with sanitation technologies.

The Native villages with the most frequent outbreaks of disease are those in which running water

is difficult to obtain and the principal method of

disposal is the honey bucket. In many cases, the

honey bucket system consists simply of a 5-gallon

plastic bucket lined with a plastic bag, with a toilet

seat on top of it. Once filled, the plastic bag is

sealed and the bucket is hand carried and emptied

into a haul container or sewage lagoon or sometimes dumped at a convenient location. In these

communities, honey buckets are used in homes,

by local governments, in commercial buildings,

and even in medical clinics.

Despite Alaska’s abundance of water, it is often

extremely difficult to obtain water for drinking

North slope

Northwest Arctic

Bering Straits

Yukon Kuskokwim

Tanana Chiefs

Ahtna

Other Alaskan

regions

- Hauled Honey

Buckets

n Hand-carried

1

t13 1 1 1 I

o 5 10 15 20 25

Number of villages

* This figure does not include villages (about 13) in which only a few

homes use honey buckets

SOURCE Jim Crum, Dirctor, Division of Sanitation Facilities, Alaska

Area Native Health Service, personal communication, Nov. 9, 1993

and sanitation in rural areas. According to recent

estimates, at least 73 of the 191 Native villages

comprising the study area of this report have been

provided piped water and sewer projects to meet

their sanitation needs (figure 1-3). Flush toilets

are also found in communities operating truck

haul and septic tank systems, which number 10

and 24, respectively. Because in about 95 of the

191 Native villages, piped water systems do not

exist inside homes, most of the domestic water

used by residents must be hauled by hand from the

central watering point, a water well, or a washeteria2 in the villages. The work involved in hauling water, usually by means of a 5-gallon pail, is

burdensome and time consuming; thus, water use

in these Native villages tends to be minimal. In the

2 A building in which people can shower and do their laundry.
Chapter 1: Overview and Findings | 3

(73)

Individual septic (19)

● includes 26 honey bucket haul, 19 honey bucket bunkers, and

39 privy systems.

SOURCE Jim Crum, Director, Division of Sanitation Facilities, Alaska

Area Native Health Service, personal communication, Nov 9, 1993

A/most all Native villages are geographically isolated from

Alaska’s major urban centers. Access by road is virtually

impossible due to the extensive wetlands found in the region.

winter, ice is often chopped from lakes and rivers,

and stored in 30-gallon plastic trash cans. The

plastic cans are placed inside the home to melt the

chopped ice. Box 1-1 describes briefly some of the

difficulties encountered by Native Alaskans in obtaining the water needed to maintain good sanitation and to prevent disease. More details are presented in chapter 3.

The lack of adequate water supplies often increases the risk of disease because it reduces the

ability of Natives to maintain good personal hygiene. Because epidemic waves of diseases such

as hepatitis A are expected every 15 to 20 years, a

great number of casualties might occur if proper

measures are not taken in advance. However, prevention of an epidemic does not seem possible unless communities are provided with sufficient water to ensure adequate sanitation, personal

hygiene, and safer sewage handling methods. In

1988, more than 70 percent of all hepatitis A cases

reported throughout the State of Alaska occurred

in Native villages with honey bucket systems.

MISSION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

OF AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE

FOR SANITATION

Federal participation in health care for Native

Americans dates as far back as 1802. The formal

delineation of this responsibility, which began

with the signing of the 1854 treaty with the Rogue

River Indians (southwest Oregon), is found today

in numerous constitutional documents, historical

events, and statutes. Federal funding to support

Indian health care activities of the Department of
4 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Alaska is a land of contradiction. When traveling in western Alaska or the North Slope, one is conscious

of lakes, tundra ponds, and rivers seemingly without number. However, acquiring water in areas with continuous or discontinuous permafrost can be a challenging proposition.

Permafrost on the North Slope can be several hundred feet deep, effectively preventing or making extremely difficult the drilling of wells. At the same time, permafrost also forms a watertight barrier, which may

exist as liquid soil-water in the summer. The upper layers of soil will typically melt seasonally to form what is

called the “active layer. ” Water that melts in the active layer has essentially no place to go and remains

perched above the frozen permafrost layers. This is results in surface water that dissolves a broad range of

organic and inorganic materials, and becomes highly colored with a heavy burden of total dissolved solids.

Rivers are often used as sources of water. Unfortunately, Arctic rivers often freeze solid, leaving only a

small meandering flow somewhere beneath the ice of the riverbed. Locating this perennial stream beneath

the frozen river is often a matter of luck and persistent searching.

River water availability may not even be improved by construction of in-stream impoundments. During

spring breakup, ice jamming, high rates of flow, and flooding result in extreme forces from ice moving downstream. Structures designed to withstand such forces would be both expensive and impractical to install.

Seasonal water intakes are often constructed on lakes and rivers for use during the ice-free period and in

the winter, Intake lines are frequently floated to an intake point and held in place by an appropriate flotation

device. Similarly, after freeze-up in winter, lines are used to pump water through holes cut in the ice. Problems arise because of the decreasing water quality in winter caused by the freeze exclusion of solutes and

dramatic increases in the total amount of dissolved solids. Also, subsurface water sources maybe inaccessible for several weeks during the onset of ice cover in the fall and breakup in the spring. More detailed

information on Alaska’s limited drinking water sources for maintaining good sanitation and preventing disease is provided in chapter 3.

SOURCE John A. Olofsson and H P Schroeder, University of Alaska Anchorage, Sanitation alternatives For Rura/Alaska, report

prepared for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, Aug. 15, 1993.

the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs was first Health Service (IHS) the authority to plan, design,

authorized with the passage of the Snyder Act of

1921.3 In 1955, the responsibility for Indian

health care was transferred to the U.S. Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare, now the Department of Health and Human Services (248).

As a response to documented health problems

among Native communities, and recognizing the

need to develop formal solutions to the waste sanitation problem, Congress passed the Indian Sanitation Facilities Act in 1959,4 giving the Indian

and construct water and sewerage projects in Native communities. Since passage of the Act, IHS

has provided water and waste sanitation services

to more than 182,000 Native residents in the lower

48 States and Alaska, and improved sanitation

systems in over 58,000 homes (248).

To further improve the health conditions of

American Indian and Alaskan Natives, Congress

enacted the Indian Health Care Improvement Act

in 1976.5 Under this Act, IHS is responsible for,

325 uSC. ]s.

~ P.L. 86-1 21; 42 U.S.C. 2004a.

5

25 U.S.C. 1601 cl seq.
Lakes, tundra ponds, and rivers in Alaska are seemingly

without number. Despite this abundance, it is often extreme/y

difficult for many Native villages to obtain water suitable for

drinking and sanitation purposes.

among other things, increasing the number of

health professionals serving Native communities,

upgrading hospitals and other IHS health facilities

including 172 Alaskan village clinics, and building potable water and waste disposal facilities

(258). As part of its efforts to improve the overall

health of Natives, since 1960 IHS has invested

more than $350 million in the construction and

upgrade of nearly 700 sanitation projects in

roughly 180 Alaskan communities. Currently,

IHS is carrying out the construction of 407 new

sanitation projects in rural Alaska at a cost of $152

million. 6

The Indian Sanitation Facilities Construction

Act of 1959 and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 limited their focus to construction activities. Federal funds were not authorized

for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the facilities that were built. Because Native communities

lack outside O&M funding and have poor local

economies, many have had extreme difficulties

with proper operation and adequate maintenance

of these systems. Recognizing this deficiency,

Congress amended the Indian Health Care ImChapter 1: overview and Findings | 5

provement Act with the Indian Health Amendments of 1992,7 authorizing IHS to share up to 80

percent of the costs incurred by Native communities in operating, managing, and maintaining safe

water and waste sanitation projects. For Native

communities with fewer than 1,000 residents, the

Act further adds that”. . . the non-Federal portion

of the costs of operating, managing, and maintaining such facilities may be provided, in part,

through cash donations or in kind property, fairly

evaluated” (167).

IHS has not sought funds from Congress to

carry out the O&M tasks stipulated under this statute because of efforts to first define the nature of

congressional intent. Preliminary IHS estimates

suggest, however, that an annual contribution of

$80 million to $120 million would be needed to

implement the mandate of the Act nationwide.

Adoption of measures to comply with new waste

disposal and drinking water regulations issued by

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

could further increase this amount to at least $150

million annually. According to some preliminary

estimates, implementation of the 1992 Indian

Health Amendments in rural Alaska alone would

cost about $15.1 million (122,151 ,204,206,303).

The Village Safe Water (VSW) Program within

the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) is the principal State agency responsible for improving water and sewer systems

in Alaskan communities. The VS W program has a

small staff (about 12 out of more than 450 ADEC

employees). However, as of July 1993, VSW was

carrying out projects in almost 60 Native villages

throughout rural Alaska. Other agencies with programs relevant to Native communities are discussed in chapter 4.

The Indian Health Service works with VSW in

ensuring data reliability, coordinating activities,

and sometimes matching funds. When IHS and

VSW agree that a proposed sanitation project

6 The status of these facilities or projects ranges from just initiated, to partially completed, to fully operational.

7 P.L. 102-573.
6 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

should be undertaken, they cooperate on planning,

design, and ultimate construction of the facility. In

1993 alone, the two agencies cooperated on 17

different projects.

To date, efforts by IHS and VSW have provided

safe water and adequate waste sanitation service

to more than 300 Alaskan urban and rural communities. Of the 191 rural Native village communities relevant to IHS sanitation efforts, more than

70 have already been provided with modern pressurized potable water and gravity sewerage systems. Twenty-six others have received septic or

leach field systems, and about a dozen villages

(including Galena, Bethel, Barrow, South Point

Lake, and Katorik) operate a truck haul system for

both potable water delivery and wastewater disposal. A pilot demonstration project of-a small-vehicle haul system is also under way in the village

of Mekoryuk. Box 1-2 briefly describes the characteristics of the major waste sanitation systems

used in rural Alaska. A more detailed discussion

of waste sanitation technologies including the

Mekoryuk system is provided in chapter 5.

CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FOR

SANITATION FACILITIES

Despite Federal and State efforts to build water

and sewer projects to date, lack of adequate sanitation remains a serious health problem for at least

67 of the 89 Alaskan Native villages operating the

most rudimentary sanitation system found in the

State: the honey bucket system. Protection of public health is of particular concern because of waste

spillage on streets, boardwalks, and backyards

that occurs throughout these communities.

Providing safe water and waste sanitation systems to Native villages of Alaska, however, is

difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Planning and building such facilities there are more

difficult and expensive than in any other region of

the United States because of the unusual technical

constraints (see ch. 3 and 4) that must be overcome. These constraints include limited drainage;

poor soil conditions; extreme variations in temperature; the limited quantity and quality of water;

and the high costs of electricity, fuel, and transportation. It is not unusual to find that IHS or

VSW must delay project schedules to repair structural damage caused by spring floods or winter ice

floes. To avoid some delays, agencies must order

supplies up to a year in advance from distant locations, such as Seattle, to fit delivery schedules of

barge transport.

Once a final design plan is adopted and supplies

are purchased, the pace of construction must be

rapid, to take advantage of the short construction

season—3 to 4 months-typical of rural Alaska.

Building sanitation facilities in rural Alaska

seems to some to rank in complexity with a wartime construction project. Fortunately, construction can proceed around the clock in summer as a

result of the long days.

This fast pace is sometimes interrupted by the

erratic barge schedules typical of the region and

the absence of adequate roads in most communities. According to the Governor’s Sanitation Task

Force,8 a group of experts convened in January

1992 to develop strategies to improve sanitation

in rural Alaska, nearly 100 Native villages lack

adequate roads, and at least $100 million will be

required to upgrade them. Costly construction delays can also be caused by the slowness and uncertainty of the funding process at both Federal and

State levels.

Most communities naturally want the contractor to employ as much local labor as possible

when building a new sanitation facility. Training

these workers and negotiating mutually acceptable wage scales, working hours, and hirin\firing

practices can sometimes delay actual construc8 Tle Alaska Sanitation Task Force consisted of 45 experts from 27 organizations assigned to participate in one of 12 separate working

groups. Each group was responsible for developing issue-specific strategies to address the sanitation problem; some of these issues included

enforcement, education, utility management, operator training, research and development, housing, and subsidies (63). Although a brief w(~rking document was issued in October 1992, lack of funds has precluded publication of this important report.
Chapter 1: Overview and Findings | 7

tion. Establishment of labor agreements to ensure

employment of local residents (generally known

as “force accounts”) has proved a useful tool in addressing these concerns in many Native villages.

The opportunities provided for the Indian

Health Service to incorporate these factors satisfactorily in its efforts to deliver sanitation projects

to Native communities are limited. One of the major limiting factors is the Federal funding process.

Identifying and building sanitation facilities in rural Alaska represents a time-consuming task,

sometimes requiring several years. Yet, because

Federal funds must be obligated within the same

fiscal year (FY) in which they are appropriated,

IHS often has difficulty in allowing sufficient

time to evaluate project proposals and to involve

village officials and residents. Further constraints

are imposed by the relatively small staff available

to IHS and VSW for this task.

One additional factor hindering IHS from delivering sanitation technologies more rapidly to

Native communities is the regulatory framework

within which it functions. According to IHS,

about 20 percent of the time spent by agency engineers on project construction is devoted to securing environmental review and permits required by

existing regulations. In some cases, it has taken

IHS up to 39 months to prepare all the documentation needed to obtain a single construction permit

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The time

between submission of permit application and

permit approval is viewed by many as incongruous with conditions in rural Alaska, as well as

unnecessarily costly. According to the Governor’s

Sanitation Task Force, additional adverse effects

are expected from the recent promulgation of Federal regulations for drinking water and solid waste

disposal in Alaska.

Building new sanitation facilities in Native villages will be both time consuming and costly. According to IHS projections, providing piped sanitation systems to all rural Native communities

now operating honey buckets will require several

decades. The current projection for providing both

piped and non-piped systems to all rural Alaskan

villages is that $125 million will be required annually for 20 years (204).

Funding an Alaska program at $125 million per

year in the future appears to be difficult to achieve,

especially since IHS’S FY 1993 national appropriated budget was only about $85 million. Although an additional $40 million is being currently provided by agencies such as VSW ($25

million), EPA ($6 million), and the Farmers

Home Administration (about $6 million), future

funding appears much more problematic. A longterm budgetary commitment by IHS and other

agencies to capital construction projects in rural

Alaska remains largely undetermined.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO

INADEQUATE OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING

SANITATION FACILITIES

Operation and maintenance of existing and

planned sanitation facilities were recently recognized by the Governor’s Sanitation Task Force as

the most vital factor in ensuring long-term project

success. Under the current system, Native villages

are responsible for the operation, maintenance,

and management of sanitation projects provided

by Federal and State agencies.

Carrying out these responsibilities has been

difficult in many Native villages, particularly

those in which an adequate economic base does

not exist or funds are not available. Although capital funds are essential for constructing new facilities or repairing existing systems, the current Federal—and State—system does not provide funds

to maintain the completed facilities. In the past,

State agencies sometimes provided financial support for the operation of secondary sewage treatment plants in many Native communities. These

efforts, however, were unorganized and modest,

generally not exceeding $20,000 per village.

Today, this practice has virtually been eliminated.

Greater O&M assistance will be required to prevent the water and sanitation projects already built

by IHS in small rural Native communities—as
8 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Piped Systems

Piped sewerage systems include gravity, vacuum, and pressure sewage.

The gravity piped system is the most common type of piped technology employed to deliver water and

waste sanitation services to Native villages in rural Alaska to date. It is presently installed in 69 of the 191

Alaskan Native villages identified by the Indian Health Service, primarily in villages of the Aleutians, Kodiak,

North Pacific Rim, and Southeast regional corporations In most villages, piped sanitation projects are also

equipped with lift stations and force mains.

Building gravity sewer pipes in rural Alaska is not always possible because of the harsh environmental

conditions typically found throughout the State. As a consequence, technologies such as pressure and

vacuum sewers are considered feasible conventional alternatives for improving waste sanitation in affected

communities.

Pressure sewage systems, so called because of their reliance on pressure provided by pumps, are considered highly efficient in removing sewage through smaller pipelines. Although essentially similar to gravity

piped systems, the pressure-type technology requires a power source to heat service lines and maintain the

pressure needed to ensure transport of sewage through the pipes. The use of specialized plumbing fixtures

in homes connected to this type of sewer system is also necessary,

Vacuum sewer collection technology is designed to use a central vacuum to draw raw sewage from connected homes into a central unit or facility. The use of a vacuum environment not only permits the use of

smaller water volumes compared to gravity and pressure piped systems, but also enables the placement of

service lines on any type of terrain with little concern for slope. The installation and operation of vacuum

systems are generally more expensive than for gravity and pressure sewer services. With the exception of a

few industrial camps, Noorvik (Northwest Arctic) and Emmonak (Yukon-Kuskokwim) are the only two Native

villages of rural Alaska now operating vacuum sewer systems.

Septic Systems

Although they represent the most popularly used waste disposal technology in most rural areas of the

world, the installation of septic tanks in rural Alaska is often impractical because of the limited soil drainage,

ice-rich soil, and periodic flooding characteristic of these high-latitude regions. According to IHS, only 26

Native villages were operating community or individual septic tank systems in January 1994 to treat the raw

sewage discharged from flush toilets in the home. These villages were located almost entirety in the vicinity

of the southwestern coastal region of Alaska. Use of septic systems under less favorable conditions has

often been associated with, among other problems, frozen or plugged drain fields, high groundwater

tables, limited soil percolation, frozen tanks, and overflowing sewage appearing on the surface or discharging into receiving waters.

Truck Haul

Conventional truck haul systems are designed primarily to collect and transport to the community’s disposal area, wastewater discharged from flush toilets and stored in tanks outside the home. Under this approach, vehicles are equipped with an insulated tank capable of holding—sometimes under pressure—up

to 1,000 gallons of waste at a time, The decreased neec for pipe handling associated with pressure-type

truck haul systems often results in an additional reduction in exposure to human waste. Although the initial

capital expense is considerably lower for piped sanitation systems, the operation, replacement, and main-
Chapter 1: Overview and Findings | 9

tenance of the conventional truck approach are often costlier because of the shorter useful life of haul vehicles and the need to ensure road accessibility. Seven of the 10 Alaskan villages operating truck haul systems are located in the North Slope Borough, Two of the remaining three (Galena and Fort Yukon) use the

vacuum-type haul system,

A promising small-vehicle haul system, recently developed by Cowater International of Canada, has

undergone field testing in Mekoryuk, Alaska. The Cowater technology requires only the use of all-terrain

vehicles (ATVS) (during the summer) and snowmobiles (in winter) equipped with a tow trailer and a small

vacuum/pressure tank to remove wastewater from home holding tanks (see ch. 5 for more information), Opportunities for future installation in other rural Native communities are being explored by the Department of

Environmental Conservation Village Safe Water, Alaska’s agency responsible for delivering sanitation services to Native communities in the State,

Honey Bucket System

As of January 1994, nearly 20,000 Natives scattered throughout 89 rural Alaskan villages were operating

the honey bucket system as their main waste sanitation technology. Consisting only of a 5-gallon plastic

bucket lined with a plastic bag and a toilet seat on top, the honey bucket system continues to be the most

rudimentary and health threatening means available to Natives for the collection and disposal of human

waste. Honey buckets are emptied on the ground, in nearby pit bunkers, on frozen rivers, in the ocean, on

tidal plains, in tundra ponds, or in sewage lagoons. Honey bucket waste can also be carried to nearby central collection points called honey bucket bins. These bins are then hauled to the community sewage lagoon

by snowmobile, ATV, or truck. Although the latter methods represent an improvement, they have thus far

failed to eliminate the potential for direct human contact with the waste. In addition, there are costs

associated with the purchase, operation, and maintenance of the equipment needed to make hauling of

waste possible. Honey buckets continue to be the waste collection/disposal technology most Iikely to be

found among Native communities characterized by having very few economic resources to operate more

improved sanitation systems,

Small-Vehicle Haul System

For communities in which the filled plastic bag is disposed in a centrally located plastic collection bin, a

transport system based on the use of small ATVS has been designed to improve the disposal of honey bucket wastes. ATV-based systems were developed mainly to minimize the high operational costs of the much

larger conventional truck design. In spite of its relatively simple design, relative ease to manage, and ability

to operate throughout the year, the ATV-based approach has thus far failed to eilminate the potential for

direct human contact with waste.

Comporting Toilets

Certain comporting toilet designs were tried in several rural Alaskan communities with little success for

the last 20 years. Common reasons for failure included, among others, offensive odors, overflow, inability of

the units to handle liquid overload, and the high energy costs necessary to evaporate accumulated Iiquids

Another reason commonly mentioned IS the failure of technology manufacturers and design/project engineers to consult with villagers on the type of improvements needed. This failure to employ a participatory

approach contributed to the indifference to, and ultimate rejection of, composting toilets by homeowners

Among the villages with firsthand experience in early comporting toilet designs are Selawik, Kivalina, Barrow, and Deeding

(continued)
10 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Although modern comporting toilets operate on the same basic principle, they incorporate a series of

design improvements to avoid the failures of older models. Formal field testing in individual homes has not

been accomplished to date, and validated results with which to determine the degree of applicability of

comporting toilets in rural Alaska are not available. Several efforts to demonstrate these composting

technologies (discussed in ch. 5) are now under way.

SOURCES Arctic Slope Consulting Group, Inc. (ASCG), Water and Sewer Utilities Master Plan Report Selawik, Alaska, prepared

for Cityof Selawik, Alaska, Jan 1992, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Cold Climate Utility Manual (Montreal, Canada Beauregard Press Ltd , 1986), Crum, Jim, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Alaska Arctic Cornrnunity Sanitation Construction, document

presented at the Environmental Protection Agency Cold Climate Research Seminar, Washington, DC, 1990; Crum, Jim, Director, Division of Sanitation Facilites, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage, information provided during a briefing of Off Ice Technology Assessment staff, Aug. 3, 1993, Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Service, Co/d Climate Utilities De//very Design

Manual, Report No EPS 3-WP-79-2 (Edmonton, Canada Environment Canada, March 1979), Nelson, Doug, University of Alaska

Anchorage, School of Engineering, personal communicatlon, Nov. 23 1993; John A Olofsson and H P Schroeder, Universityof Alaska Anchorage, Sanitation Alternatives For Rural Alaska, report prepared for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment,

Washington, DC, Aug. 15, 1993

--l

well as those currently under construction—from

failing prematurely due to inadequate maintenance. Figure 1-4 shows the estimated O&M costs

associated with each sanitation technology now in

operation; the total annual O&M cost for rural

Alaska—$] 5.1 million—is also shown.

Many communities have employed fund-raising strategies—such as bingo, tax ordinances, and

user fees—with varying degrees of success to provide operational support for sewage systems. Operational procedures and disconnection policies

have also been instituted by some to make sure

that fees are collected. Many Native leaders expect that the current difficulty in obtaining O&M

funds can only increase as costs rise and the State

economy continues to suffer. As a recent Department of Community and Regional Affairs report

(43) concludes, the decline in State revenue sharing programs will have serious adverse economic

consequences for small Native villages because

these represent their only available source of discretionary funds.

With relatively few exceptions, the inability of

remote villages to fund a public works department

or hire a full-time, certified water and sewerage

operator is often the result of poor local economies. According to the Governor’s Sanitation

Task Force, sanitation facilities in villages with

few resources are often run by part-time operators

or volunteers, who are generally ill-trained. As a

consequence, the level of oversight is inadequate

to respond to system malfunctions.

The frequency of repair needs is expected to increase. Although specific cost figures do not exist,

the Governor Sanitation Task Force estimated in

its 1992 draft report (63) that the overall toll for repairing all facilities that are inoperative, or are operating with difficulty due to equipment malfunc -

tion, will be about $750 million. Although

comparisons were not made between the Task

Force’s one-time cost and the total annual O&M

estimate of $15.1 million, many believe that the

prompt authorization of O&M funds to IHS

would prevent unnecessary expenditures and,

would reduce the $750 million figure considerably.

In addition to their poor economy, many Native

village governments seem to lack the level of leader-ship required to take on the administrative responsibility for large, complex sanitation projects. Village governments often have little interest

in managing sanitation projects and subsequently

transfer this responsibility to city managers and

facility operators who often lack the authority to
Chapter 1: Overview and Findings | 11

Piped Arctic

Conventional piped

Individual systems

Washeterias

Haul systems

Total O&M cost

L

o 4 8 12 16

Millions of dollars

SOURCE Jim Crum, Alaska Area Native Health Service, communication with Martha Knight, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Anchorage, AK, May 7, 1993, Jim Crum, Director, Division of Sanitation Facilites, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage, personal commumication, Nov 9, 1993, John A Olofsson and H P Schroeder, University of Alaska Anchorage, Sanitation Aternatives For Rural

Alaska, report prepared for the Congressional Off Ice of Technology Assessment, Washington, D C, Aug. 15, 1993 John A Olofsson, University of Alaska Anchorage, School of Engineering, personal communication, Sept. 28, 1993, and Steve Weaver, Indian Health Service, Public

Health Service, Rockville MD, personal communication, Jan 24, 1994

set or enforce related policies within the community. According to the Sanitation Task Force, this

deficiency has thus far contributed to making the

protection of village residents’ health and the success of sanitation projects even more problematic.

Unfortunately, Federal agencies involved with

sanitation projects in rural Alaska have very few

programs to strengthen management by local Native governments; a particular exception is the

IHS training program, in which technical training

services are provided to Natives at an annual cost

of about $300,000. The implementation of this

IHS program is coordinated with State training

efforts.

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

CONSIDERATIONS OR OPTIONS

Inadequate sanitation facilities in many rural

Alaskan Native villages have resulted in a high

prevalence of disease caused by a limited potable

water supply and the use inefficient technologies

such as the honey bucket system. For more than

three decades, there has been an insistent demand

for the installation of modem, safe facilities. In recent years, Federal and State agencies have built

many conventional sanitation systems in roughly

half the villages found in Alaska. These systems

are costly to build and operate, however, and have

unique features designed to meet the harsh environmental conditions typical of the region. Consequently, many villages cannot easily provide the

funding needed for proper operation and maintenance of these projects.

Despite the considerable cost—more than $1.3

billion—and the progress made to date in building

new sanitation systems, over half of the 191 rural

Native villages listed in the Indian Health Service

database still lack piped water and waste sanitation service. Addressing the sanitation needs of

these communities will take time since the

technologies traditionally favored-piped systems—are costly and difficult to build, and face

technical constraints not common in other areas of

the United States. Unfortunately, the Native villages in rural Alaska operating honey buckets

today have almost no basic economy and, in many

cases, a relatively limited potential for economic

improvement in the future.

Despite the increasing demand for new sanitation projects, the serious economic difficulties

faced by many Native villages with existing systems make it necessary to carefully evaluate the

installation of similarly complex technologies in

communities with few economic or technical resources to operate them. Consequently, to address

the waste sanitation problem in Alaska’s Native

communities, Congress could establish programs

to:
12 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

● provide safe and healthy alternatives to honey

buckets,

● identify and test more cost-effective alternatives to piped systems,

● provide adequate support for O&M-including

technical, administrative, operational, and personal hygiene training—to offset the operational costs of sanitation systems.

| Interim Option for Improving

Sanitation Among Native Villages

Replacing honey buckets under the current system

takes time even when the receiving community

has a strong local economy. Time is required by

Federal and State agencies to coordinate activities

and identify available funding among relevant

agencies (e.g., Housing and Urban Development,

Village Safe Water, Farmer’s Home Administration); to develop the community’s institutional capability to operate the technology; and to build a

system that will solve the sanitation needs within

the community’s economic reality.

Unfortunately, the majority of Native communities in rural Alaska now operating honey buckets do not have healthy economies. They rely almost completely on transfer payments and

subsidies to operate their programs. In fact, per

capita income below the State average has been reported in at least half of these communities—particularly in the Northwest Arctic, Bering Straits,

and Yukon-Kuskokwim regions. The possible decline in the State’s economy might further reduce

the revenue sharing funds available to these communities, thus rendering the continued construction of conventional sanitation facilities highly

unlikely.

Better interim measures could be adopted by

existing Federal and State agencies or programs to

reduce the health risk posed by honey buckets,

while work to identify more affordable, innovative solutions continues. These interim measures

could take various forms, depending on the type of

agency program and the community’s immediate

needs. Measures might involve steps such as improving existing honey bucket systems, delivering existing self-contained sanitation technologies where appropriate, and investing in certain

promising technology demonstration projects.

The relevant Federal and State agencies could

support these measures and incorporate them into

their long-term mission and programs.

Improvement of Existing

Honey Bucket Haul Systems

One measure that could be supported immediately

is an improvement program for the existing honey

bucket haul systems still used extensively in many

Native villages. For communities in which limited funds prevent the installation of a more advanced technology or where such an installation

is not immediately feasible, there are many opportunities to improve current haul systems. Examples include improvements in the design of honey

bucket trailers and collection bins along with

compliance with proper operational procedures

(125).

The Indian Health Service plans to continue

supporting the use of honey bucket systems in villages with little economic potential to acquire and

maintain more sophisticated technologies. Improving the design of honey bucket systems is

considered crucial by Indian Health Service to

protect public health in these villages and in those

for which delivering an improved sanitation system may require several years.

In the view of IHS, new methods are needed for

collecting and transporting the waste contained in

honey buckets. Improvements to disposal systems

might include improved lids and hauling systems,

alternatives to plastic bags as honey bucket liners,

freeze-resistant containers, and ways to dislodge

frozen wastes from haul containers. As the Office

of Technology Assessment (OTA) observed during site visits, hauling practices with existing

honey bucket collection bins inevitably results in

spillage. Human contact with spillage on community boardwalks is also inevitable, particularly because children often play there.
Chapter 1: Overview and Findings | 13

A honey bucket is simply a 5-gallon plastic bucket lined

with a plastic bag, with a toilet seat on top of it—sometimes

they are enclosed in a wooden box for aesthetic and

venting purposes

Means to haul sewage in sealed containers by

someone other than individual homeowners are

also needed. If a limited number of people in a village are involved with sanitary waste collection

and transport, exposure to the waste and access to

the waste repository will most likely be restricted

to a few individuals; establishment of a coordinated community system will require the training

of these personnel. Provision of adequate salaries

will also be essential.

Interim solutions can give communities additional time to decide on more suitable long-term

sanitation options. OTA staff found during their

visit to rural Alaska that many villages would like

to have advanced waste transport systems, but believed they were not yet ready to manage them.

For those communities, improved interim disposal systems other than honey buckets are particularly attractive.

IHS is currently carrying out a project with prototype haul trailers and waste lids in the villages of

Kasigluk, Kipnuk, Napakiak, and Nunapitchuk in

the Yukon-Kuskokwim region. After thorough

testing and evaluation of the information, this improved system will be provided to the nearly 30

Native Alaskan communities currently operating

honey bucket haul systems. This small program,

however, should not be envisioned as the solution

to the sanitation problems of rural Alaska but only

as an interim step while these Native communities

identify more appropriate and affordable sanitation technologies. A summary of possible improvements to the honey bucket system is shown

in box 1–3.

Coordinating the development and implementation of short-term measures is important. To

avoid disrupting their long-term mission, primary

agencies, such as the Indian Health Service and

Village Safe Water, could also work cooperatively

with other institutions in the development or delivery of interim measures. Some of the institutions already involved that might play a larger

cooperative role are the University of Alaska Anchorage (research, field demonstrations, educational and training programs), Alaska Science and
14 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Plastic bags facilitate the transport and disposal of waste, but

because wastes remain sealed, their degradation is slow,

making the sewage disposal area another potential health

concern

Technology Foundation (funding of research and

demonstration projects), regional native corporations, and Alaska’s Native Health Board (technology application, institutional cooperation, and

community involvement). Another institution potentially beneficial to this effort is the Federal

Field-Alaska Rural Sanitation Work Group being

convened by a congressional request to identify

and coordinate rural sanitation goals between

Federal and State agencies.

Congressional Options for Solving the

Waste Sanitation-Problems of Alaskan

Natives

For more than three decades, the Federal, State,

and local government health care system in rural

Alaska has focused on incrementally building

complex infrastructure to provide adequate sanitation facilities in each Native village. This emphasis on capital construction, based on legislative authorities, is viewed by some as a barrier to

the ability of IHS to support operation and maintenance costs and other direct operational needs.

In addition to capital construction, some believe the historical preference for installing community-wide piped sanitation technologies rather

than individual, self-contained ones, has directed

attention away from the testing and demonstration

of technological alternatives. In the long term, the

Federal Government could evaluate the feasibility

of the following steps to eliminate the health risks

associated with honey bucket use and to improve

overall waste sanitation among Alaskan native

communities:

OPTION l—Authorize the establishment of a Sanitation

Technology Demonstration Work Group to identify recommend, and demonstrate suitable sanitation technologies and improvements

While more affordable, permanent alternatives to

piped sanitation systems are developed, Congress

could assist Alaskan Native villages that rely on

honey buckets by establishing a work group responsible for identifying and recommending suitable, interim sanitation improvements or technologies. Such a program could be established in the

Indian Health Service, the Environmental Protection Agency9

, or other appropriate Federal agencies. The work group could be composed of engineers from Federal and State sanitation and

construction agencies, maintenance experts, village operators, and representatives of Native corporations and village leaders in communities

where honey buckets are still in use.

The work group could be responsible primarily

for identifying the type of sanitation improvement

most suitable for a particular v ill age and for locatSI Section ] 1 ~ of the C]ean Water Act requires EPA to enter into agreement with the State of Alaska, and in c(~ordination” with the ~Paflment

Human Health Services, to carry out demonstration projects Ioprovidejiw cenma) communi:yjticilitiesfursaji waler and elimination or conrrol

ojpollution in dzose nafive villages ofA/aska w’ikw~ such facilities. Expanding this section to include sanitation technologies whose design is

home-specific rather than community-wide cm.dd support demonstration programs involving alternative technologies to conventional pipe

systems. EPA is also instructed toprot!ide technical, jinancialandnranagemew assistance oj’such dernonstrationprojects (Sections 113 (a), (b),

and (f); 33 U.S.C. 1263).
Chapter 1: Overview and Findings | 15

ing future technology demonstrations. Programs

might start with demonstration projects in a small

number of communities, followed by the addition

of other villages as the demonstration program

grows and new technologies are developed. 1o

Areas in which the work group’s participation

would be highly beneficial to the delivery of 1ongterm Federal sanitation assistance include the following:

m

●

m

●

m

identifying Native villages in which honey

bucket systems are currently inadequate due to

inappropriate equipment selection,

working with State and Federal agencies to promote demonstration pilot projects,

disseminating the results of field tests involving improvements to honey bucket systems,

and educating village residents about the benefits of adopting such improvements while a better and more suitable technology is identified

and installed;

ensuring the commitment of local Native governments both to adopt improved honey bucket

systems, as a means of reducing the health risk

of village residents and to participate actively

in efforts to identify better sanitation systems;

and

identifying within a reasonable time the criteria

needed for selecting, installing, and operating

the next level of waste sanitation service in

those communities now operating honey bucket systems.

The IHS estimated that the cost of implementing a Sanitation Technology Demonstration Work

Group in at least four Native villages would total

about $100,000 annually. Ensuring its funding for

a reasonable period of time could help project a

sense of stability and commitment among the

work group’s participants, other State and Federal

agencies, and Native community leaders and residents.

OPT/ON 2—Provide operation and maintenance assistance to needed Alaskan Native communities

through the implementation of the Indian Health

Amendments of 1992 (Section 302), or other relevant

federal statute such as the C/can Water Actor the Safe

Drinking Water Act.

In the past, Federal and State agencies have not

funded direct O&M costs for the piped sanitation

systems constructed in Native Alaskan villages.

At one time, State agencies supported O&M for

sewerage and water utilities in many communities, but this practice, although limited in extent,

was virtually eliminated in 1992. As a consequence, communities receive only a small amount

of municipal and State revenue sharing for this

purpose. These funds are insufficient to support

O&M needs, especially for the complex sanitation

facilities being operated in many villages. Today,

it is not rare to find a multimillion dollar sanitation

project in need of preventive maintenance due to

improper O&M and limited funding.

I o Section 20] (g)(5) of~e C]ean Water Act currently prohibits EPA from making grants to. . . any State, municipality, or in(ermunicipal or

interstate agency for the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improl’ement, or extension of treatment works unless the grant

applicanl has satisfactorily demorrsvated. . . thal the particular new or improved method of treating municipal waste is effective in preventing

water or other environmental pollution. EPA’s participation in technology improvement and demonstration efforts wm.dd be helpful in expediting their application or use, particularly because Native villages continue to lack adequate resources to demonstrate alternative technologies as

required by the Act. EPA could also assist in studying the effectiveness of alternative technologies as required in Section 517.
16 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

The honey bucket haul system is still used extensively in many Native villages. For communities in which

limited funds prevent the installation of a more advanced technology, or such installation is not immediately

feasible, there appear to be many opportunities for improvement in the current haul system. The following are

examples of such opportunities, some of which are already being considered by the Indian Health Service

(IHS):

● Improved honey bucket trailers—lHS is currently developing and testing, with the assistance of a pri–

vate engineering firm, an improved honey bucket haul trailer.

■ Improved lids on the honey bucket collection bin—One of the most Immediate needs of the honey bucket

haul system is to find a more adequate lid design to prevent further spillage of human waste on village streets or

boardwalks during transport.

■ An improved honey bucket collection tub orbin—Redesign is needed of the more than 800 black plastic

tubs1 used throughout rural Alaska to collect and subsequently transport human waste to disposal locations.

These tubs are held in the metal holding frames of the carriage system (four-wheel) and transported to the

sewage lagoon for disposal. According to IHS, however, no improvements to the tub system are scheduled at

this time.

● Modified transmission on the transport system--Human sewage gathered from collection tanks inside

the house, or from stationary tubs located at certain points in the village, is carried to a sewage lagoon by a

four-wheel vehicle. Vehicles are sometimes unable to prevent spillage of human waste when turning corners or

driving over inadequately maintained roads. Modification of the transmission system of all-terrain vehicles to

preclude them from traveling at faster speeds to and from dump sites is needed.

● Providing a water source at the disposal site—One additional means of helping to reduce the risk of exposure to human waste, and thereby preventing enteric disease, consists of providing a source of water at the

disposal site so that operators, at least during the summer, can rinse and remove sewage particles attached to

plastic collection tubs, Iids, and other parts of the carriage before returning them to the village. Adequate measures should be adopted early in the planning and engineering phases to prevent this water source from becoming a watering point and, therefore, an additional health hazard for the community.

IHS is currently carrying out a project with prototype haul trailers and waste lids in the villages of Kasigluk,

Kipnuk, Napaklak, and Nunapitchuk in the Yukon-Kuskokwim region. One of the goals of the IHS effort IS to

develop and test considerably Iighter lids made of aluminum, preferably with a continuous weld around the lid

to prevent spillage. Strapping systems (bungie cords, cinch straps, and C-clamps) are also being tested to

Identify the strap, or combination of straps, most capable of preventing sewage from seeping out of the waste

haul carriage onto streets and boardwalks.

According to an IHS communication of October 5, 1993, tests of the aluminum-made Iid in Napakiak were

successful in reducing waste spills and identifying better clamp systems. The lids developed as part of this

field demonstration project are being sent to the three other communities participating in this research effort for

further field evaluation. After the system has been thoroughly tested and the information evaluated, this improved system will be provided to other Native Alaskan communities currently operating honey bucket haul

systems.

I Tubs are made of high-denstty polyethylene

SOURCE. U S Pubhc Health Service, Alaska Area Natwe Health Service, Offlceof Enwronmental Health and Engmeermg, “Updateon

Honey Bucket Haul Equipment Improvements,” Oct 5, 1993
Chapter 1: Overview and Findings | 17

Recognizing this deficiency, Congress

amended the Indian Health Care Improvement

Act of 197611 by passing the Indian Health

Amendments of 1992.12 Section 302 of the

Amendments authorizes the Indian Health Service to fund up to 80 percent of the costs incurred

by Native villages and Indian Tribes for the operation, maintenance, and management of their water

13 One re]evant aspect ‘f ‘ h e

and sewer systems.

Act is that it encourages IHS to help make up the

difference, particularly in those Native communities whose O&M costs exceed revenues collected

from user fees and taxation, so as to keep the facilities in good operating condition and in compliance with Federal regulations. By providing

Native communities with O&M funding, not only

can premature wearing out of system components—which now appears routine—be reduced

or virtually eliminated, but the installation of sanitation technologies in communities with few resources for maintenance may be more feasible.

To date, no funds have been appropriated under

section 302 of the Indian Health Amendments of

1992. The IHS has yet to request funds because of

staff and budget constraints, and because of lack

of guidance in the legislative intent as to how to

implement such a program. Although coverage of

the existing level of sanitation services in rural

Alaskan Native communities is estimated to cost

approximately $15 million annually, current

budgetary priorities make funding of these activities under Section 302 extremely difficult or unlikely.

IHS could, however, fund a pilot program to assess O&M needs in a selected number of villages,

for example, 25. Funding could also be provided

by other relevant Federal agency, such as EPA,

with the approval of Congress. A pilot program

would require only limited initial funding and

would enable IHS and other relevant Federal

agencies to determine more clearly implementation plans, procedures, and total needs for future

O&M economic assistance. It could also help to

develop the criteria by which such assistance

might be extended to Native communities not included in the initial pilot program on a priority

basis.

OPT/ON 3—Improve the level of support to technical

assistance programs as a means to ensure the proper

operation and maintenance of sanitation projects in

Alaska's rural Native communities

Another measure that could be adopted is to increase O&M technical assistance funding. ] 4 The

bulk of O&M technical assistance provided to Native communities of Alaska originates with three

major agencies: the Indian Health Service, Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation

(ADEC), and the Department of Community and

Regional Affairs (DCRA). Whereas the major

emphasis of the IHS and ADEC programs is to

provide operators with the technical skills needed

to keep their utilities operational and in compliance with environmental regulations, DCRA

focuses on improving government operations and

11 25 U.S.C. ef seq.

I z p L 1 o2-57~, octo~r 29, ]992; 106 STAT. 4526-459 2 .

. .

13 106 STAT. 4560-6!.

id Exan]ples of instnments ci~ngress could use to increase technical assistance to Native communities include: ( I ) Section 104 of the Ciean

Water Act since it requires EPA to financepi/o~proRroms, in c.wpero[ion with State and interstate agencies, municipalities, educational ins!itu -

(lons, and other orgcml:atwns, and individuals, of manpoti’er de~’elopment and training and retraining ofpersons in, on enterin~ into, thejicid

oj operatlun and maintenance of weaonenr }I>orks and re/ated ac’rivities (Section 104 (g){ 1 )); and (2) Section 109 of the Clean Water which

directs the EPA t{) make grants for training or upgrade of waste treatment works operation and maintenance personnel. Additi(mal technical

supp)rt might also be s(mght through the Clean Water Act’s State Revolving Fund program (Sections601 -603); the Indian Envir(mmental General Assistance Pn)gram Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4368b; P.L. 102-497, Oct. 24, 1992; 106 STAT. 3259); the Rural Development Administration’s

Tcchntcal Assistance and Training Grant Program; the Housing Community Development Act of 1974; and the recently intr(xluced Water Quality Act of 1994 (H. R. 3948) and Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1993 (S. 1547).
18 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

the financial and managerial skills of utility operators. In complimenting State efforts, IHS also

funds several maintenance specialists who deliver

O&M assistance and training directly to the villages. Federal support is also provided through the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Initially tailored primarily to help local utility

operators, most O&M technical assistance programs have benefited the entire village by ensuring proper operation of sanitation projects, adequate response to emergencies, and minimization

of the adverse effects associated with operator

turnover. IHS is currently investing more than

$300,000 in technical training services annually;

however, this amount is insufficient to support

O&M technical assistance to the increasing number of villages that need such support (83,177,

219)

To ensure the availability of this additional

technical assistance and to prevent the premature

deterioration of existing sanitation projects in rural Alaskan villages, Congress could:

m

B

●

increase the level of non-construction funds

available to Federal agencies such as EPA and

IHS for training facility operators and providing O&M technical assistance to Native villages;

provide EPA and IHS with the necessary funds

to coordinate and support State O&M technical

assistance programs, such as ADEC’S Remote

Maintenance Worker Program and Local Utility Matching Program and DCRA’S Rural Utility Business Advisor Program, as a means of

further ensuring proper and safe operation of

sanitation projects in rural Alaska; and

increase the level of funding available to Federal agencies such as IHS to address emergency

situations relating to sanitation facilities.

OPTION 4—Establish a research, development, and

demonstration program for innovative sanitation

technologies

Technology selection decisions to date have been

hindered by a capital planning process that focuses on adapting conventional sanitation

technologies to a generally unconventional environment, rather than finding novel and appropriate solutions. The current technology selection

process does not allow for a comparison of approaches based on total life cycle costs and potential savings to the communities. Only minimal attempts have been made to formally incorporate

existing alternative sanitation systems into the

technology selection process currently in place.

Many conditions in Alaska’s Native villages

(i.e., inadequate water supply, poor soil drainage,

permafrost, unacceptable topography, high seasonal flooding potential, and weak local economies) appear to favor the application of less costly

and complex approaches than piped sanitation

systems. However, to date, few alternative methods have benefited from field demonstration tests

to determine their actual performance in cold climate regions. Consequently, adopting alternative

technologies without first exploring the factors

that will make their application in Alaskan Native

villages successful appears subject to failure.

Development of a more comprehensive

technology evaluation and selection approach capable of supporting demonstration, applied research, and application of innovative technologies

is still needed. Congress could facilitate the research, development, and demonstration of innovative sanitation technologies by taking the following steps:
Chapter 1: Overview and Findings | 19

● Directing the Environmental Protection

Agency, Indian Health Service, or another appropriate Federal agency to:

a. establish a program for research, developb.

c.

ment, and demonstration (RD&D) of innovative sanitation technologies considered

potentially appropriate for application in

Arctic regions, such as rural Alaska;15

advocate the application of those innovative

technologies successfully demonstrated under the RD&D program; and

support the establishment of a forum in

which cooperative technology research and

demonstration activities are carried out with

the participation of, among others, Native

communities and national and international

programs or institutions (e.g., the University

of Alaska, Alaska Science and Technology

Foundation, U.S. Army’s Cold Regions Research Engineering Laboratory, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Academy of Sciences’ Polar Research

Board, and National Science Foundation).

■ Providing the Environmental Protection

Agency, Indian Health Service, or the Federal

agency under which an RD&D program is established, with the necessary funds to successfully carry out the program’s objectives. Additional funds might subsequently be sought by

requiring other Federal agencies with programs

relevant to Native villages to identify funds or

funding opportunities that could be utilized to

support the RD&D program.

Establishing a technology advisory group or

commission to further enhance and support the

RD&D program and policies. Composed of

technology experts from state, national, international, and Native governments, as well as

private organizations, the advisory group could

be beneficial to the agency responsible for the

RD&D program in the identification of, for example, priorities and opportunities for research

and development.

Funding, as part of the RD&D program and

through a Federal research agency, research and

field demonstrations of potentially beneficial

engineering systems or concepts that require

substantial RD&D before they can be considered for application in Native village homes.

One example of this type of system is the Antarctica Analog Project

16 king developed and

tested by NASA and the National Science

Foundation for use at the South Pole station.

Option 5-Hold oversight hearings on the report on

sanitation issues, problems, and solutions to be submitted to the Congress by the Federal Field Work Group

led by the U.S. Environment/ Protection Agency. Ho/d

I $ Under SectlI)n 104 of” the C]ean Water Act, for exarnp]e, Congress requires EPA, in cooperation with Other Feded state, and l(~al %encies, 10 conduct and promo:c the coordination ond acceleration of researeh, investiga~ion.s, e.rperimcnts, rrainin~, demonsrrutions, sur]e}s,

and s!ud)es relaling to the muses, ejjects, preb’entiun, reduction, and elimination oj”poliution (Section 1(M: 33 U.S. C. 1254). As part t~f carrying

out the objectives of this sccti(m, EPA is directed to:

■

●

■

■

de~elop q~ecfl~e and prmtlcal proces~es, methods, and prototype de~ices for the pret’ention, reduction, and elimination of pollution (Section 104 (b)(7));

debelop and demonstrate under ~wrled conditions (Includinx eonductirrg such basic and applied research, studies, and experiments) . . .

practicable rncans oj trcafirrg n~uni<ipal stwwgc, nrzd other waterborne nastes (Section 104 (d); Section 104 (d)(] ));

establish, equip, and malntmnjield labor-awry and research facilities, includinx. . . one in the State ofAlaska, jtir the conduct of rcsmvch,

inie.~tiga]ions, e.rperlrncnfs, .tield demonstrations ond s!lidies, and frainin~, rela[in~ to the pre~ention, reduction and elirninarim ofpoll14-

//on (Sectitm 104 (e)), and

conduct a cornprehensiie pro~rarn of research and irn’es~igation and pilot project implementation into new and imprw’ed medmds ofprc-

~en!ln~, reducing, storing, colle~tin~, treafing, w- otherti’ise eliminating pollutionjtorn se)~age in rural and other areas where collection oj’

sewage in con~entional, communiry )~ldc sew’age collection systems is irnpraclicul, uneconomical, or otherwise infeasible, or ~t’here soil

condiriun.s or other jilctors preclude the use ofsepfic tank and drainagefeld systf’rns (Section 104 (q)( 1 )). As part of achieving this goal.

EPA is allowed to make grants and m enctmrage tbe used of improved methods by disseminating relevant infomlation and results (Secfion

105 (e)(2)).

lb ~ls project Invo]ves the use of advanced fotxi pr(x-tucti(m, water recvcling methods, and human waste prme=ing techn(~lwies.

.
20 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Although their ideal is to someday have piped sanitation systems in their homes, many Native leaders, in meetings with OTA

staff, recognize that this might be economically prohibitive and call for the development of more affordable sanitation

alternatives

periodic oversight hearings to review plans and programs adopted by federal agencies to implement the

report's recommendations.

Problems surrounding sanitation in rural Alaska are complex, and their successful elimination

often demands participation by Federal and State

agencies. In addition to the Indian Health Service

and its State counterpart, Village Safe Water, various Federal and State agencies implement programs that are relevant to Alaskan Native communities. And even though individual agency

missions are pursued with vigor and dedication by

generally well-qualified and motivated staff, there

does not appear to be an overarching rural village

policy to coordinate all these agency functions.

Several encouraging efforts by Federal and

State agencies to identify better methods for more

effectively implementing their programs in rural

Alaskan Native villages are now under way. Of

great significance is the Federal Field-Alaska Rural Sanitation Work Group convened under congressional mandate to prepare, under the leadership of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency17 (253), a report identifying means to improve the coordination of policies and programs

among Federal agencies.

18 The participation of

State and Native agencies and organizations in the

Work Group is also considered highly beneficial.

Starting in May 1993, and building on the work

of the Governor’s Rural Sanitation Task Force, the

Federal Work Group delineated three major tasks:

1) to examine the status of water and waste sanitation projects in operation in rural Alaska; 2) to

evaluate all agency programs responsible for delivering sanitation services to Native communities; and 3) to identify barriers that may still impede relevant agencies from providing adequate

sanitation to all Native villages of rural Alaska. In

IT In addition tt) EPA, leade~hip in tie Work Group is sharect by representatives of the Alaska t)epartment of Environmental Consemation

and Alaska Native Community.

18 Among me Federal agencies p~icipating in the Federal Field-Alaska Rural Sanitation work Group are the Army COTS of Engineers,

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Transportation, Department of Education, Environmental protection Agency, Farmers Home Administration, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Indian Health Service, Natifmal

(leearmgraphic and Atmospheric Administration, and Soil Conservation Service.
Chapter 1: Overview and Findings | 21

its interim report of January 1994, the Work

Group identified several possible recommendations for congressional action (253).19

Although the Federal Field-Alaska Rural Sanitation Work Group report identifies opportunities

for policy coordination among Federal agencies,

the actual level of commitment and support by

each agency to the report’s recommendations is

still unclear. Prior to directing each Federal

agency to implement the relevant recommendations of the report, congressional oversight hearings could be held to provide relevant agencies

with opportunities to inform the Congress about:

m

■

■

■

the process used for gathering and evaluating

data, and for formulating the recommendations

set forth in the final Work Group report affecting each particular agency;

the time and type of resources that would be

needed by each particular agency to carry out

the recommendations of the Work Group report;

the opportunities for enhancing the agency’s

mission in case a particular agency cannot carry

out a given recommendation because of limited

authority; and

the time within which updates on the progress

made in implementing of the Work Group’s

recommendations should be submitted to Congress and published.

Periodic oversight hearings could be then held in

the future to review the plans and programs

adopted by relevant Federal agencies to implement the recommendations reported by the Federal Field Work Group.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 20,000 of the estimated 86,000

Natives living in rural Alaska do not have running

water in their homes and use plastic buckets-euphemistically called ‘*honey buckets’ ’—for toilets. As a result of this inadequate sanitation

technology, the outbreak of diseases (e.g., hepatitis A, impetigo, and sometimes meningitis) is frequent among Native villages that employ this system.

To eliminate the prevalence of disease resulting

from a limited potable water supply and the use of

honey buckets, Federal and State agencies have

built sanitation systems capable of withstanding

the harsh environmental conditions typical of the

region. Because Federal and State agencies fund

only capital construction, most Native villages

face serious difficulties in raising the funds

needed for proper operation and maintenance of

these facilities. The only direct source of funding

to Natives for O&M expenses is municipal and

State revenue sharing—minimal funding that is

not always available. As a result, it is not uncommon to find a multi million dollar sanitation project in rural Alaska in need of preventive maintenance.

Despite the considerable progress made to date,

nearly half of the 191 Native villages identified by

IHS continue to have inadequate sanitation. Because of the inability of many Native villages in

which piped systems have already been built to

provide proper O&M, serious concerns are being

raised about installing similar sanitation technologies in the remaining communities—-the majority of which have few economic and technical resources, as well as a limited potential for

economic development. Under existing practices,

however, the responsible Federal agencies could

continue to implement inappropriate remedies.

OTA’s analysis supports the need to adopt both

short- and long-term measures to provide adequate sanitation and thus improve the health and

well-being of tens of thousands of Alaska Natives

living in small, remote villages. In the short-term,

i{) E1il,llplcs ,)f ~hese ~rc]lnllnaV recorllnlenda[lons” include: I ) approving a new Stale Revolving Fund under th~ Safe Drinking ‘rater ‘ct~

capable of setting aside 1.5 percent of annual appropriated funds for direct grants to Alaska Native and Indian tribal communities, 2) increasing

the Indian set-aside fr(m] 0,5 percent u) 1.5 percent of the Wastewater State Revolving Fund; and 3 ) providing special funds under the H(msing

and Communlly De\ ch)pnwnt Act t)f 1974 to suppm sanitation activities in rural Alaska.
22 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

existing honey bucket systems could be made safer and more effective, and the O&M support required could be provided. In the long-term, the development and application of more cost-effective

alternatives could be supported through a directed

research and development program. OTA has

presented the following actions that Congress and

the Administration could take: 1 ) improve existing honey bucket haul systems while better alternatives are identified or developed; 2) provide

O&M funds for special cases in which villages

cannot ensure proper operation of sanitation projects; 3) provide additional funds to expand the

current O&M technical assistance program so as

to prevent premature deterioration of the sanitation facilities now in operation; and 4) establish a

comprehensive Federal research, development,

and testing program for innovative sanitation

technologies. To ensure that these steps are coordinated effectively, Congress could hold oversight hearings on the report requested from the

Federal Field-Alaska Rural Sanitation Work

Group, and could direct Federal agencies to adopt

the report recommendations as a means of coordinating more effectively their functions and activities relating to Native villages in rural Alaska.
Alaskan

Native Villages

and Their

Sanitation

Problems 2

GEOGRAPHIC SETTlNG

Alaska sweeps across approximately 30 degrees of longitude and

covers a total of almost 600,000 square miles. It is the largest

State of the United States and is approximately 2.2 times the size

of Texas. If Alaska were placed as an overlay on the lower 48,

with the western end of the Aleutians matching the southern

California coast, Barrow would be found at the U.S.-Canadian

border in Minnesota, and the tip of the southeast panhandle would

be found near Charleston, South Carolina (figure 2-1 ). The vastness of this envelope, which is virtually devoid of roads, influences almost every aspect of life in the State.

Diversity is a hallmark of the Alaskan environment, as well as

of its people. It has abundant examples of Arctic deserts, northern

rain and timber forests, treeless tundra, swamps, and wetlands. It

has sand dunes east of Kotzebue, ice fields and glaciers that are

larger than some States, the highest mountains in North America,

and broad expanses of lowlands. Considerable effort has been devoted to identify and classify the geographical wealth of Alaska

technical y; for the purpose of this report, however, only four general areas are arbitrarily considered: southwestern Alaska, western Alaska or the Bering seacoast region, interior Alaska, and

the Arctic region.

Southwestern Alaska includes the Alaska Peninsula and the

lengthy sweep of the Aleutian Islands, which reach out to the Orient. Of all four regions considered here, southwestern Alaska offers the most startling contrasts, ranging from the lightly wooded

hillsides and rugged mountains of the Alaska Peninsula, to the

barren, treeless volcanic Aleutian Islands. It also includes the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, a geography of meandering rivers and

a scattered population dominated by Alaskan Natives. The large |23
24 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

T-)x ,,
Chapter 2: Alaskan Native Villages and Their Sanitation Problems | 25

majority of Native villages located in the YukonKuskokwim region are characterized by severe

poverty and inadequate sanitation conditions—

the latter being the major focus of this report. Box

2-1 briefly describes some of the historical characteristics of the Native groups who settled in this

region.

Western Alaska, also referred to as the Bering

seacoast region, stretches from Bristol Bay in the

south to Norton Sound and the Bering Straits in

the north. It is a typically cool, rainy, and foggy

area, with summer temperatures of 50 to 70 ‘F

and winter temperatures hovering around O ‘F.

The significant and sudden changes in ambient

temperature caused by the strong local winds generally render this region dangerous for the unprepared.

Much of the Bering seacoast is virtually treeless tundra with underlying areas of continuous

and discontinuous permafrost. It also contains uncounted thousands of small lakes, tundra ponds,

and rivers that are wide, shallow, and of very low

flow velocity. Low-lying areas and their communities are subject to annual flooding caused primarily by low relief and ice jamming during

spring breakup. Most local residents often seem to

endure this condition as an inevitable feature of

life, and even though some have moved to higher

ground, a large number still refuse to relocate.

Poor sanitation conditions continue to be found

among many Western Alaska Native villages.

The Interior Region of Alaska lies between

the Alaska Range north of Anchorage and the

Brooks Range in the far north. The Continental

Divide extends east-west through the Brooks

Range, ending at the Chukchi Sea on the Arctic

Coast. The region contains the upper reaches of

the Yukon, Kuskokwim, and Tanana rivers, although the headwaters of the first two are found

deep in the Northwest Territory of Canada. The

Yukon is the longest river in Alaska, with a total

length of some 1,875 miles.

Temperatures in the interior region often drop

to -60 ‘F in winter, producing ice fog that hovers

persistently over frigid communities in mercifully

still air. Although winters are cold, summers can

be hot, with temperatures commonly in the 90s.

Although rainfall may only average about 12

inches annually, snowfall can reach 10 feet or

higher. Because of the prolonged low winter temperatures, snow tends to be finely divided, fluffy,

and easily drifted. Winter melting and loss of

snow through sublimation are insignificant, and

an entire winter’s snowfall is usually preserved

until spring. Fairbanks, with a population of

32,000 people, which makes it the second largest

city in Alaska, is in the heart of the interior region.

The Arctic region extends from the southern

limits of the Brooks Range, which forms a

9,000-foot barrier between the interior and the

North Slope. It extends from Kotzebue, just north

of the Seward Peninsula, eastward to the Canadian

border. The North Slope, which is some 750 miles

long from east to west, and about 250 miles wide,

consists of vast areas of rolling uplands, mountains, and extensive coastal plains that stretch

northward toward the Arctic Ocean. Trees are absent from the entire Arctic Slope region, except

for occasional thickets of alders, willow, and Arctic or resin birch, which can be found mostly in

river valleys.

The Arctic region is characterized by Summer’s midnight sun and sunless winters. Low

winter temperatures are moderated by prevailing

northerly winds. For example, the average July

temperature at Barrow is 40 oF, whereas the average January temperature is -17 oF. A total annual

precipitation of some 5 inches renders the area a

desert. A historical perspective of the Natives who

settled in the Arctic is presented in box 2-1.

The Arctic Slope is where the oil is. Vast deposits of petroleum were discovered in the vicinity of

Prudhoe Bay during the late 1960s, along with

equally vast deposits of natural gas. The Prudhoe

Bay oil fields lie alongside the Sagvanirktok River Delta, about 70 miles west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These resources have made

the North Slope and its few communities some of

the wealthiest in the State.
26 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

The first humans who populated Alaska, and subsequently the Americas, were thought to have migrated

from the Siberian Far East. These early nomadic hunters and gatherers probably crossed a land bridge between Asia and North America. Today, some 60 miles of cold ocean exists in place of the now submerged

historical route. It is thought that this migration contributed significantly to human occupation of what is now

the United States, Canada, Central America, and South America. In modern Alaska, several groupings of

Natives can be distinguished. All have seemingly arisen from the original period of migration. The following

IS a historical perspective of the major Native groups whose descendants now live in the State

Southeast Coastal People

The coastal Indians comprise three distinct groups, including the Tlingits, Hairdos, and Tsimshians, These

people are found in southeastern Alaska and Canada roughly between Yakutat, Alaska, in the north, and

Prince Rupert, British Columbia, in the south.

The Tlingits (pronounced “Klink-its’’)-the most numerous of the three--were scattered throughout the

southeast in relatively permanent villages. The historical permanence of Tlingit villages is thought to be due

to the relative immobility imposed by the mountainous terrain. These people made a Iiving by fishing and

hunting in the moderate climate and generally abundant coastal environment of the southeast,

The Tsimpsians and Haidas (pronounced Sim’-she-ans, and High’ -alas, respectively) occupied the Queen

Charlotte Islands, the southern part of Prince of Wales Island, and the mainland of southeast Alaska. They

collectively represent a small part of the Native population of the southeast. These people are culturally distinct from the Tlingts, but subtly so. It iS thought that during the time of the first Russian contact, the Haidas

were in the process of displacing the Tlingits northward through periodic warfare, In general, the Natives of

the southeast were and are significantly more aggressive than other groups found elsewhere in Alaska.

The indigenous people of the southeast, or Indians as they have come to refer to themselves, are people

averaging 5 feet 8 inches in height. They are known to use fish traps, nets, and dip nets for fishing, and harpoons for both hunting of sea mammals and fishing. The surrounding environment, and the proximity to the

ocean and inland marine channels, created a strong cultural focus on marine resources that continues today.

Until the early 20th century, the Indians utilized large spruce and cedar trees on the immediate shoreline to

craft canoes, totem poles, and dwellings, but they never developed inland settlements to any significant degree.

Warfare was a well-developed practice among the Natives of southeast Alaska. Strife was usually directed toward driving out or even exterminating neighboring groups of another matrilineal line. In doing so,

the victorious group would acquire all the possessions off the vanquished, including its land, dwellings, and

access to traditional resources. This belligerence is in stark contrast to the conciliatory nature of the Natives

in the Arctic and western Alaska. In these regions, environmental conditions were thought to be so severe as

to require cooperation among nomadic groups to ensure collective survival.

Inland People

The Athapaskan Indians occupied a vast expanse of inland Alaska stretching from the Arctic and subarctic regions along the entire northern perimeter of North America. This region iS generally referred to as ‘(the

Interior. ” It offers a demanding and harsh environment without easily accessible resources. With no access to

the bounty of the ocean and the coastal margin, the Athapaskans turned to the land and rivers for subsistence.

The Athapaskans of the northern interior lived along the Yukon River and its tributaries, ranging from just

north of the Yukon Delta westward into Canada to the Mackenzie River. This region is mountainous and IS

dominated by a series of small mountain ranges bounded on the north by the Brooks Range The Brooks

Range serves as a natural barrier to north-south migration and contains great environmental contrasts, The

region iS characterized by long cold winters and brief but warm summers,
Chapter 2: Alaskan Native Villages and Their Sanitation Problems | 27

The Athapaskans had Iimited social organization in contrast to the people of the southeast, They generally

followed a somewhat mobile lifestyle and Interacted loosely with the various roving bands with whom they had

contact They were not generally regarded as a nomadic people. A subsistence lifestyle emerged in which

they relied on caribou, moose, migratory salmon and other fish, and berries. In addition, they were adept at

trapping fur-bearing mammals both for food and for use as clothing, These people today consider themselves to be true Indians of the north, and are strongly adapted and bonded to an inland life in broad river

valleys, mountainous terrain, and forests

Aleutian Islands People

The Aleuts, Iike other Alaska Natives, adapted themselves superbly to Iife in the unique marine archipeIagic environment of the Aleutian Islands This iS a harsh environment of volcanic peaks, almost constant high

winds dampness, fog, and moderate temperature. The unique weather found throughout the island chain IS

the result of cold Arctic water on the north side of the islands meeting warm northern Pacific waters on the

south Primarily because of high winds, the Aleutian Islands are essentially treeless, with vegetation dominated by grasses and low shrubs

The Aleuts, Iiving in a relatively Ice-free marine environment, developed sophisticated open-ocean hunting

and fishing techniques that allowed them to harvest sea otters, hair seals, sea lions, and an occasional whale

Abundant populations of these animals were found on Kodiak and Unimak, which resulted in a concentration

of Aleuts on these two Islands Nevertheless, virtually the entire Aleutian Chain was populated with these

indigenous people who are characterized as Inventive, and generally mild and agreeable,

Arctic Coastal People

The Eskimos ranged all along the Arctic Coast of North America from just north of the Seward Peninsula

eastward around the pole to Greenland. A great deal of literature has been written about these unique people

who have adapted so well to Iife in the Arctic They Inhabit a land of great environmental diversty and, contrary to popular belief, do not generally live amid perpetual ice and snow. Also, Alaskan Eskimos did not I we

in ice block houses as some Greenland Eskimos historically have,

It iS fair to say the Eskimos in Alaska, and probably elsewhere, are traditional subsistence people with a

strong bond to a coastal and marine lifestyle. Although the traditional Eskimo lifestyle and culture have been

lost, the hunting of marine mammals and subsistence on the bounty of both the land and the ocean remain

vitally Important

Historically, physical survival depended on the ability of individuals and groups to execute successful

hunts Even today when the first whales of the season are sighted, entire villages WiII mobilize to capture

them, and all other acivities cease This spirit of cooperation, even to the point of helping one’s opponent

succeed characterizes modern Eskimos Competitiveness as conceived in Western cultures IS foreign to

many Eskimos

The Native peoples of Alaska are many and varied in character, All of them have adapted to the specific

demands of distinct regions of Alaska and have succeeded historically in establishing viable lifestyles They

came in direct conflict with the Iifestyle of Western explorers, traders, and settlers, who generally tended to

be much more aggressive and effective in imposing their culture. The Native people of Alaska, like those in

other parts of the world, have suffered the loss of culture, Iifestyle, and identity as a virtually inevitable result

of the Introduction of foreign attitudes, values, and practices.

The Native people of modern Alaska represent a people in transition, Traditionally, Natives simply relied on

their own resourcefulness, and that of their extended families, to tap the bounty that surrounded them In

some cases it took considerable ingenuity to access resources that to the Western eye may have appeared

nonexistent Despite the apparent desolation, it was possible to subsist and thrive on available resources as

long as a balance was maintained.

(continued)
28 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

The concept of subsistence as a lifestyle is typically interpreted by Westerners as a condition of bare

survival, This is almost diametrically opposite to the Native concept in which subsistence comprises all of

the activities associated with living, sometimes quite comfortably and securely, on the resources available

from the surrounding environment,

It is Important to realize that subsistence Natives in Alaska generally do not work in the Western sense

they subsist. Historically, no need existed for work in the Western, commercial cash-based sense, This

significant distinction must be recognized in order to understand Native attitudes,

SOURCE John A. Olofsson and H P. Schroeder, University of Alaska Anchorage, Sanitation Alternatives For Rural Alaska, report prepared for the Congressional Off Ice of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, August 15, 1993

MODERN ALASKA AND EMERGENCE

OF NATIVE CORPORATIONS

The five most distinct cultural groups found in

Alaska are the Inupiat (Northern Eskimo), Yupik

(Southern Eskimo), Aleuts, Athapaskans, and

Indians (Tlingit, Tsimpsian, and Haida) (figure

2–2). Throughout most of their history, these indigenous cultures were affected by the climate and

geographic characteristics of the region in which

they settled. Western contact, which intensified

throughout the 20th century, brought about social

and cultural changes that were rapid, extensive,

and difficult for many of these groups to assimilate.

By the mid- 1900s, the last of the hunters and

fishermen had abandoned their nomadic ways of

life. Fur trading was usually the entry activity for

Alaska Natives into a cash economy. Seasonal

wage-paying jobs subsequently became more

commonplace. Although nomadic ways were

generally abandoned, and “village” lifestyles

adopted, many villagers continued to depend on

seasonal subsistence hunting and fishing. This

tradition continues, and in fact is growing in some

areas, as Native peoples select a modified traditional or “subsistence” lifestyle as a compromise

with truly Western living.

Originally, the introduction of Western diseases wrought havoc among susceptible Native

populations. As the effects of diseases subsided

during the first half of the 20th century, they were

replaced by a full range of social problems. These

included alcoholism, physical abuse, suicide,

sexually transmitted diseases, and lately, drug and

substance abuse. The aboriginal population,

which was estimated to be approximately 80,000

a few years earlier, had declined to a low of 25,000

by 1909.

During the most recent period, two separate

and seemingly conflicting movements have

emerged among A1aska Natives. One is led by

more “assimilated” Natives who are working to

administer land and financial resources under the

corporate structure mandated by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. ] The second

movement began with the more traditional Natives who are seeking to protect their land base and

their hunting and fishing lifestyle, as well as to obtain greater control and autonomy over community life. These movements seem to be advocating

contradictory “modem” or “traditional” lifestyles.

The land claims and tribal movements are discussed in detail in appendix A.

Life in Alaskan villages began to take its current shape by the 1950s. By this time the last of the

truly nomadic groups had settled into permanent

communities. This ended the transformation that

began with the establishment of fur trading cen1 P.L. 92-203, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 STAT. 688 (Title 43, 1601- 1624).
Chapter 2: Alaskan Native Villages and Their Sanitation Problems | 29

ters, government and missionary schools, and

other centers of Western influence. The process

was begun by the Russians in the 1780s and advanced by Americans a century later after the purchase of Alaska. Inupiat hunters of the northeastern portion of Alaska were the last of the

indigenous people to abandon nomadic lifestyles.

New village communities were generally established on sites previous] y occupied as semipermanent camps.

Mechanized means of all-terrain travel and the

availability of firearms increased the land area

available for harvesting fish, berries, and game,

making possible the establishment of permanent

settlements. There was no longer a need to travel

to the resources on foot or by dogsled when they

could be easily reached by snowmobile and fourwheeler. The understandable result is an increase

in population density, and a decrease in the intrinsic worth of traditional hunting, fishing, and

“country” living skills. A diminished sense of

self-value was also created because not every one

was needed as a provider. Many social and emotional problems have resulted from these changes.

By 1960, approximately 70 percent of the total

Alaskan Native population, numbering about

53,000 individuals, was living in some 178 villages of predominantly Native inhabitants. These

villages were scattered across the 600,000 square

miles of Alaska and ranged in size from 25 to

2,500 residents. An additional 50 locations were

occupied by fewer than 25 inhabitants, usually including one or a few Native families. Only six

communities that were predominantly Native had

populations of more than 1,000. The median village population was 155, with larger communities

serving as regional centers—now sometimes referred to as service centers or air hubs. In western

Alaska, these hubs are Bethel, Dillingham,

McGrath, Galena, Nome, and Kotzebue.

The remainder of the Native population lived in

communities that were predominantly nonNative. The non-Native communities were often

established in areas that had traditionally been inhabited by Natives. In the 1950s the migration of

Natives from villages in Alaska to urban centers

began, and it continues today. An estimated

16,000 Natives now live in Alaska’s urban centers.

Anchorage is sometimes referred to as the largest Native village in Alaska because of its estimated population of some 10,000 Native residents. This can be misleading because of the high

degree of seasonal migration among the urban Native population. Many urban Native people return

to their village seasonally to participate in harvesting activities, such as fishing, whaling, berrying,

and hunting, and in this way they preserve elements of a traditional way of living.

Almost all Native villages are geographically

isolated from major urban centers. Virtually inaccessible by land during the warmer part of the year

due to extensive wetlands, their primary means of

extended travel is by air. Overland winter travel is

somewhat easier but hazardous, as is travel on rivers, whether frozen or not. Fewer than a dozen

villages are accessible on Alaska’s limited road

system. Access to the majority of the villages is

available by airplane, boat, snowmobile, or

dogsled. In the last decade, the Alaska Ferry System (the Marine Highway) has been expanded to

include several villages in southeastern and southwest Alaska. It is helpful to keep in mind that even

Juneau, the capital of Alaska, is not directly accessible by road and is frequently unreachable by airplane due to poor weather.

Communication with the villages is generally

by mail, radio, or telephone (since the 1970s), and

more recently through the use of communication

satellite. Television is available in most villages

through the Rural Alaska Television Network,

bringing full exposure to world events and entertainment to the most remote parts of the State.

Alaskan aboriginal hunting and gathering

economies of the past were independent, autonomous, and truly of the subsistence type—meaning

a dependence on traditional activities for 1iving off

the land. Modem subsistence hunters and fishermen now require cash to purchase tools, equipment, and supplies. Items such as snowmobiles,

outboard motors, fuel, rifles, and ammunition

have improved the efficiency of subsistence productivity and have altered many traditional subsistence harvest methods. The elevated level of
30 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

productivity has resulted in a better standard of

living, a greater capacity to support one’s family,

increasing village populations, and hence, an induced need to sustain the higher level of productivity. High levels of subsistence productivity are

possible only with the increased productivity enabled by cash-purchased goods. In this way, Natives have become wedded to cash economies for

goods that cannot be manufactured by village resources alone. Today, the term “subsistence” has

been adapted to include the mixed economy of

true subsistence and cash-based pursuits.

The current nature of the village economy in

Alaska is a blend of subsistence and cash, sometimes with a preferred emphasis on subsistence.

Cash is infused into the subsistence-based economy from wage employment, the sale of goods produced through subsistence activities, and transfer

payments from various governmental sources.

Members of the traditional social groups or extended families will often alternate among themselves between various subsistence activities and

wage-paying jobs to ensure that their needs are

met. It is not unusual for a wage-earning individual in a village to simply not perform cash work for

several days or weeks during the salmon or caribou migration. For Alaskan Natives, this is considered a balanced approach that satisfies both the

subsistence need and the need for cash. (Consideration of a village’s subsistence practices by Federal and State agencies planning to use the local

labor force to build sanitation projects can often

help to avoid costly construction delay s.)

This attitude is not unusual in indigenous societies elsewhere in the world where cash is not a

primary motivator. For Alaskan Natives, survival

(subsistence off the land) has historically been a

matter of living through long winters. As in the

past, it is still possible to live off the land. But

gathering the stores of food needed to survive the

long winter without cash may prove difficult for

those Natives grown accustomed to purchasing

bullets, fuel, nets, and snowmobiles. Even today,

this stark reality is made apparent to non-Native

visitors in remote Alaska when travel in the

“bush” is forcibly interrupted by weather and other natural phenomena. Most prudent winter travelers, even those driving along the highway between

Anchorage and Fairbanks, will carry the food and

shelter needed to survive a day or two of forced

delay.

Certain village members will often contribute

cash, or purchase supplies and equipment for the

hunters, in exchange for a share of the subsistence

harvest. The elderly do this by contributions of

various longevity transfer payments and thereby

support the subsistence lifestyle. In addition, arts

and crafts production for sale in the cities and to

local visitors is another source of cash to support

subsistence pursuits.

Cash also circulates through the subsistence

economy as compensation for special skills and

services such as sewing, beading, and preparation

of traditional artifacts for ceremonial uses. [individuals may also receive cash as a ceremonial gift

in rituals such as the Tlingit and Athapaskan potIatch.

In almost all cases, kinship will dictate membership in a subsistence lifestyle production unit.

Generally, households or extended family members comprise the basic production unit. These

will often join forces with other such units to form

larger groups in the communal pursuits required

for hunting bowhead whales, walrus, and beluga

whales. It is not unusual for family members living in the cities or even “outside” Alaska to return

to the village family in order to participate in seasonal subsistence activities.

The cash economy of a typical rural Alaskan

village is dependent largely on the public rather

than the private sector. This is likely to be true into

the foreseeable future due to the tradition of the

people, their desires, the harshness of the climate,

and the utter absence of any potential local economy in many village locations. In most rural communities, local, State, and Federal Government

expenditures account for fully two-thirds of all

earned cash income, the private sector being responsible for the remaining third. The reverse situation characterizes urban Alaska.

Village residents have a per capita income that

is considerably lower than that of other Alaskans.

The average per capita income for all Alaska is on

the order of $18,000 to $20,000, whereas the aver-
age per capita

what less than

Chapter 2: Alaskan

income of rural residents is somehalf of this amount. For Native villagers who live outside of regional centers (i.e.,

hubs and service centers), the average annual per

capita income is about $6,000. Most villagers also

receive welfare payments (a part of this income)

that are about four times that of the average urban

Alaskan recipient.

Village economies are dependent on a subsistence-based lifestyle and governmental support,

and therefore are fundamental] y different from urban economies. They are extremely sensitive to

governmental actions. For instance, decisions to

restrict hunting and fishing or to reduce government payments may not affect city dwellers, but

these actions can have a severe impact on rural village economies. Among the most essential

needs-one that is frequently unavailable to Native villages because of their limited economies—

is adequate sanitation.

SANITATION IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES

OF RURAL ALASKA

The type of sanitary waste disposal in rural Alaska often varies among native villages; however,

the honey bucket system remains the most widespread and least protective of human health in

northwest Alaska and the Yukon -Kuskokwim

Delta.

The level of sophistication of sanitary waste

disposal systems in remote Alaska varies among

the 191 Native village communities identified by

the Indian Health Service (IHS) for sanitation purposes

2

. As of April 1994, only 102 of these communities were being provided some form of piped

sewer service (conventional, circulating, vacuum,

gravity, etc.) with flush toilets. In the remaining

89 communities a crude honey bucket is the only

Native Villages and Their Sanitation Problems | 31

sanitation system in operation (figure 2–2).3 This

leads to a high risk of exposure to human waste,

poor hygiene, and widespread incidence of disease.

Nearly 20,000 Natives, or about 3.6 percent of

the State’s entire population, live in these 89 communities that operate only honey buckets. According to II-IS, about 55 of the 89 rural communities, with an estimated population of 8,300 Alaska

Natives, have high disease exposure risk because

they operate honey bucket systems that require the

users to carry untreated wastes to a sewage pond,

bunker, or simple privy behind their homes. Lesser risks of human contamination and disease from

exposure to human waste appear to exist, IHS officials believe, at the remaining 34 of the 89 Native

villages that operate honey buckets because waste

is hauled from each house by a truck or all-terrain

vehicle. Honey buckets continue to be the most

rudimentary sanitation technology in use today by

rural Alaska Natives.

Use of a truck-operated system for removing

honey bucket wastes is not always a reliable health

protection measure. In fact, the management and

operation of honey bucket haul systems have been

found to vary from village to village: from efficiently operated, well-managed systems, to those

in which honey bucket waste is often spilled on

streets, boardwalks, or backyards throughout the

community. Under the worst-case conditions, the

potential for Natives to contract hepatitis A and

other diseases is unacceptably high. Such conditions also have a serious effect on village aesthetics and quality of life. About 200,000 physicianpatient encounters per year were recently reported

in the Yukon -Kuskokwim Delta alone (304). Such

statistics help support the impression that current

sanitation conditions in many villages of Alaska

are no better than those found in developing na2 A conslcierably higher number of villages are listed in other databases, for example, 317 by the Alaska Department of Envirtmmental

C(mservati(m; however, the IHS list is most comrmmly used when village sanitation issues are being discussed.

s~e ~aste technology,” euphemistica]]y known as a “honey bucke[” is simply a S-gallon plastic bucket lined with a Plastic bag, with a tt)il~t

seat on top of it. When filled, the plastic bag is sealed, and the bucket is hand carried and emptied into a haul container, a sewage lagc~(m, (w

sometimes merely any convenient location.
32 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

●

I ?’
Chapter 2: Alaskan Native Villages and Their Sanitation Problems 133

Piped water systems do not exist inside homes in villages

that operate honey bucket systems. As a consequence,

drinking water must be hauled by hand from a central public

watering point

tions. Table 2-1 shows the total number of cases of

hepatitis A reported in Alaska for 1987 to 1992.

The number of reported cases per individual Native village is listed in appendix B.

Current plans are to replace honey buckets with

piped sanitation systems in 10 of the 89 IHS-listed

villages. If completed, this will reduce the Native

population that depends on this rudimentary sanitation technology from nearly 20,000 to about

16,000. However, most Native villages have little

or no local economy and must obtain external financial assistance to build the advanced but costly

sanitation technology (i.e., conventional piped

systems) traditionally favored by Federal and

State agencies. Federal and State agencies have

not formally supported the development of alternative sanitation technologies that may be more

affordable than conventional piped systems.

9 Health Epidemics and Sanitation

Services

The outbreak of epidemics repeatedly experienced by Alaska natives is primarily the result of

poor hygienic conditions caused by inadequate

sanitation services.

Throughout rural Alaska, but particular] yin the

western, southwestern (mostly the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta), and parts of the Arctic regions,

the outbreak of disease is commonly a result of exposure to human waste and deficient personal hygiene. These conditions range from chronic influenza-like symptoms to hepatitis and enteric

diseases. Endemic enteric diseases are certainly

caused by habitual contact with human waste.

Contact occurs on an individual basis, as a matter

of casual contact between individuals, particularly through changing diapers or children playing,

contact with waste in the open environment, and

inadequately protected disposal areas. Because of

the spillage of human waste that occurs on community roads and boardwalks during its transportation to the disposal site or lagoon, the exposure of residents, particularly children, is

frequent.
34 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Cases 241 596 643 190 96 130

SOURCE John A Olofsson and H P Schroeder, University of Alaska

Anchorage, Sanitation Alternatives For Rural Alaska, report prepared

for the Congressional Off Ice of Technology Assessment, Washington,

DC, Aug. 15, 1993

Although the majority of rural Native villages

in these regions are provided potable water at a

central location, the residents’ inability to truck

water to their homes limits the amount of water

that could or should be available for hand washing

and personal hygiene. This, in turn, increases the

risk that individuals, especially children, have of

contracting diseases from exposure to human

waste.

The outbreak of epidemics of otherwise commonly preventable diseases such as hepatitis A,

hepatitis B, bronchitis, serious ear infection (otitis

media), impetigo, and meningitis in remote Alaskan communities is often attributed to poor sanitary facilities (300). In fact, virtually all sanitation

improvement projects for Native villages cite the

frequency of disease outbreaks as a major factor

justifying the need for such projects.

As part of this Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) study,4 the 1988 outbreak of hepatitis

A was examined to determine the correlation between the level of sewer service and the incidence

of disease. Although the spread of this disease is

often caused by close contact and person-to-person transmission, as opposed to transmission

from the environment directly to the individual,

OTA’s evaluation showed, as have many similar

studies, that the prevalent cause in most epidemic

cases of enteric diseases among rural Native villages is a lack of running water to practice good

sanitation and maintain good personal hygiene

(wash, flush toilets, etc.).

In communities where water is hauled from a

watering point, the predominant method of disposal is usually the honey bucket. This conclusion

has been supported by previous studies (204) that

correlated water supply and sewage systems with

the incidence of preventable disease. In fact,

OTA’s brief evaluation of epidemiological data

shows that throughout the State of Alaska, Native

villages with honey bucket systems accounted for

72 percent (218 of 301) of the reported cases of

hepatitis A in 1988.

Hepatitis A and B cases are most widespread in

the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region of southwestern Alaska. There, the rate of incidence of

hepatitis A and B is, according to local public

health experts, one the highest in the United

States. Nearly 2,000 people in the region, mostly

children, were affected in the last hepatitis outbreak that occurred in the mid- 1980s, whereas the

number of cases in areas with adequate water and

sewerage was minimal (173). Reviews of the 1988

hepatitis A outbreak data show that village members of the Calista Regional Corp. in the YukonKuskokwim Delta accounted for almost half (46

percent) of the cases reported throughout Alaska

that year. Because epidemic waves of these diseases are expected every 15 to 20 years, a greater

number of casualties may result in the future if

proper sanitation measures are not taken in advance. However, prevention of an epidemic does

not seem possible unless communities are provided with sufficient water to practice good sanitation and more adequate means of handling human sewage than the 5-gallon plastic container,

euphemistically called a honey bucket, now provides.

| Categories of Sanitation Conditions

The Village Safe Water (VSW) program of the

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation is the State agency with primary jurisdiction

over sanitation planning and construction issues

associated with Native villages. As part of its responsibilities, the VSW has established five lev4 Alth(,ugh the OTA ~a]ysls was directed at a specific outbreak of hepatitis A in 1988, additional analyses of similar epidemics may well

reveal the same results.
Chapter 2: Alaskan Native Villages and Their Sanitation Problems | 35

els of service to categorize the different methods

used by Native communities to dispose of human

sewage.

Level a represents the most rudimentary service and consists principally of the use of pit toilets, privies, and honey buckets. Unlike pit toilets

and privies where use and disposal are closely related, proper operation of honey buckets requires

that residents carry the accumulated wastes out of

the house to a disposal site away from the community. More frequently, however, one finds that

honey buckets either are emptied on the ground in

the immediate vicinity of the residence or carried

to nearby pit bunkers by residents of individual

households. Alternatively, they are emptied in

other convenient locations, including frozen rivers, the ocean, tidal plains, tundra ponds, and sewage lagoons. The rural Native villages currently

operating honey bucket systems in Alaska as their

only sanitation technology are shown in figure

2–2 and listed in appendix C.

Level b sanitary waste disposal service provides for the hauling of honey bucket wastes by a

community employee. Individual residents in

these communities haul the waste from their respective households to central collection points

known as honey bucket bins. There are more than

800 black plastic bins in use today. When filled,

the bins are hauled to the community sewage lagoon by snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or truck.

Although truck haul represents an improvement

over level a sanitation, the inadequate design of

certain system components (e.g., lids, trailers, and

bins) means that some village residents come in

contact with the waste.

In some villages operating levels a and b systems the health risks are lower than others. For example, in the coastal areas of southeast Alaska,

small villages might dispose of honey bucket

waste directly in the ocean. Although environmental damage is possible, if the populations are

small enough the amount of waste disposed in this

manner may cause little environmental harm and

have little impact on public health. However, improved sanitation services will be needed as the

size of these communities increases.

Bagged human wastes are sometimes stored temporarily at a

convenient location, perhaps adjacent to the home, prior to

their disposal,

Level c encompasses systems with flush toilets, holding tanks for collecting waste, and hauling of wastes to a disposal area by a truck service.

Sewage collection tanks can be either large insulated tanks located outside the residence or smaller containers located inside the home. The tanks

are emptied periodically by a pump or vacuum

collection vehicle operated by the community.

Adequate water must be provided for flushing

year-round. Although residents provided with

this level of sanitation service are ensured minimum contact with the waste, the costs for operating truck haul technologies (operator’s salary,

truck repairs, road maintenance, etc.) are higher

than those incurred by communities with sanitation levels a and b.

Level d systems have flush toilets that discharge to septic tanks and leach fields. About 26 of

the 191 villages identified by IHS operate this sys-
36 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

. T.

In some villages, honey bucket wastes are emptied into haul

containers or bins strategically placed along village streets or

boardwalks. Bins are periodically hauled and emptied at the

village disposal area,

tern. A high degree of community sanitation can

be achieved cost-effectively with the use of septic

tanks; however, they work only in regions with

well-drained soil above the seasonal water table.

An adequate water supply for flushing must also

be provided year-round. Such requirements preclude the application of level d systems in many

remote Alaskan locations, particularly those with

riverine delta topography such as the Yukon-Kuskokwim and Northwest Arctic regions. Operation

and maintenance costs for villages operating septic tanks (appendix C) are generally lower than

those of level c primarily because road maintenance activities, for example, are no longer required.

Level e-flush toilets and piped sewerage—

represents the highest technical and safety level of

wastewater disposal service provided to Native

communities of Alaska. Contact with waste is

virtually eliminated, provided there is an adequate

supply of water to operate the piped technology

(including gravity, pressure, or vacuum sytems).

To date, 72 of the 191 Alaskan Native villages

identified by IHS have been provided with level e

piped waste sanitation services (appendix C).

However, the construction of these systems has

often been difficult and costly because of the harsh

environment and remoteness of the villages.

WATER AVAILABILITY AND SANITATION

IN RURAL ALASKA

Despite the large bodies of water found throughout the state of Alaska, the water actually available at any time for practicing good sanitation is

generally inadequate.

Rural Alaska, particularly the western, Arctic,

and interior regions, appears to contain an almost

endless number of rivers, lakes, and tundra ponds.

Despite this hydrologic abundance, obtaining

water for drinking and sanitation on a continuous

basis in these areas is often difficult. During the

warmer months, for example, water can be collected from surface sources such as rivers and

lakes, but treatment is generally required to eliminate glacial silt and other dissolved organic or

inorganic materials prior to drinking. The use of

gutters or drains to collect rainwater from house

roofs, as noticed during a recent visit by OTA staff

to rural Alaskan villages, is also popular. Different

methods are employed during the winter months,

including drilling intake holes through frozen

Arctic rivers and lakes, digging wells sometimes

200 to 400 feet under the permafrost, or chopping

ice from lakes and rivers (ice chunks are placed in

30-gallon plastic trash cans and brought into the

home to melt).

Because of the absence of some means of piping and hauling water to the home, all water consumed and discarded by residents must be hauled

by hand. The work involved in hauling water, usu-
Chapter 2: Alaskan Native Villages and Their Sanitation Problems | 37

ally by 5-gallon pail, is burdensome and continual. A village watering point may be a hundred

yards or more from the point of intended use, thus

discouraging increased consumption.

Summer conditions in the interior areas of

Alaska with severely limited rainfall include

dusty roads, temperatures in the 80s, mosquitoes,

subsistence demands,5 and other factors that conspire to reduce one’s willingness to haul water for

use and then haul it again for discharge. Under

winter conditions of short days, cold temperatures, and blowing snow, the manual hauling of

water is an onerous task.

Typically, rural residents will use and reuse

water-filled wash basins in the bathroom for perThe use of gutters or drains to collect rainwater from house

roofs for domestic consumption IS also popular among many

Native villages.

sonal hygiene. Such basins are frequent] y used un -

til the water becomes visibly contaminated, at

which point it is discarded. This is often accomplished by simply tossing it out the back door.

Clearly, the opportunity for transmission of disease is increased under such conditions.

The lack of adequate water supplies often increases the risk of disease in Native villages that

operate on honey buckets (61). In these communities, honey buckets are used not only in residences

but also in local government and commercial

buildings, and even medical clinics. When filled,

the buckets are generally carried and emptied by

hand into the village disposal site. Unfortunately,

the community’s lack of adequate running water

for washing hands after using or disposing of

honey bucket contents makes it very difficult to

5 Subsistence is defined by ec~mtm~ic experts as the “household production of goods and services for domestic consumption or sharing. In

its ideal form, subsistence is autarkic and precludes extm-local trade or cash markets for goods and labor services” (249).
38 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

limit human contact with the raw sewage and

avoid disease (300).

Limitations on water availability in rural Native villages also affect the operation and delivery

of health care. For instance, 26 out of the 47 villages with clinics utilized by the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation are without water and

sewers, even though nearly 200,000 physicianpatient encounters per year were reported recently.

Although clinics are the communities’ “front line

of defense,” a respected Native leader recently

concluded that the lack of running water precludes

either the community or its clinics from having

good sanitary conditions (304).

The prevalence of enteric disease in rural Alaska may not be reduced until personal hygiene in

the home can be improved. This seems unlikely

without sufficient quantities of clean water that

can be obtained easily and inexpensively—a difficult prospect to achieve.

CONCLUSION

To telescope history, Western man found in Alaska a fully subsistence-based aboriginal people

living nomadically in small groups. Their lives

were originally controlled, sometimes severely,

by natural events and the requirements of the environment surrounding them. With the advent of improvements in subsistence harvesting, due largely

to the availability of cash and the implements it

made available, populations were able to increase

and the average life span lengthened.

Now, a new composite cash-subsistence lifestyle has emerged that is based not only on subs istence abilities, but also on the vagaries of external

economies. Changes in external economies ripple

through Native villages and cause their residents

to revert to a subsistence lifestyle they have more

immediate control over--only to later find that

regulations, controls, and the realities of existing

village conditions prevent successful reliance on

past practices to fulfill all their needs. The most

basic of these needs is sanitation, which cannot be

provided at adequate levels by local economies

alone. Continuing subsidy appears essential if Natives living in rural Alaska are to have adequate

water and sewerage facilities.

In spite of these advances, nearly 20,000 Native

people living among 89 rural village communities

continue to 1ive in conditions created by inadequate sanitation that are highly conducive to

contracting hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and other diseases. Children are specially at risk. Concerned

individuals and critics commonly refer to the poor

sanitary conditions found in Native communities

as being no different from those found in developing nations. And, because epidemic waves of

these diseases are expected every 15 to 20 years,

additional health casualties are expected in the future if sanitation technologies more advanced than

the honey bucket are not adopted. Improving village sanitation and preventing possible epidemics

appear highly difficult today because conventional technologies are very expensive to build and

maintain without outside financial assistance. Developing alternative technologies or methods that

are more affordable for communities with 1imited

economies is a solution still largely untried by

Federal and State sanitation agencies.
Roles and

Responsibilities

of Alaska

Natives 3

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING

PIPED SANITATION TECHNOLOGIES

In addition to the harsh climate and geographical constraints

typical of the rural Alaska environment, the economic conditions

found among Native villagers living in these remote lands also

have a direct bearing on the ability of a village to acquire, support,

and maintain modern sanitation systems.

The poor economic base in most Native villages in Alaska’s

southwestern, western, interior, and Arctic regions creates considerable management difficulties for local governments in addressing community needs, including sanitation. Federal and

State agencies responsible for building sanitation projects are

often forced to recognize these difficulties because sanitation

projects require support for operation and maintenance (O&M) at

levels that are often beyond the technical and financial capabilities of local villages.

The majority of Native communities in rural Alaska rely almost completely on transfer payments and subsidies to operate

basic village programs, including electricity, education, and

transportation. Although quantification is difficult, most experts

agree that Federal and State subsidies continue to be vital to local

village economies.

Because of the extreme economic difficulties experienced by

Natives, a subsistence 1ifestyle continues to be the dominant practice in most remote communities. Many personal, social, and cultural values essential to the civilization of Alaskan Native groups

are intrinsically embedded in the practice of subsistence living.

I 39
40] An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Waste collected through piped sewer systems is discharged

into sewage lagoons for treatment,

Today, subsistence constitutes a critical continuity with the cultural life of the past.

Several experts and expert groups have recognized that operation and maintenance of existing

sanitation projects are vital for protection of the

community’s health (246). O&M costs are, however, generally high. The shortage of technical assistance from outside agencies and the inadequate

training of facility operators contribute to poor

O&M. Among the consequences most commonly

associated with poor O&M are shortening of the

useful life of sanitation projects, system breakdowns, and sometimes, human casualties. Despite

insufficient support and capabilities, Native villages continue to be responsible for facility O&M.

The prevalence of disease throughout Alaska is

due primarily to a limited potable water supply

and the use of inadequate technologies for collecting and disposing of sanitary waste. This has led

to an insistent demand for installation of adequate

collection and treatment facilities in each Native

village.

Even though State and Federal agencies have

allocated more than $1.3 billion in the last 30

years (and have been recently spending about

$120 million per year), the existing sanitary

conditions in many rural Native villages of Alaska

indicate that much remains to be done to solve this

problem.

Provision of long-term solutions to each community has been the major objective of Federal

and State agencies and continues to be so. The

most frequent long-term solution is piped sanitation. Attempts to develop and demonstrate shortterm or interim promising technologies that might

improve sanitary conditions have been limited.

Three types of sanitation technologies are used in

Alaska: gravity, pressure, and vacuum (see box

3-l).

Although large-scale piped systems continued

to be the type of sanitation technology most favored by Federal and State agencies, delivering

piped sanitation services takes time and, more importantly, large sums of money for facility

construction, operation, and maintenance, which

most Native communities now lack. The discussion that follows focuses mainly on the economic

health of, and the role played by, Native communities in sanitation projects.

ECONOMIC HEALTH AND CULTURE OF

NATIVE VILLAGES

B Role of Subsistence Practices in Village

Cost of Living

Subsistence practices among Natives often hide

the actual cost of living and economic difficulties of communities, as well as their ability to pay

for the construction, maintenance, and operation of new or improved large-scale sanitation

projects.

From a distance, cash expenses have traditionally appeared to be the primary means of acquiring

food by Native families. A closer look, however,

has enabled researchers to conclude more accurately that subsistence practices are as critical to

the survival of Natives as food purchased from the

local community store. In a 1983 study, subsistence harvests of salmon, for example, were reported to be not only a significant protein source,

but also capable of providing up to 55 percent of

the food consumed by the average household per

year in some localities.

Considerable research on village economics

has been carried out since the 1983 study (204).

As a result of these efforts, it has been shown that

of the regional corporations in Alaska, the Bering
Chapter 3: Roles and Responsibilities of Alaska Natives | 41

As of April 1994, gravity piped sewer technology had been Installed in 69 of the 191 Alaskan Native villages identified by the Indian Health Service as needing support for sanitation purposes. Residents of these

villages have flush toilets draining to a community collection system that transports human waste to a sewage

lagoon for treatment. The majority of communities served by this type of piped sanitation system are found in

the Aleutian (8 of 10 villages), Kodiak (all 6 villages), North Pacific Rim (all 4 villages) and Southeast (all 12

villages) regional corporations. All Native villages currently operating gravity sanitation systems are Iisted in

appendix C

Installation of gravity piped sanitation technology is generally dependent on an adequate water supply to

transport sewage through the system, the absence of groundwater near the surface where it could infiltrate

buried pipes, and proper insulation and heating of system components to prevent winter freeze-up. Although

aboveground Installation of gravity piped sewage systems may be used when underground pipes are impractical, it is Inferior to underground installation because of its greater potential for experiencing heat loss

(sometimes as much as three times that of underground lines), the likelihood of vandalism, and the adverse

effect on community aesthetics. ’

Gravity sewer pipes cannot always be installed in rural Alaska because of the harsh soil conditions, permafrost, rocks, and flat surfaces typical of this State, With the exception of Naknek and Iguigig (Bristol Bay)

and Aniak (Yukon -Kuskokwim region), where drinking water is obtained from Individual wells, all of the Native

villages with gravity sewer systems in rural Alaska are also served by a piped water delivery system

When local environmental conditions make their installation Impractical, pressure piped technology can

be substituted for gravity systems Rather than depending on gravity, this type of conventional sewerage

system utilizes the pressure provided by pumps to transport human waste through service collection pipes

to the disposal area. The possibillity of building a pressure piped sewer system at Nuiqiut and Point Hope iS

being examined as part of the Indian Health Service effort to deliver piped water and sewer sanitation services to seven Arctic Slope Regional Corp. villages,

The third type of conventional piped technology used in rural Alaskan Native communities is vacuum sewer technology.2 In addition to the specialized flush toilet Installed inside the home, the vacuum-type system

consists of one or more vacuum collection stations situated in a central location in the community, one or

more collection tanks for holding incoming sewage, several vacuum pumps for handling sewage flow or discharging sewage into the community’s disposal facility; and a network of small service collection pipes. A

separate vacuum tank to provide additional capacity and prevent moisture from reaching the vacuum pumps

might also be Installed inside the collection station.

The use of a vacuum Instead of gravity allows considerably smaller collection pipes3 than those employed

in gravity and pressure technologies, thus making the installation of vacuum systems possible on almost any

type of terrain, with litttle concern for slope. The use of smaller pipes also provides a greater opportunity for

(continued)

I Col[ectlon IInes are generally installed deep m the ground, whenever possible, otherwme additional Protective measures ‘ust

be taken to prohibit excesswe surface loads If underground mstallatlon IS not possible, collection Imes are placed on the surface

or on pllmgs CollectIon Imes can also be installed m “uthdors” along with other utllty pipes

2 The three major types of vacuum sewer system m use m the United States are 1 ) the conventional grawty fixture with exterior

vacuum valve, m which collection of sewage IS accomplished m a sump located outside the home and mamtamed by the uthfy

authority (the most common type of vacuum system operated m the lower 48 States), 2) the “two-pipe vacuum sewer system, ”

which requires the use of two municipal collection Imes, one for toilet waste and the other for greywater, and 3) the “vacuum tol{ets

and vacuum sumps with greywater valves” m operation m the wllages of Nowk and Emmonak, Alaska

3 Generally between 2 1/2 and 4 inches m diameter
42 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

water conservation, Another advantage of vacuum sewerage systems is their ability to separate blackwater4

and greywater5 in the user’s home.6

Noorvik (Northwest Arctic) and Emmonak (Yukon- Kuskokwim) are the only two Native villages of rural

Alaska operating vacuum sewer technology. In Noorvik, the sewage is vacuumed through 2 l/2-inch highdensity pipes Inserted in a utilidor7 into a 7,000-gallon sewage collection tank located within the sanitation

facility building. Two discharge pumps are then used to draw sewage out of the tank for disposal through

1,300 feet of 4-inch Insulated sewer force main into a 2.2-acre sewage lagoon for treatment. Heat inside the

utilidor is provided by a circulating water distribution system backed up by a glycol heating loop.

Unlike Noorvik’s vacuum technology, the vacuum collection pipes and the glycol heating lines of the Emmonak vacuum sewer system are not contained in a utilidor but inside a separate Arctic carrier pipe As a

backup heating system, engineers have installed electric thaw cables along the carrier pipe.

The use of the vacuum sewage technology has also been proposed for the City of Selawik in the Northwest

Arctic Regional Corp. If sufficient funds are available, two vacuum sewage collection stations8 WiII be

Installed as part of the Memorandum of Agreement between local and Federal Government officials to provide water and sanitation services to the city’s nearly 600 residents.g

4 The term backwater refers to urine, fecal matter, and related debris, such as toilet paper, deposited in a toilet, as well as the

water used to transport these materials

5 Greywater IS household wastewater without tollel waste, It consists pnmanly of discharged water from bathtubs, showers,

sinks, and appliances such as washing machmes and dishwashers

G In Communltles where this technology has been Installed, separation IS accomplished by dlwdmg the WXJle Ilne that provides

vacuum service to the home into two Imes one to serve a specially designed vacuum toilet and the other to serve a vacuum greywater valve To drsmse of human waste, the user flushes the vacuum toilet, which m turn causes a vacuum mterfacevalve to open and

allows the stored raw sewage to enter the vacuum Ime connecting the toilet to the vacuum system Once collected, the sewage can

be pumped through a force mam directly to the community’s sewage lagoon or to a Iff station from which It IS pumped to a Iagcmn

7 A Utllldor IS an above- or underground pipe-llke structure des gned to protect the Utlllty Serwces Of the COmmunl?Y, It might

contain, for example, utlltty p{pmg (water and sewer pipes), fuel and central heating conduits, and electrical and telephone Ilnes

6 These vacuum sewer stations WIII be manufactured by AIRVAC vacuum sewer sYs@mS

9 The agencies acting on behalf of the Federal Government m ths agreement are the Ind{an Health Service and the U S Environmental Protection Agency

SOURCES Archc Slope Consulting Group, Inc (ASCG), WaterandSewer Uti/lties MasterPlan Report forSelaw/k, Alaska, prepared

for City of Selawlk, Alaska, Jan 1992, Canadian Society for CIVII Engmeermg, Co/d Chrnate Uti/@Manua/ (Montreal, Canada Beauregard Press Ltd , 1986), John A Olofsson and H P Schroeder, Unwerslty of Alaska Anchorage, Sanitation A/ternatwes For Rura/

Alaska, report prepared for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC Aug 15, 1993

Straits, Calista, and Nana areas—located in the ties of local villages. Attempts by Natives to acsouthwestern, western, and Arctic regions of the

State— are the most economically depressed. The

virtual absence of any viable economic base in

these areas creates considerable management difficulties for local governments in addressing community needs. Similar difficulties are experienced

by those responsible for sanitation facilities in the

community because such projects require support

for operation and maintenance at levels that are

often beyond the technical and financial capabiliquire “matching” capital funding from the village

have been largely unsuccessful due to the virtual

absence of any self-sustaining economic base.

Villages in the Bering Straits, Calista, and the

Nana corporations fall well below the overall average income for the 12 regional corporations and

below the overall statewide Alaskan average. The

Calista Region, for example, ranked last in the

average per capita category and next to last in the

average median household income category.
Chapter 3: Roles and Responsibilities of Alaska Natives | 43

Dismal regional economies and generally low

per capita income are exacerbated by the high cost

of living in rural areas. Although Anchorage is

considered a high cost of living area by most economic experts, the cost of living in areas such as

the Calista Region is nearly 40 percent higher than

that in Anchorage because of their limited accessibility and the increased shipping costs

A recent comparison between the average

annual expenditures reported for Calista Regional

Corp. villages and their average annual median

household income showed a shortfall of up to

$255 (204). An obvious conclusion is that these

village households operate at a loss or at a near

break-even level. Severe winters with increased

heating cost and utility bills, and poor subsistence

harvests, are known to place Native residents in

these communities in a deficit position. For example, the unprecedentedly low salmon harvest reported to Office of Technology Assessment staff

during a visit to the City of Buckland in August

1993 was considered a potentially serious economic concern by community leaders. This was

primarily because of the uncertainty about how

the community would be able to simultaneously

make up for the loss and pay for services during

the coming winter months.

Throughout the State of Alaska, the level of

sewerage service can be linked directly to the

annual average per capita income. Of the 223 Native and non-Native village communities surveyed during the 1990 U.S. Census (53), about

100 did not have a flush toilet inside their homes.

Of these, 85 villages (89 percent) fell below the

average per capita income, indicating that in addition to geotechnical constraints, economic conditions in remote Alaskan villages limit their ability

to support and maintain highly complex and costly sanitation projects, once they have been built.

Any additional monthly payments required for

improved water and sewer systems may easily

overwhelm the residents’ ability to meet their basic living expenses. Because of this, it appears

imperative that any proposed technological solutions—particularly those that are large scale in nature—to the waste sanitation problems in Native

Alaskan communities need to be based on a detailed analysis of the economic health of each village. Only in this way can its ability to sustain the

additional costs for such sanitation systems be determined.

1 Transfer Payments and Subsidized

Goods and Services

The ability of most native governments of rural

Alaskan villages to provide vital goods and services to their residents, including water and sewer sanitation, is extremely limited without adequate external financial support.

Without subsidies of goods and services by

Federal and State agencies, Native village communities throughout rural Alaska are unlikely to

survive. Subsidies are also key to the success of

large-scale waste sanitation projects. Although

quantification is almost impossible, annual subsidies are estimated to be in the range of several

thousand dollars per capita. This is a fair assumption, according to most experts, since subsidized

goods and services cover a wide range of needs including electric power, education, postal freight

service, television and telephone, passenger air

service, school lunch programs, and several State

loan programs, to name a few. Eligibility y for transfer payments from Federal and State agencies is

based on the financial needs of a particular community.

Federal and State subsidies are considered vital

to the local economy of most villages, particular y

in the Bering Straits, Calista, and Nana regional

corporations. Other regional corporations in the

western, interior, and Arctic areas of Alaska,

where similar problems exist, are Ahtna, Arctic

Slope, and Doyon. In 1984, for instance, the average per capita income from transfer payments

alone was $5,338 for Calista residents. Federal

funding of Native health care, education, and a variety of Native social programs is also included in

this figure.

The disturbing conclusion drawn by many experts is that the majority of Native communities of

rural Alaska rely almost completely on transfer

payments and subsidies to operate their programs.

Some view per capita income today as a clear re-
44 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

suit of direct transfer payments. “Villages are no

longer self-sufficient,” said a respected Native

leader recently (221 ). Since sustaining the current

level of external financial support appears uncertain in light of recent reductions in State oil revenues and Federal Government contributions, the

economic potential of Native communities must

be evaluated carefully prior to undertaking any

large-scale, costly sanitation projects. The relevance of this consideration cannot be neglected in

regional corporations such as Ahtna, Arctic Slope,

Bering Straits, Calista, Doyon, and Nana, where

at least half of the Native villages operating honey

buckets have per capita incomes below the State

average.

1 Cultural Importance of Subsistence

Among Alaska’s Native Villages

Although Alaskan Native culture has been affectedly outside forces, it is vital for Federal and

State agencies to recognize the importance of

subsistence as a cultural factor.

Subsistence is critical to the existence of Alaska Natives. From their beginnings as hunter/gatherers, Alaskan Natives have consistently relied on

the land as the source of their most basic needs.

Additionally, religious and spiritual ties with nature have long been part of Native culture. As influential as Western culture might be today among

rural communities, subsistence continues to be an

important factor in defining the cultural fabric of

most Natives in the State.

On close inspection of the sociocultural conditions in the southwestern, western, interior, and

Arctic regions of Alaska, one finds that without

exception, subsistence—not merely economically, but also culturally—is the dominant and largely preferred practice in these regions. More than

any other factor, subsistence inspires powerful

sentiments, represents significant bonds between

family and community members, defines domestic roles and personal identity, represents great

cultural achievement, provides critical sustenance

and commodities, and demonstrates the persistence of Native culture through time and in the

face of adverse conditions.

Therefore, the importance of subsistence as a

means of both physical and cultural survival cannot be overemphasized. Although fish wheels and

modem technology have thrust Alaskan Natives

beyond basic subsistence into a partial cash economy, subsistence salmon fishing, for example,

still represents a critical continuity with the cultural life of the past. The importance of subsistence

also frequently results in conflicts between periodic summer employment (e.g., cash earnings

from sanitation construction projects) versus the

need to maximize the salmon catch to survive the

winter.

With relatively few exceptions, the economic

and sociocultural conditions of most villages in

rural Alaska represent significant barriers to planning complex sanitation projects. Examples of

this can be found in most villages within the Calista Regional Corp., whose lack of a viable economy reflects their potential inability to support

new complex sanitation projects satisfactorily.

Furthermore, the lessons learned from previous

failures indicate clearly the need for better coordination among Federal, State, and Native governments to create the management base necessary within each village to ensure proper O&M of

existing projects. Strong local leadership and

community support are also essential for ensuring

the success of sanitation projects (221). Similarly,

serious consideration must be given to the sociocultural patterns of Alaska Natives early and

throughout the planning, construction, and operation of sanitation projects.

| Western Influence and Accessibility

of Native Communities

The level of accessibility to external organizations and institutions varies among Native villages.

The cultures and people of Alaska areas different as the many types of land areas found throughout the State. The Native people are ancestrally

linked to Eskimo, Aleut, and Indian groups. Each

of the Native groups inhabits a specific region of

Alaska and is historically related to the people of

the Russian Far East to some degree. A major por-
Chapter 3: Roles and Responsibilities of Alaska Natives | 45

tion of the State’s non-Native population has migrated from the rest of the United States or other

locations and is generally found in urban areas.

The relationship with the Westerner or “white

man” has sometimes been considered tolerable at

best. Two factors have been cited as being most

disruptive to this relationship: the gold rushes that

introduced Eskimos to a variety of Western ways,

including intermittent economic opportunities,

and the introduction of diseases of epidemic proportions that halved the historical Eskimo population by the early 1900s. The impact of epidemics

resulted in a dramatic loss of the elderly. Young

Natives frequently lacked the knowledge to continue traditional customs and ceremonies. The remaining Native population was further affected by

the introduction of family dwelling units, American political institutions, village schools, trading

posts, and post offices, which more gradually, but

perhaps also more conclusively, altered the Eskimo lifestyle.

The presence of exploitable resources may also

determine the degree of Western exposure that a

village has experienced. The gold rush era in the

late 1800s and early 1900s, for instance, brought

sudden and vast exposure of the Yukon River

communities to Western culture. However, the

exposure of the Kuskokwim communities was

less disruptive, primarily because of the absence

of large gold finds along the Kuskokwim River.

Additionally, early difficulties in navigating the

Kuskokwim further delayed exploration and exploitation of limited resources along the river. Consequently, with much later exposure to Westerners, Kuskokwim communities tend to be more

traditional and to favor retaining the old ways of

life. A comparative overview of Yukon and Kuskokwim River communities is presented in box

3-2.

Although the intrusion of Western culture has

met with resentment, Alaska Natives have occasionally welcomed Western social and economic

programs. Many Natives believe that the main

source of resentment has emerged primarily from

being told by outsiders what to do and how to do it,

and rarely being included in the development of

solutions to local problems—an obviously understandable response to the worsening economic

conditions being experienced by villagers. Some

attempts by outside institutions to install sanitation systems unilaterally, and then expect village

residents to operate and maintain them, have received little acceptance and consequently have

failed.

The misapplication and subsequent abandonment of comporting toilets by Fort Yukon and Galena residents appear to indicate that agencies—in

this case, the Farmer’s Home Administration—

need to evaluate in advance how the technology

would perform in a particular community (e.g.,

through pilot tests), as well as involve potential

users in the planning and technology selection

process. In the view of many, this is essential for

maintaining the agency’s credibility. Of the many

State and Federal institutions involved with Native communities in rural Alaska, the Indian

Health Service (IHS) and the Village Safe Water

(VSW) program have been the most successful in

encouraging and supporting villagers’ participation in the planning, design, and construction of

projects. This is extremely important because the

degree of project success will ultimately depend

on the level of commitment of community leaders

and residents.

ROLE OF NATIVE COMMUNITIES IN

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

OF SANITATION PROJECTS

Alaska’s rural Native villages are responsible for

managing their waste sanitation projects but

often lack the financial resources needed to ensure their long-term operation on and maintenance.

The hope of some Native leaders is to see a government program that provides “all Alaskan villages with piped water and sewer systems to serve

every home within the village” (300). Others,

however, recognize that this might in some cases

be economically prohibitive, and they call for the

development of more affordable sanitation alternatives. Under the current system, villages are

given the responsibility for operating, maintain-
46 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

There are several major differences between Yukon and Kuskokwim River communities, including economic, social, and cultural factors. Observation indicates that the downstream villages on either river appear

to be in more precarious condition than those upstream. Upstream villages tend to be fewer in number and

more viable in almost all respects. From a sanitation perspective, upstream communities have greater access

to gravel and permeable soil, and experience fewer waste disposal constraints. They are also generally less

assimilated and more traditional in outlook.

There are 10 Calista villages along the Yukon, of which 6 have modern sewage disposal systems. The

average per capita income for these Yukon River comrnunities is higher than for the Kuskokwim River and

coastal communities in the region. In contrast, only 4 of the 20 Calista communities along the Kuskokwim

River operate wastewater disposal systems above the honey bucket level. The remaining 16 have the lowest

per capita annual income.

The apparently significant variation in level of sewer service between the Kuskokwlm and the Yukon River

communities is generally attributed to the geophysical characteristics of the Yukon River. The SOiI and drainage characteristics of Yukon River villages are usually signficantly better than those of Kuskokwim River

communities. In addition, gravel IS more readily available along the Yukon, making infrastructure improvements easier. The seasonal flooding and erosion potential is also much higher along the Kuskokwim than

along the Yukon River. All of these factors favor Yukon villages in the successful provision of improved sanitation systems. Permafrost distribution does not significantly favor either region.

Regarding water quality, none of the 10 villages along the Yukon experience problems with iron, manganese, or arsenic However, 15 of the 20 villages along the Kuskokwim report difficulties with high inorganic

levels, especially iron, in their drinking water sources. Among the coastal communities in the Yukon -Kuskokwim Delta, 8 of 16 villages recorded high iron concentrations in their drinking water source. From a cost perspective, compliance with water treatment standards for villages along the Yukon require a smaller capital

Investment and lower operation and maintenance costs because of generally higher quality source water,

Water availability cannot be compared accurately because of the subjective interpretation of the term “adequate. ” Adequacy of a water source IS relative to the type of water system installed in a given village and the

specific Iifestyle of the residents. In general, Yukon River communities are located in an area that is more

conducive to cost-effective installation and operation of state-of-the-art piped water and sewer systems.

Socioeconomic Comparison

Historically, the accessibility of a given region to non-Natives has been a major factor in determining the

intensity of cultural change, Within the Yukon-Kuskokwlm Delta, Yukon communities, in general, are less

traditional than comparable communities on the Kuskokwim River.

Noticeable differences also exist between the average per capita incomes of Yukon and Kuskokwim communities. With Federal and State subsidies identical for both communities, the major difference is attributed

to the value of the commercial fishery in each subregion. For a variety of reasons, the Yukon River commercial

salmon fishery is larger and more valuable than the Kuskokwim fishery. Prices paid to fishermen are higher

along the Yukon than the Kuskokwim, primarily because of well-developed, relatively stable, and more competitive fish processing. Consistently higher value is realized per pound for lower Yukon salmon harvests,

compared to similar catches on the Kuskokwim. The Kuskokwim fishery has also been plagued by market

instability, the inability of buyers to accept the entire harvest, and an absence of competition among buyers,

which have resulted in consistently lower prices.

There IS a significant difference of approximately $800 in annual per capita earnings between Yukon and

Kuskokwim communities, For an average household size of 4.9 persons, this translates into a monthly household income of $327 more for Yukon than for Kuskokwim homes. From an income comparison perspective,

one might conclude that Yukon households are therefore more financially capable of supporting expenses,

Including those associated with municipal infrastructure.
Chapter 3: Roles and Responsibilities of Alaska Natives | 47

The size of each village should also be considered in terms of operating and maintenance cost dlstribuhon. Simply stated, a larger village would be more able to distribute its costs over a greater population base

than a smaller one, if normal economies of scale in the municipal Infrastructure are assumed.

In summary, Yukon River communities, in general, are more capable of Implementing improved sanitation

systems than Kuskokwim villages Geophysical conditions along the Yukon are more conducwe to installing

and maintaining improved systems, and the quality of source water is higher,

Overall, this comparison between Yukon and Kuskokwim communities supports several general theories

expressed by U.S. Public Health Service and Village Safe Water officials, Village attitudes, coupled with an

overall readiness and potential to accept improved sanitation systems, are intangible factors, but correlations

seem to exist with villager’s attitudes. The economic supportability of sanitation systems and the presence of

effective local leadership have often been cited as key criteria in ensuring the long-term success of sanitation

projects,

SOURCE John A Olofsson and H P Schroeder, University of Alaska Anchorage, Sanitation Alternatives for Rural Alaska, report

prepared for the Congressional Off Ice of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, Aug. 15, 1993

ing, and managing sanitation projects, without the ment of their mechanical systems in the near fufunds needed to hire trained, certified operators

capable of ensuring that such projects are safely

and properly operated (58). One reason villages

feel that they should receive adequate support is

that other communities in high-altitude regions

are supported with O&M funds by their governments. Alaskan sanitation experts have been made

aware of this when attending international conferences held in other high-altitude countries, such as

Canada, Denmark, Finland, Russia, and Sweden.

Operation and maintenance were recently recognized by the Governor’s Sanitation Task Force

as the most vital components for ensuring the

long-term success of sanitation projects and protecting the health of Alaska Natives. Unfortunately, most communities lack the funds to pay for adequate maintenance (58). This difficulty

sometimes results in shortening the useful life of

the system, as well as in breakdowns. Inadequate

O&M has also been responsible for some human

casualties. For instance in 1992, a malfunctioning

pump allowed excess fluoride to enter the Hooper

Bay water supply, killing one person and causing

many other village residents to be ill (300).

According to the Alaska Native Health Board,

the State of Alaska spent about $11 million for

equipment repair or replacement at sanitation facilities between 1988 and 1991 (58). Many more

sanitation projects are expected to require replaceture. Although specific figures are difficult to arrive at, the Governor’s Sanitation Task Force

estimated that the cost of repairing all existing facilities that are inoperative or operating with difficulty due to equipment malfunction will exceed

$750 million (67).

Unfortunately, operation and maintenance

costs are generally too high for Native communities to afford. Operation of sewer and water systems in remote villages, generally considered the

province of local governments, is typically “in the

The inadequate condition of roads in some villages often

results in spillage of human waste during its transportation to

disposal sites
48 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

red” or technically bankrupt. The scarcity of Federal or State subsidies makes the operation of sanitation systems at village communities challenging

(104). In some cases, State subsidies for electric

power, heat, and fuel are helpful, but insufficient

to meet the high O&M costs typical of rural Alaska which are several times higher than those in

major Alaskan cities.

FACTORS THAT HAMPER SUCCESSFUL

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE IN

NATIVE COMMUNITIES

Several factors appear to be hampering the successful operation and maintenance of sewerage facilities in Native communities. These include, for

example, a shortage of technical assistance from

outside agencies and inadequate training of facility operators. Little change is expected in the near

future because Federal and State agencies continue to favor the construction of new capital projects

with little direct financial support for O&M of existing sanitation systems.

Other relevant factors hampering successful

O&M throughout rural Alaska include the following:

Factor 1—The limited ability of remote villages to hire certified and trained personnel can

often result in higher O&M costs. Because a large

segment of the rural Native population of communities found in the southwestern, western, interior,

and Arctic regions of Alaska falls below the national poverty level, only a few villages can afford

to hire an operator on a full-time basis. Where this

is not possible, the level of oversight is inadequate

and responsible for system malfunctions. Because

most communities lack the funds to correct such

malfunctions, they often wait until system parts

are seriously damaged or inoperative, at which

time, their repair or replacement costs are considerably higher and even more difficult to afford.

According to Willie Thomas, Vice Mayor of

Buckland, a village of 300 residents:

It is difficult to generate jobs. Some people

are trying to develop their own skills. Training

would be helpful but once investments are made

Sanitation facility operators are trained in many technical

areas, including water chemistry and treatment, vacuum

pumps, operational safety and record keeping.

[by the Native village], there would not be any

jobs [in the Village] and trained personnel would

go somewhere else (238).

Factor 2—The small size of the community

adversely impacts its ability to pay for O&M because of the inability to develop the economies of

scale capable of reducing rate of payments or to

support the construction of more advanced, and

generally more expensive, sanitation projects.

Factor 3—In addition to the poor economy,

lack of roads makes it difficult for communities to

acquire spare parts and supplies because of the

high costs of freight and fuel (70).

Factor 4—The inability of governments of

small villages to fund the O&M of sanitation projects often places an increasing number of operation, maintenance, and management responsibili-
Chapter 3: Roles and Responsibilities of Alaska Natives | 49

ties on a relatively small number of facility

operators. This, in turn, makes the protection of

residents’ health and the success of sanitation

projects problematic (64).

Factor 5—Inadequacies of staffing, planning,

and accounting in many small rural villages have

resulted in equipment and mechanical failures—

many of which are premature in nature. In addition, the lack of consistency and uniformity in fee

collection practices results in insufficient funds

for O&M expenses and operators’ salaries.

Factor 6—Most villages find it difficult to

fund a public works department or a full-time, certified sewerage operator. Sanitation facilities are

often run by part-time operators, and occasionally

volunteers, who are often ill-equipped to deal with

the challenges posed to sanitation projects by the

harsh climatic and environmental conditions typical of rural Alaska (64).

Factor 7—Some local governments have

shown little interest in assuming or sharing responsibility for utility management. Thus, problems relating to utilities are often referred to city

managers and facility operators ( if they exist) or to

other individuals, who do not have the authority

required to effect corrective policy within the

community.

Factor 8—City clerks and administrators are

often left with the responsibility of collecting user

fees and keeping records of all financial transactions associated with a waste sanitation facility.

The lack of support by local governments, along

with low salaries and heavy work loads, has contributed to the high rate of city clerk and/or administrator turnover-ften precluding communities

from having skilled clerks and administrators and,

therefore, well-managed sanitation facilities (70).

Factor 9—The use of computers is widespread, but the knowledge of software and technical support are highly deficient. Computer systems are generally purchased on the basis of cost,

with little attention given to the capability of the

software, manuals, and training (227). Unfortunately, the high turnover rate of capable village administrators or city clerks does not allow time for

personnel familiar with a computer system to train

others in its use.

Factor 10-Many local governments lack the

leadership and leadership stability required to ensure the success of a project. Unfortunately,

among agencies involved with sanitation projects

in rural Alaska, the number of programs to deal

with community dysfunctionality is extremely

limited.

Factor 11—the lack of meaningful participation in the planning, construction, and management phases of waste sanitation projects leads to

community frustration. In addition, the lopsided

support by Federal and State agencies for

construction, rather than for O&M, often leaves a

poor perception among community leaders and

members that subsequently may lead to the neglect of the facility (70).

FUNDING OF OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

Although Federal and State agencies have programs to provide essential capital funds for repairing existing facilities and building new ones, the

funding for proper O&M of sanitation facilities is

not traditionally part of any Federal and State

plans. It is not rare to find a recently built multimillion-dollar facility in need of preventive maintenance due to lack of proper operation and adequate local financial support.

Recognizing this deficiency, Congress

amended the Indian Health Care Improvement

Act of 19761 by passing the Indian Health

Amendments of 1992,2 and authorizing the Indian

Health Service (IHS) to provide, for the first time,

up to 80 percent of the O&M funding needed by

economically deprived Native communities. Villages with fewer than 1,000 residents, which inI 25 LJ. s,c. I 601 et seq.

‘P.L. 102-573; 106 STAT. 4526-4592.
50 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

elude all villages operating honey buckets, could

obtain additional funding. To date, IHS has not requested any funding for this purpose. IHS officials

have found it dificult to clarify the congressional

intent as to how to implement the law, particularly

the language of the Act indicating that “. . . the

non-Federal portion of the costs of operating,

managing, and maintaining such facilities may be

provided, in part, through cash donations or in

kind property, fairly evaluated.”3 Therefore, Native communities have yet to receive this muchneeded help. Under one scenario, it was estimated

that if funds are authorized, about $15.1 million

would be required to implement the 1992 law

throughout rural Alaska (122,204,206).

The need to protect public health often forces

local officials to implement programs and activities through which revenues can be obtained to

pay for the O&M costs of sanitation facilities. Unfortunately, success has been achieved only in

those few communities with the best economies

and most effective local leadership. To obtain

needed O&M funds, the leaders in these communities have: 1 ) adopted user fee ordinances and

disconnection policies; 2) hooked up and charged

industrial-type users such as schools, stores,

apartment houses, and businesses; and 3) adopted

sales taxes (e.g., 1 percent). Once collected, these

funds are used to setup reserve accounts to pay for

operational costs and defray residential user

charges (104).

Unfortunately, most villages in rural Alaska

with fewer than 1,000 residents have almost no

basic economy (limited fishing, very limited mining, some tourism), their cash flow is extremely

low, and their potential for economic improvement in the future is restricted. All Native villages

operating honey buckets as their only means of

waste sanitation exhibit these characteristics. The

absence of trained managers is also evident among

many villages. As a consequence, the difficulty in

obtaining funds for O&M activities is expected to

increase further in the future.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of certain diseases in Native Alaskan villages is in large part a direct result of a limited potable water supply and the use of inadequate waste disposal technologies such as honey

buckets. Federal and State agencies have provided

some villages with more adequate technologies

such as gravity, pressure, or vacuum piped systems. These are now installed in more than half of

the 191 Native villages identified by the Indian

Health Service. However, the continuing inadequate sanitary conditions still found among the remaining communities show that much remains to

be done to solve this problem.

Unfortunately, delivering piped sanitation systems takes time and, more important, substantial

funds that most Native communities now operating honey buckets lack. In addition, the maintenance and operation of sanitation projects in remote villages—generally considered the province

of local governments-are typically unfunded

and inadequate. In fact, the virtual absence of a viable economic base among these communities

creates considerable management difficulties for

local governments in addressing sanitation as well

as other important community needs, including

electricity, education, and transportation. The almost complete reliance on transfer payments and

subsidies forces many experts to conclude that

without continued Federal and State subsidies,

most Native village communities throughout rural Alaska are unlikely to be able to provide minimally safe and effective sanitation for their

people.

3

106 STAT. 4561.
Roles and

Responsibilities

of Federal

and State

Agencies 4

INTRODUCTION

With the passage by Congress of the Indian Sanitation Facilities

Construction Act in 1959,1 the Indian Health Service (IHS) became the primary Federal agency directly responsible for planning, designing, and constructing water and sewer projects in Native communities. More than $350 million of the $1.3 billion

already spent on sanitation projects in rural Alaska has been provided through IHS to accomplish these objectives. About an

equal amount comes from the Village Safe Water (VSW) program

within the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

(IHS’S State counterpart). Coordination of efforts between these

agencies often results in successful cooperative ventures for delivering water and sanitation services to Alaska Natives.

The major phases or steps associated with delivering water and

waste sanitation are project planning, design, and construction.

All of these steps, however, rely on the capital funding provided

by Federal and State agencies. Other areas in which participation

by these agencies is essential are the training and certification of

facility operators, and the provision of technical and financial assistance.

The planning, designing, and construction of sanitation facilities in rural Alaska often face barriers not commonly found in other areas of the United States. Such barriers include, among other

factors, limited drainage, ice-rich soils, water scarcity, high fuel

I 51

1 P.L. 86-121.
52 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

and shipping prices, limited or inadequate roads,

and short construction seasons. Early community

involvement is also considered essential to ensuring project success. Many past failures have

lacked this involvement.

Considerable political pressure has been placed

on IHS and VSW to deliver adequate sanitation

services to Native communities in rural Alaska.

As a result of efforts to meet this challenge, these

agencies have built many piped sanitation systems but with the considerably higher degree of

complexity necessary to meet the harsh climatic

conditions typical of the region. All of these factors have made sanitation projects among the most

demanding and costly capital ventures found

throughout rural Native communities of Alaska.

Despite considerable progress, more than half

of the 191 rural Native villages identified by IHS

still lack adequate or safe water and waste sanitation service. By themselves, these communities

lack the resources to build large-scale piped sanitation projects. Moreover, many communities already served with piped sanitation lack the resources to operate them properly. In the future,

expected declines in State revenues threaten to affect capital funding availability for new projects

and reduce revenue for other municipal assistance, including technical training, to support existing sanitation systems. Many existing systems

lack operation and maintenance (O&M). According to IHS, nearly 90 percent of the villages with

piped sanitation services were out of compliance

with relevant Federal and State regulations.

Although there is a continuing need to build

new sanitation projects in Alaskan villages, they

must have adequate operation and maintenance

support as well. The poor economic conditions in

most rural Native communities make system

maintenance difficult. Agencies have to avoid

installing complex technologies in communities

with 1ittle economic and technical resources to operate them. IHS and VSW personnel have recently

begun to work with Native communities in the

identification and testing of simpler and more

cost-effective systems.

INSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY

FRAMEWORK RELEVANT TO ALASKAN

VILLAGE SANITATION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation are the two agencies with

major regulatory oversight of sanitation projects

and programs in rural Alaska. Permitting decisions by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are

also relevant to the process in which village sanitation projects are proposed, built, and operated.

Since 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been the principal Federal

agency responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of regulations designed to protect the

environment and decrease pollution throughout

the United States. EPA also coordinates and supports research and antipollution activities carried

out by other Federal and State agencies.2

The primary focus of the Alaska Department

of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) is on

the conservation, improvement, and protection of

Alaska’s natural resources and environment.

ADEC is particularly concerned with air, land,

and water pollution. Agency responsibility extends to matters affecting the health, safety, economy, and social well-being of people throughout

the State. It does so through enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and quality standards developed in some cases by EPA. One particular function relevant to village sanitation, that

of project construction and improvement, is carried out by the Village Safe Water program within ADEC. Less than 3 percent of the more than 450

ADEC employees make up the VSW staff, who

until recently were delivering sanitation projects

to nearly 60 rural Alaskan Native villages. (The

Indian Health Service, discussed throughout

this report, is VSW’S Federal counterpart.)

2 w C.F.R. I “statement of organization and General Infom]ation.”
Chapter 4: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal and State Agencies | 53

The Army Corps of Engineers is the Federal

agency responsible under Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act3 for reviewing, approving, or denying permit applications to discharge dredge or

fill materials into U.S. waters. All sanitation projects proposed for construction in rural Alaska by

IHS and VSW require Corps of Engineers’ approval because many of the areas in which such

projects are to be built have been designated wetlands. A large portion of the western Alaska region-where many Native communities have experienced disease epidemics from inadequate

sanitary conditions-is located on wetlands.

The Corps is also responsible for carrying out

projects relating to the development and management of water resources; and for the design, engineering, and O&M of flood control, navigation,

and energy-related projects. No economic assistance for waste sanitation projects in rural Alaska

is specifically listed in the Corps for fiscal year

(FY) 1994 budget.~

Until very recently, the level of institutional interaction and coordination among EPA, ADEC,

and the Corps of Engineers, or between these

agencies and Native village governments, was

limited. Some experts at the Office of Technology

Assessment (OTA) Workshop on Alaska Village

Sanitation held in Anchorage in August 1993

(246), voiced their concern about the lack of flexibility in regulatory programs to recognize the

harsh environmental and socioeconomic conditions that prevail in rural Alaska. This concern

continues to be evident today.

Native communities are often not in compliance with environmental regulations. In 1991,

only 60 of 164 Native villages surveyed were

identified as having some variation of a piped system capable of meeting established regulatory requirements. IHS has more recently reported that

about 90 percent of the villages it serves operate a

water or waste sanitation system that is not in

compliance with some aspects of Federal or State

regulations. IHS data also show that the large majority of Native residents of rural Alaska do not

have any other recourse but to haul water to, and

human waste from, their homes (59,61 ).

The recent promulgation by enforcement agencies of additional regulations for drinking water

and waste disposal practices is expected to adversely impact most Native villages with limited

economies, particularly because substantial facility upgrades would have to be made to demonstrate compliance. Large expenditures are anticipated by many local Native governments in their

efforts to comply with the new surface water treatment, lead, and copper rules (67,246). Providing

Native villages with an opportunist y to use less expensive alternative approaches could minimize

compliance costs while ensuring relatively similar levels of health and environmental protection.

The regulatory framework applicable to Native

villages also affects IHS plans to deliver sanitation projects within a reasonable time frame. According to IHS officials, about 20 percent of the

time taken by agency engineers to carry out

construction projects is devoted to developing the

paperwork required by existing regulations. In

some cases, IHS has needed as much as 39 months

to prepare all the documentation required to obtain a construction permit from the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers alone. The extremely long

time occasionally taken between submission of

permit application and permit approval is viewed

by many as highly incongruous with current poor

sanitation and economic conditions of rural Alaska, as well as unnecessarily costly to Federal,

State, and Native governments alike. Examples of

some of the Federal and State permits that IHS

must have approved are listed in table 4-1.

Several encouraging efforts by Federal and

State agencies to identify better methods of more

~ 33 LJ. S.C. ] 344. see also 33 C.F. R. 323 “Pem~its for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Materials Into Waters of [hc LJnittxJ States.”

~ AS pan of th~ ,$3,5 bIII ion budget requcs[ for FY 1994, the Ctwps of Engineers plans tt~ Invest $13 mi[il(m in 2 i na~ lgatitm :ind flood” c(~ntr(~l

projects In Alaska, funding requests f(w sanitation-related projects are not included (247).
54 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Permit Grantor Permit Type

Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation

(ADEC)

Alaska Department of Fish and

Game
Chapter 4: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal and State Agencies | 55

effectively addressing regulatory enforcement

and technology implementation in rural Alaskan

Native villages are now under way. Of great relevance is the decision by the Corps of Engineers in

1994 to adopt policies for expediting the review of

permit applications proposing the construction of

sanitation projects in Native villages. Also significant is the work of the Federal Field-Alaska Rural

Sanitation Work Group convened by EPA to identify and coordinate sanitation policy and programs

among Federal and State agencies. Some of the

agencies participating in this effort are the Bureau

of Indian Affairs, Department of Transportation,

Department of Education, Farmers Home Administration, Department of Energy, Department of

Labor, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and Alaska Federation of

Natives.

Other examples include EPA’s funding of programs designed to provide technical training assistance to Natives (e.g., the Rural Utility Business Advisor (RUBA) and Volunteers In Service

To America (VISTA) programs)5 and the effort

led by Bureau of Indian Affairs and other Federal

agencies (including IHS, EPA, and HUD) to coordinate future construction and improvement efforts in Native villages and to share costs. In this

way, community needs such as housing, roads,

and sanitation will be addressed simultaneously.

Despite these efforts, the approach taken is still

largely piecemeal, rather than the result of a coherent plan developed by all relevant Federal

agencies to ensure adequate sanitation in all Alaskan Native communities. In other words, although

individual agency missions are pursued with vigor and dedication by generally well-qualified and

motivated staff, overall policy guidance and unity

of focus at the highest levels appear to be lacking.

Several examples of State and Federal agencies

with programs relevant to Native villages are given in box 4-1.

CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDING

1 Role of Federal Government in Capital

Construction

The concern of the U.S. Congress about sanitation

issues in rural Alaska spans more than three decades. In recognizing the need to develop formal

solutions to this problem, Congress passed the Indian Sanitation Facilities Construction Act in

19596

, giving the Indian Health Service the authority to plan, design, and construct water and

sewer projects in Native communities. Since passage of the Act, IHS has contributed more than

$350 million to sanitation projects in rural Alaska.

Setting priorities within the IHS process takes

into consideration, among other factors, the overall health of the population; the deficiencies in

sanitation systems found in the community in

question; and the community’s perception of the

project (priority, nonpriority). Of great importance to IHS officials is identifying with some certainty the capability of Native villages to finance

the operation and maintenance of sanitation projects under consideration for construction ( 123).

Funds for construction of sewer systems in Native village communities of rural Alaska are provided under the Indian Sanitation Facilities

Construction Act and distributed through the

Alaska Area Native Health Service. Provision of

Federal funds for capital construction, however,

requires certain commitments from the receiving

communities. For example, IHS will not provide

the City of Selawik with capital funds to construct

or improve sewer systems unless it is assured of

the community’s commitment to: 1 ) pay for operation and maintenance costs; 2) manage it via a

5 The RUBA program will provide additional capability for improving government, financial, and managerial activities of Native communities. EPA will also contribute about $100,000 to have five VISTA volunteers, already trained by IHS, provide technical planning assistance

to Native communities. About 25 VISTA volunteers already operate in Alaska ( 163).

6 P.L. 86-121,
56 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

relevant for improving overall conditions in rural Alaska Native villages:

●

■

●

●

■

■
Chapter 4: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal and State Agencies I 57

local government structure and provide the exper- plan ($1 50,000 in Selawik’s case) limit the widetise required to operate the system; and 3) provide

equipment and materials required for successful

operation of the system (78). As part of their efforts to meet these requirements, local governments in turn may delegate many of these responsibilities to a Utility Board, a Public Works

Manager, or a City Administrator (78). Local government leaders of the City of Selawik in the Nana

Regional Corp., for example, have appointed a

utility board as a means to assure IHS of their

commitment to properly operate the $2.3 million

water and waste sanitation project currently

planned for construction,

Several approaches are used by IHS to determine overall project funding. They range from

performing an engineering analysis, to defining

the steps that must be taken to develop a particular

level of service, to preparing a feasibility y study or

master plan. The high costs of producing a master

spread use of this option. Many of these approaches can: 1 ) involve coordinating activities

and identifying available funding from other

agencies (e.g., Housing and Urban Development,

Village Safe Water, Farmer’s Home Administration); 2) recommend, as for Selawik, that improvements to the “basic utility infrastructure”

(e.g., water treatment and sewage disposal) be

completed prior to construction of the recommended piped distribution and collection systems

(78); or 3) provide IHS and receiving Native villages with the estimated capital and operational

funding needed for the project, along with a

phased construction schedule.

Feasibility studies and master plans are used by

IHS primarily as a means to support decisions and

to coordinate and work with community leaders

and residents. Through these documents, the IHS

discusses how to achieve the following goals:
58 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

1 ) to provide the safe water and sewage disposal

needed for improved health; 2) to develop projects

that are ‘*within the economic abilities of the communities;” 3) to improve sanitation service delivery to all village residents; 4) to reduce operation

and maintenance costs as a means of ensuring continued support for the project; and 5) to utilize facilities already built in the community to the maximum extent possible (78,1 23).

IHS may also arrange the construction projects

contained in feasibility studies, master plans, or

other planning documents, into packages. Each

package tends to be a stand-alone project that can

be built and put in service when demand warrants

and funds are available. The master plan for the

City of Selawik, for example, consists of several

interrelated, intermediate steps planned for the

next two decades, culminating with the construction, operation, and maintenance of a piped vacuum sewage collection system. A phased schedule

is considered essential by IHS for providing the

community with a strategy that is realistic enough

to allow it to successfully improve water and sewer service (78,123,127).

1 Role of the State in Capital

Construction

The Village Safe Water (VSW) program within

the Department of Environmental Conservation is

Alaska’s main agency responsible for improving

water and sewer systems in Native communities

of the 49th State. As of July 1993, VSW was carrying out projects in nearly 60 different Native villages throughout rural Alaska.

State funds for construction of sewer systems

in Native communities are provided under the Village Safe Water Act. Once funds have been appropriated and an engineering feasibility study is

completed, engineers work with communities to

select the firm responsible for developing the

project design. Potential candidates are invited to

visit the community and interview with State and

Native village representatives. Once a particular

firm is selected, work on investigating geotechnical characteristics and possible technologies begins ( 104).

To identify the waste sanitation needs of Native

communities and secure funds to address them,

Village Safe Water ofiicials distribute a questionnaire to each community annually. Returned questionnaires are scored and prioritized according to a

capital project ranking methodology that considers factors such as health needs, contamination,

local priorities, Federal assistance, and project

planning status. If the scoring of the returned

questionnaire is sufficiently high to consider the

requested project a priority, the VSW program

then tries to secure State funding for its construction.

The Alaska Area Native Health Service

(AANHS) also reviews the ranking methodology

and returned questionnaires to ensure data reliability, check coordination, and sometimes secure

matching funds (58). If its review also finds the

proposed sanitation project a priority, the AANHS

Environmental Health and Engineering Branch

participates with Village Safe Water in project

planning, design, and ultimate construction. One

extremely important result of this interaction is

that many construction projects have become

cooperative ventures between VSW and IHS.

Alaskan officials have noted a recent decline in

State revenues. Many believe this might adversely

affect the State’s support of sanitation projects in

the future (43). One effect anticipated by many is a

reduction in funds to support capital construction

programs. Another significant effect is the reduction in both revenue sharing and municipal assistance programs, two major funding sources on

which the operating budgets of many Native communities now depend (43,87).

1 Community Concerns Regarding

Capital Construction in Rural Alaska

According to public health officials working in

Native communities of Alaska, the installation of

wells and water treatment plants during the 1950s

and 1960s constituted a “dramatic step forward”

because it virtually eliminated one cause of disease and even death, namely, the drinking of water

from lakes and rivers. Prior to that, diarrhea was

the cause of death of 1 in 10 children in the Yukon-
Chapter 4: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal and State Agencies | 59

Kuskokwim Delta region, for example. Since the

1960s, however, Natives in communities with

poor economic potential, such as those found in

the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta, have seen “little viable progress” ( 173).

In recent years, VSW and IHS have experienced substantial political pressure to deliver sanitation services to Native communities in rural

Alaska. To meet this challenge, they have built a

considerable number of sanitation projects but

with more special features and rugged construction than similar systems built in the lower 48

States—primarily to withstand the harsh conditions typical of rural Alaska. Many concerned individuals, however, have voiced the need for developing a process that refrains from foreing VSW

and IHS to build complex water and sewer systems in communities that have neither the financial nor the technical resources to maintain and

operate them. Even when communities tax themselves and hold fund-raising activities, the

constant increase in O&M costs outpaces their financial capability to manage such sanitation projects proper] y. As pressure for building new sanitation projects continues to increase, it must be

understood by all relevant Federal, State, and Native entities that, in time, Native communities will

be forced to support these sanitation projects financially with even less revenue sharing.

Concerns about the methodologies employed

to set priorities for capital construction projects in

terms of cost ceilings applicable to all 50 States

have also been raised. These relate in particular to

claims by Native leaders that financial assistance

to Alaskan villages is unfairly curtailed through

the application of cost evaluation formulas that

may be applicable to the lower 48 States but are

irrelevant to rural Alaska. Leaders argue, for example, that when such formulas are used to

compare transportation costs, rural Alaskan communities are at a disadvantage because their transportation costs are incrementally higher than

those of communities in the lower 48 States,

where roads not only exist but are federally subsidized (300). In their view, the high construction

costs in extremely cold areas of rural Alaska render the majority of potential IHS projects in the

49th State “infeasible.” In addition to the weighting of capital cost ceilings, these critics point to

the lack of uniformity in data collection throughout the State as another adverse factor.

Contrary to critics, IHS officials report the use

of higher cost factors when considering potential

sanitation projects for rural Alaska. But even with

the use of higher cost indices, the agency finds that

it is difficult to obtain funding approval because

its budgetary process does not allow for the difference in required complexity—and therefore cost

—between building a sanitation project in Alaska

and one in the lower 48 States. Greater attention to

this factor might be warranted since the cost of

pipe alone, generally $2 per linear foot in the lower 48 States, may be $30 or more in rural Alaska

because of the insulation and heating required to

keep it functional, as well as transportation costs.

Critics maintain, however, that the level of service, rather than cost, should be the criterion for

providing sanitation services to Native communities. Such is the case for IHS, whose funding recommendations are traditional y based on cost considerations rather than level of service. Since

protection of human health is the primary goal,

critics claim that “. . . the objective should be to

provide uniform basic levels of water and sanitation services to all communities” (300).

In light of the limited economic base of many

Native communities, careful planning and periodic reevaluation of projected user fees might become necessary to ensure project success. One example is the City of Selawik in western coastal

Alaska. In this community, IHS foresees providing local residents with adequate sanitation services in about 12 years, with work that began in

1993. As part of its plan, every household is expected to pay $100 per month at the initiation of

the $2.3 million project and up to $203 by the end

of the planning process. However, the expected

decline in the State economy might reduce Selawik’s projected revenue sharing funds even more,

rendering the project infeasible unless subsidies

are provided to reduce household payment requirements.

Most concerns relating to capital construction

logically originate in communities where such
60 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

projects do not exist or are in the planning phase.

With the increasing limitation of available funding, responsible agencies may also find it necessary to work with communities in which sanitation facilities already exist to ensure their proper

operation during the remaining design life of the

project. Because the design life of certain components of sanitation facilities does not generally exceed 15 years, a large number of them are expected

to require replacement of their mechanical equipment in the near future. Finding the funds necessary for this purpose appears increasingly difficult

today.

| Factors Affecting Capital

Construction Funding

Based on IHS projections and current State and

Federal funding rates, many researchers suggest

that by adopting nonpiped systems, waste sanitation problems in the areas of greatest concern

could be solved within two decades for $2.5 billion, or an estimated annual cost of about $125

million. In light of recent appropriations, however, State and Federal agencies appear unable to

meet this funding level. For instance, in FY 1993,

the IHS appropriated budget was $40 million less

than the estimated $125 million needed annually

to meet its schedule. Although the remaining gap

in capital expenditures is being filled by agencies

such as Village Safe Water ($25 million), the Environmental Protection Agency ($6 million), and

the Farmers Home Administration (about $6 million), future increases in IHS appropriated budgets, as well as the long-term budgetary commitment by these agencies to capital construction

projects, remain largely undetermined.

Provision of seed money to construct sanitation

projects in some cases has been neither sufficient

nor expeditious. After the Alaska Legislature appropriated $1.8 million in 1983 to the City of Emmonak, for example, additional funding was requested so that the project could be carried to

completion by the Village Safe Water program.

The time between requesting and obtaining State

money, and the actual start of construction of the

Emmonak project, was about 8 years (104).

Under current procedures, the IHS has limited

time to work adequately with Natives to identify

relevant community needs and arrive at wellthought-out solutions prior to the selection of

projects. The limited time allowed for obligating

funds can leave the impression that decisions by

IHS must also be made in haste; however, once the

obligation occurs, IHS can hold funds until the

project construction phase is completed. One significant adverse consequence created by the accelerated schedules of the Federal appropriation

process is that they place an additional burden on

already limited ,IHS resources and personnel to

carry out project decisions in a timely manner and

with ample community involvement. The recently mandated financial participation by the Farmers Home Administration in sanitation programs

($15 million for FY 19947

) is considered highly

beneficial to improving the sanitation needed in

other villages. Some experts, however, are concerned because this decision might only serve to

increase the already accelerated pace of the planning process, particularly since the Farmers’

Home Administration role is simply to provide

construction funds with little or no personnel or

guidance to assist IHS and VSW.

Contrary to the Federal budgetary process,

State funding of capital construction projects is

conducted on a line-item basis. For this reason,

agencies such as Village Safe Water sometimes

have a greater opportunity to work with Native

communities in advance, to identify the types of

7 Maintaining this level of support in future years will depend on congressional action ( 148).
Chapter 4: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal and State Agencies | 61

sanitation projects that might be most suitable for

them.8 Considerable attention would have to be

given, however, to the implementation of the interagency efforts to fund sanitation projects in rural Alaska as a means to avoid accelerating the

funding process and increasing the work load of

engineering personnel at IHS and VSW.

PROJECT PLANNING, DESIGN,

AND CONSTRUCTION

Planning and designing sanitation facilities in rural Alaska often require taking into consideration

physical, social, and economic barriers not commonly found in other areas of the United States.

Such barriers may vary from limited drainage and

poor soil conditions caused by discontinuous permafrost, to seasonal variations in the quantity and

quality of water that is available, to the high costs

of electricity and fuel. It is not unusual to find that

Federal and State agencies responsible for providing sanitation facilities must delay their project

schedules to repair the structural damage caused

by spring floods or by ice floes that follow extremely cold winters.

In addition to these factors, agencies must also

deal with other rather unique challenges during

the critical construction phase. For instance, they

must order supplies well in advance, such as toilets, plumbing fixtures, and hundreds of other systems and components, including thousands of feet

of specially insulated pipe. Shipping equipment

from distant locations, such as Seattle, requires

that inspectors visit manufacturing sites to ensure

good-quality products prior to shipment and,

therefore, avoid unnecessary costs and delays

associated with having to store inadequate—and

perhaps no longer guaranteed or needed—parts.

Without proper planning, the relatively short

length of the construction season and erratic barge

schedules can result in costly construction delays.9

The pace of construction can also be delayed by

the slowness and uncertainty of the funding process. The untimely availability of State construction funds, for instance, is a factor that must be

carefully considered by agencies involved during

the design, planning, and construction phases of a

sanitation project. This uncertainty results primarily from the appropriations process of the

State Legislature, which calls for allocating funds

on a yearly basis. As a consequence, funds do not

become available until July or August—the

middle of the construction season (104). A notorious case of insufficient and inexpeditious funding

practices involves the construction of Emmonak’s

sanitation project, for which, not only initial funding was inadequate, but more importantly, the

time taken between requesting and obtaining State

funds to actually start project construction was

about 8 years. The adverse consequences of funding uncertainties can be easily prevented in most

communities by developing projects that are properly scoped and planned. Multiyear sanitation

projects, such as those built by IHS, are not affected by funding uncertainties because funds are

appropriated in full before construction starts.

The absence of adequate roads to waste disposal areas is another barrier that makes planning, design, and construction of, for example, truck haul

sewage collection projects difficult. During a recent visit to western coastal Alaska, primarily villages in the Calista and Nana regional corporations, the Office of Technology Assessment

observed many roads and boardwalks lacking the

design and maintenance to ensure safe transport of

wastes from collection containers to sewage lag Traditif~naliy, the Alasha State gt~vemn]en[ has dealt not with tribal governments but just with cities and, unti I recent] y, with fOr-prOfit tribal

corporations. Recent State Administration eff(wts to recognize tribal governments have allowed Village Safe Water to expand its c(mmmnity

participation work-up to 2 years in some cases—to increase a community’s understanding of, and support for, State-funded sanitati(m prt)jects.

g A Slgnlficant increase in the unre] iabi]ity of barge schedules, for example, was experienced in several Alaskan c{mlmunities during cl~anup operati(ms of the Exxon Vldde: oil spill.
62 | An

goons.

Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Although no evaluation was done, one

might also predict that the transport of heavier,

larger construction equipment and materials

would be similarly problematic. According to the

draft report prepared by the Governor’s Sanitation

Task Force, nearly 100 Native villages in rural

Alaska, including many in the areas visited by

OTA, lack adequate roads today. Remedying this

deficiency, the Task Force estimated, would cost

at least $100 million (71)

Another important consideration in planning,

designing, and constructing sanitation systems is

the number of persons residing in each household,

as well as the perception they have about particular sanitation technologies. In Calista Regional

Corp. villages, for example, the average household consists of about five persons, the highest ratio for the entire State.10 Some believe that, with

the exception of piped systems, this large household size reduces the number of possible sanitation alternatives that can be built readily to meet

such demand. Biological or comporting toilets are

assumed by some to be limited in capacity and

prone to shock loading, whereas septic and holding tank systems are considered unsuitable under

low or inadequate drain field conditions. As an effort to evaluate the actual performance of technological alternatives, the University of Alaska Anchorage is conducting a field demonstration study

of comporting toilets in the Northwest Arctic with

funds from the Alaska Science and Technology

Foundation, and in cooperation with the Nana Regional Corp., the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and IHS.

Opportunities for local employment are also

relevant to project planning. Communities naturally want the contractor that is building the new

water or sewage facility to use local labor to the

greatest extent possible. Sometimes this requires

additional time and resources to provide the necessary training and to develop mutually acceptable wage scales, working hours, and hiring or firing practices. IHS and VSW are committed to

using local workers on almost all projects. This

commitment is often met through the use of “force

accounts” or labor agreements that ensure employment to local residents.

Communication begun in the planning phase

must be maintained constantly and effectively

during the construction phase to eliminate tensions and avoid unnecessary or costly delays

(104). Early communication with Emmonak leaders, for example, was crucial in obtaining the community’s approval and support, which allowed

outside contractors to come in and perform highly

specialized electrical work for the project.

The perception by many local Natives that Federal and State agencies have failed to involve them

early in the planning process sometimes leads to

the erroneous conclusion that sanitation projects

built in the past were merely “costly waste sanitation problems” rather than “solutions.” In the city

of Buckland, for example, some believed that the

failure of engineers to consult with city residents

was the primary reason for construction of the

community sewage lagoon at a site where raw

sewage was washed out of the lagoon and down

the city streets during spring floods. Information

provided by IHS shows that, contrary to this belief, the site selected for the lagoon was based on a

sound engineering decision. Unfortunately soon

after the facility was built, a catastrophic flood occurred that filled the lagoon and washed the contained waste downtown. To prevent this from recurring, IHS built a steel structure around the

lagoon at a cost exceeding $300,000. Efforts by

IHS and VSW to work more closely with Native

leaders and residents in Buckland and other villages continue to be instrumental in improving

communication with Natives.

Failure to involve Natives in the planning, design, and construction of sanitation facilities may

also result in the community’s perception that it

has little ownership of the project. This perception

is considered a major roadblock in solving the

waste sanitation problems of Alaskan villages.

1) Alaska averages slightly fewer than four persons per household.
Chapter 4: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal and State Agencies | 63

Soliciting community participation early in the

planning process and actively responding to the

community suggestions and concerns are means

by which to institute community ownership (70).

To ensure a positive ownership perception, IHS

and VSW have, for several years, adopted Native

community participation as an integral part of

their programs responsible for building piped sanitation facilities in rural Alaska. One of several

IHS strategies to improve the community’s perception of ownership involves a two-step process.

Step one consists essentially of providing a grant

to the community for planning purposes. This is

followed, about a year later, by a second grant so

that the community can review alternative technologies and develop operation and financial

management plans well in advance of actual

project construction. Through these types of strategies, community leaders and residents are provided with an opportunity to significantly influence project planning and design decisions, as

well as identify economically feasible solutions.

The pressure placed on IHS to build sanitation

facilities soon after construction funds have been

appropriated often limits its time for working with

communities. IHS and VSW regularly find themselves making decisions too quickly. One notable

exception is in Emmonak, where the time provided for technical design teams to consult with

residents (e.g., explaining details, listening to

suggestions, and making changes), and allow

community members to modify proposed plans

and designs, was largely responsible for the successful completion of the project. The Emmonak

success story shows that instilling a sense of ownership requires that Federal and State agencies be

provided needed construction funds, as well as

sufficient flexibility to work with Native communities in identifying and carrying out solutions

that are truly suitable for eliminating their waste

sanitation problems.

TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION OF

SANITATION FACILITY OPERATORS

Traditionally, funds to support training programs

for operators of sanitation projects in Native villages of rural Alaska have been provided through

Federal and State training programs. IHS involvement in operator training has existed for more than

17 years (123). The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) is the State organization with primary responsibility for the certification of sanitation project operators, whereas

Village Safe Water, also under ADEC jurisdiction,

is responsible for their training. VSW efforts to

train operators generally begin during the

construction phase of the project. Areas covered

in the training of operators include water chemistry and treatment, vacuum pumps, controls, safety, and record keeping. As a result of recent

changes in State policy, many operators must now

pass State certification prior to running a Native

community’s sanitation facility (104).

Use of off-the-shelf packaged training programs has not always been successful. The programs and materials are often not relevant to the

rural community for which they are intended. As a

solution, the Governor’s Sanitation Task Force

suggested that the State develop culturally sensitive and practical training programs whose main

focus is to address realistic village situations. According to the Task Force, ‘b

[Operator training]

Manuals which require extensive reading skills

and [contain] outdated ‘canned’ programs should

not be used. Lectures should be kept to a minimum and real 1ife problems emphasized” (70). In

addition, some suggest that training be repeated at

periodic intervals to limit the adverse consequences associated with the high rate of operator

turnover experienced among Native communities.

Like local funding shortages, training is another critical factor that must be supported if proper

operation, maintenance, and management of sanitation facilities are to be achieved in rural Alaska. According to the Alaska Native Health Board.

the greater emphasis placed on enforcing regulations rather than supporting training programs has

been partially responsible for the deterioration

and breakdown of sanitation facilities in various

Alaskan villages (58). Others experts, however,
64 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

point to the limited functionality of local governments as a barrier to training programs.

As the State’s inability to fund an expanded

training program increases, the suggestion has

been made that needed revenues be obtained by

setting aside a small fraction of the Federal and

State capital budgets. Financial assistance for

training programs could also be sought from private organizations and foundations. And although

improved funding for training programs is crucial

to ensure adequate sanitation in rural Alaska,

many firmly believe that complete success will

not be attained unless such support emphasizes recruitment of local Native workers (58, 223).

The Governor’s Sanitation Task Force, perhaps

recognizing the need for training programs to include a business management component, recommends in its unpublished report that once relevant

training programs have been assembled, an

associates program on ‘“rural government management and administration” be developed at the

University of Alaska Anchorage.]} Because of the

limited funding available at the village level, the

Task Force suggested that Federal and State agencies provide the financial support (e.g., scholarships) needed by members of Native villages to

participate in the program and learn to manage and

operate their sanitation systems (70).

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Technical assistance to Native communities in rural Alaska is provided through various independent programs supported by Federal, State, and

Native corporation funds. The most relevant programs today include the Remote Maintenance

Worker (RMW) Program and the Rural Utility

Business Advisor Program. Another program

with potential is the Local Utility Matching Program (LUMP) being tested by Village Safe Water.

IHS also funds a Utility Maintenance Specialist

program whose four staff members provide a service similar to the RMW program but in areas not

served by RMWS (83,127,177). Technical and

training assistance is also provided by smaller regional groups. ]2

| Remote Maintenance Worker Program

Created by Alaska’s Legislature in 1981, the Remote Maintenance Worker Program under the Department of Environmental Conservation provides expert assistance to Native communities on

how to maintain their water and sewer systems

while complying with environmental regulations

(105). In the view of a regional health expert, the

crucial role of the RMW program is that it allows

villages to become self-sufficient (229).

Individuals in the Native community expected

to benefit most directly from the creation of the

RMW program were initially thought to be the local utility operators. More recently, however, the

entire community has been the benefactor because, in addition to routine operation, maintenance, and emergency response, RMW staff help

Native communities to minimize the adverse effects of frequent operator turnover. Since inception of the program, RMWS have become “circuit

riders,” each serving anywhere between 10 and 15

communities. The State currently funds a program

composed of nine RMWS serving rural parts of

Alaska (219). The Governor’s Sanitation Task

Force has termed the success of the RMW program “phenomenal” (65).

Continued provision of technical assistance

will be extremely difficult in the future without

funding increases for the RMW program. According to the Alaska Native Health Board, the number

of RMWS is inadequate to assist the increasing

number of remote villages that need to be covered

by the program. In 1991, for example, only eight

RMWS were available to assist Native nonprofit

institutions (58), Recent estimates indicate that

more than 100 additional Native villages could

10 Because ~)n]y ~ few of its recomn)enda[lons” have actually been inlplen~ented (() date, many ctmcemed experts would ] ike the G(wemt)r’s

Task Force report 10 be published and disseminated to all relevant agencies.

] I ~esc include groups such as [he Man]]aq Association and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corp.
Chapter 4: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal and State Agencies | 65

use the assistance of skilled RMW staff. In the

view of many members of organizations who deal

with RMWS in the field, expansion efforts would

be highly beneficial, particularly if the staff added

include Alaskan Natives (223).

| Rural Utility Business Advisor Program

The activities of the Rural Utility Business Advisor Program, though originally financed by Federal government agencies such as IHS, are now

funded by the Environmental Protection Agency

and Village Safe Water Program, and carried out

by the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. The program’s objectives focus

primarily on improving government, financial,

and managerial activities in Native communities

(89). Although variations might exist among

communities, carrying out these objectives frequently requires RUBA staff to develop policies

and procedures for effective utility management,

including record keeping, accounting, and budgeting. Ensuring continuity when staff turnover occurs and serving as a local information source for

Federal and State agencies are also important

functions.

Program assistance is available to Native villages now served by water and sewer utilities, as

well as those that are planning future sanitation

projects. By building close working relationships

with village leaders and administrators prior to

providing management training, RUBA staff have

already contributed to strengthening sanitation

programs in at least 10 Native villages. Training

provided to key village personnel is “one-on-one,

over-the-shoulder” (227). Once training is completed, city administrators become equipped in

areas essential to managing their piped sanitation

facilities. Included among the areas of training are

organizational structure, budgeting, billing and

collection procedures, contract negotiations, and

accounting. Table 4-2 lists some of the major tasks

associated with the program.

From the time of its creation, however, funding

for the RUBA program has typically been minimal. For instance, in 1990 the future of the program and its expansion to other villages became

doubtful when State funding was near] y depleted.

Only when EPA assumed responsibility for providing funds was program stability ensured. Many

argue that compared to the more than $1 billion invested in the construction of sanitation facilities in

rural villages, or the total that would have to be

spent for premature facility repairs and equipment

replacement, the amount needed to improve utility management through the RUBA program is

negligible: $125,000 per year for every 10 to 15 

communities. As a probable solution to this funding shortage, the Alaska Native Health Board has

suggested that Federal agencies (e.g., EPA, IHS)

work with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to ensure adequate funding and

needed expansion of the program-from a staff of

8 to 16 (58). Recognizing the importance of the infusion of Federal funding into RUB A, the Governor’s Sanitation Task Force concluded in its draft

report that “[RUBA] is possibly the most important program the State could institute to ensure the

success of rural sanitation systems” (70).

If future funding permits, RUBA officials plan

to provide management and training assistance related to water and waste sanitation utilities to at

least 16 additional Native communities during FY

1994. These villages are listed in table 4-3. The

most active RUBA participation is planned in

low-income villages of the Yukon-Kuskokwim

Delta and the community of Gambell (Norton

Sound) since most chronic O&M problems are

found in these areas (89). To help communities

more effective y, RUBA activities will be coordinated with those being carried out by other agencies such as the Indian Health Service and the Environmental Protection Agency (89).
66 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Method of

Need/problem Objective accomplishment Benefits obtained

Villages do not plan

for future replacement

or major repairs, and

rely on outside

agencies (Public

Health Service (PHS)

and VSW) for

assistance in O&M of

sanitation uyilities

facilitles,

PHS and VSW

programs often need

reliable onsite

Information about

Village management

capabilities during the

planning of projects

Due to lack of training,

village staff do not

have adequate

training on record

keeping, billing, and

use of computers for

data processing.

Maintaining qualified

personnel is often

difficult

●

■

●

●

■

■

✘

■

■

Develop/revise utility

ordinances when they

do not exist or are

outdated.

Develop office policies

and procedures for

Implementing local

ordinance provisions.

Determine proper rate

or fee structures and

shutoff policies.

Develop better financial

record keeping and

reporting tools so

community can exercise

more effective utility

management,

Develop more realistic

budgets that reflect

needed O&M, as well as

reserves for future

emergency problems.

Increase village

awareness of utility

maintenance and

budgeting Issues.

Act as a resource to

VSW or PHS personnel

to provide current local

informahon on village

successes and potential

problem areas,

particularly in relation to

economy and

management,

Ensure program

continuity when staff

turnover occurs.

Help villages in proper

record keeping activities

such as billmg and

receivables.

9

■

9

■

●

—

Hold meetings with staff

and council on

developed/revised utility

ordinance.

Work with staff to

develop policies and

procedures for

implementing utility

ordinances; hold regular

meetings with village

administrators; and

issue brief, periodic

newsletters on

utilty-related issues

relevant to the village,

Work with Remote

Maintenance Worker

Program staff to ensure

that operational

concerns are reported to

the village council and

management

Maintain village

Information files,

on management

Focus

as

well as financial and

economic indicators

Help staff develop

written policies and

procedures for billlng,

budgeting, and handling

revenues from water and

sewer utilities.

More consistent

management policies that

can be used by Natives.

Better understanding of

O&M obligations and

responsibilities of council

members during the

budgeting process.

Advanced Identification of

potentially serious fiscal

problem areas

Increased awareness of

budgeting and O&M needs

among administrators

Increased awareness

other agencies of the

by

community’s social and

economic realities,

particularly during the

planning phase of future

sanitation projects.

More consistent policies

that might be Implemented

independently of staff or

Council composition.

Better recovery of revenues

by villages.

NOTE: PHS= Public Health Service, VSW= Village Safe Water

SOURCE W.B. Smith, RUBA Advisor, letter to Mike Black, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Feb 18, 1993, W B Smith,

RUBA Advisor, letter and informational sources sent to German E. Reyes, Office of Technology Assessment, Aug 5, 1993
Chapter 4: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal and State Agencies | 67

Native villages receiving Native communities to benefit

Area RUBA assistance from program expansion

Yukon-Kuskokwlm Emmonak Alakanuk a

Kotlik Chefornak a

Marshall Eek a

Mt. Village Hooper Baya

Pilot Station Kongiganak a

Pitkas Point Nunapitchuck a

Sheldon Point Quinhagak a

Russian Mission Tuluksak a

St. Mary’s Tununak a

Interior region Chalkyitsik

Birch Creek

Rampart

Northwest arctic region Shungnak

Southeast region Angoon

Kenai Peninsula Port Graham

Norton Sound region Gambell

a Village considered a priorty for RUBA assistance

SOURCE Michael L Black Special Projects Supervisor, Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Municipal and Regional Assistance

Division letter to German E Reyes, Off Ice of Technology Assessment, Aug. 9, 1993

| Local Utility Matching Program

The Local Utility Matching Program (LUMP) is

a pilot subsidy program established under Village

Safe Water of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Because of its experimental

nature, the LUMP program is being implemented

only in 11 Native villages of the Northwest Arctic

Borough,

l3 at an estimated cost of nearly

$500,000 ( 106). Among the main goals of the program are the creation of incentives to improve

O&M within local governments and increasing

the amount of revenue available to manage the

utility. To achieve these objectives, the program

requires communities to collect user fees, promote hiring of qualified facility operators, and establish effective preventive maintenance procedures at each receiving village.

To provide technical assistance more effectively, LUMP staff have very specific areas of expertise, including training and certification of facility

operators, O&M budgeting, and compliance with

drinking water regulations (51 ,106,152). LUMP

has already initiated communication with all villages in the Borough; collected partial data relevant to village qualification for the program; and

established monthly collection rates and payroll

deductions, facilitating the work of many village

administrators. The Village of Noorvik has already met the requirements for receiving LUMP

assistance (152).

As a way to supplement the program, LUMP

officials require Native communities to match

program contributions with revenues collected

from local user fees. Many experts consider the

functions of this program essential to raising community ownership of sanitation projects (106,

153,1 71). Because of current funding shortages,

these experts suggest that an infusion of Federal

funds, at least at a matching level, would enable

the expansion of the program to other Native communities in need of training in utility management.

I z me ~{)nlnlun; llc$ ~re Arl,b]cr, Buck] and candle, Deer]ng, Kiana, Kiva]ina, Kobuk, Kotzebue, Noatak, N(XMVIk, Selawik, and Shungn:ik.

Of these, Buchland, Kotzebuc, N()(wvik, and Selawik were visited recently by OTA staff.
68 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

| Coordination Needs Among Training

Programs

The bulk of training and technical assistance provided to Native communities of rural Alaska originates at three major agencies: the Indian Health

Service, Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation, and Department of Community

and Regional Affairs (DCRA). Whereas the major

emphasis of IHS and ADEC training programs is

to provide operators with the technical skills needed to keep their utilities operational, DCRA focuses on improving government operations and

the financial and managerial skills of utility operators in Native communities.

All training and certification programs developed to ensure that Native communities operate

and maintain their water and sewer projects properly were created independent of one another. As a

consequence, there has been little interaction

among them in the past. This has recently been improved by various coordinated efforts and interagency agreements to streamline training. With

the increasing need to protect the health of community residents, and the expected decline in Federal and State funding, continued coordination is

an absolute necessity

EXTERNAL SUBSIDIES FOR OPERATION

AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

Sanitation facilities are still among the most demanding and costly capital projects found among

Native communities in rural Alaska. Their high

cost is associated not merely with their construction but also with high expenditures for electric

power, fuel, equipment, training, and labor. In

most cases, the more remote the community is, the

higher are the costs and the greater is the difficulty

encountered in operating the system (69). According to government reports, the greatest need for

funding sanitation projects in the United States is

still found in Alaska. Of the $633 million in Federal assistance funds estimated by IHS in 1990 as

required to build sanitation facilities in U.S. Native areas, nearly 74 percent was needed for Alaska’s rural areas (254).

The Indian Health Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for funding the planning,

design, and construction of sanitation projects in

rural Alaskan Native villages. In the past, IHS

evaluated the capital investment needed to provide sewage treatment and collection on the basis

of the economic and technical feasibility of

construction. Because of the high costs of

construction, past IHS criteria often excluded recommendations for piped systems. Today, IHS

evaluates capital investment needs in terms of the

cost of providing piped indoor systems (254).

Construction funds have essentially been utilized by Federal and State agencies to provide sanitation technologies or systems with a significant

degree of advanced engineering. During Alaska’s

“oil boom,” millions of doI1ars were spent to build

sanitation projects in rural communities. Not all

villages benefited during this period, and in those

that did, the overwhelming emphasis was on facility construction, not O&M. Many of these communities are now experiencing facility breakdowns and costly repairs or replacements.

Although IHS funding is also essential for repairing existing facilities, one element not traditionally permitted under existing Federal and

State systems is the funding of operation and

maintenance of sanitation projects in Native villages. Until 1992, only one State agency supported-in a limited and sporadic fashion—O&M

in a few Native communities. The virtual absence

of any external contribution to enable local Native

governments to properly operate and maintain

their piped sanitation projects has forced them to

use already-limited municipal and State revenue

sharing and entitlements, and local revenues from

fund-raising activities, to pay for O&M of sanitation projects.

The majority of rural Alaskan Native communities rely almost completely on transfer payments and subsidies from Federal and State agencies to operate all basic village programs.

Quantifying the actual level of external subsidies

provided today is difficult. Nonetheless, most experts agree that without this assistance, Native

communities would most likely be unable to survive for long. In the villages, a lack of O&M
Chapter 4: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal and State Agencies | 69

funding, shortage of technical assistance from

outside agencies, and inadequate training of facility operators continue to shorten the useful life of

existing sanitation projects, lead to their breakdown, and sometimes even result in human casualties.

As operational costs of sanitation projects increase, so does the need to obtain external O&M

assistance. These higher costs, combined with a

nearly 50-percent decline in State revenue sharing

and municipal assistance, are making the O&M

problem even more acute. It is not rare to find a

multimillion dollar sanitation project in rural

Alaska in need of preventive maintenance because

of inadequate O&M and limited funding. Added

to this concern is the fact that most ‘Native villages

do not have, as the Governor’s Sanitation Task

Force noted in its report, an “equipment replacement account” to ensure facility replacement once

existing projects reach the end of their design life

(69).

Recognizing these deficiencies, Congress

amended the Indian Health Care Improvement

Act of 197614 by enacting the law commonly

known as the Indian Health Amendments of

1992.5 In Section 302 of the new law, 16 Congress

authorized the Indian Health Service to fund up to

80 percent of the costs incurred by Native villages

and Indian Tribes for the operation, maintenance,

and management of their water and sewer systems. This is considered by many experts and Native residents essential not only for avoiding the

frequent premature weardown of system components, but also for providing an opportunity for

villages with honey buckets to obtain more adequate sanitation technology—an expectation

often rejected because of their lack of O&M funds.

However, appropriation of funds under the Indian

Health Amendments of 1992 to assist Native communities has not yet been requested by the Indian

Health Service.

CONCLUSION

As a result of Federal and State mandates to deliver adequate sanitation services to Native communities in rural Alaska, IHS and VSW have built

large-scale piped sanitation systems in more than

half of the 191 Native villages identified by IHS

for sanitation purposes. In addition to project

construction, IHS and VSW also support training

for operators of sanitation projects and provide

technical assistance to Native communities

through various programs (e.g., RMW, RUBA,

IHS operator training, and LUMP). The high degree of complexity inherent in these systems,

however, has made sanitation projects some of the

most demanding and costly capital ventures in all

of rural Alaska.

Even though funds are provided for project

construction and technical support and training

programs, one element not provided under the

present Federal and State system is O&M subsidies for the villages. In the absence of external financial assistance, local Native governments are

often forced to use their limited funds—primarily

from municipal and State revenue sharing and entitlements, and from fund-raising activities—to

pay for O&M of sanitation projects. Continued

dependence on this practice can not ensure proper

operation and maintenance of sanitation projects,

and most likely will continue to shorten the useful

life of existing sanitation projects or cause their

breakdown. Recognizing these deficiencies, Congress enacted the Indian Health Amendments of

1992 to assist Native communities with Federal

O&M funds. Requests for funds to carry out this

congressional mandate have not yet been submitted by the Indian Health Service.

IHS and VSW continue to experience growing

pressure to provide improved sanitation projects

to villages still operating honey buckets. The increasing economic and O&M-related difficulties
70 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

faced by those communities in which sanitation

projects have already been built, illustrates the

need to avoid installing similarly complex

technologies in other communities that appear to

have few economic or technical resources to operate them, unless outside support for O&M could

be guaranteed. IHS and VSW personnel have recently begun to work with Native communities in

the identification and testing of other simpler and

less costly systems. ]7

Problems surrounding sanitation in rural Alaska are complex and should demand participation

by all potentially relevant Federal and State agencies. In addition to IHS and VSW, a considerable

number of Federal and State agencies currently

exist with programs that directly or indirect] y support sanitation-related functions in Native communities. A strong framework for cooperation between agencies exists at all levels; however, there

does not appear to be an overarching rural village

policy to guide agency coordination and concrete

action in the field. It appears that throughout the

organizational structures of existing agencies,

government officials interact with counterparts

only in accordance with the demands of their individual responsibilities. And although some success has been achieved by this action-oriented

process, greater efficiency of service delivery

could be realized with more coordinated interagency policies and guidelines.

IT Alternative Was[e Smitatlon techno](~gies with potential for applicati(m in rural Alaska are discussed in ch. 5.
Alternative

Sanitation

Technologies 5

INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses a number of new and innovative approaches to providing adequate sanitation systems to Native

Alaskan communities. Many approaches have been proposed, but

few have been evaluated and tested under realistic conditions.

There is, however, a growing need to improve sanitation systems

at a realistic cost and with confidence in safe and practical results.

For more than three decades, Federal and State efforts to improve

waste sanitation among rural Native communities in Alaska have

focused on building centralized conventional piped systems.

However, these systems have a high initial cost, especially when

built in remote regions with harsh cold climates, and because of

the environmental extremes, operational maintenance is also difficult and costly. To date, only 72 of the 191 rural Native communities identified by the Indian Health Service have been provided

with piped sewerage services. The level of sophistication of waste

disposal technologies operating in remote Alaska varies significantly among villages, ranging from complex piped sewerage

service with flush toilets to the rudimentary privy and honey

bucket systems. Between these two extremes, one finds technologies such as the septic tank and the truck haul approach.

For the most part, the sanitation technologies operating in rural

Alaska are merely modifications of approaches designed decades

ago for use in more moderate climates. Recently, a modification

of the conventional truck haul system tested in the City of Mekuryuk (Nunivak Island, Yukon-Kuskokwim region) is being regarded as a promising alternative to honey buckets. Other systems, such as composting, incinerating, or propane toilets have

also been proposed. These alternatives may overcome some of

the cold-temperature problems encountered by larger convene------

#——————————— IIt

~— +‘ - . . .
72 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

tional systems and be more effective than honey

buckets indisposing of waste and reducing human

exposure. The fact that these systems can incorporate low-flush or waterless toilets and eliminate

the need for maintaining sewage lagoons is also

advantageous. However, because these systems

do not require potable water, they defeat, in the

view of many, the objective of promoting an ample supply of potable water and thus better sanitation practices in the villages.

Although potentially useful, some of the other

innovative technologies discussed in this chapter,

such as the National Aeronautic and Space

Association (NASA) waste treatment methods,

thus far appear either too complex and too expensive for immediate application or are just in their

preliminary phase of development. (Current

cooperative efforts among Federal and State governments and private organizations to demonstrate NASA’s technologies, however, appear to

be potentially useful for transferring knowledge

and technical experience to remote communities

with waste sanitation problems.) Others systems,

though already developed, suffer from limited information about their actual full-time performance in treating human waste in areas of harsh

climate such as rural Alaska. Finally, an overall

mechanism to test and evaluate new systems under actual conditions in these Alaskan villages has

yet to be developed. Until this is done, it will be

difficult to select a system that is the most cost-effective, safe, and acceptable to the community

that must operate it.

DESCRIPTION OF NEW ADVANCED

SYSTEMS CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR

ALASKAN VILLAGES

| Cowater Small-Vehicle Haul System

The Cowater small-vehicle haul system, a variation of the larger conventional truck haul system

and developed by Cowater International of Ontario, Canada, is currently being evaluated in the

City of Mekuryuk (Nunivak Island, Yukon-Kuskokwim region) as a possible sanitation approach

for Alaska (figure 5-1 ). This technology involves

the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVS; during the

SOURCE Cowater International Inc , Ontario, Canada, Mekoryuk Sewage Haul System Development Prototype Household Demonstration

Final Report, October 1993

summer) and snowmobiles (for winter operations) equipped with a tow trailer and a small vacuum/pressure tank to remove wastewater from

house holding tanks (figure 5-2).

Although similar in concept to the truck haul

approach, the Cowater system does not require expensive conventional vacuum trucks and is less

costly to maintain and operate. In addition, it does

not require load-bearing roads and snow removal

equipment for its operation. The major elements

of this system are: a dual flush toilet, an in-house

water storage tank, an outside wastewater holding

tank, and a small haul vehicle equipped with a

haul tank.

Dual Flush Toilet

The dual flush toilet looks like a conventional

household toilet, can be connected to a gravity-fed
Chapter 5: Alternative Sanitation Technologies | 73

SOURCE Cowater International Inc Ontario, Canada, Mekoryuk Sewage Haul System Development Prototype Household Demonstration

Flnal Report, October 1993

water source, and does not require a pressurized

water supply. It is designed to control the amount

of water consumed, requiring only 1 pint per

flush. Sometime in early 1995, one firm expects

to begin the large-scale manufacturing of the dual

flush toilet ( 186,1 87,237).

In-House Water Supply System

The in-house system consists of a tank capable of

holding up to 150 gallons of potable water. Depending on the desired level of operation, the inhouse water supply system can provide water for

toilet flushing only; can incorporate a washbasin

option in which the water used for hand washing

can be recycled as flush water; or can supply water

for washing, cooking, and drinking. A small electric pump fitted on the tank provides a constant

supply of water whenever needed.

The water stored in the water supply tank is delivered from a small tank mounted on a wagon and

drawn by a small haul vehicle. The operator uses

the air compressor at the local water treatment

plant to draw water from the large storage tanks of

fill the small air tank located on the wagon with

compressed air. The compressed air is used to

force the water from the haul tank into the water

supply tank located inside the house.

Wastewater Storage Tanks

Depending on the house’s design and the user’s

needs, the sanitation system may be equipped

with either an indoor or an outdoor wastewater

holding tank for discharging and storing wastes.

Made of a flexible rubber or plastic bladder and

aligned by a rigid enclosure, indoor holding tanks

can store up to 100 gallons of wastewater. Indoor

tanks are evacuated by a blower that pressurizes

the tank, pushing the sewage through a pipe into

a haul vehicle outside.

Outdoor holding tanks, on the other hand, are

heavily insulated and capable of holding larger

volumes. These tanks are generally set on skids

alongside the house and are connected to the indoor sanitation system by insulated pipes. Outdoor tanks are emptied the same way as indoor

tanks. Outdoor holding tanks are preferred to indoor ones because they remove the sewage from

the home and eliminate the need to build steps to

reach the toilet (120).

Haul Tank and Haul Vehicle

A tank designed for hauling human sewage from

the house to the disposal area is made of stainless

steel and sized to exceed the capacity of holding

tanks.

As shown in figure 5-2, the haul tank can be

mounted on a trailer fitted with wheels or skis and

hauled by snowmobile, ATV, or a small tractor.

With the exception of the pump-evacuated system

in which a pump is provided, the system operator

is required to use the blower located on the haul

vehicle to empty the collected waste into the haul

tank. Once the tank is filled, the operator pulls it to

the sewage lagoon or disposal area and empties it

by gravity. The pump-evacuated system allows

the operator to empty the indoor holding tank into

the haul vehicle by turning the pump-out switch

the water treatment plant into the haul tank and to located on the side of the house.
74 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

According to Cowater reports, the field demonstration at Mekuryuk has provided an opportunity

for increasing the understanding of the system’s

engineering and performance, and for successfully working with Native residents in achieving the

community’s desired level of sanitation and aesthetics (82,1 19,120,1 85).

| The “AlasCan” Organic Waste and

Wastewater Treatmentl

The AlasCan is a modular, high-technology, selfcontained comporting system designed to handle

sanitary and kitchen wastes and greywater(181 ).2

The essential components of the AlasCan system

are a custom-made comporting tank and a ceramic toilet (consisting of either the fully automatic, computer-operated Nepon Pearl foamflush toilet 3 or the pedal-operated vacuum toilet

known as SeaLand VacuFlush). This combination, according to its designers, provides the user

the comfort of a flush toilet and the advantage of

comporting treatment (97). The AlasCan is also

equipped with a kitchen waste disposal system

and a greywater treatment tank.4 To avoid problems experienced with other models in the past

(e.g., odor escaping into homes), AlasCan designers built the toilet and compost treatment tank as

two separate units (146).

The AlasCan comporting technology has been

in use in several facilities in Alaska, Canada, and

the lower 48 States. Most of the Alaskan sites,

however, are National Guard armories. One particular unit is being used on an oil drilling rig near

Prudhoe Bay. Field tests are also being conducted

at a few selected locations in the Yukon-Kuskokwim region to evaluate its potential for use in

Alaskan Native villages.

Major Components of AlasCan

Compost Technology

Comporting Tank

The central component of the AlasCan comporting system is a double-walled “superinsulated”

plastic tank containing a fully automated chamber

with aerobic bacteria and red worms to decompose sanitary waste or backwater into a safe, fertile humus material similar to garden soil

(6,7, 182).5 Wood shavings are added to reduce excess liquid in the tank and to provide the carbon

and other minerals needed for effective biodegradation.

The treatment tank is equipped with a series of

baffles, air channels, and mixers. A fan is also

used to draw warm air into the treatment tank to

promote organic decomposition of the waste (figure 5-3). To improve the rate of decomposition,

the treatment tank is fitted with two items: automatic churners or agitators capable of mixing the

wood shavings, red worms, and waste; and sprinklers, which reincorporate accumulated liquids

into the mixture when needed (6,7, 181 ). The computer-controlled agitators are set to operate for

about 20 minutes daily so that recently disposed

waste is properly mixed, and the compost pile leveled (6,7). Installation of an auxiliary heating unit

may be required in locations where ambient

conditions could force the internal temperature of

the comporting tank to drop below 60 “F.

The treatment of human waste with the AlasCan comporting technology results in three by1 This technology is commercially known as the AlasCan Model 10 system.

2 Greywater is household wastewater without toilet waste. It consists primarily of discharged water from bathtubs, showers, sinks, and appliances such as washing machines and dishwashers.

3 Developed by the Japanese firm Nepon, Inc.

4 tie ~)ptlona] feature offered by the manufac~rer of this system is a wall-mounted urinal equipped with the same foam-flush action as the

toilet system.

5 me Iem backwater refem t{) the urine, fecal matter, and related debris such as toilet paper deposited in a toilet, as well as the water used to

transport these materials
Chapter 5: Alternative Sanitation Technologies I 75

Organic Solid Waste Treatment System

2“ garbage disposal input

separates user

from compat mass

Organic Wastewater Treatment System

Low-pressure air-powered

Surface skimmer water transport system

Sludge removal

system (to hand-

/ operated removal

pump)

Effluent (outlet)

pipe to

absorption field

\

Clanficat]on baffle /

Y xInfluent (Input)

pipe

\

Large surge chamber

capable of handling

/

\

\ \

washing machmes,

Polyurea plastlc shells dishwashers, bathtubs,

separated by 4“ rigid Clarification Aerobic reaction sinks, etc.

polyurethane insulation

(greater than R20) chamber chamber

Low pressure

aerator

SOURCE Al Gelst, Markellng Director AlasCan Inc Fairbanks Alaska, personal communlcatlon, Nov 23, 1993
76 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

products: water vapor and carbon dioxide, which

are released through an insulated vent installed in

the home or building, and humus, which collects

in a tray in the lower portion of the tank. The aerobic nature of this technology prevents the generation of malodorous methane gas (181).

Its modular design makes the AlasCan system

easy to install and maintain. For homes built on

slab floors or with limited crawl space, AlasCan

uses a special vacuum flush toilet6 to lift waste up

to the comporting tank. Lifting of greywater into

the treatment tank is accomplished by a transfer

vacuum pump fitted to a small reservoir (6,7,145).

For homes without running water, the bathroom

toilet is fitted with a small reservoir or water tank.

Ceramic Toilet

The AlasCan system is an improved design over

the internationally known Clivus Multrum comporting toilet. 7 Such improvements include,

among others, automation of the comporting

process; connection of the comporting tank to a

modern foam-flush toilet; and addition of a separate greywater treatment tank unit (181). Toilets

may be of a “straight drop” waterless or a foamflush design. The foam-flush toilet design uses a

small air pump, which upon flushing, mixes a

soaplike substance stored in the tank with water to

produce a soapy foam layer inside the bowl that

carries the waste down to the treatment tank with

minimal splashing. The use of a biodegradable

soap is also advantageous because it minimizes

the need for toilet cleaning. When the toilet is

flushed, waste is discharged to the insulated treatment tank where it is decomposed by organisms

(bacteria and red worms) into organic humus

(181).

Kitchen Waste Disposal System

The AlasCan system can also be equipped with a

small garbage disposal sink fitted with a sprayer.

6 Known as the Seaiand VacuFlush toilet system

This device is typically located in the vicinity of

the kitchen sink. Garbage, placed in the disposal

sink for processing, is subsequently piped to the

treatment tank where human waste is also treated

(181).

Greywater Treatment Tank

In addition to treating black water, the AlasCan

comporting technology can be used to treat grey -

water (figure 5-3). The treatment of greywater is

conducted in a three-chambered tank fitted with a

series of baffles and filters. After treatment, the

treated water is filtered and released into the

ground, while the remaining solids are sent to the

comporting tank for further decomposition. According to the manufacturer, treated wastewater

can be returned safely to the environment because

the AlasCan system removes the majority of pollutants found in it, including nitrites, volatile organic compounds, suspended solids, and organic

matter (6,7,170).

1 Phoenix Comporting Toilet

The Phoenix comporting technology has been designed primarily for indoor installation. Its compact shape results in small tank and maintenance

areas. The major components of this technology

are a toilet, a kitchen waste inlet (optional), and a

comporting tank (figure 5-4). Electricity can be

supplied by an independent energy source, such as

a photovoltaic system or by the small plug-in alternating current (ac) power plug supplied with

the unit.

Use of the Phoenix comporting technology in

rural communities of Alaska is limited in comparison to areas in the continental United States and

Canada. The School of Environmental Engineering of the University of Alaska Anchorage will

soon field-test two Phoenix units as part of an ongoing effort to identify potential alternatives to

honey buckets in Native communities (196).

7 The Clivus Multrum system was first developed in Sweden more than 60 years ago with the primary purposes of recycling waste and

conserving water and land.
Chapter 5: Alternative Sanitation Technologies I 77

Toilet II

Exhaust

1

SOURCE Advanced Compostlng Systems, Whlteflsh, MT “Testing the Phoenix Compostlng Toilet,” Mar 24, 1991 Advanced Compostlng Systems,

Whlteflsh MT Evaporation System, ” Apn 1992

Major Components of Phoenix turer, certain models allow the connection of up to

Toilet System three toilets (3,197 ).8

Toilet System Kitchen Waste Disposal Inlet

The toilet provided in the Phoenix comporting Manufacturers of the Phoenix comporting system

system is contemporary in design and made of have built two types of kitchen waste disposal opwhite plastic. The bowl is attached to the com- tions. One model consists of a stainless steel rim

posting tank by a chute and secured with a special- and bowl fitted with a maple chopping block cov1 y designed connector. According to the manufac - er for installation in kitchens with counter tops.

xl f ,n~tal latlon ~)fa ~rlna] is ~e~lre~, [he hon~eowner” needs only to mount it on the toilet room wall and connect II to the C(JnPS@ tank with

a vinj I h(}sc. Urinals manufactured for the Phoenix system are generally made of steel m p~rcelain and are trapless in their design (3).
78 I

The

An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

other is an aluminum access port that can be

installed either on countertops or on vertical surfaces (3).

Comporting Tank

The Phoenix operates much like a garden compost

pile, requiring adequate food, air, moisture, and

temperature to support the breakdown of sanitary

and kitchen wastes into a stable humus-like material. Depending on the model, a Phoenix treatment

tank is capable of safely comporting the sanitary

and kitchen wastes of four full-time users (Model

R200) or eight part-time users (R201 ). Other

Phoenix models, such as the R199, have smaller

treatment capacity because they are generally intended for cabin use (two people full-time; more

if use is intermittent).

The Phoenix comporting system is ventilated

by a multiple speed, 12-volt direct current (de),

4-watt fan.9 The continuous insulation of the

walls of the treatment tank seals the ventilation

path and allows the air baffles to perform as heat

exchangers; this, in turn, promotes heat retention

(up to 80 percent) and increased decomposition

rates. Aerobic conditions are maintained by air

baffles installed on the side walls of the tank to

aerate the compost pile and by rotating tines to

keep the compost materials from compacting. Use

of coarse wood shavings is required as a bulking

agent (2,4,5,196,197) .

Transport of composted material through the

tank is facilitated, according to the manufacturer,

by the vertical and uncomplicated tank design,

and by the incorporation of rotating tines. A builtin hand pump allows accumulated liquids to be

sprayed back on the compost pile to maintain

proper moisture. The sloped design of the internal

tank floor helps separate treated liquids from

treated solid byproducts. A liquid evaporator

equipped with a small storage tank for peak loading is also used to reduce the amount of treated liquid byproduct that must be drained from the Phoenix system to a holding tank or to the outside

environment (small leach field, soil bed, etc.)

(197). For conditions in which liquid effluents

cannot be discharged, the comporting tank is

fitted with a highly specialized system (consisting

of a 50- to 100-gallon storage tank, an evaporation

tower, a pump, a dc fan or ac blower, and controls

and sensors) capable of evaporating between 5

and 13 gallons of liquid effluent per day (2,5).

To ensure proper system operation in areas

characterized by subfreezing temperatures, however, it is critical that the Phoenix tank be located

in a well-heated area and that all vent pipes be insulated to reduce condensation and freezing

(1 11,1 12,197).

Maintenance Requirements

The Phoenix treatment tank (approximately 3 feet

wide, 5 feet long, and 8 feet high) requires about

5 feet of additional space in front of the tank, and

about 1 foot of clearance above the tank, for proper operation and maintenance. The degree of

maintenance required by this technology depends

hugely on the frequency of use. The manufacturer

recommends that bulking agent be added—about

1 gallon for every 100 uses—and thoroughly

mixed into the waste pile. A heavily used system

requires more frequent attention and care.

Similarly, the amount and frequency within

which by-product materials must be removed depend on the extent of use, the rate of decomposition, and the maintenance of the unit. According

to the manufacturer, treated materials should be

removed at least once a year, starting after the first

year the system has been in operation. It is estimated that about 8 gallons of humus would have

to be removed from the tank for every 1,000 uses.

| Sun-Mar Comporting Toilets

Sun-Mar Corp. of Ontario, Canada, has developed

a series of composting toilets capable of biologically treating human and kitchen wastes, toilet paper, and other

plication of

organic materials (figure

the Sun-Mar system

5-5). Apin rural

9 A 24-vtdt dc fan is also available.
Chapter 5: Alternative Sanitation Technologies I 79

1 .Seat

2. Bowl liner

(removable)

3. Toilet top

4. Main shell

5. Drum bearing

6. Step support

7. Compost drawer

8. Drum door hinges

9. Drum door

10. Crank shaft

11. Drum locker

12. Crank handle

13. Drum drain screen

14. Fan mounting plate

15. Fan 30 Watts with

speed control

16. Crank sprocket

17. Drum sprocket

(moulded into drum)

18. Drum

19. Insulation base

20. Heating element 250 Watts

21. Insulation

22. Vent hole

SOURCE Sun-Mar Corp , Burlington, Canada, “Sun-Mar Cottage Toilets, ” undated

communities of Alaska has been limited in the

past. The School of Environmental Engineering

of the University of Alaska Anchorage plans to

conduct a field test of this technology in an effort

to evaluate its feasibility as an alternative to honey

buckets (197).

System Characteristics

Sun-Mar comporting toilets are available in electric (ac, dc, solar) and nonelectric designs. During

operation, waste is transformed into humus by

heat from the compost pile or a heating element,

oxygen provided by the ventilation system, and

organic material (e.g., peat moss) added to the system by the homeowner (236).

The fiberglass and high-grade stainless steel

construction, according to the manufacturer, protects Sun-Mar compost toilets from structural

damage at freezing temperature. As with most

comporting systems, however, temperatures be-
80 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

low 60 ‘F will adversely affect the rate at which

the Sun-Mar system can degrade waste. For this

reason, the manufacturer recommends that the 1

l/2-inch vent pipe provided with the system be insulated adequately.

The use of a 30-watt centrifugal blower fan to

provide a negative pressure within the treatment

unit prevents back-draft and, with it, the formation

and release of offensive odors from the toilet system into the home environment. Rotation of the

comporting medium with the mixing system,

along with the addition of peat moss, helps

achieve rapid, odorless treatment of the waste

(77,169,236).

The Sun-Mar models considered most likely to

be used in rural Alaska are:

Compact and X-L (EXCEL)

The “Compact” model is a self-contained compost toilet system designed to accommodate lowcapacity use (1 to2 people for residential use). The

X-L model is recommended for larger demand (2

to 4 people). Both models are available in electric

and nonelectric versions.

In addition to the toilet, these units contain

three separate chambers for waste comporting,

compost finishing, and the evaporation of liquid

effluents. Comporting is carried out in a unit or

chamber called Bio-Drum in which wastes are

tumbled to achieve better mixing, aeration, and

higher rate of comporting. Liquids are evaporated

by means of a 250-watt electric heating unit with a

replaceable thermostat installed at the base, and

are drawn out of the system through a vent by a

small 30-watt fan. The overall weight of these

units is about 45 pounds, and their dimensions are

22 1/2 inches wide; 31 inches high, and 32 inches

long (194,236).

Centrex and Water Closet Multrum Models

Sun-Mar Corp. has also developed a comporting

toilet system consisting of a specially designed

low-flush, ceramic toilet10 connected by a 3-inch

pipe to a comporting unit located some distance

underneath the floor on which the toilet has been

installed. Weighing nearly 60 pounds, the comporting unit of these models is about 33 inches

wide, 25 inches deep, and 26 l/2-inches high.

These toilets can accommodate the demand of 3 to

5 full-time users and twice as many under parttime use conditions.

Although the toilet does not have a holding

tank, the use of water to flush waste into the comporting unit (less than 1 pint of water per flush) requires that the house be connected to a piped water

system. Although a septic field is not required,

these comporting systems have been fitted with a

drain pipe for situations in which complete evaporation of the liquid cannot be accomplished.

Maintenance Requirements

To maintain the Sun-Mar compost technology in

good condition, the homeowner must add one cup

of peat moss per person per day plus, if available,

organic materials or waste such as vegetable cuttings and greens. Adding warm water is also recommended whenever the compost appears to be

too dry. The compost must be mixed and aerated

every third day; this is easily done by turning the

crank handle on the side of the toilet. Removal of

the solid byproduct of comporting (humus) is recommended at least once a year for Sun-Mar systems undergoing residential application; less frequent use requires less maintenance (236).

| Incinolet Electric Toilet System

INCINOLET toilets have been designed for a variety of applications, including, homes, cabins,

barns, shops, boat docks, houseboats, barges, mobile homes, remote work areas, and laboratories.

Most systems are about 15 inches wide, 20 inches

high, and 24 inches deep (figure 5-6). Depending

on the model, INCINOLET toilets can accommodate up to 10 persons (183,184,199,211).

The INCINOLET toilet is designed to use electric heat to reduce human waste—including urine,

10 Manufactured by SeaLand Technology, hIC., of Big %Irlet ohi~).
Chapter5: Alternative Sani@tion Techooiogies \ 81

—~”—

SOURCE Research ProduWBankenshlp

~“—

 Dallas T~ ‘Incinolet ‘hat

E\ectl\~ TOIlel “ an installation and maintenance manual 1993

Solids, and toilet paper—--to a small amount of ash,

which can then be discarded periodically as trash.

Installation of INICINOLET systems involves two

steps: installing a pipe through the bathroom wall

to vent incineration gases to the outside, and plugging the electric cord supplied with the unit into a

nearby outlet (21 1).

Placement of a bowl covering or insert made of

polyethylene film prior to each use prevents human waste from contacting the bowl surface and

reduces the risks of exposure to users. The purpose of the plastic insert is to capture the incoming

waste or urine. Once use is completed, the resident

can flush the INCINOLET system by stepping on

the toilet’s foot pedal, which causes the plastic insert and its contents to drop into the incinerator

chamber located at the bottom of the toilet.

Although incineration of waste begins immediately after it enters the chamber, home residents

can use the toilet even while the incinerator is running, because combustion heat and vapors are

vented to the outside to prevent the surface of the

bowl from getting hot. INCINOLET can also allow the accumulation of up to four deposits before

flushing (i.e., burning).

CombustiOn of waste at 1,400 oF eliminates

bacterial growth, while a platinum-based catalyst,

similar to those used in automobile exhaust systems, removes offensive odors from the treated

waste or ash.

Because electric toilets are appliances, several

features have been incorporated into the INCINOLET system to ensure its safe operation (1 83,2 11).

These include an operating timer that limits the

heating cycle to 1 hour; a temperature controller to

limit heater temperature; and a safety thermostat

to prevent overheating of the system m case of

blower failure. A second thermostat has also been

incorporated into the design to eliminate the extremely high temperatures that may occur following failure of the temperature controller. Even

though it appears promising, there are few performance data on the use of INCINOLET in rugged,

extremely cold environments such as that of rural

Alaska.

Maintenance Requirements

To ensure proper operation, emptying of the ash is

recommended at least twice a week. wiping surfaces with a damp cloth is also suggested for overall cleanliness” The manufacturer advises inspecting the level of the catalyst (white pellets)

contained in the incineration chamber every six

months (183,21 1).

 The Storburn Propane Toilet System

The Storburn technology is a compact, self-contained toilet designed and manufactured by Storbum lntemational, Inc., of Ontario, Canada, to incinerate human waste. Models available can

operate with propane or natural gas. Most applications to date are found in cabins, mobile shelter

units, and industrial and construction sites. Ac-
82 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

.

.

●

●

APPROX.

96,!

1 / z)

Vent Kit No. VKL-1 MO

Propane

J’

Vent Kit No. VKL-1

SOURCE Storburn Int , Inc , Ontano, Canada, “Storburn: Pollution-Free Toilet, ” 1993

cording to the manufacturers, about 100 units are

already in use in Alaska (144,234).

The Storburn system consists of a toilet made

of fiberglass reinforced with plastic material, a

stainless steel top deck, and a 3-gallon waste combustion chamber made of cast nickel alloy (figure

5-7). Nearly 4 1/2 feet high and weighing 170

pounds, the entire toilet system covers a floor area

of only 18 by 31 inches. A vent and a hookup to a

propane or natural gas tank are required for operation.

The Storburn toilet can accommodate between

40 and 60 uses before incineration becomes necessary. Prior to burning of the waste, a chemical

powder is added to the toilet system and a special

cover is placed on top of the bowl to trip a safety

switch, which ignites a pilot light and the burner

that heats the combustion chamber. The burner

shuts off automatically immediately after all

wastes are burned. Depending on the ambient

conditions of the area in which it is used, the Storbum toilet system can bum between 10 and 16
Chapter 5: Alternative Sanitation Technologies | 83

maximum-capacity loads (i.e., 600 to 900 uses)

with a full 100 pound propane cylinder. The time

taken to bum a loaded storage chamber is generally about 4 1/2 hours (234).

According to its manufacturers, the Storburn

system is easy to maintain because it has no moving parts and only a few simple electrical controls.

The high temperatures reached inside the waste

storage chamber sterilize the chamber walls, thus

eliminating the generation of foul odors and the

need for cleaning the chamber. The only maintenance required is cleaning the burner about once a

year (234).

| Entech Thermal Oxidation System

Entech, Inc. of Anchorage, Alaska, developed a

thermal oxidation process to treat solid waste and

sewage from small, remote communities. In addition to incineration treatment of sewage, this

technology can be used to treat other wastes and

provide some energy as a byproduct.

The Entech thermal treatment system has three

basic parts: a primary combustion cell or refractory chamber, where trash and other community

wastes are loaded without preprocessing or presorting and are heated—by gas, diesel, or propane

torches—to convert them into a combustible gas

and other incinerated materials (inert ash, glass,

metal, etc.). 11 Removal of treated waste materials

from the insulated chamber is required every 6 to

10 cycles.

12 A secondary combustion chamber

receives and ignites the gas produced by the primary cell to 2,000 “F to eliminate pollutants and

produce a smoke-free, hot air and water vapor

emission. According to company literature, “no

odor from combustion during the operation of the

system is detectable” (134,135,209).

The third major component of this technology

is a computerized device called the process logic

controller, designed to automatically control the

system’s operation and reduce the need for hiring

highly trained operators. This device monitors the

treatment, finishes the cycle, and shuts down the

system within a period of 10 to 12 hours after operation was initiated. About 2 or 3 hours after

shutdown, the primary cell will be sufficiently

cool to allow the next load of waste. Another advantage of the process logic controller is that it

permits remote monitoring of performance, and

repair diagnosis of the system, by phone from Anchorage to anywhere in the State of Alaska.

Depending on the community’s waste disposal

needs, schedule of operation, and design preferences, the chambers may vary in size, number, and

ability to recycle waste heat. According to its

manufacturers, the Entech system can be adapted

to operate on a daily, every-other-day, or weekly

basis. The configuration of the Entech system can

be further designed to collect the radiant heat produced during operation for use in a number of different applications. They may include space heating, water heating, steam production, and

refrigerated warehousing—through the use of reverse chillers ( 135,209).

According to company officials, the operation

and maintenance (O&M) of the Entech Thermal

Oxidation System are relatively simple. An individual who has the capability to read and write at

the high-school level, and is familiar with equipment and truck maintenance, is generally qualified to run and service this waste treatment

technology. Entech can train operators and supply

technical O&M assistance.

Although not specifically designed and built to

treat human sewage, the thermal oxidation

technology (figure 5-8) could potentially be useful in some communities because it may solve

both their honey bucket and their solid waste

(trash) disposal problems (208). The initial capital

and O&M costs of the Entech technology vary ac -

I I According t. Cf)nlpany officials, the En[cch system can treat, in addition to trash, a number t~f waste streams including nledicalwaste, [ir~s

(with the rims), w(md, c(ms[ructl(m ddms, fum]turc, oil filters, paint, household cleaning and other chemicals, fish net, absorhent b(wn~s and

pads, ship wastes, honey bucket waste, used oil, tank b(m(m~s, fish cleaning waste, and oily ship waste (bilge water).
84 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

SOURCE Michael G. Pope, President, Entech, Inc., Anchorage, AK,

personal communication, Apr. 7, 1994

cording to the size of the community for which it is

being considered. High capital and operational

costs might make the application of this technology for treating honey bucket waste difficult in

communities with few economic resources. However, expanding its application to other waste

streams, such as trash, might make it cost-effective overall. The necessary technical and economic studies of the Entech system for treating solid

and sanitary wastes in a rural Alaskan village have

not been conducted to date.

| NASA’s Controlled Ecological

Life Support System

The Controlled Ecological Life Support System

(CELSS) is one of the cooperative applied research programs of NASA that might be useful in

solving future sanitation problems in rural areas of

Alaska. The major objective of CELSS is to test

advanced technologies to support human life in

harsh environments such as the moon, Mars, and

remote or isolated regions of Earth (96,192). The

program focuses on technologies that, 1) produce

and recycle food, air, and water in a way that resembles natural processes; and 2) eliminate the

need for frequent resupply, and overcome the

harsh environmental conditions.

13 Another portion focuses on developing technologies capable

of treating human waste and recycling wastewater

in a manner that reduces health and environmental

risks of exposure. NASA plans to demonstrate

technologies relevant to sewage treatment in two

programs: the Antarctic Analog Project and the

Life Support Research Testbed in Barrow,

Alaska. The possibility for commercialization of

the technologies employed in these programs will

also be explored. It is too early to evaluate whether

these systems could be adapted to solve sanitary

problems in Native Alaskan villages.

Currently, several advanced waste processing

technologies are being tested by Ames Research

Center scientists at Moffett Field, California, for

possible application in rural Alaska, Antarctica,

and space flight (95,96,308,309). Examples of potential candidates include the following: 14

 Incineration—This approach would involve

the thermal treatment of concentrated human

waste to produce dry, inorganic ash and gases

(e.g., water vapor, carbon dioxide). NASA

plans testing to evaluate overall system performance, energy consumption requirements, and

level of treatment that may be needed after incineration.

I J Based on past Pilot demonstrations of minifarrns and fish ponds conducted at the Ames Research Center, NASA personnel have designed

and tested the prototype of a special chamber or mini farm for investigating crop growth in highly enclosed environments. The chamber will be

used for testing different ty~s of crops along with certain technological devices (lighting and nutrient del ivery systems; and sensor, monitoring,

and control devices). According to NASA, previous attempts with this type of technology have produced “world record yields” ( 192). Several

aquiculture tanks are being operated and tested at Ames Research Center for identifying types of fish (e.g., tilapia) and other aquatic animals

that can serve as a food source for human consumption, and as pr(~essms of inedible biomass into products useful for crops.

14 other t~hnologies or engineering c(}ncepts that NASA might als~~ consider include the Phase Catalytic Ammonia Mm)Val and k

Wiped-Film Rotating Disk Evaporator.
Chapter 5: Alternative Sanitation Technologies | 85

m

■

■

●

m

●

Pyrolysis-This

tern uses intense

commercially available sysheat to treat hazardous waste

in the absence of oxygen. To evaluate its potential in controlled ecological life support strategies, NASA plans to test conventional and

more advanced pyrolysis technologies (e.g.,

pyrolysis technology assisted by microwave

radiation) by themselves or in combination

with incineration.

Wet oxidation-Wet Oxidation, unlike incineration, which requires wastes to be sufficiently

dried prior to treatment, involves the combustion of either a dilute or a concentrated waste

slurry at high temperature and pressure. In

addition to reducing waste volume, wet oxidation allows the recovery of water and nutrient

materials. According to NASA, a small prototype for space application already exists.

Supercritical water oxidation-This technology combines high temperature and pressure to

create an environment—supercritical—in

which organic and inorganic compounds present in wastes become highly soluble, reducing

their complex chemical structure to their most

basic forms: carbon dioxide, water, and salts.

Studies are needed to evaluate means to prevent

possible corrosion and clogging of system

components prior to the actual deployment of

this technology.

Electrochemical oxidation—This technology

is designed to treat organic compounds at ambient temperature and pressure with the assistance of electrochemical- and ultraviolet-generated chemicals, such as ozone. Near term use is

not possible because the technology is still in

its early phase of development.

Plasma-arc incineration-This treatment process involves the passage of waste materials

through a thermal plasma field to reduce their

chemical compounds to more basic components such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and

ash. Because the technology is only in its pilotscale research stage, additional work is required before it can be applied to NASA’s field

programs in Alaska and Antarctica.

Composting or microbial bioprocessing—This

type of technology employs microorganisms to

degrade organic waste under near-ambient

conditions and in the presence or absence of oxygen. In addition to volume reduction, comporting technologies reduce organic wastes to:

1) carbon dioxide, water, and microbial biomass when oxygen is present; or 2) methane

gas and generally smaller microbial biomass in

oxygen-starved processes. Application of this

technology thus far appears limited because of

its inability to break down slurries and solid

materials completely.

Life Support Research Testbed in

Barrow, Alaska

NASA, in cooperation with various Alaskan organizations (i.e., Alaska Science and Technology

Foundation, University of Alaska, Native corporations, and the private sector) is planning to test

one version of its multi system approach at the National Arctic Research Laboratory in Barrow,

Alaska (96,72,196). This test is expected by

NASA officials to generate scientific information

useful for supporting future use in rural Alaskan

villages and other polar regions of the world, as

well as for developing an educational outreach

program.

Located adjacent to the kitchen of the National

Arctic Research Laboratory in Barrow, the testbed

is planned to consist of only a modularized crop

production chamber equipped with an advanced

water recovery system. The capability to process

human waste will be added once one of the treatment technologies mentioned above is determined as appropriate for use. Once the entire system is deployed, scientists will have the

opportunity to investigate its market potential and

adaptability in remote communities where sanitation problems continue to exist.

Antarctica Analog Project

The Antarctica Analog Project is a cooperative effort between NASA and the National Science

Foundation to use advanced food production

(crop production and aquiculture) systems, water

recycling methods, and human waste processing

technologies now undergoing development and
86 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

SOURCE David Bubenheim, Chief Scientist, CELSS Research and Technology Development, Advanced Life Support Division, NASA Ames Research Center, personal communication, Jan 25, 1994

testing. At present, most advanced technologies to

support researchers stationed in the South Pole are

in their initial stages of project development.

NASA researchers are currently identifying all

relevant design and performance characteristics

associated with crop growth, aquiculture, and

waste processing technologies. Evaluation of pilot plant studies is scheduled for sometime in

1995 and 1996 at the South Pole, with deployment

of a full-scale system (figure 5-9) by the year

2,000 when construction of a new South Pole station is planned for completion (96,192,235).

When installed, the final Antarctic Analog

Project is expected to be fully integrated with the

infrastructure of the research station and to consist

of a minifarm, a park, a food production system

(for growing fish and vegetables), and water recovery and recycling (figure 5-10). Treatment of

human waste will be provided by one of the

technologies described above once it is successfully demonstrated for use (94, 192, 235). Lessons

learned from this research may be applicable in remote areas of Alaska (96,192, 309).

| NASA’s Space Shuttle Orbiter Waste

Management System

The technology used by NASA to collect sanitary

waste during space missions is commonly known

as the Space Shuttle Orbiter Waste Management

System (figure 5-11 ). The primary purpose of this

technology is to safely collect and store urine, hu-
Chapter 5: Alternative Sanitation Technologies | 87

.

SOURCE David Bubenheim, Chief Scientist, CELSS Research and Technology Development, Advanced Life Support Division, NASA Ames Research Center, personal communication, Jan 25, 1994

man waste, and wash water generated during

space flight for treatment upon the shuttle’s return

to earth. The major components of this waste management technology are a urine collection system

and a sewage collection-storage system. The system is highly specialized, very costly, and designed for a short-duration, specific mission. Only

certain design concepts and unique features may

be applicable to the problem of providing adequate sanitation in rural Alaska.

Urine Collection System

To collect urine, air is drawn from the urinal

through the piping, and into a fan/pump separator

whose rotating and pumping action separates

urine from air prior to its storage in a pressurized

wastewater tank (90,3 10). Because the lack of

gravity prohibits the use of standard urinals, the

urinal in the Orbiter waste management system is

designed with clear plastic funnels (straight conical design for male use; oval in shape for use by

female astronauts) directly connected to the

plumbing system (90,3 10).
88 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

To avoid the clogging and airflow loss problem

caused by drawing debris into the pump/fan separator, which was experienced in early space

flights, NASA engineers fitted the base of the urinal with replaceable filtering screens (310). The

pumped air used to transport urine through the

plumbing is subsequently treated by odor and

bacteria filters, and returned to the cabin. Drain

water and wash water are stored in a relatively

similar fashion (310).

One of the central components of NASA’s

waste collection and storage technology is the

pump/fan separator because it is the system responsible for: 1 ) providing suction airflow needed

for transporting urine and feces; 2) separating

wastewater from transport air; and 3) pumping

wastewater into the pressurized holding tank.

Sewage Collection/Storage System

NASA’s space waste management technology

was originally designed to use forced air to push

waste into a commode tank where a rotating slinger (a wheel with 10 tines rotating at 1,650 rpm15)

breaks up and stabilizes the waste before storing it

in the commode’s tank. After defecation occurs,

the user actuates the commode handle to close the

slide valve. The fecal material is then stabilized

and dried by vacuum action, thus rendering the

waste odorless. The air that was used to push

waste into the commode tank is filtered by debris,

odor, and bacteria filter systems and recirculated

to the cabin.

The clogging of filters and loss of airflow

caused by fine, dried fecal material experienced

during heavy toilet usage in early flights often resulted in poor waste separation, incomplete transport into the storage tank, and inadequate sanitary

conditions in the cabin where such fecal particles

frequently escaped. The slinger was subsequently

removed and replaced with a bag liner that operates like a vacuum cleaner bag: it retains bacteria

and waste particles inside it without preventing air

from passing through (90).

The rapid filling of the bag liner system with

tissue paper as opposed to human waste-caused

by the absence of gravity, which, in turn, precludes the separation and dropping of human feces

from the body—forced NASA engineers to ultimately replace the bag liner with a feces compactor. By rotating a movable vane located inside the

tank, the stretchable fabric material, attached to

the movable vane at one end and to a stationary

vane on the other, is forced to sweep the interior of

the ellipsoidal waste commode and compact the

waste. Air drawn through the commode is treated

and returned to the cabin. Compaction of waste by

this currently used technology is required only every fifth or sixth day of operation.

| NASA’s Extended Duration Orbiter

Waste Management System

Another very specialized design may be useful for

its concepts and unique features. NASA is testing

a new waste collection technology known as the

Extended Duration Orbiter Waste Management

System (figure 5-12) that uses a mechanical piston

compactor and disposable bags with plastic lids.

Prototypes of this less expensive and easy to

maintain waste collection system are being built

and scheduled for use in future space flights

(90,191 ,239).

The Extended Duration Orbiter waste collection system is designed to be used as a conventional toilet. Its size (12 inches long, 16 inches wide,

and 35 inches high), weight (60 pounds), and low

power consumption makes this technical approach, according to its developers, one of the

most promising for future extended space use

(239). One particular advantage of this system .

over the currently used one is its capability to meet

the sanitation needs of up to seven astronauts for a

period of 18 to 30 days (90).

During its use, proponents indicate, wastes (including feces, urine, and tissue paper) disposed in

the bowl are contained inside a cylindrical bag that

permits air to flow through. By applying a load of

1 S Revolutlon5° per minute.
F’il ,/ g’ &

Chapte 5: Alternative Sanitation Technologies I 89

%!-=

L

.—

a

a

.=c

3

/ f u
90 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

a

s

Interfaces /

SOURCE H J Brasseaux Jr, H E Winkler, J D North, and S P Orlando, “The Extended Duration Orbiter Waste Collection System, ” SAE Technica/

Paper Series, No 901291, 1990

about 100 pounds, the compactor travels down the

transport tube pushing the waste-containing bag

and its lid to the bottom of the collection canister

where they are compacted. The rigid collar and

wiper-like design of the lid are used to scrape any

waste that may have adhered to the walls of the

transport tube. The bag is then left behind as part

of the stored waste material.

Once the piston returns to its original position.

the user places a fresh bag in the toilet for the next

user before closing the toilet seat and 1 id. Replacement of collection canisters in the proposed Extended Duration Orbiter system is expected to

take place only after an average of 30 uses. Test results from recent space flights show the individual

bag collection system to be relatively cleaner than

the commode system currently in use by the

shuttle (21 2).

| The “Self-Contained Home” System

According to its designer, the Self-Contained

Home technology has been conceived to address

in a cost-effective manner the most basic needs of

Natives in rural Alaska: housing, heating, and sanitation. As planned, the technology will consist of

an insulated house (36 feet by 38 feet) specially

designed for the Arctic environment and served

with a heat/cook stove, a self-generated water system, and an Arctic toilet system in which human
Chapter 5: Alternative Sanitation Technologies| 91

waste is treated with recycled heat. Made of steel,

the heat/cook stove-considered the cornerstone

of this system-can be operated with wood, coal,

or fuel (92,93).

The Self-Contained Home appears to be potentially useful in addressing more than the waste disposal needs of Native communities in rural Alaska, but because this technology is still in its

developmental stage, field studies would have to

be undertaken to ascertain the actual applicability

of this approach.

SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY

ISSUES AND NEEDS

All of the alternative technologies described

above require some degree of development, testing, and evaluation before they could be chosen as

a proven system with satisfactory performance ensured. Identifying and developing appropriate

technologies, while meeting safety and reliability

standards within cost constraints, constitute the

major challenge for designers and developers of

any sanitary technology in the Arctic. In years

past, most Federal and State agencies provided

relatively little support for the basic engineering

and environmental research required to produce

the data necessary to design and implement specific technologies. This deficiency resulted in a

shortage of information in several areas, such as

hydrology (e.g., snow surveys), soil (e.g., permafrost), ice research, and climate and natural hazards (8). Considerable progress was achieved in

these areas during the 1980s, particularly with the

construction of the Alaskan oil pipeline and the

installation of piped sanitation systems at major

oil industry facilities in Pruhdoe Bay. These advanced piped systems cannot be applied in most

villages, however, because of high construction,

operation, and maintenance costs.

Very few alternative sanitation methods have

benefited from field demonstration tests in rural

Alaskan communities in the past. Most of the attempted evaluations failed. The failures were

largely the result of limited or inadequate guidance provided to Natives by technology developers. With the exception of certain comporting

technologies, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) found no long-term effort dedicated

to the demonstration of alternative sanitation

technologies.

Even today, relatively little information exists

on the application of alternative sanitation

technologies in environments such as that of rural

Alaska. Adopting these systems without first exploring the factors that will make their application

in Native villages successful is risky and subject

to failure. In many Alaskan villages, there are

physical, social, and economic conditions not

commonly found in other areas of the United

States. Such conditions include limited drainage

and poor soil conditions caused by discontinuous

permafrost, seasonal variations in the quantity and

quality of the water available, and high costs of

electricity and fuel. Unfortunately, programs to

fund field demonstrations of alternative technologies, to coordinate Federal and State technology

programs and policies, and to establish a forum for

the advancement of innovative sanitation systems

do not exist.

Alternative sanitation technologies must be

evaluated prior to their actual use among Native

communities and must be designed to accommodate the unique Alaskan environment, including

factors such as:

■

m

Permafrost—This is of great importance in the

engineering and design of structures and systems, particularly in ice-rich, fine-grained soil,

where the ground forms an extremely strong

and stable foundation material when frozen but

an extremely weak foundation when thawed.

The location, depth, and extent of permafrost

may preclude the selection of certain sanitation

systems due to its influence on local soil conditions, groundwater table, and seasonal flooding.

Availability of water—Adequate availability

of water is a key consideration in the selection

of flush toilet systems because without it, sewer, septic tank, and truck haul holding tank systems cannot perform properly. (Water is also

extremely important for practicing hygiene. )

Piped water is normally incorporated into
92 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

piped sewerage projects because the two systems are mutually dependent; however, they

also lead to increased water consumption, thus

creating a need for additional disposal capacity.

The interior region of Alaska is generally supplied with water and contains large areas of wet

muskeg and lakes, with significant snowmelt

runoff and river drainage. In the Arctic region,

however, a myriad of shallow lakes disguise the

fact that water supplies are actually very limited for supporting sanitation technologies that

consume large amounts of water.

■ Household size and design—Identifying the

number of persons residing in each house for

which use of a particular technology might be

planned, as well as recognizing the perception

they have about that particular technology, is

important in estimating in advance the technology’s potential for success. Consideration of

household size and design is also important in

determining waste volumes to be treated or

managed, projecting future system expansions,

and estimating costs over extended periods of

time.

■ Technical training—Training Natives in how

to operate sanitation technologies has not always been successful. The reasons for such

failure have been primarily the use of inappropriate off-the-shelf packaged training programs and the increasing shortage of technical

assistance from Federal and State agencies. To

avoid these failures, there is a need to develop

programs that are culturally sensitive and practical, and that focus on the realities of the particular village in which the technology will be applied. Examples of these include local

limitations in management capability, leadership, and fiscal responsibility. Identifying the

extent of the external financial and technical assistance that will be needed once the technology is installed will be also useful.

- Native community involvement—Although

the intrusion of Western culture has sometimes

met with resentment, many Natives continue to

believe that the main source of resentment has

emerged primarily from being told by outsiders

what to do and how to do it, and rarely being included in the development of solutions to local

sanitation problems. Encouraging and supporting continued village participation in the selection and implementation process are extremely

important for ensuring a strong perception of

community ownership over the project-—an

element crucial to the successful application of

any technology.

■ Local village economy—The majority of Native communities of rural Alaska rely almost

completely on transfer payments and subsidies

from Federal and State agencies to operate basic village programs, including sanitation projects. Despite the increasing demand for new

sanitation projects, the serious economic difficulties faced by Native villages with existing

systems raises the need to avoid installing similar complex technologies in communities with

few economic and technical resources to operate them. Consequently, addressing the waste

sanitation problem in Alaska’s Native communities requires steps that focus on identifying,

demonstrating, and adopting more cost-effective alternatives to honey buckets. Selecting

technologies that deliver sanitation with little

additional adverse impact on the limited or declining local economies is needed.

■ Actual costs to Native village residents--In

recent years, Federal and State agencies have

focused primarily on providing conventional

technologies that require high capital costs and

a significant degree of advanced engineering.

Their efforts to assist Native villages financially with the operation and maintenance of these

projects have been rare. This, and the failure to

track community expenses for O&M, have limited the information available today for estimating the actual costs of sanitation projects.

Actual cost data for estimating life cycle costs

of complete systems in Alaskan Native communities do not exist. Accurate life cycle cost comparisons of alternative and conventional systems are

not possible. Not only does this impair the evaluation of each system’s cost-effectiveness but it prohibits agency officials from making valid estimates of the overall economic impact of each
Chapter 5: Alternative Sanitation Technologies| 93

technology on the community. There are no data

on the potential economic savings by communities that might employ alternative technologies

rather than conventional ones. Savings associated

with the use of alternative sanitation technologies

could include, for example, eliminating local expenses associated with building and maintaining a

sewage lagoon, reducing the community water

and energy consumption, reducing the need for

certified facility operators, and reducing equipment repair or replacement costs. Limited data

also prohibit the evaluation of the potential impacts of using alternative systems that do not deliver potable water to the home.

Technology selection decisions to date have

been based on a capital planning process that takes

into consideration the type and size of the sanitation facility to be installed, the financing process

to follow, and the methods by which costs will be

recovered. This process, however, is largely limited to the construction of conventional technologies and does not allow for a comparison of conventional and alternative approaches based on

total life cycle costs. Only minimal attempts have

been made to formally incorporate existing alternative sanitation systems into the technology

selection process currently in place.

CONCLUSION

Alternative sanitation technologies, such as comporting, electric, and propane toilets, appear to be

an improvement over honey buckets because they

reduce the possibility of users coming in contact

with human waste and they may reduce overall,

long-term costs. Not only do these technologies

eliminate the need for a sewage lagoon to hold the

wastewater for treatment, as in a conventional

piped or haul system, they may also yield a byproduct that is generally more environmentally

safe or easier to handle. These alternative approaches, however, do not provide the potable water that is needed to practice good sanitation.

Certain of the advanced engineering systems or

concepts presented in this chapter appear potentially beneficial. Some, as in the case of NASA’s

life support systems, still require substantial design modifications, adaptation, or testing before

they can actually be considered for waste treatment in Native Alaskan villages. Others, like Entech’s thermal oxidation system, might be applicable to treating human waste, but they require

testing and evaluation.

Conditions in Native villages (i.e., inadequate

water supply, poor soil drainage. permafrost, unacceptable topography, high seasonal flooding

potential, and weak local economies) appear to favor the application of less costly and complex systems. With the exception of the limited testing

conducted on certain comporting methods, most

alternative technologies have not been tested for

the treatment of human waste in the harsh environmental conditions typical of rural Alaska. Development of a more comprehensive technology

evaluation and selection approach capable of supporting demonstration, applied research, and

application of innovative technologies is still necessary.
References

1. Advanced Comporting Systems, Whitefish,

MT, ‘bTesting the Phoenix Comporting Toilet,” Mar. 24, 1991.

2. Advanced Comporting Systems, Whitefish,

MT, “Evaporation System,” April 1992.

3. Advanced Comporting Systems, Whitefish,

MT, “Residential Order Form/Price List,”

September 1993.

4. Advanced Comporting Systems, Whitefish,

MT, Phoenix Comporting Toilet System: An

Economical and Environmentally Sound

Method of Waste Treatment, a brochure, undated.

5. Advanced Comporting Systems, Whitefish,

MT, “Phoenix Comporting Toilet System:

Design Features,” undated.

6. AlasCan, Inc., Fairbanks, AK, The AlasCan

Model 10 Organic Waste and Wastew’ater

Treatment, a brochure, undated.

7. AlasCan Inc., Fairbanks, AK, ‘bAlasCan: 34

of the Most Frequently Asked Questions

About the AlasCan Organic Waste and

Wastewater Treatment System,” undated.

8. Alaska Council on Science and Technology,

Federal Involvement in Scientific Research

and Development in Alaska, April 1981.

9. Alaska Council on Science and Technology,

Research Needs and Priorities in Alaska,

April 1983.

10. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Alakarzuk , a brochure, 1979.

11. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Aniak, a brochure, 1979.

12. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Che)wk, a brochure, 1979.

13. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan, a brochure, 1981.

14. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Crooked Creek, a brochure,

1979.

15. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Ernmonak, a brochure, 1979.

16. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Fortuna Ledge, a brochure,

1979.

17. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Hooper Bay, a brochure,

1979.

18. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, KotZik, a brochure, 1979.

19. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Kw’ethluk, a brochure, 1991.

20. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Lime Village, a brochure,

1979.

21. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Lower Kalskag, a brochure,

1979.

22. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, lklekoryuk, a brochure, 1991.

23. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Mountain ViI[age, a brochure, 1979.

24. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Napuimute, a brochure,

1979.

25. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Napakiak, a brochure, 1991.

95 I
96 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

26. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Newtok, a brochure, 1986.

27. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, OscarviZZe, a brochure, 1991.

28. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Pilot Slation, a brochure,

1979.

29. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Pikn Point, a brochure,

1979.

30. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Plalinum, a brochure, 1991.

31. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Quinhagak, a brochure,

1991.

32. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Red Devil, a brochure, 1979.

33. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Russian Mission, a brochure,

1979.

34. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, St Mary’s, a brochure, 1979.

35. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Scammon Bay, a brochure,

1979.

36. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, SheZdon Point, a brochure,

1979.

37. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, SZeetmute, a brochure, 1979.

38. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, S/ony River, a brochure,

1979.

39. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, TuntutuZiak, a brochure,

1991.

40. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Tununak, a brochure, 1991.

41. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Upper Kalskag, a brochure,

1979.

42. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Community

Planning, Alaskan Statewide Housing

Needs Study, Phase I Report: Technical

Findin~s. 1982.

43. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Capital Improvements Planning: A Guidebook for Rural Alaskan Communities, May 1985.

44. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Marketing and Research

Group for the State of Alaska, 1991 Housing

Needs Assessment Study (Part One), 1991.

45. Alaska Department of Education, Off’ce of

Planning and Research, Alaska Education

Costs and Enrollments, May 1983.

46. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Management Section,

Alaska Nonpoint Source Pollution Control

Strategy, August 1990.

47. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Facility Construction

and Operations, Alaska Village Sanitation

Inventory, 1989.

48. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Village Safe Water, Waste Disposal Facilities Feasibility Study, Kwe~hluk,

Alaska, Juneau, 1990.

49. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Drinking Water Regulations (18

ACC 80), 1991.

50. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Village Safe Water, Village Water

and Sewer Service Summary, 1992.

51. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Village Safe Water, “FY93 Capital Budget Request,” 1993, pp. 161-162.

52. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Village Safe Water Program and

U.S. Public Health Service, Alaska Area Native Health Service, OffIce of Environmental Health, Village Sanitation in Alaska, Oct.

15, 1977.

53. Alaska Department of Labor, Alaska Population Overview: 1990 Census and Estimates, 1991.

54. Alaska Department of Labor, Population

Projections: Alaska 1990-2010, 1991.
References I 97

55. Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc., “1991

Annual Convention: Resolution 91-40,”

1991.

56. Alaska Growth Policy Council, 1982 Reporl

to the Governor, 1981.

57. Alaska Journal of Commerce and Paci@c

Rim Reporter,” Fighting Garbage Toxins:

Answer is Comporting John and Greywater,” week of Sept. 26, 1988.

58. Alaska Native Health Board, “Water, Sewer

and Sanitation in Alaska Native Villages:

Problems and Recommendations,” January

1991, 7 pp.

59. Alaska Native Health Board, “FY-92 Federal Legislative Briefing Paper, “ pp. 2-3.

60. Alaska Native Health Board, “FY-93 Federal Legislative Briefing Paper, “ pp. 13-16.

61. Alaska Native Health Board, ‘bFY-94 Federal Legislative Briefing Paper,” pp. 16-17.

62. Alaska Public Health Association, Energy,

Health, and the Environment: The Health

Impact of Petrochemical De\~elopment, Proceedings of the Seventh Alaska Health Congress, May 6-8, 1982.

63. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, ● ’A Commitment to Alaskans-Executive Summary:

Recommendations of the Alaska Sanitation

Task Force,” draft report, 38 pp., Oct. 14,

1992.

64. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, “Corporations,” unpublished draft notes, 1992, pp.

Al -Al 2.

65. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, “Operator

Training and Certification, “ unpublished

draft notes, 1992.

66. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, Education

Workgroup, “Draft Report Narrative,” unpublished, 1992, 10 pp.

67. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, Finance

Workgroup, “Financing Sanitation Projects,” unpublished, 1992.

68. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, Research and

Development Workgroup, “Final Report,”

unpublished, July 15, 1992.

69. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, Subsidies

Workgroup, “Overview,” unpublished, December 1992, 5 pp.

70. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, Utility Management Workgroup, “Utility Management,” unpublished draft report, 1992, 16

PP.

71. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, Utility Roads

Workgroup, ● ’Utility Roads,” draft report,

1992,2 pp.

72. Alaska Science and Technology Foundation, Anchorage, AK, “Grant Information

and Forms,” circa 1993.

73. Alaska Science and Technology Foundation, Anchorage, AK, “Fourth Request for

Proposals,” Mar. 15, 1993.

74. American Association for the Advancement

of Science, Arctic Division, Science in the

North: Proceedings of a S~wlposium on Ap -

propriate Energy Technology in Arctic Regions, Sept. 17, 1982 (Portland, OR: Seton,

Johnson & Odell, Inc., 1983).

75. Anchorage Daily NCJI’.S, “-Nunivak Halibut

Catch Surpasses Expectations,” Sept. 1.

1992.

76. Angellan, Max, Tribal Administrator, Village of Kwethluk, information provided to

Office of Technology Assessment staff during a site visit, Aug. 5, 1993.

77. Apollo Energy Systems, Anchorage, Alaska, “Sun-Mar Comporting Toilets: Super

Low Flush Toilets,” a price list, 1993.

78. Arctic Slope Consulting Group, Inc.

(ASCG), Water and Se\+er Utilities Master

Plan Report for Sela~~ik, Alaska, prepared

for City of Selawik. Alaska, January 1992.

79. Australia Institute of Engineers, Cairns Local Group, papers presented at the Northern

Engineering Conference, Cairns, Sept. 9-

Nov. 6, 1973.

80. Averill, D.W. and G.W. Heinke, V(lcl{um

Sewer- Sys(ems, prepared for Northern Science Research Group. Department of Indian
98 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada, September 1974.

81. Averill, D. W., and G.W. Heinke, Vacuum

Sewer Sys?ems, prepared for Northern Science Research Group, Department of Indian

Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada, 1987.

82. Baron, Mark J., Principal, Cowater International Inc., personal communication, Dec.

24, 1993.

83. Barror, Rick, Division of Environmental

Health, Indian Health Service, Public Health

Service, Rockville, Maryland, personal

communication, Jan. 24, 1994.

84. Berg, C., and J. Adler-Nissen, ● *Housing and

Sickness in South Greenland: A Sociomedical Invest igation,” paper presented at the International Symposium on Circumpolar

Health, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories,

Canada, 1974, pp. 627-634.

85. Bergstrom, Daniel, State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division, personal communication,

1993.

86. Bemhardt, A. P., “Treatment and Disposal of

Wastewater from Homes by Soil Filtration

and Evapotranspiration,” Individual Orzsi~e

W~lLste)iater S}~stems: Proceedings of the

First National Conference 1974 (Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers,

1974) pp. 77-106.

87. Black, Michael L., Special Projects Supervisor, Alaska Department of Community and

Regional Affairs, Municipal and Regional

Assistance Division, personal communication, July 28, 1993.

88. Black, Michael L., Special Projects Supervisor, Alaska Department of Community and

Regional Affairs, Municipal and Regional

Assistance Division, information provided

at the Office of Technology Assessment

workshop on ‘b Waste Sanitation Problems of

Rural Alaska,” Anchorage, AK, Aug. 4,

1993.

89. Black, Michael L., Special Projects Supervisor, Alaska Department of Community and

Regional Affairs, Municipal and Regional

Assistance Division, letter to German E. Reyes, Office of Technology Assessment, Aug.

9, 1993.

90. Brasseaux, H. J., Jr., H.E. Winkler, J.D.

North, and S.P. Orlando, “The Extended

Duration Orbiter Waste Collection System,”

SAE Technical Puper Series, No. 901291,

1990.

91. Brocklehurst, C., B.W. Heinke, and H.

Hodes, The Effect of Water Supply and Sanitation Systems on Disease Patterns on Mun -

itobu Indian Reser~’es, 1986, ASCE Proceedings, 4th International Conference,

1986.

92. Brown, Patrick, Seward, AK, letter to the

Honorable Senator Ted Stevens, U.S. Congress, May 26, 1993.

93. Brown, Patrick, Seward, AK, personal communication, Nov. 7, 1993.

94. Bubenheim, David, “Plants for Water Recycling, Oxygen Regeneration and Food

Production,” Waste Munugement and Research, vol. 9, 1991, pp. 435-443.

95. Bubenheim, D. and T. Wydeven, “Approaches to Resource Recovery in Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems,”

Ad\*anced Spuce Research (in press), 1993.

96. Bubenheim, David, Chief Scientist, CELSS

Research and Technology Development,

Advanced Life Support Division, NASA

Ames Research Center, personal communication, Jan. 14 and 25, 1994.

97. Building North, ‘*The AlasCan,” vol. 2, No.

1, July/August 1989, pp. 7-9.

98. Calista Corp., Land and Natural Resources

Department and Village Management Services, The Culista Region: A Gentle

People-A Harsh Life (Anchorage, AK: The

Calista Corp., 1991).

99. Cameron, J. P., and Bryan C. Armstrong,

Northern Technology, Unit Environmental

Protection Service, Environment Canada,

Water and Energy Conser\ution Alternatives fbr the North, 1979.

100. Cameron, J. P., Vancouver, Canada, “Culture

and Change in the Northwest Territories:
References I 99

101.

102.

103,

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

Implications for Community Infrastructure

Planning,” a master thesis, October 1985.

Cameron, J. P., “Water and Sewage Services

and Systems in the Northwest Territories,

Canada,” paper presented at the Village Safe

Water Seminar on Alternatives for Wastewa -

ter Collection and Disposal in Rural Alaska,

Anchoruge, Alusku, Feb. 13, 1992.

Canadian Environmental Health Directorate, Health Protection Branch, Sanitation

Munual<fi)r l.\olut(~~lRegi{)rl~ (Ottawa, Canada: Information Canada, 1973).

Canadian Society for Civil Engineering,

Cold Climate Utility Manual (Montreal,

Cantida: Beauregard Press Ltd., 1986).

Capito. Gregory, and B. Gajewski, Alaska

Village Safe Water, ‘“Lessons Learned From

the Emmonak Water and Sewer Project,”

The Northern Engineer, vol. 23, No. 1,

1991, pp. 30-35.

Capito, Gregory. Village Safe Water, “A Remote Maintenance Worker Program for

Alaska,” T. Tilsworth and D. W. Smith

(eds.). Proceedings of the Cold Regions En-

~ironmental k“ngineering Conference, Fairbanks, Alaska, May 18-20, 1983 (Fairbanks,

AK: University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1983).

Capito, Gregory, Section Chief, Village Safe

Water. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, personal communication,

Aug. 27, 1993.

Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, tind Government, En\’ironmental Research an~! De\’elopment: Strengthening the

Federal l~lfr[i.vtrldctl(~-(~ (New York, NY: Carnagle Commission” on Science, Technology,

and Government, December 1992).

Case, David S., The Special Relationship of

Alaska Nati\’es to the Federal Government:

An Historical and Legal Analysis (Anchorage, AK: The Alaska Native Foundation,

1978).

Chowdhry, N. A., Canada Ministry of the

En\rironment, Applied Sciences Section,

Domestic Waste W[iter Disposal and Nutrient RemoLwl by Septic Tbnk-Sund Filter Sys -

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

(em, Report No. 77 (Toronto, Canada: Ministry of the Environment, 1979).

Clark, Roger, Administrator, City of Selawik, AK, information provided to Office of

Technology Assessment staff during a visit

to the City of Selawik, Aug. 1, 1993.

Coggins, Shawn W., Advanced Comporting

Systems, Whitefish, Montana, personal

communication, Dec. 7, 1993.

Coggins, Shawn W., Advanced Comporting

Systems, Whitefish, Montana, personal

communication, Jan. 7, 1994.

Cohen, Steve, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,

Health Services and Mental Health Administration, “Ft. Yukon, HUD Ecolet Humus

Toilets,” Sept. 28, 1977.

Caimcross, Sandy, Sanitation and Water

Supply: Practical Lessonsjiom the Decade

(Washington, DC: The International Bank

for Reconstruction and Development/The

World Bank, September 1992).

Cover, A., and Frank Lucian, “An Operator’s View of Performance: Sanitation District #3, Boyd County, Kentucky,” Nina I.

McLelland (cd.), Individual On.~ite WasteM’ater SystemLY: Proceedings of the Fourth

National Conference 1977 (Ann Arbor, MI:

Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1977), pp.

135-143.

Cowater International Inc., Ontario, Canada, Mekoryuk Sewage Haul S~stem De\Yelopment, Phase I: Final Report, April 1990.

Cowater International Inc., Ontario, Canada, Mekoryuk Se\iage Haul System De~elopment, Phase II: Prototype and City O@ce

Demon stration–Evalua tion Report, November 1990.

Cowater International Inc., Ontario, Canada, A4ekoryuk Se\~age Haul System Development (Four- Unit Household Demonstration): Evaluation Report, 1992.

Cowater International Inc., Ontario, Canada, “Cowater Water Supply and Sanitation

System for Small Northern Communities,”

July 1993.
100 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

120. Cowater International Inc., Ontario, Canada, Mekoryuk Sewage Haul System Development Prototype Household Demonstration: Final Report, October 1993.

121. Crum, Jim, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Alaska Arctic Community Sanitation

Construction, document presented at the

Environmental Protection Agency Cold Climate Research Seminar, Washington, DC;,

1990.

122. Crum, Jim, Director, Division of Sanitation

Facilities, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage, communication with Martha Knight, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Anchorage, AK, May 7,

1993.

123. Crum, Jim, Director, Division of Sanitation

Facilities, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage, information provided during a briefing of Office Technology Assessment staff, Aug. 3, 1993.

124. Crum, Jim, Director, Division of Sanitation

Facilities, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage, information provided at

the Office of Technology Assessment workshop on ‘*Waste Sanitation Problems of Rural Alaska,” Anchorage, AK, Aug. 4, 1993.

125. Crum, Jim, Director, Division of Sanitation

Facilities, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage, personal communication,

Oct. 10, 1993.

126. Crum, Jim, Director, Division of Sanitation

Facilities, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage, “Waste Disposal in Rural

Alaskan Villages: Data Analysis,” Nov. 9,

1993.

127. Crum, Jim, Director, Division of Sanitation

Facilities, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage, personal communication,

Nov. 9, 1993.

128. Curley, Michael, Handbook of Project Finance for Water and Waste water Systems

(Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 1993).

129. Dan, William H., Alaska and Its Resources.

American Environmental Studies (reprint

edition by Amo Press, Inc., 1970).

130. Davies, Tudor, (Former) Acting Assistant

Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, testimony at

a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on

Indian Affairs on ● ’Water Sanitation Problems in Alaska,” May 5, 1993.

131. DeParle, Jason, ‘*Lacking Plumbing, Villages in Alaska Face Health Crisis,” The

New York Times, Nov. 28, 1992, pp. 1,9.

132. Dickens, H. B., “Water supply and sewage

disposal in permafrost areas of northern

Canada,” The Polar Record, vol. 9, No. 62,

1959, pp. 421-432.

133. Eggener, C., Chuck Eggener Consulting Engineers, Anchorage, AK, personal communication, Aug. 3, 1993.

134. Entech, Inc., Anchorage, AK, ● *Entech’s

Thermal Oxidation System Reduces Solid

Waste by More than 9070,” company brochure, circa 1993.

135. Entech, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, “Environmental Technologies for Cleaner Waste Disposal,” a report presented to Senator Ted

Stevens of Alaska, Aug. 23, 1993.

136. Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Service, Cold Climate Utilities Delivery Design Manual, Report No. EPS 3-

WP-79-2 (Edmonton, Canada: Environment Canada, March 1979).

137. Environment Canada, Cold Climate Se}\’age

Lagoons: Proceedings of the 1985 Workshop, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Report EPS

3/NR/l, April 1987.

138. Escritt, L. B., Sewerage and Setiage Disposal: Calculations and Designs (London:

Contractors Records Limited, 1956).

~ 39. Escritt, L. B., Sewerage and Se\~age Trratment: International Practice, (New York,

NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1984).

140. Fastenau, Frits A., H. Jaap, J.M. van der

Graaf, and Gerard Manse, “Comparison of

Various Systems for On-Site Wastewater

Treatment,” Water Science Technology, vol.

22, 1990, pp. 41-48.

141. Faulkner, Brad, Alaska Database Consulting, Water, Sewer and Health in Rural Alas-
References I 101

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

151.

152,

ka, a research paper with data collection and

analysis for rural CAP, 1991.

Fortuine, Robert, Circumpolar Health 84,

Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Circumpolar Health (Seattle,

WA: University of Washington Press, 1984).

Foster, Keith E., Martin M. Karpiscak, and

Richard G. Brittain, ‘6Casa del Agua: A Residential Water Conservation and Reuse

Demonstration Proved in Tucson, Arizona,”

Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 24, 1989, pp.

1201-1206.

Gabriel, David R., President, Storburn International Inc., Ontario, Canada, personal

communication, Jan. 24, 1994.

Geist, Al, Marketing Director, AlasCan,

Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska, personal communication, Nov. 23, 1993.

Gerhardt, Michael, “NANA Discovers Best

Seat in the House,” The Arclic Sounder, vol.

7, No. 31, Aug. 5, 1993, pp. 1-2.

Graige, J. W., R. Edwards, K.R. Heuchert,

and J.W. Shaw, ● ’Management of Waste from

Arctic and Sub-Arctic Work Camps,” Report No. 73-19, report prepared for Information Canada, Environmental-Social Program, Northern Pipelines, September 1973.

Hardin, Samuel E., Chief, Community and

Business Programs, Farmers Home Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

personal communication, Nov. 3, 1993.

Harrison, G. S., Alaska Public Policy: Current Problems and Issues (Fairbanks, AK:

University of Alaska Institute of Social,

Economic and Government Research,

1971 ).

Hartman, Charles W., University of Alaska

Fairbanks, Environmental Atlas of Alaska,

1984.

Hartz, Gary, Public Health Service, Rockville, MD, personal communication, Oct. 5,

1993.

Henry, Albert Y., Local Utility Management

Program Administrator, memorandum on

“LUMP Progress Report for 2nd Quarter” to

Bob Lundell, Village Safe Water Local Util153.

154.

155.

156.

157,

158.

159.

160.

161.

162.

163.

164.

165.

ity Management Program Project Officer,

Aug. 19, 1993.

Henry, Albert Y., Local Utility Management

Program Administrator, memorandum on

“LUMP Progress Report for the 4th Quarter

’93” to Bob Lundell, Village Safe Water

LUMP Project Officer, Dec. 15, 1993.

Hill, Robin M., “Western Region: Bethel,

Nome and Wade Hampton Census Areas,”

Alaska Business Monthly, September 1992.

Holmberg, Kenneth, Technical Research

Centre of Finland, “Machines, Instruments,

and Materials for Cold Climates”, Cold Climate Research in Finland, draft (Helsinki,

Finland: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1989).

Hulen, David, ‘* Honeybuckets Leave a Trail

of Sickness,” Anchorage Daily Newts, Sept.

21, 1992, Al, A4-A5, A7.

Hulen, David, “In a State of Disrepair,” Anchorage Daily New’s, Sept. 23, 1992, pp. A 1,

A5

Hulen, David, “One Village Says Enough is

Enough,” Anchorage Daily NCM*S, Sept. 24,

1992, Pp, Al, A6, A7, A8.

Hulen, David, “Third World Sanitation in

20th Century Alaska,” Anchorage Dai/y

New’s, Sept. 20, 1992, pp. Al, A6-A9.

Hulen, David, “Where the Water Turned

Deadly,” Anchorage Daily Ne\t’s, Sept. 22,

1992, Pp. Al, A4, A5, A7.

Hulen, David, ● ’Hickel Wants $25.9 Million

to Clean up Villages’ Water,” Anchorage

Daily Ne~s, Mar. 3, 1993.

Hulen, David, Anchorage Daily News, personal communication, May 25, 1993.

Hulscher, Thomas, ACTION, Region 10,

Seattle, WA, personal communication, Oct.

16, 1993.

Hydro-Quebec, “Research and Development, a Key to Customer Satisfaction,*’ vol.

8, No. 3, spring-summer, 1993, p. 20.

Hypes, Warren D., ‘*Characterization of

Typical Household Greywater” Manual of

Grey Water Treatment Practice: Part U

(Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1974), pp. 79-88.
102 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

166. Hypes, Warren D., “Laboratory and Family

Live-In Experiences With Domestic Grey -

water Reuse Systems “Individual Onsite

Waste w’ater Systems: Proceedings of the

Fifih National Conference 1978 Wastewater

Treatment Alternatives for Rural and Semirural Areas, (Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor

Science Publishers, 1978), pp. 209-298.

167. Indian Health Amendments of 1992, P.L.

102-573, 102d Cong., 106 STAT. 4560-

4561, Oct. 29, 1992.

168. Individual Sewage Treatment Systems

Technical Review Committee, Technical

Review Committee Report: Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (olmstead County,

MI: Technical Review Committee, 1990).

169. “It’s as Simple as 1-2-3,” Sun-Mar’s Compo.sting fi”mes, vol. 1, No. 3, 1992.

170. Jansen, Sheila S., “Cold climate house,”’

Popular Science, October 1991, p. 56.

171. Jones, Greg, Director, Alaska Section,

American Water Works Association, letter

to the Honorable Senator Daniel Inouye,

Chairman, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate, Feb. 28, 1994.

172. Kelley, John J., Director, Polar Ice Coring

Office, University of Alaska Fairbanks, persona] communication, Jan. 19, 1994.

173. Kruse, D. G., Medical Director, YukonKuskokwim Health Cm-p., testimony before

the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, May 5, 1993.

174. Kruse, J. A., ‘*The Inupiat and Development:

How Do They Mix?,” W.E. Westermeyer

and K.M. Shusterich, United States Arctic

Interests: The 1980s and 1990s ( New York.

NY: Springer-Verlag, 1984), pp. 135-157.

175, Laak, Rein, “Relative Pollution Strengths of

Undiluted Waste Materials Discharged in

Households and the Dilution Waters Used

for Each, ” Manual of Grey Water Treatment

Practice: Part U. (Ann Arbor, MI., Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1974), pp. 68-88.

176, Larson, E., Institute of Social and Economic

Research, The Alaska Economy: An Overview’, report prepared for the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Business Development,

June 1990.

177. Lincoln, Michael E., Acting Director, U.S.

Public Health Service, Indian Health Service, Rockville, MD, letter to John A. Sander, Dec. 2, 1993.

178. McDonnell, Ralston, “Vacuum Sewers as

an Alternative in Some Nova Scotia Communities,” Appropriate Wastewater Management Technologies for Rural Areas Under Adverse Conditions (Halifax, Nova

Scotia: Technology Press, 1987).

179. McPherson, James, “Y-K Sewer, Water

Problems Staggering; Solutions Few,” Tundra Drums, Apr. 23, 1992.

180. Marshall, David, Alaska Science and Engineering Advisory Commission, Office of the

Governor, State of Alaska, “Interface Between Technology and Social Issues,” Conference on Design and Construction of Remote Facilities Under Arctic Conditions,

1989.

181. Martin, Ingrid, “AlasCan Inventor Flush

With Success,” Fairbanks Daily New*s-Min -

er, Feb. 4, 1990, p. B-6.

182. McCormick, John, “County Hopes It Isn’t

Flushing Money Away,” Rochester Post

Bulletin, May 26, 1993.

183. McFarland, Carol, Research Products/

Blakenship, Dallas, Texas, letter to Duane

Gibson, Senator Ted Stevens’ office, and

German E. Reyes, Office of Technology Assessment, July 20, 1993.

184. McFarland, Carol, Research Products/

Blakenship, Dallas, Texas, personal cc)mmunication, Mar. 3, 1994.

185. McKieman, Ed, President, SeaLand Technology Inc., Big Prairie, Ohio, personal

communication, Oct. 4, 1993.

186. McKieman, Ed, President, SeaLand

Technology Inc., Big Prairie, Ohio, “Dual

Flush Toilet Proves to be an Innovative

Solution to Native Village Sanitation Problems,” a technical brochure, October 1993,

18 pp. This brochure was translated from
References I 103

Japanese for use by the Office of Technology

Assessment.

187. McKiernan, Ed, President, SeaLand Technology Inc., Big Prairie, Ohio, personal

communication. Nov. 23, 1993.

188. Melbourne, John. and Gerald Quick, ‘bLocal

Experiences With Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems,” Proceedings of the Fourth

National Conference on Individual Onsite

Wastewater Systems, 1977 (Ann Arbor, MI:

Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1977), pp.

35-40.

189. Midwest Plan Service, Onsite Dmnc~stic

Se}iage Disposal Han{ibook, MWPS-24

(Ames. IA: Midwest Plan Service, August

1982).

190. Municipal and Regional Assistance Division, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Y[iko~~-Kl!.\kok\~i~?l” Need.~ As-

.~e.~.~r?lent and Regional P/un, ~ 984.

191. “NASA Starts Busy 1993 Slate Of Shuttle

Flight s,” Chemical and Engineering Ne\tY.~,

Feb. 8, 1993.

192. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Ames Research Center,

Advanced Life Support Division, “CELSS

Ground-Based Research and Technology

Development Program,” circa 1993.

193. National Association of Plumbing-HeatingCooling Contractors, Falls Church, VA, and

Enviro-Management and Research, Inc.,

Springfield, VA, A.\.\c~.~.~t?lc~)lt of On-site

Gra)v~wter an(i Combinc(i W(l.vtm’uter

Treatmen! and Re[~~(ling S)stems, report

prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Aug. 3, 1992.

194. Nutiomd Sanitation Foundation, Wu.~tc-

~juter Tt~(.hnolog>’.” Report on Performance

Evaluation of Sun-,Var X.L Compostingi

Biological Toilet (Ann Arbor, MI: National

Sanitation Foundation, July 1990).

195. National Sanitation Foundation, Wu.ste\t’u-

{Cr T(’chnok)cqy.. Rcporl on Pcrformanee

E\alld~ition of CLIVUS MULTRUM Model

07 (\iith one midsection) Compost De\ice,

Report No. S-41 -3 (Ann Arbor, MI: National Sanitation Foundation, April 1992).

196. Nelson, Doug, University of Alaska Anchorage. School of Engineering, personal

communication, Nov. 23, 1993.

197. Nelson, Glenn, Advanced Comporting Systems, Whitefish, Montana, “Phoenix Comporting Toilet: Information and Application

Guide for Public Facilities,” April 1993.

198. Nelson. Glenn. Advanced Cornposting Systems, personal communication, Jan. 26,

1994.

199. Newton, Bill, Research Products/Blakenship, Dallas, TX, personal communication,

July 22, 1993.

200. Office of Data Management, Juneau, AK,

Projiles of Alaska’s Public School Districts,

Fiscal Year 1991, 1992.

201. Office of Environmental Health, YukonKuskokwim Health Corporation, Bethel,

Alaska, “List of Functions and Responsibilities, ” undated.

202. Olofsson, John A., and Lawrence A. Iwamoto, University of Alaska Anchorage and Village Safe Water, Final Drap, Research and

Dc}elopmcnt Sl(b-Cor?l}?litt(~(~ Report, prepared for the Governor’s Task Force on Sanitation in Rural Alaska, 1992,

203. Olofsson, John A., and Lawrence A. Iwamoto, University of Alaska Anchorage and Village Safe Water, T/-ij> Report: R&D SubCotnmittee Orientation Visit, 1992.

204. Olofsson, John A., and H. P. Schroeder, University of Alaska Anchorage, Sanitutio}l Alternatilcs For Rural A lasku, report prepared

for the Congressional Office of Technology

Assessment, Washington, D C. Aug. 15,

1993.

205. Olofsson, John A. and Carol M. Campbell,

“Solving Sanitation Problems in the Alaskan Bush,” P~-c)c’c~(~(iirl(q.~ of the National

Conference of E}l\’i~-())l\rl(~)jt(il Engineering,

Montreal, Canudu, Ju1> 12-14, 1993, vol. 1,

pp. 347-356, published by American Soci-
104 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

ety of Civil Engineering and Canadian Society of Civil Engineering, 1993.

206. Olofsson, John A., University of Alaska Anchorage, School of Engineering, personal

communication, Sept. 28, 1993.

207. Oswalt, Wendell H., Bashfil No Longer

(Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma

Press, 1990).

208. Pope, Michael G., President, Entech, Inc.,

Anchorage, AK, personal communication,

Dec. 29, 1993.

209. Pope, Michael G., President, Entech, Inc.,

Anchorage, AK, personal communication,

Jan. 10, 1994.

210. Raftelis, George A., Comprehensive Guide

to Water and Waste\iater Financing and

Pricing (Ann Arbor, MI: Lewis Publishers,

1 993).

211. Research Products/Blankenship, Dallas,

TX, “Incinolet: That Electric Toilet,” an

installation and maintenance manual, circa

November 1993.

212. Rethke, D. W., and C.R. Murphy, “Flight

Test Results of the DTO Waste Collection

Subsystem (WCS) for Shuttle Extended

Duration Orbiter (EDO),” SAE Technical

Paper Series, No. 932295, 1993.

213. Robinson, B.A. and G.W. Heinke, Northwest Territories Municipal and Community

Affairs, Canada, The E#ect of Municipal

Ser~’ice Impro~)ements on Public Health in

the North\ ~’e.st Territories, January 1991.

214. Rogness, Daniel R., Status of Water Supply

and Waste Disposal Services in Rural Alaska, International Conference on CircumpoIar Health, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory,

Canada, 1990.

215. Rogness, Daniel R., and W. L., Ryan, Sew!-

uge Collection in Northern Alaska, Third International Symposium on Circumpolar

Health, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories,

Canada, 1974.

216. Ryan, William L., ‘“Village Sanitary Problems,” En~ironmental Standards fbr Northern Regions, Symposium sponsored by

Institute of Water Resources, Division of

Statewide Services, Program of Environmental Quality Engineering, University of

Alaska, 1975.

217. Ryan, William L., “Sanitation and Utilities,

Alaska Science and Engineering Advisory

Commission, Office of the Governor, State

of Alaska, Conference on Design and

Construction of Remote Facilities b’nder

Arctic Conditions, 1989.

218. Ryan, William L., “Status of sanitation facilities in Alaska—1 982,” presented at Proceedings: Third Symposium on Utilities Delivery in Cold Regions, Edmonton, Alberta,

Canada, 1982.

219. Sandor, John A., Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,

letter to Honorable Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Sept.

24, 1993.

220. Savikko, Herman, and Tim Page, Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, 1989 Preliminary Alaska

Commercial Fisheries Harvests and Values

(Juneau, AK: Department of Fish and Game,

1 990).

221. Schaeffer, J., Director of Business Development, NANA Corp., information provided

during the Office of Technology Assessment

workshop on ‘bWaste Sanitation Problems of

Rural Alaska,” Anchorage, AK, Aug. 4,

19930

222. Schubert, Daniel, Past and Future Costs of

Water, Waste~ater and Solid Waste for Rural Areas, presented at the Water Pollution

Control Association and the Alaska Section

American Water Works Association 3 1st

Annual Conference, Fairbanks, AK, 1991.

223. Shoultz, Dave, P. E., Sanitation Facility Operations and Maintenance Consultant, Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation, information provided to Office of Technology

Assessment staff during a visit to Belhel,

AK, Aug. 5, 1993.

224. Siebert, J., Executive Director, Alaska Science and Technology Foundation, information provided at the Office of Technology

Assessment workshop on “Waste Sanitation
References I 105

Problems of Rural Alaska,” Anchorage, AK,

Aug. 4, 1993.

225. Siegrist, Robert L., ● ’Waste Segregation to

Facilitate Onsite Wastewater Disposal Alternatives, “Procccdings of the Second National Home Se\i’u,qe Treatment Symposium,

(St Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1978), pp. 271-281.

226. Skin, Glenn, Administrator, City of Noorvik, information provided to Office of

Technology Assessment staff during a visit

to the City of Noorvik, Aug. 1, 1993.

227. Smith, W. B., RUBA Advisor, letter to Mike

Black, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Feb. 18, 1993.

228. Smith, W. B., RUBA Advisor, letter and other informational sources sent to German E.

Reyes. Office of Technology Assessment,

Aug. 5, 1993.

229. Spriggs, John W., Environmental Health

Specialist, Maniilaq Association, Kotzebue,

information provided to Office of Technology Assessment staff during a visit to NANA

Corp. villages, Aug. 1, 1993.

230. Stephens, Tamar J., “Aeration in an Individual On-Site Aerobic Greywater Treatment

System,” master’s thesis, University of

Alaska Fairbanks, 1993.

231. Stephens, Tamar J., and Mark A. Tumeo,

“Pulsation Errors in Compressible Flow

Measure merit,” Journal of En~*ironmental

Engineering, vol. 119, 1993, pp. 384-389.

232. Stephens, Tamar J.. AlasCan, Inc., Fairbanks, AK, ‘comparison of AlasCan Grey -

water Treatment Systems With Septic

Tanks,” September 1993.

233. Stokes, Willitim, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, personal communication, Aug. 5, 1993.

2S4. Storbum Int., Inc., Ontario, Canada, 6* Storbum: Pollution-Free Toilet,” ] 993.

2~5. Straight, C. L., M.E. Bates, D.L, Bubenhcim and M,T. Flynn, “The CELSS Antarctic Analog Project: An Advanced Life Support Testbed at the Admundsen-Scott South

Pole Sttition,” Antarctica.” This article has

been accepted for publication in Journal of

Life Support and Biosphere Science.

236. Sun-Mar Corp., Burlington, Canada, “SunMar Cottage Toilets.” undated.

237. Tench, Brian, Pacific Basin Marketing Director, SeaLand Technology Inc., Big Prairie, Ohio, personal communication, Nov. 12,

1993.

238. Thomas. Willie, Vice Mayor, City of Buckland, AK, information provided to Office of

Technology Assessment staff during a visit

to the Village of Buckland, Aug. 1.1993.

239. Thornton, W. E., H. Whitmore, and W.W.

Lofland, Jr., “An Impro\ed Waste Collection System for Space Flight,” SAE Technical Puper Series, No. 861014, 1986.

240. Tumeo, Mark A., Environmental Technology Laboratory, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Report on the PeI~~~rmance of the

AlusCan Grey\\ater Treatment Systems Under Warm Weather Conditi{~ns, October

1991.

241. Tumeo, Mark A., Environmental Technology Laboratory, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Final Reporl: A[asCan Grey\~ater

Treatment System Fi~~l{l-M{j\~it{)}-i/l,q Program at 14cD014gull L.oc{<qe, February 1993.

242. Tumeo, Mark A., Environmental Technology Laboratory, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fi~lal Report: Alu.~Can Grey\\ater

T1-eatment System Field Monitoring Program in Fuirbanks, February 1993.

243. Turner, Rodney J., The Han[ibook of Project-lla,sed Management.. Impro\ing the

Process fc)r Achie\ing Strategic Objecti\e.v

(New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1993).

244. Twiss, Brian C.. Managing T~~(}~}l~~lc),qii[il

Inno]afion (London, Great Britain: Longman Group Ltd., 1974).

245. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Dioxin Treatment Technologies,

OTA-BP-O-93 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. November 1991 ).

246. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, .-Workshop on Waste Sanitation
106 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Technologies in Native Communities of Rural Alaska, Aug. 4, 1993,” unpublished

workshop notes.

247. U.S. Department of the Army, Army Corps

of Engineers, Civil Works Budget Requesf

for the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers-Fiscal

Year 1994, April 1993.

248. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Sanitation Facilities Deficiencies for

Indian Homes and Communities: Annual

Report Presented to the President of the

United States of America and to the Congress of the United States (Washington, DC:

Department of Health and Human Services,

February 1992).

249. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals

Management Service, OCS (Outer Continental Shelf Study.” Village Economics in

Rural Alaska, Social and Economic Studies,

(La Jolla, CA: Impact Assessment, 1988).

250. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals

Management Service, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, AK, Regional and Village Corporation Employment Pr-ojlle, Special Report No. 7, 1988.

251. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals

Management Service, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, AK, Village Economics in Rural Alaska, Technical

Report No. 132, 1988.

252. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Design illanual: Onsite Waste \+’ater Treatment

and Disposal Systems, EPA 62511-80-012

(Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1980).

253. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Rural Alaska Sanitation Initiative, Federal Field Work Group: Interim

Report, Jan. 6, 1994.

254. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, /990 Needs Survey

Report to Congress: Assessment of Needed

Publicly O\~ned Wastetiater Treatment Facilities in the United States, Including Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska

Native Villages, EPA 430/09-9 1-024 (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, November 1991 ).

255. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7,

Anchorage, AK, Togiak National Wildlfe

Refuge Final Comprehensive Plan, Wilderness Revie~’ and Environmental Impact

Statement, 1986.

256. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7,

Anchorage, AK, Yukon Delta National

Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement,

Wilderness Reviewy and Wild River Plan,

1988.

257. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee

on Energy and Commerce, Compilation of

Selected Acts Within the Jurisdiction of the

Committee on Energy and Commerce, vol.

1: Health Lawf as Amended Through December .?I, 1987, 10Oth Cong., 2d sess.,

Committee print 1OO-U (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, August

1988).

258. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee

on Energy and Commerce, Report on the

Major Programs Within the Jurisdiction of

the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, 103d Cong., 1st sess., Commit{ee

print 103-G (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1993).

259. U.S. Public Health Service, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Community Environmental Health Projile and Priority Projection, Noorvik, Alaska, January 1987.

260. U.S. Public Health Service, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Office of Environmental Health and Engineering, “Alaska Area:

Estimated Rural Alaska Sanitation O&M

Costs,” Apr. 6, 1993.

261. U.S. Public Health Service, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Office of Environmental Health and Engineering, Memorandum

on “Meeting on Honey bucket (HB) Haul

Improvements-August 3, 1993,” dated Aug.

18, 1993.

262. U.S. Public Health Service, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Office of Environmental Health and Engineering, “Update on
References I 107

Honey Bucket Haul Equipment Improvements,” a one page summary, Oct. 5, 1993.

263. U.S. Public Health Service, Anchorage, AK,

Sanitation Facilities Deficiency System,

1991.

264. U.S. Public Health Service, Anchorage, AK,

Sanitation Deficiency System, 1992.

265. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Final Report, Sanitation Facilities

Construction f~~r Toksook Bay, Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health Service,

1 990).

266. Public Health Service, Indian Health Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities

Construction, City ofAkiachak, Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health Service,

1981 ).

267. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Akiak, Alaska

(Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health Service, 1981 ).

268. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Aniak, Alaska

(Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health Service, 1989).

269. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Atmaut[uak,

Ala~ka (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health

Service, 1980).

270. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Che\’ak, Alaska

(Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health Service, 1992).

271. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Chuathbaluk,

Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health

Service, 1987).

272. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Emmonak, Alaska

(Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service,

1988).

273. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Goodnew’s Bay,

Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service, 1988).

274. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Hooper Bay,

Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service, 1982).

275. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Marshall, Alaska

(Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service,

1983).

276. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Moi4ntain Village, Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public

Health Service, 1980).

277. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Nupuskiak, Ala.Y -

ka (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service,

1983).

278. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Ne}~tok, Alaska

(Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service,

1987).

279. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Nunapitchuk,

Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service, 1989).

280. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, Village of Pitkas Point,

Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health

Service, 1989).

281. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Sheldon Point,
108 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service, 1992).

282. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, City of Toksook Bay,

Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service, 1982).

283. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction for the Village of Kipnuk,

Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health

Service, 1989).

284. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction for the Village of Kongi -

ganak, Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public

Health Service, 1991).

285. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, Community of Kwigilin --

,gok, Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health

Service, 1989).

286. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction for the City of Lower

Kalskag, Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S.

Public Health Service, 1990).

287. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction for the City of Russian

Mission, Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health Service, 1991).

288. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction for the Village of Kasigluk, Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public

Health Service, 1991).

289. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, Village of Sleetmute,

Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health

Service, 1989).

290. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, Village of Stony River,

Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health

Service, 1988).

291. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian Health

Service, Project Summary, Sanitation Facilities Construction, Village of Tuntutuliak,

Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health

Service, 1981).

292. U.S. Public Health Service and State of

Alaska Department of’ Environmental Conservation, Alaska Native Villages Wastewa -

ter Needs, 1989.

z93. U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Hearing on the Report of the

Secretary of the Interior to the Congress Regarding Oil and Gas Leasing on the Coastal

Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refi~ge,

Alaska-July 22, 1987, S. Hrg. 100-188 Part

2 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987).

z94. U.S. Senate, Committee on Government Affairs, Hearings Before the Committee on

Government A#airs on Reorganization Plan

No. 1 of 1979, Apr. 12, 1979 (Washington,

DC: US Government Printing Office, 1979).

295. U.S. Senate, Committee on Indian Affairs,

Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs to Review Status of Water and Sanitary

Facility Development in the Native Villages

of Alaska, May 5, 1993, S. Hrg. 103-124

(U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993).

296. U.S. Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Hearings Before the Committee on Interior and Insular A#airs on S. 3530

and Amdt. No. 1535 [Alaska Native Enrollment] (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1975).

297. University of Alaska Anchorage, “Evaluation of Residential Comporting Toilets in

Remote Alaskan Communities, Project Narrative,” Alaska Science and Technology

Foundation grant # 92-2-083, 1992.

298. University of Alaska Anchorage, ‘*CE 438

Design of Engineering Systems: Piped Utility System for Buckland, Alaska,” Apr. 30,

1993.
References I 109

299.

300.

301.

302.

303.

304.

305,

306.

307.

Village Voice, “Seven Y-K region villages

get chunk of $6.7 million on wastewater

grants,” Apr. 9, 1992.

Walker, A. M., Executive Director, Alaska

Native Health Board, testimony before the

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, May 5,

1993.

Walker, A. M., Executive Director, Alaska

Native Health Board, information provided

at the Office of Technology Assessment

workshop on Waste Sanitation Problems of

Rural Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, Aug. 4,

1993.

Wailer, D.H. and A.R. Townshend, Appropriate Wustewwter Management

Technologies for Rural Areas Under Ad-

}’er.se Conditions (Halifax, Canada: Tech

Press, 1987)

Weaver, Steve, Indian Health Service, Public Health Service, Rockville, MD, personal

communication, Jan. 24, 1994.

Williams, Orie, Executive Vice President,

Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation,

information provided at the OffIce of

Technology Assessment workshop on

“Waste Sanitation Problems of Rural Alaska,” Anchorage, Alaska, Aug. 4, 1993.

Williams, Peter, Sr., Mayor, City of Napaskiak, information provided to Office of

Technology Assessment staff during a visit

to the City of Napaskiak, Aug. 5, 1993.

Wills, J. and S. Ma]hotra, Alaska Comprehensi~’e Heulth Care Financing Study: Description of Policy Options, final report, vol.

1 and 2 (Seattle, WA: Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, March 1982).

Wilson, Robert L.. District Design Engineer,

308.

309.

310.

311.

312.

313.

314.

Alaska Area Native Health Service, Memorandum on “Sanitation Facilities Design/

Construction Activities—Public Health

Service (PHS)/Indian Health Service (IHS)

Western District,” May 19, 1993.

Winkler, H. E., Chief, Life Support Systems

Branch, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center,

Houston, Texas, personal communication,

Dec. 29, 1993.

Winkler, H. E., Chief, Life Support Systems

Branch, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center,

Houston, Texas, personal communication,

Jan. 3, 1994.

Winkler, H. E., J.R. Goodman, R.W. Murray,

and M.E. McIntosh, “Shuttle Waste Management System Design Improvements and

Flight Evaluation,” SAE Technical Paper

Series, No. 861003, 1986.

Wisdom, A. S., Se\t’erage and Se\*wge Disposa] (London, Great Britain: Barry Rose

Publishers Ltd., 1979).

Yarie, Sally, Alaska Symposium on the Social, Economic, and Cultural Impacts of

Natural Resources Development, Proceedings, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 1983.

Young, O.R. and G. Osherenko, “Arctic Resource Conflicts: Sources and Solutions”

Westermeyer, W.E. and K.M. Shusterich,

United States Arctic Interests: The 1980s

and 1990s (New York, NY: Springer-Verlag,

1984), pp. 199-218.

Zimmerman, Dave, Sanitation Facilities

Operator, City of Noor-vik, information provided to Office of Technology Assessment

staff during a visit to the City of Selawik,

Aug. 1, 1993.
Appendix A:

The Land Claims

and Tribal

Movements of

Alaska Natives A

LAND CLAIMS MOVEMENT

The reduction of fur-bearing sea mammals in Alaska and the demands of the Crimean War were among the reasons the Russian

Government agreed to sell Alaska to the United States. The general American public believed Alaska to be a land of ice and snow,

and quickly labeled the purchase ‘*Seward’s Icebox,” “Seward’s

Folly,” and other things, after the Secretary of State who supported its purchase.

Ever since then, Alaska has been a mystery to virtually all who

have not experienced conditions in the State on a first-hand basis.

It is safe to say that virtually all of the preconceptions that one

brings to Alaska will be disproved, and opposite examples encountered, even during a short visit. Alaska is vast and perhaps

best described as a land of contrast and contradiction. For example, in spite of its vastness, Alaska is a small community. After an

inordinate] y short stay, one begins to realize that even a small network of acquaintances will produce recurring contacts of common interest.

The transfer of Alaska from Russian rule to the United States

occurred at Sitka in southeast Alaska on October 18, 1867. The

1867 Treaty of Cession guaranteed that the “uncivilized tribes,”

which included those groups that had remained independent from

Russian domination, would have the same protection of the laws

and regulations that applied to other tribes within the United

States. The most important of these protections to Native people

was a recognition of their right to possess land.

The Tlingit and Haida Indians of southeast Alaska were not allowed to even watch the ceremony in which their land was transferred from one nation to another, an inauspicious beginning from

the Native viewpoint. They immediately voiced their objections I 111
112 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

to the sale and claimed that the land had been sold

without their consent. They further claimed that

the $7.2 million purchase price should have been

paid to them, although their objections were to go

unheeded until they brought suit in the courts of

the United States.

Although the 1867 Treaty of Cession and the

1884 Organic Act recognized the land rights of

Alaska Natives, little was done to restrict nonNative occupation of their lands. The gold rush,

followed by the development of lucrative salmon

fisheries, commercial whaling, trapping, and the

influx of the military, brought a large population

of whites to the new territory. Everywhere, Native

lands were encroached upon.

In 1935, the Jurisdictional Act was passed by

the U. S. Congress, allowing the Tlingit and Haida

Indians of southeast Alaska to sue the United

States for loss of their lands. Creation of the Tongass National Forest, Glacier Bay National Monument, and the Metlakatla Reservation for the

Tsimpsian Indians, who had moved to Alaska

from Canada, eroded much of the land base of the

southeast Alaska Indians.

The Hydaburg Reservation, which had been

created for the Haida Indians, was invalidated by a

1952 court decision. The judge ruled that the reservation had not been validly created. In contrast

to earlier judicial decisions, in which Natives had

been deemed to be uncivilized, the judge in this

case ruled that the Haida Indians had been assimilated (i.e., civilized through assimilation) into the

white community surrounding them. It was further reasoned that the 101 ,000-acre reservation

would be created at the expense of white people

who had nothing to do with the exploitation of the

Indians, further increasing discord.

Not until 1968 did the Indian Court of Claims

award the Tlingit and Haida a $7.5-million judgment, far short of the $80-million value claimed

by the Indians. The award did not provide for a

land base, and the remainder of the Tlingit land

in the northern region of their territory was to be

included in the statewide Native claims.

The Statehood Act of 1958 granted the State of

Alaska the right to select 103 million acres. At the

same time it recognized the rights of Natives to

kinds they traditionally used and occupied. The

State’s proposed selection of land initiated a series

of protests by Alaska Natives. Native people were

most concerned that their hunting, fishing, and

trapping grounds would be taken by the State. Village after village began to file protests with the

Federal Government. In early 1963, nearly 1,000

Natives from 24 villages petitioned the Secretary

of the Interior to impose a land freeze to halt all

transfer of land ownership until Native land rights

had been resolved. The Secretary did not respond

to this petition.

The southeast Natives were the first group to

organize on a regional basis. The Alaska Native

Brotherhood (ANB) was organized as early as

1912, and it claims to be the oldest organization

among American Indians. The ANB had attempted to organize local chapters called “camps”

in communities outside the southeast, but it met

with only partial success. Not until the 1960s were

other regional associations formed to advocate for

land and political rights of Alaska Natives. In

1963, several of the regional organizations discussed the possibility of organizing a statewide

group, but the deep-rooted mistrust that persisted

among different cultural groups hindered its

formation.

A growing awareness of the need to take concerted action for the protection of Native land

ownership finally prompted formation of the

Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) in 1966. The

AFN adopted three recommendations relating to

land protection: 1 ) a land freeze until Native

claims were resolved, 2) congressional legislation

to settle the claims, and 3) congressional consultation with Natives before the enactment of land

claims legislation. Before 1966 ended, the Secretary of the Interior had imposed a land freeze until

the land claims issue could be resolved. Imagine

the leverage this provided when, in a few short

years, the State would seek to build an 800-mile

pipeline from Prudhoe Bay on the Arctic Coast to

the City of Valdez on Prince Will i am Sound on the

Gulf of Alaska.

Because of the importance of the AFN as an advocate of Native interests in Alaska, a discussion

of its history and current role in these issues is es-
Appendix A: The Land Claims and Tribal Movements of Alaska Natives | 113

sential to understanding existing Native relationships. The AFN was formed in 1966 when more

than 400 Alaska Natives representing 17 organizations gathered for a three-day conference to address the need for a settlement of aboriginal land

rights. Natives in different parts of Alaska had

worked independently on the land claims issue,

but by the mid- 1960s, it had become clear that a

united, consolidated effort was needed.

Although different in culture and history, the

various Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut groups shared

several important concerns. These included a

traditional and fundamental reliance on the land

and its resources, the welfare and integrity of the

community, and a growing concern about Western

encroachment on lands on which Natives had relied for millennia.

Between 1966 and 1971, the AFN worked to attain passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which was signed into law

on December 18, 1971. With ANCSA in place, the

AFN provided technical assistance to Alaska Natives as they began to implement the Act. During

the 1970s, the AFN also managed statewide human service programs. However, as Native regional nonprofit associations grew in strength and

number, the AFN transferred these human service

programs to them.

Since the late 1970s, the AFN has concentrated

on lobbying and advocacy efforts on statewide issues, with funding provided by membership fees.

The activities of the AFN are oriented mostly toward for-profit corporations. Over the years, the

AFN has evolved to meet the changing needs of

Alaska Natives and to respond to new challenges

as they emerge.

At the State level, AFN plays an active role in

the legislative process by promoting laws, policies, and programs benefiting Natives in the areas

of health, education, resource development, labor,

and government. in the late 1980s, the AFN

turned its attention to social, tribal, and economic

issues, including the problems surrounding community sanitation.

With formation of the AFN, the legislative land

claims battle began in earnest. Native claims to

their ancestral lands were adamantly opposed by

the State. The Prudhoe Bay oil lease sales on the

North Slope brought the State of Alaska some

$900 million, and it brought support to the Natives for settlement of the land claims. It was clear

that no permit for a pipeline that would carry oil

from the North Slope to a southern terminal could

be granted until Native claims to their land were

settled. The assistance of the oil companies and

other business interests ensured the passage of the

land claims bill. When ANCSA was signed, Alaska Natives believed that a new and prosperous era

was about to begin.

The basic provisions of the Act concerned land,

money, and the establishment of Native corporations. Under the terms of the Act, Congress agreed

that Alaska Natives would be compensated

$962.5 million for the extinguishment of aboriginal title to 330 million acres of land and that they

would retain ownership of 44 million acres of land

under fee-simple title. Congress also authorized

corporations, rather than traditional Native groups

or clans, to hold title to the land and assets. The

land was to be divided among 12 regional and 200

village corporations. The Act was later amended

to allow for the formation of a 13th regional corporation for those Alaska Natives living outside

the State.

The regional corporations would hold title to

subsurface resources, and village corporations

title to surface resources. ANCSA allowed individuals who were alive on December 18, 1971,

and who were one-fourth or more Alaskan Native,

to enroll as shareholders. Unfortunate y, many eligible Natives did not enroll because of an absence

in their culture of any concept of land ownership.

Enrollment for ownership in lands they had always used freely seemed pointless and resulted

later in resentment, hardship, and seemingly unfair exclusion of title to ancestral lands.

ANCSA appeared to be a landmark legislative

act. Alaska Natives were to receive more land than

that held in trust for all other American Indians.

Compensation for lands surrendered was nearly

four times the amount all Indian tribes had won

from the Indian Claims Commission over its

25-year history. In the view of many, this was pos-
114 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

sible only because of the power of the petroleum

industry in the State.

The settlement was also a clear departure from

previous Indian settlements. Under ANCSA,

lands would be held by corporations under feesimple title rather than as reservations held in trust

by the Federal Government. Congress clearly intended that ANCSA would provide the means for

economic development and assimilation of Alaska Native peoples.

Alaska Natives were initially elated over the

provisions of ANCSA. It did not take long, however, for them to become aware of the complexities and problems associated with the settlement.

Corporations would have to wait up to 10 years

before they received title to their land, and the cost

of implementing the settlement consumed most of

their financial award. Natives also came to realize

that perpetual ownership of their lands could not

be ensured under the corporate structure and that

the shareholder system did not allow for the enrollment of those Alaska Natives born after 1971.

The corporations have met with varying degrees of success. Several regional and village corporations have achieved great success, but for the

most part, a large number have been less than successful. Several are on the verge of bankruptcy.

Alaska Natives have proposed a series of amendments to ANCSA and are hopeful of resolving

many of the corporate problems.

TRIBAL MOVEMENT

The tribal movement in Alaska began with Natives who feared that they could lose their ancestral lands, which are held by ANCSA corporations. The concern of tribal Natives is that without

their land they will lose their culture, They contend that cultural survival is based on the hunting

and gathering of wildlife resources. They also fear

that with a growing non-Native population in

Alaska, they will lose control over their communities as well. They are concerned that the proliferation of modem institutions in the villages, including the tribal council, city council, corporation,

school. and other organizations, has become a

source of conflict. They also express opposition to

jurisdiction exercised by a State Government and

judicial system in which they are not fully represented. They maintain that State agencies enact

oppressive laws and regulations, and render decisions that often conflict with their needs and do

not always represent their best interest.

A former Canadian Supreme Court Justice,

Thomas R. Berger, an internationally recognized

advocate of Native rights, was invited by the Inuit

Circumpolar Conference (ICC) to head the Alaska

Native Review Commission. The ICC is an international organization composed of Alaskan,

Canadian, and Greenlandic Inuit dedicated to

maintaining their culture. The ICC established the

commission to assess the impacts of ANCSA.

Judge Berger traveled to more than 60 villages and

received testimony from Alaska Natives on

ANCSA.

One conclusion was that villagers believed

ANCSA represented a cultural encounter between

two different societies. They reported that the concept of buying or selling land was alien to Alaska

Natives and that land was communally held by a

group rather than by individual stockholders.

they expressed concern that the 10,000 to 12,000

Alaskan Native children born after the passage of

ANCSA were not given automatic membership in

the corporation, as they were in traditional social

groups or clans by virtue of their birth. They

talked about subsistence activities and how the

sharing of resources under their traditional customs established social obligations and reinforced

bonds among them.

Congress amended the Indian Reorganization

Act (IRA) in 1936 to allow Alaskan Native villages to form tribal governments. Seventy v ill ages

organized themselves under the IRA council, and

many other villages are governed by traditional

councils. A common assumption in Alaska is that

ANCSA extinguished tribal sovereignty. However, an increasing number of villages, particularly in western Alaska and the interior regions, are

beginning to reassert their sovereign rights under

their tribal government and judicial councils.

Akiachak, which has been at the forefront of the

tribal movement, was the first community to dis-
Appendix A: The Land Claims and Tribal Movements of Alaska Natives I 115

solve its local government, established under

State laws, in favor of tribal government and to organize its own judicial council.

In 1985, a number of tribal governments organized themselves under the Alaska Native Coal it ion (AN C). The ANC was not successful in obtaining an amendment to ANCSA that would have

allowed corporations to transfer their lands to tribal governments. A number of tribal governments

in southwestern Alaska have united under the Yupiit Nation to further strengthen tribal governments and rights.

The tribal movement also grew in response to

increasing concerns over the social problems that

plague Native villages. Alcoholism and selfdestructive behavior have been a problem in many

villages. The suicide rate has been reported to be

the highest in the country, particularly among

young males. Alienation, loss of family, low income, and alcohol abuse are cited as major factors

related to suicide. In an effort to control alcohol

abuse, many tribal governments have prohibited

the importation of alcohol into their communities.

Cultural resurgence has also been associated

with the movement toward self-determination.

Communities in which traditional dancing and

ceremonies were prohibited by the local churches

have reinstituted Native dance and many of the

traditional ceremonies. Native leaders and elders

have organized cultural camps in which young

children can be immersed in Native culture. Children spend a period of time in these camps learning about traditional ways and beliefs. The elders

have reasserted their traditional authority in many

villages, They participate in formal elder conferences to record traditional knowledge. Continuing political efforts to protect their land bases and

subsistence hunting and fishing activities have become the rallying point to protect the survival of

Native cultures.

Whether the Inupiat, Yupik, Aleuts, and Athapaskans and the Tlingit, Tsimpsian, or Haida will

survive as distinct cultural groups remains to be

seen. It is well accepted that Native cultures have

changed dramatically y since their first contact with

Westerners. However, it is also recognized that

they retain elements and values of their traditional

cultures that distinguish them from one another

and set them apart from non-Natives.

Alaska Natives are on a collision course with

non-Natives who oppose the tribal sovereignty

movement and their subsistence rights. The everincreasing numbers of non-Natives, with their expansion into rural communities, create competing

uses for wildlife resources. Alaska Natives have

become accustomed to, and dependent on, goods

and services that can be obtained only from the

capital economy, but the prospects for economic

development in rural regions of Alaska are uncertain at best and absent at worst. The lack of economic opportunities in rural communities may accelerate the migration to urban centers

Native corporations continue to hold all Native

land except two villages that turned over their

lands to the tribal government. It is unlikely that

the corporations will reconvey their lands to the

tribal governments, but Alaska Natives are continuing to pursue amendments to ANCSA that

they believe will ensure the continued ownership

of Native land. The record is clear that the Native

peoples have made a firm commitment to ensure

the survival of their cultures.
Appendix B:

Hepatitis A

Outbreaks in

Alaskan Native

B Villages, 1988

cases Percentage of

Village Population reported population Level of servicel

Akiachak

Alakanuk

Atmautluak

Buckland

Chefornak

Chevak

Eek

Emmonak

Galena

Golovin

Holy Cross

Hooper Bay

Kasigluk

Kipnuk

Kongiganak

Kotlik

Koyuk

Kwigillingok

Lower Kalskag

Marshall

Mt Village

Naknek

Napakiak

Napaskiak

Nenana

Nunapitchuk

483

544

258

318

320

598

261

642

833

127

277

845

425

470

294

461

231

278

291

273

674

711

318

328

393

378

1

1

35

5

5

1

8

1

45

10

9

1

44

5

2

13

1

9

1

1

7

6

3

1

1

10

2,0

2,0

0.3

0.3

0,3

5.9

1.9

0.8

0.1

6.3

0.4

5.3

0,5

0.6

2.0

9.5

2.2

0.7

4,5

0,4

1,3

0.2

03

2.1

1,5

0.8

b

a

a

b

b

a

b

e

c

d

e

b

a

b

b

b

a

a

d

e

e

d

b

b

e

b

116 I
Appendix B: Hepatitis A Outbreaks in Alaskan Native Villages, 1988 I 117

Cases Percentage of

Village Population reported population Level of service1

Oscarville

Pilot Point

Pilot Station

Pitkas Point

Quinhagak

Saint Marys

Saint Michael

Sand Point

Scammon Bay

Stebbins

Tanana

Tetlin

Tog iak

Tok

Tuntutuliak

Tununak

Upper Kalskag

57

53

463

135

501

441

295

878

343

400

345

87

613

1,256

300

316

172

1

1

7

9

3

15

11

1

1

1

7

1

1

2

1.8

1,9

2.2

0.7

0 2

1 6

3.0

0.3

44

2.8

0.3

1,1

0.2

1.0

03

0.3

1,2

a

d

d

b

b

e

b

e

e

b

a

a

e

d

a

a

a

1 Level a represents the most rudimentary service and consists principally of the use of pit toilets, privvies, and honey buckets Level b sanitary waste

disposal service provides for the hauling of honey bucket wastes by a community employee Level c encompasses systems with flush toilets, holding

tanks for collecting waste, and hauling of wastes loa disposal area by a truck service. Level d systems have flush toilets that discharge to septic tanks

and leach fields Level e--flush toilets and piped sewerage-represents the highest technical and safety level of wastewater disposal service provided to Native communities of Alaska

SOURCE U S Public Health Service and State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska Native Villages Wastewater Needs,

1989
Appendix C:

Current Distribution

of Sanitation Technologies

Among Rural Alaskan Villages

c and Native Population Served

Regional Existing potable

Community Population corporation water system Existing sewer system

Chitina

Mentasta Lake

Chistochina

Gakona

Tazlina

Cantwell

Copper Center

Guikana

Akutan

Atka

False Pass

King Cove

Saint George

Saint Paul

Sand Point

Unalaska

Nelson Lagoon

Nikolski

Barrow

Anaktuvuk Pass

Atkasook

Kaktovik

Nuiqsut

Point Hope

Point Lay

Wainwright

Diomede

Gambell

Golovin

Koyuk

Brevig Mission

49

96

60

25

247

45

449

103

589

98

68

451

138

763

878

3,089

83

35

2,763

259

216

224

354

639

139

492

178

525

127

231

198

Athna

Athna

Athna

Athna

Athna

Athna

Athna

Athna

Aleutian

Aleutian

Aleutian

Aleutian

Aleutian

Aleutian

Aleutian

Aleutian

Aleutian

Aleutian

North Slope

North Slope

North Slope

North Slope

North Slope

North Slope

North Slope

North Slope

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Individual wells

Individual wells

None

Watering point

Watering point

Individual wells

Individual wells

Circulation pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Circulatlon pipe

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual septic

Individual septic

Community septic

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Individual septic

Individual septic

Piped gravity

Truck haul

Truck haul

Truck haul

Truck haul

Truck haul

Truck haul

Truck haul

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket haul

118 I
Appendix C: Current Distribution of Sanitation Technologies I 119

Regional Existing potable

Community Population corporation water system Existing sewer system

Saint Michael

Savoonga

Shishmaref

Stebbins

Wales

Elim

Nome

Unalakleet

White Mountain

Council

Shaktoolik

Teller

Portage Creek

Koliganek

Manokotak

New Stuyahok

Nondalton

Togiak

Twin HiIIs

Chignik

Clarks Point

Egegik

South Naknek

Naknek

Iglugi g

Ekwok

Ekuk

Kokhonak

Ivanoff Bay

Perryville

Aleknaqik

Chignik Lagoon

Iliamna

Levelock

Pedro Bay

Pilot Point

Port Helden

Ugashik

Chignik Lake

Newhalen

Alakanuk

Atmautluak

Kwigillingok

Tuluksak

Tuntutuliak

Tununak

Meroryuk

Newtok

Oscarville

Platinum

295

519

456

400

161

264

3,500

714

180

8

178

151

5

181

385

391

178

613

66

188

60

122

136

575

33

77

3

152

35

108

185

53

94

105

42

53

119

7

133

160

544

258

278

358

300

316

177

207

57

64

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Watering point

Circulating pipe

Washeteria

Watering point

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Individual wells

Washeteria

Individual wells

Individual wells

Watering point

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Individual wells

Individual wells

Individual wells

Individual wells

Individual wells

Individual wells

Individual wells

Individual wells

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Watering point

Watering point

Watering point

Watering point

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Individual privvy

Community septic system

Truck haul

Honey bucket bunker

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped Sewer

Individual privvy

Individual privvy

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker
120 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Regional Existing potable

Community Population cormwation water system Existing sewer system

Upper Kalskag

Crooked Creek

Akiachak

Chevak

Goodnews Bay

Hooper Bay

Kasigluk

Kongiganak

Kotlik

Kwethluk

Nunapitchuk

Pitkas Point

Quinhagak

Sheldon Point

Chefornak

Chuathbaluk

Kipnuk

Napakiak

Napaskiak

Nightmute

Bethel

Lower Kalskag

Marshall

Mt. Village

Pilot Station

Russian Mission

Saint Mary’s

Scammon Bay

Toksook Bay

Aniak

Emmonak

Red Devil

Sleetmute

Stony River

Lime Village

Akiak

Chenega

English Bay

Port Graham

Tatitlek

Tyonek

Eklutna

Chickaloon

Ninilchick

Grayling

Holy Cross

Kaltag

Ninto

Nenana

Huslia

172

106

483

598

241

845

425

294

461

558

378

135

501

109

320

97

470

318

328

153

4,674

291

273

674

463

246

441

343

420

540

642

53

106

51

42

285

94

158

166

119

154

381

147

425

208

277

240

218

393

207

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

North Pacific Rim

North Pacific; Rim

North Pacific Rim

North Pacific Rim

Chugach

Chugach

Chugach

Chugach

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs——

Watering Point

Individual wells

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Watering Point

Watering Point

Watering Point

Watering Point

Watering point

Watering point

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Individual wells

Circulation pipe

Individual wells

Individual wells

Individual wells

Watering Point

individual wells

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Individual wells

Watering point

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Washeteria

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket bunker

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped vacuum

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual septic

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity
Appendix C: Current Distribution of Sanitation Technologies I 121

Regional Existing potable

Community Population corporation water system Existing sewer system

Nikolai

Anvik

Allakaket

Arctic Village

Beaver

Birch Creek

Circle

Eagle Village

Hughes

Koyukuk

Nulato

Rampart

Ruby

Shageluk

Takotna

Tanana

Tetlin

Alatna

Chalkyitsik

Healy Lake

Manley Hot Springs

Northway

Stevens Village

Tel Ida

Venetie

Evansville

McGrath

Tan across

Dot Lake

Fort Yukon

Galena

Akhiok

Karluk

Larsen Bay

Old Harbor

Duzinkie

Port Lions

Selawik

Kivalina

Buckland

Deering

Ambler

Klana

Kotzebue

Noatak

Shungnak

Noorvik

Kobuk

Angoon

Annette

109

82

138

96

103

42

73

35

54

126

359

68

170

139

38

345

87

31

90

47

96

113

102

11

182

7

528

106

53

580

833

77

71

147

284

209

222

596

317

318

157

311

385

2,751

333

223

531

69

638

40

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Kodiak

Kodiak

Kodiak

Kodiak

Kodiak

Kodiak

Northwest Arctic

Northwest Arctic

Northwest Arctic

Northwest Arctic

Northwest Arctic

Northwest Arctic

Northwest Arctic

Northwest Arctic

Northwest Arctic

Northwest Arctic

Northwest Arctic

Southeast

Southeast

Washeteria

Individual wells

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Watering point

Watering point

Watering point

Watering point

Watering point

Watering point

Watering point

Watering point

None

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Washeteria

Circulation pipe

Washeteria

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Washeteria

Watering point

Washeteria

Washeteria

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulatlon pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulatlon pipe

Washeteria

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Piped sewer

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual septic

Community septic

Community septic

Community septic

Vacuum truck haul

Vacuum truck haul

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped vacuum

Individual privy

Piped gravity

. . Piped gravity
122 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Regional Existing potable

Community Population corporation water system Existing sewer system

Craig 1,260 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravity

Hoonah 795 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravity

Hydaburg 384 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravity

Kake 700 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravity

Kasaan 54 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravity

Klawock 722 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravity

Klukwan 195 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravity

Metlakatla 1234 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravity

Saxman 369 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravity

Yakutat 534 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravity
I ndex

A

AANHS. See Alaska Area Native Health Scrvicc

ADEC. See Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation

Advanced waste processing technologies under

consideration at Ames Research Center, 84-85

AlasCan organic waste and wastewater treatment

ceramic toilet, 76

comporting tank, 74-76

greywater treatment tank, 76

kitchen waste disposal system, 76

system characteristics, 74

Alaska Area Native Health Service, 55,58

Alaska Department of Community and Regional

Affairs, 65

coordination needs among training programs, 68

O&M funding, 17-18

Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation

capital construction funding, 58

certification of sanitation facility operators, 63

coordination needs among training programs, 68

institutional and regulatory framework relevant

to Alaskan village sanitation, 52-53

Local Utility Matching Program, 67

mission and accomplishments, 5-6

O&M funding, 17-18

project planning, design, and construction

considerations, 62

Remote Worker Maintenance program, 64-65

role and responsibilities, 51-52

RUBA program funding, 65

sanitation condition categories, 34

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971,28

Alaska Native Health Board, 14

Alaska Natives’ roles and responsibilities

capital construction concerns, 58-60

conclusion, 50

coordination of sanitation improvement efforts,

14

economic health and culture of Native villages,

28-31,40-45

Native peoples of Alaska, 26-28

O&M funding concerns, 49-50

O&M of existing piped sanitation technologies,

39-40

O&M of sanitation projects, 7-11, 45-49

setting and sanitation prob]cms, 1-3, 23-28,

31-36

Alaska Science and Technology Foundation, 13-14,

62

Alternative sanitation technologies

AlasCan organic waste and wastewatcr treatment,

74-76

conclusion, 93

congressional options, 18-19

Cowater small-vehicle haul systcm, 72-74

Entech thermal oxidation systcm, 83-84

INCINOLET electric toi]ct system. 80-81

introduction, 71-72

NASA Controlled Ecological Life Support

system, 84-86

NASA Extended Duration Orbiter uastc

management system, 88-90

NASA Space Shuttle Orbiter waste management

system, 86-88

Phoenix comporting toilet, 76-78

Self-Contained Home systcm, 90-91

Storbum propane toilet system, 8 I -83

Sun-Mar comporting toilet, 78-80

technology issues and needs summary, 91-93

Ames Research Center, 84

Antarctica Analog Project, 85-86

Arctic region, 25

Army Corps of Engineers, 52-55

B

Bering seacoast region, 25

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 4, 55

c

Capital construction funding

community concerns, 58-60

factors affecting, 60-61

Federal govemmcnt role, 55-58

overview and find ings, 6-7

State role, 58

I 123
124 I An Alaskan Challenge

Categories of sanitation conditions

background, 34

level a, 35

level b, 35

level c, 35

level d, 35-36

level e, 36

CELSS. See Controlled Ecological Life Support

System

Certification and training of sanitation facility

operators, 63-64

Children’s exposure to human waste, 33-34

Clean Water Act, 15,53

Clivus Multrum comporting toilet, 76

Congressional oversight considerations or options

goals, 11-12

interim option for improving sanitation among

Native villages, 12-14

options for solving the waste sanitation problems

of Alaskan Natives, 14-21

Controlled Ecological Life Support System

Antarctica Analog Project, 85-86

background, 84-85

life support research testbed, 85

Cost of living, role of subsistence practices in, 40-43

Cowater small-vehicle haul system

dual-flush toilet, 72-73

haul tank and haul vehicle, 73-74

in-house water supply, 73

Cultural importance of subsistence practices among

Alaska’s Native villages, 30,44

D

DCRA. See Alaska Department of Community and

Regional Affairs

Diseases and sanitation problems, 1-2,31,33-34,

37-38,58-59

Distribution of sanitation technologies among rural

Alaskan villages, 118-122

E

Economic health and culture of Native villages,

28-31,40-45

Emmonak sanitation project, 61-63

Entech thermal oxidation system, 83-84

Environmental Protection Agency, 5, 19-20,52-55,

60,65

EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency

Estimating Federal subsidy needs, 10-11

Extended Duration Orbiter waste management

system, 88-90

F

Facilities construction, 4,6-7,55-61

Famlers Home Administration, 45,60

Federal and State agencies’ roles and

responsibilities. See also specific agencies by name

capital construction funding, 6-7, 55-61

conclusion, 69-70

external subsidies for O&M maintenance

activities, 68-69

institutional and regulatory framework relevant

to Alaskan village sanitation, 52-55

introduction, 51-52

mission and accomplishments of agencies

responsible for sanitation, 3-6

permit types needed to constructor upgrade rural

waste sanitation facilities, 54-55

project planning, design, and construction, 61-63

technical assistance, 17-18,64-68

training and certification of sanitation facility

operators, 63-64

Federal Field-Alaska Rural Sanitation Work Group,

14,20-21,22,55

Funding issues

capital construction funding, 6-7,55-61

O&M funding, 10-11, 17-18,49-50,68-69

subsidized goods and services and transfer

payments, 30-31,43-44,68-69

G

Geographic setting of Alaska, 23-28

H

Health epidemics and sanitation services, 33-34. See

also Diseases and sanitation problems

Hepatitis A in rural Alaska, 3,31,33-34, 116-117

Honey bucket haul systems improvement program,

12-14, 16

Honey bucket use statistics

general distribution of Alaska’s major indigenous

cultures and of native villages operating honey

buckets, 31-32

rural Alaskan Native villages using honey

buckets as predominant sanitation technology,

1-2

I

IHS. See Indian Health Service

INCINOLET electric toilet system

maintenance requirements, 81

system characteristics, 80-81

Indian Health Amendments of 1992,5, 15, 17,

49-50,69
Index I 125

Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, 4-5,

49-50,69

Indian Health Service

capital construction funding, 7, 55-61

community commitment to projects, 45

coordination needs among training programs, 68

improvement of existing honey bucket systems,

12-13

institutional and regulatory framework relevant

to Alaskan village sanitation, 52-55

mission and accomplishments, 4-5

O&M funding, 10-11, 17-18, 49-50,68-69

project planning, design, and construction

considerations, 61-63

role and responsibilities, 51-52, 69

Sanitation Technology Demonstration Work

Group funding, 15

training of sanitation facility operators, 63

Utility Maintenance Specialist program, 64

Indian Sanitation Facilities Construction Act of

1959,4-5,51,55

Institutional and regulatory framework relevant to

Alaskan village sanitation, 52-55

Interior region, 25

K

Kuskokwim and Yukon communities compared,

46-47

L

Land claims and tribal movements of Alaska

Natives, 28, 111-115

Life support research testbed, 85

Local Utility Matching Program, 67

LUMP. See Local Utility Matching Program

M

Modern Alaska and emergence of Native

corporations, 28-31

N

Nana Regional Corp., 62

NASA. See National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Controlled Ecological Life Support System,

84-86

Extended Duration Orbiter waste management

system, 88-90

Space Shuttle Orbiter waste management system,

86-88

National Arctic Research Laboratory, 85

National Scicncc F(mndtition, 85

Native corporations, 14, 2S-3 I

Native peoples of Alaska, 26-28

0

O&M. Scc Opcr:~tion and n]aintcnance issues

Operation and maintenance issues

congressional ok’cr-sight corlsidcrations, 15, 17

factors contributing to inadequate O&M, 7-11,

48-49

funding of O&M acti~itics, 10-11, 17-18,49-50,

68-69

Native communities’ role in O&M, 7-11, 45-49

piped sanitation techno]ogics O&M, 39-40

technical assistance, 17-18,64-68

training and certification of sanitation facility

operators, 63-64

Oversight hearings option, 19-21

Overview and findings

capital construction for- sanitation facilities, 6-7

conclusion, 21-22, 38

congress ional oversight considerations or

options, 11-21

factors contributing to inadequate O&M of

sanitation facilities, 7-11

mission and accomplishments of agcnc ics

responsible for sanitation, 3-6

modern Alaska an~i the emergence of Native

corporations. 28-31

Native villages’ setting and sanitation problems,

1-3, 23-28, 31-36

water availability and sanitation in rural Alaska,

4.36-38

P

Phoenix uomposting toilet

comporting ttink, 78

kitchen waste disposal inlet, 77-78

maintenance rcquircmcnts, 78

system characteristics, 76-77

toilet systcm, 77

Piped sanitation technologies

operation and maintcnancc, 39-40

types considered for rural Native Alaskan

villages, 8

types in rural Alaskan villages, 40-42

Project planning, design, and construction

considerations, 61-63

R

l?eglorral Native corporations, 14, 28-31

Regulatory and institutional framework relevant to

Alaskan village sanitation, 52-55

Rcrnotc Maintenance Worker program, 64-65
126 I An Alaskan Challenge

RMW program. See Rcmotc Maintenance Worker

program

RUB A. See Rural Utility Business Advisor Program

Rural Utility Business Advisor Program, 65-67

s

Safe Drinking Water Act, 15

Sanitation facility operator certification and

training, 63-64

Sanitation technologies. See also Altcmative

sanitation technologies: Piped sanitation

technologies

existing technologies considered for Native

villages in rural Alaska, 8-10

honey bucket haul systems improvement

program, 12-14, 16

use statistics, 1-3, 31-32, 118-122

Sanitation Technology Demonstration Work Group,

14-15

Self-Contained Home systcm, 90-91

Septic systems, 8

Setting and sanitation problems of Native villages,

I -S, 23-28,31-36

Sewage management. See Sanitation technologies

Snyder Act of 1921,4

Southwestern Alaska, 23, 25

Space Shuttle Orbiter waste management system

sewage collection/storage system, 88

systcm characteristics, 86-87

urine collection system, 87-88

State agencies’ roles and responsibilities. See

Federal and State agencies’ roles and

responsib il i tics

Storbum propane toilet systcm, 81-83

Subsidized goods and services and transfer

payments, 30-31,43-44.68-69

Subsistcncc practices

cultural importance among Alaska’s Native

v illagcs, 44

modcm Alaska and emergence of Native

corporations, 28-31

role in village cost of living, 40-43

Sun-Mar comporting toilet

Centrex and Water Closet Multrum models, 80

Compact and X-L (EXCEL) models, 80

maintenance requirements, 80

system characteristics, 78-80

T

Technical assistance programs, 17-18,64-68

Technology issues and needs summary

actual costs of systems to Native villages, 92-93

household size and design, 92

local village economy, 92

Native community involvement in projects, 92

pcmlafrost influcncc, 91

technical training of Nati\rcs, 92

water availability, 91-92

Training and cert ificat ion of sanitation facility

operators, 63-64

Transfer payments tind subsidized goods and

services, 30-31,

43-44,68-69

Tribal movements und land claims of Alaska

Natives, 111-115

Truck haul systcm, 8, 3 I

u

University of Alaska Anchorage, 13, 62, 64, 76, ’79

U.S. Am~y Corps of Engineers. See Army Corps of

Engineers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. See

Environmcnta] Protection Agency

Utility Maintcnancc Specialist program, 64

v

Village Safe Water Act, 58

Village Safe Water program

capital construction funding, 7, 58-61

community commitment to projects, 45

institutional and rcgu]atory framework relevant

to Alaskan village sanitation, 52-53

Local Utility Matching Program, 67

mission and accomplishments, 5-6

project planning, design, and construction

considerations, 61-63, 62-63

role and responsibilities, 5 I -52, 69

RUBA progran] funding, 65

sanitation condition categories, 34-35

training of sanitation facility operators, 63

VSW. See Village Safe Water program

w

Waste sanitation technologies. See Sanitation

technologies

Water availability and sanitation, 2, 3,4,36-38

Wcstcm Alaska, 25

Wcstcm intlucncw and accessibility of Native

communities. 44-45

Y

Yukon and Kuskokwim comn~uni(ics compared,

46-47

Yukon -Kuskokwin~ Delta region, 34

Yukon -Kuskokwim Health Corporation, 38

+ US. GOVE~W PRINTING OFFICE: 1994 - 301-804 -814/17408