An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village SanitationArea Native Health Service, personal communication,...

An Alaskan Challenge: Native VillageSanitation

May 1994

OTA-ENV-591NTIS order #PB94-181013

GPO stock #052-003-01372-0

Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, An AlaskanChallenge: Native Village Sanitation, OTA-ENV–591 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, May 1994).

Foreword

More than 20,()()() rural Native residents in Alaska live in communi-ties without running water and where homes, local government of-fices, commercial buildings, and even medical clinics use plasticbuckets for toilets-euphemistically called “honey buckets.” The

waste from these toilets is often spilled in the process of hauling it to disposalsites, and these spillages have led to the outbreak of epidemic diseases such asHepatitis A.

This OTA assessment, requested by Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, reviewsthe status of federal government efforts to provide safe sanitation to AlaskanNatives and the technologies that have been used or proposed for this purpose.Information about similarly relevant efforts by State and Native governmentsis also provided. A significant portion of this research also focuses on the geo-graphic, social, and economic settings of the Natives and their remote commu-nities. Finally, the work examines the legislative and institutional setting forthe waste sanitation problems, and the criteria that need to be applied in select-ing and implementing new technologies.

Providing safe water and waste sanitation systems to Alaskan Native vil-lages has been more difficult, expensive, and time consuming than in any otherregion of the United States—particularly because of the unusual technicalconstraints. Despite considerable efforts by the Indian Health Services andothers, only half of the 191 Native villages have adequate sanitation.

Two major types of measures appear to be needed to support the develop-ment and application of cost-effective alternatives in the long-term: 1 ) a com-prehensive Federal research, development, and testing program for innovativesanitation technologies; and 2) increased financial support for operation andmaintenance and technical assistance programs.

OTA’s staff received splendid support from Federal, State, and Native orga-nizations and private sector individuals during the preparation of this report.Of special significance is the assistance provided by Native leaders, sanitationexperts, and v illage residents during our visit to rural Alaska. Invaluable assist-ance and guidance was also provided by the Alaska Area Native Health Ser-vice, the Village Safe Water, and the University of Alaska-Anchorage.

aw= .ROGER C. HERDMANDirector

. . .Ill

Reviewers

Mike BlackAlaska Department of Community

and Regional Affairs

J.P. GodfreyAlaska Science and Technology

Foundation

John SchaefferNANA Corporation

Herb SchroederUniversity of Alaska AnchorageJohn Bouzoun

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersCold Regions Research and

Engineering Laboratory

Hollis D. HallUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks

Paul SherryAlaska Native Health BoardSamuel E. Hardin

Farmers Home AdministrationPalmer, AlaskaPatrick A. Brown

CHETS InternationalSeward. Alaska

Dave ShoultzYukon Kuskokwim health

CorporationThomas JoyceACTION — Region 10

Greg CapitoAlaska Department of

Environmental Conservation

John SpriggsManiilaq AssociationJulie Kitka

Alaska Federation of NativesJohn W. SibertAlaska Science and Technology

FoundationRoger ClarkCity of Selawik

Ed McKiernanSeaLand Technology, Inc.

Tom CoolidgeAlaska Area Native Health

Service

Kathleen VietchU.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Region 10

Larry MerculiefAlaska Sanitation Task Force

John OlofssonUniversity of Alaska AnchorageJames Crum

Alaska Area Native HealthService

Ann WalkerAlaska Native Health Board

James PetersonU.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Region 10Orie WiliiamsYukon Kuskokwim Health

CorporationTudor DaviesU.S. Environmental Protection

AgencyAnchorage, Alaska

Bernhard RichertEconomic Development

AdministrationAnchorage, Alaska

Peter WilliamsCity of Napaskiak

Chuck EggenerChuck Eggener Consulting

EngineersAnchorage, Alaska

Randy RomeneskoAlaska Department of


iv

Clyde Behney GERMAN E. REYESAssistant Director, OTA Project DirectorHealth, Education, and

Environment

Robert W. NiblockEnvironment Program

Director

CONTRIBUTORS

Robert Friedman

Preject Staff

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Kathleen A. BeilOffice Administrator

Kimberly HolmlundAdministrative Secretary

Peter Johnson

Robert NiblockSharon KnarvikSecretary

CONTRACTORS

John Olofsson and Barbara BradleyJeffrey Schroeder SecretaryUniversity of Alaska Anchorage

Florence PoillonEditor

workshop Participants

Mike BlackAlaska Department of Community

and Regional Affairs

Greg CapitoAlaska Department of


Tom CoolidgeAlaska Area Native Health

Service

James CrumAlaska Area Native Health

Service

Chuck EggenerChuck Eggener Consulting

EngineersAnchorage, Alaska

J.P. Godfrey John W. SibertAlaska Science and Technology Alaska Science and Technology

Foundation Foundation

John Olofsson Ann WalkerUniversity of Alaska Anchorage Alaska Native Health Board

Randy Romenesko Orie WilliamsAlaska Department of Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corp.


John SchaefferNANA Corporation

Herb SchroederUniversity of Alaska Anchorage

contents

1 Executive Summary 1Native Villages of Rural Alaska: Their Setting and

Sanitation Problems 1Mission and Accomplishments of Agencies

Responsible for Sanitation 3Capital Construction for Sanitation Facilities 6Factors Contributing to Inadequate Operation and

Maintenance of Existing Sanitation Facilities 7Congressional Oversight Considerations

or Options 11Conclusion 21

-2 Alaskan Native Villages and Their

Sanitation Problems 23Geographic Setting 23Modern Alaska and Emergence of Native

Corporations 28Sanitation in Native Communities of Rural

Alaska 31Water Availability and Sanitation in Rural Alaska 36Conclusion 38

3 Roles and Responsibilities ofAlaska Natives 39Operation and Maintenance of Existing Piped

Sanitation Technologies 39Economic Health and Culture of Native Villages 40Role of Native Communities in Operation and

Maintenance of Sanitation Projects 45Factors That Hamper Successful Operation and

Maintenance in Native Communities 48Funding of Operation and Maintenance Activities 49Conclusion 50

vii

4 Roles and Responsibilities of Federaland State Agencies 51Introduction 51Institutional and Regulatory Framework Relevant to

Alaskan Village Sanitation 52Capital Construction Funding 55Project Planning, Design, and Construction 61Training and Certification of Sanitation Facility

Operators 63Technical Assistance 64External Subsidies for Operation and Maintenance

Activities 68Conclusion 69

5 Alternative Sanitation Technologies 71Introduction 71Description of New Advanced Systems Currently

Proposed for Alaskan Villages 72Summary of Technology Issues and Needs 91Conclusion 93

References 95

APPENDICES

A

B

c

The Land Claims and Tribal Movementsof Alaska Natives 111

Hepatitis A Outbreaks in Alaskan NativeVillages, 1988 116

Current Distribution of SanitationTechnologies Among Rural AlaskanVillages and Native PopulationServed 118

. . .Vlll

Overviewand

Findings 1NATIVE VILLAGES OF RURAL ALASKA:THEIR SETTING AND SANITATION PROBLEMSAbout one-fourth of Alaska’s 86,000 Native residents live with-out running water and use plastic buckets for toilets+ euphemis-tically called ‘*honey buckets” (figure l–l). This report examinesthe status of waste sanitation among Native villages of rural Alas-ka, identifies the socio-economic factors contributing to sanita-tion inadequacy, and discusses the technological solutions thathave been used and proposed to date. Honey buckets are the pre-dominant means of sanitation for Native residents in 89 villagesin the Ahtna, Bering Straits, North Slope, Northwest Arctic, Ta-nana Chiefs, and Yukon-Kuskokwim regional areas (figure 1-2)(127). ]

Throughout rural Alaska, but particularly in the Yukon-Kus-kokwim Delta and the Northwest Arctic, the outbreak of diseases,including hepatitis A, bronchitis, impetigo, and sometimes men-ingitis, is believed to be partially attributed to the exposure to hu-man waste caused by inadequate sanitation facilities. Because ofthe frequent spillage of human waste that occurs on communityroads and boardwalks during its transportation to disposal sites orsewage lagoons, the exposure of residents, particularly children,

1 As many as 239 total Alaskan villages have been reported in the past; the actual num-ber, however, IS generally difficult to quantify. In its 1992 directory, for example, the Bu-reau of Indian Affairs, Juneau Area Ofllce, listed a total of219 village governments. Forthe purp)se of this rep)rt, OTA focused on only the 191 Native villages on the IndianHealth Service’s database.

II

2 I An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

North slope

Northwest Arctic

Bering Straits

Yukon Kuskokwim

Tanana Chiefs

Ahtna

Remaining regionsI r 1 I

o 2 4 6 8 10

Thousands of Natives

SOURCE Jim Crum, Director, Diwsion of Sanitation Facilities, AlaskaArea Native Health Service, personal cornmunication, November 9,1993

to such waste is frequent. The fact that diseasessuch as hepatitis A occurs in epidemics hasraised questions about both their exact mech-anism of transmission and the overall level ofdisease eradication that can be achieved with sani-tation technologies.

The Native villages with the most frequent out-breaks of disease are those in which running wateris difficult to obtain and the principal method ofdisposal is the honey bucket. In many cases, thehoney bucket system consists simply of a 5-gallonplastic bucket lined with a plastic bag, with a toiletseat on top of it. Once filled, the plastic bag issealed and the bucket is hand carried and emptiedinto a haul container or sewage lagoon or some-times dumped at a convenient location. In thesecommunities, 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 oftenextremely difficult to obtain water for drinking

North slope

Northwest Arctic

Bering Straits

Yukon Kuskokwim

Tanana Chiefs

Ahtna

Other Alaskanregions

- Hauled HoneyBuckets

n Hand-carried

1

13t 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 fewhomes use honey buckets

SOURCE Jim Crum, Dirctor, Division of Sanitation Facilities, AlaskaArea Native Health Service, personal communication, Nov. 9, 1993

and sanitation in rural areas. According to recentestimates, at least 73 of the 191 Native villagescomprising the study area of this report have beenprovided piped water and sewer projects to meettheir sanitation needs (figure 1-3). Flush toiletsare also found in communities operating truckhaul and septic tank systems, which number 10and 24, respectively. Because in about 95 of the191 Native villages, piped water systems do notexist inside homes, most of the domestic waterused by residents must be hauled by hand from thecentral watering point, a water well, or a washe-teria2 in the villages. The work involved in haul-ing water, usually by means of a 5-gallon pail, isburdensome and time consuming; thus, water usein 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, and39 privy systems.

SOURCE Jim Crum, Director, Division of Sanitation Facilities, AlaskaArea Native Health Service, personal communication, Nov 9, 1993

A/most all Native villages are geographically isolated fromAlaska’s major urban centers. Access by road is virtuallyimpossible 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. Theplastic cans are placed inside the home to melt thechopped ice. Box 1-1 describes briefly some of thedifficulties encountered by Native Alaskans in ob-taining the water needed to maintain good sanita-tion and to prevent disease. More details are pre-sented in chapter 3.

The lack of adequate water supplies often in-creases the risk of disease because it reduces theability of Natives to maintain good personal hy-giene. Because epidemic waves of diseases suchas hepatitis A are expected every 15 to 20 years, agreat number of casualties might occur if propermeasures are not taken in advance. However, pre-vention of an epidemic does not seem possible un-

less communities are provided with sufficient wa-ter to ensure adequate sanitation, personalhygiene, and safer sewage handling methods. In1988, more than 70 percent of all hepatitis A casesreported throughout the State of Alaska occurredin Native villages with honey bucket systems.

MISSION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTSOF AGENCIES RESPONSIBLEFOR SANITATIONFederal participation in health care for NativeAmericans dates as far back as 1802. The formaldelineation of this responsibility, which beganwith the signing of the 1854 treaty with the RogueRiver Indians (southwest Oregon), is found todayin numerous constitutional documents, historicalevents, and statutes. Federal funding to supportIndian health care activities of the Department of


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 contin-

uous or discontinuous permafrost can be a challenging proposition.

Permafrost on the North Slope can be several hundred feet deep, effectively preventing or making ex-

tremely 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 down-

stream. 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. Prob-

lems 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 inacces-

sible 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 dis-

ease is provided in chapter 3.

SOURCE John A. Olofsson and H P Schroeder, University of Alaska Anchorage, Sanitation alternatives For Rura/Alaska, reportprepared 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 of1921.3 In 1955, the responsibility for Indianhealth care was transferred to the U.S. Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare, now the De-partment of Health and Human Services (248).

As a response to documented health problemsamong Native communities, and recognizing theneed to develop formal solutions to the waste sani-tation problem, Congress passed the Indian Sani-tation Facilities Act in 1959,4 giving the Indian

and construct water and sewerage projects in Na-tive communities. Since passage of the Act, IHShas provided water and waste sanitation servicesto more than 182,000 Native residents in the lower48 States and Alaska, and improved sanitationsystems in over 58,000 homes (248).

To further improve the health conditions ofAmerican Indian and Alaskan Natives, Congressenacted the Indian Health Care Improvement Actin 1976.5 Under this Act, IHS is responsible for,

3 2 5 uSC. ]s.

~ P.L. 86-1 21; 42 U.S.C. 2004a.525 U.S.C. 1601 cl seq.

—-

Lakes, tundra ponds, and rivers in Alaska are seeminglywithout number. Despite this abundance, it is often extreme/ydifficult for many Native villages to obtain water suitable fordrinking and sanitation purposes.

among other things, increasing the number ofhealth professionals serving Native communities,upgrading hospitals and other IHS health facilitiesincluding 172 Alaskan village clinics, and build-ing potable water and waste disposal facilities(258). As part of its efforts to improve the overallhealth of Natives, since 1960 IHS has investedmore than $350 million in the construction andupgrade of nearly 700 sanitation projects inroughly 180 Alaskan communities. Currently,IHS is carrying out the construction of 407 newsanitation projects in rural Alaska at a cost of $152million. 6

The Indian Sanitation Facilities ConstructionAct of 1959 and the Indian Health Care Improve-ment Act of 1976 limited their focus to construc-tion activities. Federal funds were not authorizedfor operation and maintenance (O&M) of the faci-lities that were built. Because Native communitieslack outside O&M funding and have poor localeconomies, many have had extreme difficultieswith proper operation and adequate maintenanceof these systems. Recognizing this deficiency,Congress amended the Indian Health Care Im-

Chapter 1: overview and Findings | 5

provement Act with the Indian Health Amend-ments of 1992,7 authorizing IHS to share up to 80percent of the costs incurred by Native communi-ties in operating, managing, and maintaining safewater and waste sanitation projects. For Nativecommunities with fewer than 1,000 residents, theAct further adds that”. . . the non-Federal portionof the costs of operating, managing, and maintain-ing such facilities may be provided, in part,through cash donations or in kind property, fairlyevaluated” (167).

IHS has not sought funds from Congress tocarry out the O&M tasks stipulated under this stat-ute because of efforts to first define the nature ofcongressional intent. Preliminary IHS estimatessuggest, however, that an annual contribution of$80 million to $120 million would be needed toimplement the mandate of the Act nationwide.Adoption of measures to comply with new wastedisposal and drinking water regulations issued bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)could further increase this amount to at least $150million annually. According to some preliminaryestimates, implementation of the 1992 IndianHealth Amendments in rural Alaska alone wouldcost about $15.1 million (122,151 ,204,206,303).

The Village Safe Water (VSW) Program withinthe Alaska Department of Environmental Con-servation (ADEC) is the principal State agency re-sponsible for improving water and sewer systemsin Alaskan communities. The VS W program has asmall staff (about 12 out of more than 450 ADECemployees). However, as of July 1993, VSW wascarrying out projects in almost 60 Native villagesthroughout rural Alaska. Other agencies with pro-grams relevant to Native communities are dis-cussed in chapter 4.

The Indian Health Service works with VSW inensuring data reliability, coordinating activities,and sometimes matching funds. When IHS andVSW 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.


should be undertaken, they cooperate on planning,design, and ultimate construction of the facility. In1993 alone, the two agencies cooperated on 17different projects.

To date, efforts by IHS and VSW have providedsafe water and adequate waste sanitation serviceto more than 300 Alaskan urban and rural commu-nities. Of the 191 rural Native village communi-ties relevant to IHS sanitation efforts, more than70 have already been provided with modern pres-surized potable water and gravity sewerage sys-tems. Twenty-six others have received septic orleach field systems, and about a dozen villages(including Galena, Bethel, Barrow, South PointLake, and Katorik) operate a truck haul system forboth potable water delivery and wastewater dis-posal. A pilot demonstration project of-a small-ve-hicle haul system is also under way in the villageof Mekoryuk. Box 1-2 briefly describes the char-acteristics of the major waste sanitation systemsused in rural Alaska. A more detailed discussionof waste sanitation technologies including theMekoryuk system is provided in chapter 5.

CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FORSANITATION FACILITIESDespite Federal and State efforts to build waterand sewer projects to date, lack of adequate sanita-tion remains a serious health problem for at least67 of the 89 Alaskan Native villages operating themost rudimentary sanitation system found in theState: the honey bucket system. Protection of pub-lic health is of particular concern because of wastespillage on streets, boardwalks, and backyardsthat occurs throughout these communities.

Providing safe water and waste sanitation sys-tems to Native villages of Alaska, however, isdifficult, expensive, and time consuming. Plan-ning and building such facilities there are moredifficult and expensive than in any other region of

the United States because of the unusual technicalconstraints (see ch. 3 and 4) that must be over-come. These constraints include limited drainage;poor soil conditions; extreme variations in tem-perature; the limited quantity and quality of water;and the high costs of electricity, fuel, and trans-portation. It is not unusual to find that IHS orVSW must delay project schedules to repair struc-tural damage caused by spring floods or winter icefloes. To avoid some delays, agencies must ordersupplies up to a year in advance from distant loca-tions, such as Seattle, to fit delivery schedules ofbarge transport.

Once a final design plan is adopted and suppliesare purchased, the pace of construction must berapid, to take advantage of the short constructionseason—3 to 4 months-typical of rural Alaska.Building sanitation facilities in rural Alaskaseems to some to rank in complexity with a war-time construction project. Fortunately, construc-tion can proceed around the clock in summer as aresult of the long days.

This fast pace is sometimes interrupted by theerratic barge schedules typical of the region andthe absence of adequate roads in most communi-ties. According to the Governor’s Sanitation TaskForce,8 a group of experts convened in January1992 to develop strategies to improve sanitationin rural Alaska, nearly 100 Native villages lackadequate roads, and at least $100 million will berequired to upgrade them. Costly construction de-lays can also be caused by the slowness and uncer-tainty of the funding process at both Federal andState levels.

Most communities naturally want the contrac-tor to employ as much local labor as possiblewhen building a new sanitation facility. Trainingthese workers and negotiating mutually accept-able wage scales, working hours, and hirin\firingpractices can sometimes delay actual construc-

8 Tle Alaska Sanitation Task Force consisted of 45 experts from 27 organizations assigned to participate in one of 12 separate workinggroups. Each group was responsible for developing issue-specific strategies to address the sanitation problem; some of these issues includedenforcement, education, utility management, operator training, research and development, housing, and subsidies (63). Although a brief w(~rk-ing document was issued in October 1992, lack of funds has precluded publication of this important report.


tion. Establishment of labor agreements to ensureemployment of local residents (generally knownas “force accounts”) has proved a useful tool in ad-dressing these concerns in many Native villages.

The opportunities provided for the IndianHealth Service to incorporate these factors satis-factorily in its efforts to deliver sanitation projectsto Native communities are limited. One of the ma-jor limiting factors is the Federal funding process.Identifying and building sanitation facilities in ru-ral Alaska represents a time-consuming task,sometimes requiring several years. Yet, becauseFederal funds must be obligated within the samefiscal year (FY) in which they are appropriated,IHS often has difficulty in allowing sufficienttime to evaluate project proposals and to involvevillage officials and residents. Further constraintsare imposed by the relatively small staff availableto IHS and VSW for this task.

One additional factor hindering IHS from de-livering sanitation technologies more rapidly toNative communities is the regulatory frameworkwithin which it functions. According to IHS,about 20 percent of the time spent by agency engi-neers on project construction is devoted to secur-ing environmental review and permits required byexisting regulations. In some cases, it has takenIHS up to 39 months to prepare all the documenta-tion needed to obtain a single construction permitfrom the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The timebetween submission of permit application andpermit approval is viewed by many as incon-gruous with conditions in rural Alaska, as well asunnecessarily costly. According to the Governor’sSanitation Task Force, additional adverse effectsare expected from the recent promulgation of Fed-eral regulations for drinking water and solid wastedisposal in Alaska.

Building new sanitation facilities in Native vil-lages will be both time consuming and costly. Ac-cording to IHS projections, providing piped sani-tation systems to all rural Native communitiesnow operating honey buckets will require severaldecades. The current projection for providing bothpiped and non-piped systems to all rural Alaskan

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

Funding an Alaska program at $125 million peryear in the future appears to be difficult to achieve,especially since IHS’S FY 1993 national appro-priated budget was only about $85 million. Al-though an additional $40 million is being current-ly provided by agencies such as VSW ($25million), EPA ($6 million), and the FarmersHome Administration (about $6 million), futurefunding appears much more problematic. A long-term budgetary commitment by IHS and otheragencies to capital construction projects in ruralAlaska remains largely undetermined.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TOINADEQUATE OPERATION ANDMAINTENANCE OF EXISTINGSANITATION FACILITIESOperation and maintenance of existing andplanned sanitation facilities were recently recog-nized by the Governor’s Sanitation Task Force asthe most vital factor in ensuring long-term projectsuccess. Under the current system, Native villagesare responsible for the operation, maintenance,and management of sanitation projects providedby Federal and State agencies.

Carrying out these responsibilities has beendifficult in many Native villages, particularlythose in which an adequate economic base doesnot exist or funds are not available. Although capi-tal funds are essential for constructing new facili-ties or repairing existing systems, the current Fed-eral—and State—system does not provide fundsto maintain the completed facilities. In the past,State agencies sometimes provided financial sup-port for the operation of secondary sewage treat-ment plants in many Native communities. Theseefforts, 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 pre-vent the water and sanitation projects already builtby IHS in small rural Native communities—as


Piped SystemsPiped 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 con-

sidered 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 con-

nected 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 SystemsAlthough 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 discharg-

ing into receiving waters.

Truck HaulConventional truck haul systems are designed primarily to collect and transport to the community’s dis-

posal area, wastewater discharged from flush toilets and stored in tanks outside the home. Under this ap-

proach, 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-


tenance of the conventional truck approach are often costlier because of the shorter useful life of haul ve-

hicles and the need to ensure road accessibility. Seven of the 10 Alaskan villages operating truck haul sys-

tems 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), Op-

portunities 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 ser-

vices to Native communities in the State,

Honey Bucket SystemAs 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 cen-

tral 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 SystemFor 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 buck-

et 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 ToiletsCertain 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 engi-

neers 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, Bar-

row, and Deeding

(continued)


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, preparedfor Cityof Selawik, Alaska, Jan 1992, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Cold Climate Utility Manual (Montreal, Canada Beaure-

gard Press Ltd , 1986), Crum, Jim, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Alaska Arctic Cornrnunity Sanitation Construction, documentpresented at the Environmental Protection Agency Cold Climate Research Seminar, Washington, DC, 1990; Crum, Jim, Director, Divi-

sion of Sanitation Facilites, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage, information provided during a briefing of Off Ice Technolo-gy Assessment staff, Aug. 3, 1993, Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Service, Co/d Climate Utilities De//very DesignManual, Report No EPS 3-WP-79-2 (Edmonton, Canada Environment Canada, March 1979), Nelson, Doug, University of AlaskaAnchorage, School of Engineering, personal communicatlon, Nov. 23 1993; John A Olofsson and H P Schroeder, Universityof Alas-ka Anchorage, Sanitation Alternatives For Rural Alaska, report prepared for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment,Washington, DC, Aug. 15, 1993

--lwell as those currently under construction—fromfailing prematurely due to inadequate mainte-nance. Figure 1-4 shows the estimated O&M costsassociated with each sanitation technology now inoperation; the total annual O&M cost for ruralAlaska—$] 5.1 million—is also shown.

Many communities have employed fund-rais-ing strategies—such as bingo, tax ordinances, anduser fees—with varying degrees of success to pro-vide operational support for sewage systems. Op-erational procedures and disconnection policieshave also been instituted by some to make surethat fees are collected. Many Native leaders ex-pect that the current difficulty in obtaining O&Mfunds can only increase as costs rise and the Stateeconomy continues to suffer. As a recent Depart-ment of Community and Regional Affairs report(43) concludes, the decline in State revenue shar-ing programs will have serious adverse economicconsequences for small Native villages becausethese represent their only available source of dis-cretionary funds.

With relatively few exceptions, the inability ofremote villages to fund a public works departmentor hire a full-time, certified water and sewerageoperator is often the result of poor local econo-mies. According to the Governor’s Sanitation

Task Force, sanitation facilities in villages withfew resources are often run by part-time operatorsor volunteers, who are generally ill-trained. As aconsequence, the level of oversight is inadequateto respond to system malfunctions.

The frequency of repair needs is expected to in-crease. Although specific cost figures do not exist,the Governor Sanitation Task Force estimated inits 1992 draft report (63) that the overall toll for re-pairing all facilities that are inoperative, or are op-erating with difficulty due to equipment malfunc -tion, will be about $750 million. Althoughcomparisons were not made between the TaskForce’s one-time cost and the total annual O&Mestimate of $15.1 million, many believe that theprompt authorization of O&M funds to IHSwould prevent unnecessary expenditures and,would reduce the $750 million figure consider-ably.

In addition to their poor economy, many Nativevillage governments seem to lack the level of lead-er-ship required to take on the administrative re-sponsibility for large, complex sanitation proj-ects. Village governments often have little interestin managing sanitation projects and subsequentlytransfer this responsibility to city managers andfacility operators who often lack the authority to


Piped Arctic

Conventional piped

Individual systems

Washeterias

Haul systems

Total O&M cost

Lo 4 8 12 16

Millions of dollars

SOURCE Jim Crum, Alaska Area Native Health Service, communica-tion with Martha Knight, Department of Housing and Urban Develop-ment, Anchorage, AK, May 7, 1993, Jim Crum, Director, Division of Sani-

tation Facilites, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage, per-sonal commumication, Nov 9, 1993, John A Olofsson and H P Schro-

eder, University of Alaska Anchorage, Sanitation Aternatives For RuralAlaska, report prepared for the Congressional Off Ice of Technology As-

sessment, Washington, D C, Aug. 15, 1993 John A Olofsson, Universi-ty of Alaska Anchorage, School of Engineering, personal communica-tion, Sept. 28, 1993, and Steve Weaver, Indian Health Service, PublicHealth Service, Rockville MD, personal communication, Jan 24, 1994

set or enforce related policies within the commu-nity. According to the Sanitation Task Force, thisdeficiency has thus far contributed to making theprotection of village residents’ health and the suc-cess of sanitation projects even more problematic.Unfortunately, Federal agencies involved withsanitation projects in rural Alaska have very fewprograms to strengthen management by local Na-tive governments; a particular exception is theIHS training program, in which technical trainingservices are provided to Natives at an annual costof about $300,000. The implementation of thisIHS program is coordinated with State trainingefforts.

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHTCONSIDERATIONS OR OPTIONSInadequate sanitation facilities in many ruralAlaskan Native villages have resulted in a highprevalence of disease caused by a limited potablewater supply and the use inefficient technologiessuch as the honey bucket system. For more thanthree decades, there has been an insistent demandfor the installation of modem, safe facilities. In re-cent years, Federal and State agencies have builtmany conventional sanitation systems in roughlyhalf the villages found in Alaska. These systemsare costly to build and operate, however, and haveunique features designed to meet the harsh envi-ronmental conditions typical of the region. Conse-quently, many villages cannot easily provide thefunding needed for proper operation and mainte-nance of these projects.

Despite the considerable cost—more than $1.3billion—and the progress made to date in buildingnew sanitation systems, over half of the 191 ruralNative villages listed in the Indian Health Servicedatabase still lack piped water and waste sanita-tion service. Addressing the sanitation needs ofthese communities will take time since thetechnologies traditionally favored-piped sys-tems—are costly and difficult to build, and facetechnical constraints not common in other areas ofthe United States. Unfortunately, the Native vil-lages in rural Alaska operating honey bucketstoday have almost no basic economy and, in manycases, a relatively limited potential for economicimprovement in the future.

Despite the increasing demand for new sanita-tion projects, the serious economic difficultiesfaced by many Native villages with existing sys-tems make it necessary to carefully evaluate theinstallation of similarly complex technologies incommunities with few economic or technical re-sources to operate them. Consequently, to addressthe waste sanitation problem in Alaska’s Nativecommunities, Congress could establish programsto:


● provide safe and healthy alternatives to honeybuckets,

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

● provide adequate support for O&M-includingtechnical, administrative, operational, and per-sonal hygiene training—to offset the opera-tional costs of sanitation systems.

| Interim Option for ImprovingSanitation Among Native Villages

Replacing honey buckets under the current systemtakes time even when the receiving communityhas a strong local economy. Time is required byFederal and State agencies to coordinate activitiesand identify available funding among relevantagencies (e.g., Housing and Urban Development,Village Safe Water, Farmer’s Home Administra-tion); to develop the community’s institutional ca-pability to operate the technology; and to build asystem that will solve the sanitation needs withinthe community’s economic reality.

Unfortunately, the majority of Native commu-nities in rural Alaska now operating honey buck-ets do not have healthy economies. They rely al-most completely on transfer payments andsubsidies to operate their programs. In fact, percapita income below the State average has been re-ported in at least half of these communities—par-ticularly in the Northwest Arctic, Bering Straits,and Yukon-Kuskokwim regions. The possible de-cline in the State’s economy might further reducethe revenue sharing funds available to these com-munities, thus rendering the continued construc-tion of conventional sanitation facilities highlyunlikely.

Better interim measures could be adopted byexisting Federal and State agencies or programs toreduce the health risk posed by honey buckets,while work to identify more affordable, innova-tive solutions continues. These interim measurescould take various forms, depending on the type ofagency program and the community’s immediateneeds. Measures might involve steps such as im-

proving existing honey bucket systems, deliver-ing existing self-contained sanitation technolo-gies where appropriate, and investing in certainpromising technology demonstration projects.The relevant Federal and State agencies couldsupport these measures and incorporate them intotheir long-term mission and programs.

Improvement of ExistingHoney Bucket Haul SystemsOne measure that could be supported immediatelyis an improvement program for the existing honeybucket haul systems still used extensively in manyNative villages. For communities in which lim-ited funds prevent the installation of a more ad-vanced technology or where such an installationis not immediately feasible, there are many oppor-tunities to improve current haul systems. Exam-ples include improvements in the design of honeybucket trailers and collection bins along withcompliance with proper operational procedures(125).

The Indian Health Service plans to continuesupporting the use of honey bucket systems in vil-lages with little economic potential to acquire andmaintain more sophisticated technologies. Im-proving the design of honey bucket systems isconsidered crucial by Indian Health Service toprotect public health in these villages and in thosefor which delivering an improved sanitation sys-tem may require several years.

In the view of IHS, new methods are needed forcollecting and transporting the waste contained inhoney buckets. Improvements to disposal systemsmight include improved lids and hauling systems,alternatives to plastic bags as honey bucket liners,freeze-resistant containers, and ways to dislodgefrozen wastes from haul containers. As the Officeof Technology Assessment (OTA) observed dur-ing site visits, hauling practices with existinghoney bucket collection bins inevitably results inspillage. Human contact with spillage on commu-nity boardwalks is also inevitable, particularly be-cause children often play there.


A honey bucket is simply a 5-gallon plastic bucket linedwith a plastic bag, with a toilet seat on top of it—sometimesthey are enclosed in a wooden box for aesthetic andventing purposes

Means to haul sewage in sealed containers bysomeone other than individual homeowners arealso needed. If a limited number of people in a vil-lage are involved with sanitary waste collectionand transport, exposure to the waste and access tothe waste repository will most likely be restrictedto a few individuals; establishment of a coordi-nated community system will require the trainingof these personnel. Provision of adequate salarieswill also be essential.

Interim solutions can give communities addi-tional time to decide on more suitable long-termsanitation options. OTA staff found during theirvisit to rural Alaska that many villages would liketo have advanced waste transport systems, but be-lieved they were not yet ready to manage them.For those communities, improved interim dispos-al systems other than honey buckets are particular-ly attractive.

IHS is currently carrying out a project with pro-totype haul trailers and waste lids in the villages ofKasigluk, Kipnuk, Napakiak, and Nunapitchuk inthe Yukon-Kuskokwim region. After thoroughtesting and evaluation of the information, this im-proved system will be provided to the nearly 30Native Alaskan communities currently operating

honey bucket haul systems. This small program,however, should not be envisioned as the solutionto the sanitation problems of rural Alaska but onlyas an interim step while these Native communitiesidentify more appropriate and affordable sanita-tion technologies. A summary of possible im-provements to the honey bucket system is shownin box 1–3.

Coordinating the development and imple-mentation of short-term measures is important. Toavoid disrupting their long-term mission, primaryagencies, such as the Indian Health Service andVillage Safe Water, could also work cooperativelywith other institutions in the development or de-livery of interim measures. Some of the institu-tions already involved that might play a largercooperative role are the University of Alaska An-chorage (research, field demonstrations, educa-tional and training programs), Alaska Science and


Plastic bags facilitate the transport and disposal of waste, butbecause wastes remain sealed, their degradation is slow,making the sewage disposal area another potential healthconcern

Technology Foundation (funding of research anddemonstration projects), regional native corpora-tions, and Alaska’s Native Health Board (technol-ogy application, institutional cooperation, andcommunity involvement). Another institution po-tentially beneficial to this effort is the FederalField-Alaska Rural Sanitation Work Group beingconvened by a congressional request to identifyand coordinate rural sanitation goals betweenFederal and State agencies.

Congressional Options for Solving theWaste Sanitation-Problems of AlaskanNatives

For more than three decades, the Federal, State,and local government health care system in ruralAlaska has focused on incrementally buildingcomplex infrastructure to provide adequate sani-tation facilities in each Native village. This em-phasis on capital construction, based on legisla-tive authorities, is viewed by some as a barrier to

the ability of IHS to support operation and mainte-nance costs and other direct operational needs.

In addition to capital construction, some be-lieve the historical preference for installing com-munity-wide piped sanitation technologies ratherthan individual, self-contained ones, has directedattention away from the testing and demonstrationof technological alternatives. In the long term, theFederal Government could evaluate the feasibilityof the following steps to eliminate the health risksassociated with honey bucket use and to improveoverall waste sanitation among Alaskan nativecommunities:

OPTION l—Authorize the establishment of a SanitationTechnology Demonstration Work Group to identify rec-ommend, and demonstrate suitable sanitation technol-ogies and improvements

While more affordable, permanent alternatives topiped sanitation systems are developed, Congresscould assist Alaskan Native villages that rely onhoney buckets by establishing a work group re-sponsible for identifying and recommending suit-able, interim sanitation improvements or technol-ogies. Such a program could be established in theIndian Health Service, the Environmental Protec-tion Agency9, or other appropriate Federal agen-cies. The work group could be composed of engi-neers from Federal and State sanitation andconstruction agencies, maintenance experts, vil-lage operators, and representatives of Native cor-porations and village leaders in communitieswhere honey buckets are still in use.

The work group could be responsible primarilyfor identifying the type of sanitation improvementmost suitable for a particular v ill age and for locat-

SI 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:yjticilitiesfur saji 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 ishome-specific rather than community-wide cm.dd support demonstration programs involving alternative technologies to conventional pipesystems. EPA is also instructed toprot!ide technical, jinancialandnranagemew assistance oj’such dernonstrationprojects (Sections 113 (a), (b),and (f); 33 U.S.C. 1263).


ing future technology demonstrations. Programsmight start with demonstration projects in a smallnumber of communities, followed by the additionof other villages as the demonstration programgrows and new technologies are developed. 1o

Areas in which the work group’s participationwould be highly beneficial to the delivery of 1ong-term Federal sanitation assistance include the fol-lowing:

m

●

m

●

m

identifying Native villages in which honeybucket systems are currently inadequate due toinappropriate equipment selection,working with State and Federal agencies to pro-mote demonstration pilot projects,disseminating the results of field tests involv-ing improvements to honey bucket systems,and educating village residents about the bene-fits of adopting such improvements while a bet-ter and more suitable technology is identifiedand installed;ensuring the commitment of local Native gov-ernments both to adopt improved honey bucketsystems, as a means of reducing the health riskof village residents and to participate activelyin efforts to identify better sanitation systems;andidentifying within a reasonable time the criterianeeded for selecting, installing, and operatingthe next level of waste sanitation service inthose communities now operating honey buck-et systems.

The IHS estimated that the cost of implement-ing a Sanitation Technology Demonstration WorkGroup in at least four Native villages would totalabout $100,000 annually. Ensuring its funding fora reasonable period of time could help project asense of stability and commitment among thework group’s participants, other State and Federalagencies, and Native community leaders and resi-dents.

OPT/ON 2—Provide operation and maintenance as-sistance to needed Alaskan Native communitiesthrough the implementation of the Indian HealthAmendments of 1992 (Section 302), or other relevantfederal statute such as the C/can Water Actor the SafeDrinking Water Act.

In the past, Federal and State agencies have notfunded direct O&M costs for the piped sanitationsystems constructed in Native Alaskan villages.At one time, State agencies supported O&M forsewerage and water utilities in many communi-ties, but this practice, although limited in extent,was virtually eliminated in 1992. As a conse-quence, communities receive only a small amountof municipal and State revenue sharing for thispurpose. These funds are insufficient to supportO&M needs, especially for the complex sanitationfacilities being operated in many villages. Today,it is not rare to find a multimillion dollar sanitationproject in need of preventive maintenance due toimproper 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 expedit-ing their application or use, particularly because Native villages continue to lack adequate resources to demonstrate alternative technologies asrequired by the Act. EPA could also assist in studying the effectiveness of alternative technologies as required in Section 517.


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 expo-

sure 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 mea-

sures should be adopted early in the planning and engineering phases to prevent this water source from be-

coming 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 im-

proved 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


Recognizing this deficiency, Congressamended the Indian Health Care ImprovementAct of 197611 by passing the Indian HealthAmendments of 1992.12 Section 302 of theAmendments authorizes the Indian Health Ser-vice to fund up to 80 percent of the costs incurredby Native villages and Indian Tribes for the opera-tion, maintenance, and management of their water

13 One re]evant aspect ‘ f ‘ h eand sewer systems.Act is that it encourages IHS to help make up thedifference, particularly in those Native communi-ties whose O&M costs exceed revenues collectedfrom user fees and taxation, so as to keep the fa-cilities in good operating condition and in com-pliance with Federal regulations. By providingNative communities with O&M funding, not onlycan premature wearing out of system compo-nents—which now appears routine—be reducedor virtually eliminated, but the installation of sani-tation technologies in communities with few re-sources for maintenance may be more feasible.

To date, no funds have been appropriated undersection 302 of the Indian Health Amendments of1992. The IHS has yet to request funds because ofstaff and budget constraints, and because of lackof guidance in the legislative intent as to how toimplement such a program. Although coverage ofthe existing level of sanitation services in ruralAlaskan Native communities is estimated to costapproximately $15 million annually, currentbudgetary priorities make funding of these activi-ties under Section 302 extremely difficult or un-likely.

IHS could, however, fund a pilot program to as-sess O&M needs in a selected number of villages,for example, 25. Funding could also be providedby other relevant Federal agency, such as EPA,with the approval of Congress. A pilot programwould require only limited initial funding andwould enable IHS and other relevant Federalagencies to determine more clearly implementa-tion plans, procedures, and total needs for futureO&M economic assistance. It could also help todevelop the criteria by which such assistancemight be extended to Native communities not in-cluded in the initial pilot program on a prioritybasis.

OPT/ON 3—Improve the level of support to technicalassistance programs as a means to ensure the properoperation and maintenance of sanitation projects inAlaska's rural Native communities

Another measure that could be adopted is to in-crease O&M technical assistance funding. ] 4 Thebulk of O&M technical assistance provided to Na-tive communities of Alaska originates with threemajor agencies: the Indian Health Service, AlaskaDepartment of Environmental Conservation(ADEC), and the Department of Community andRegional Affairs (DCRA). Whereas the majoremphasis of the IHS and ADEC programs is toprovide operators with the technical skills neededto keep their utilities operational and in com-pliance with environmental regulations, DCRAfocuses 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, thejicidoj operatlun and maintenance of weaonenr }I>orks and re/ated ac’rivities (Section 104 (g){ 1 )); and (2) Section 109 of the Clean Water whichdirects the EPA t{) make grants for training or upgrade of waste treatment works operation and maintenance personnel. Additi(mal technicalsupp)rt might also be s(mght through the Clean Water Act’s State Revolving Fund program (Sections601 -603); the Indian Envir(mmental Gen-eral 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’sTcchntcal Assistance and Training Grant Program; the Housing Community Development Act of 1974; and the recently intr(xluced Water Qual-ity Act of 1994 (H. R. 3948) and Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1993 (S. 1547).


the financial and managerial skills of utility opera-tors. In complimenting State efforts, IHS alsofunds several maintenance specialists who deliverO&M assistance and training directly to the vil-lages. Federal support is also provided through theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Initially tailored primarily to help local utilityoperators, most O&M technical assistance pro-grams have benefited the entire village by ensur-ing proper operation of sanitation projects, ade-quate response to emergencies, and minimizationof the adverse effects associated with operatorturnover. IHS is currently investing more than$300,000 in technical training services annually;however, this amount is insufficient to supportO&M technical assistance to the increasing num-ber of villages that need such support (83,177,219)

To ensure the availability of this additionaltechnical assistance and to prevent the prematuredeterioration of existing sanitation projects in ru-ral Alaskan villages, Congress could:

m

B

●

increase the level of non-construction fundsavailable to Federal agencies such as EPA andIHS for training facility operators and provid-ing O&M technical assistance to Native vil-lages;provide EPA and IHS with the necessary fundsto coordinate and support State O&M technicalassistance programs, such as ADEC’S RemoteMaintenance Worker Program and Local Util-ity Matching Program and DCRA’S Rural Util-ity Business Advisor Program, as a means offurther ensuring proper and safe operation ofsanitation projects in rural Alaska; andincrease the level of funding available to Feder-al agencies such as IHS to address emergencysituations relating to sanitation facilities.

OPTION 4—Establish a research, development, anddemonstration program for innovative sanitationtechnologies

Technology selection decisions to date have beenhindered by a capital planning process that fo-cuses on adapting conventional sanitationtechnologies to a generally unconventional envi-ronment, rather than finding novel and appropri-ate solutions. The current technology selectionprocess does not allow for a comparison of ap-proaches based on total life cycle costs and poten-tial savings to the communities. Only minimal at-tempts have been made to formally incorporateexisting alternative sanitation systems into thetechnology selection process currently in place.

Many conditions in Alaska’s Native villages(i.e., inadequate water supply, poor soil drainage,permafrost, unacceptable topography, high sea-sonal flooding potential, and weak local econo-mies) appear to favor the application of less costlyand complex approaches than piped sanitationsystems. However, to date, few alternative meth-ods have benefited from field demonstration teststo determine their actual performance in cold cli-mate regions. Consequently, adopting alternativetechnologies without first exploring the factorsthat will make their application in Alaskan Nativevillages successful appears subject to failure.

Development of a more comprehensivetechnology evaluation and selection approach ca-pable of supporting demonstration, applied re-search, and application of innovative technologiesis still needed. Congress could facilitate the re-search, development, and demonstration of inno-vative sanitation technologies by taking the fol-lowing steps:


● Directing the Environmental ProtectionAgency, Indian Health Service, or another ap-propriate Federal agency to:

a. establish a program for research, develop-

b.

c.

ment, and demonstration (RD&D) of inno-vative sanitation technologies consideredpotentially appropriate for application inArctic regions, such as rural Alaska;15

advocate the application of those innovativetechnologies successfully demonstrated un-der the RD&D program; andsupport the establishment of a forum inwhich cooperative technology research anddemonstration activities are carried out withthe participation of, among others, Nativecommunities and national and internationalprograms or institutions (e.g., the Universityof Alaska, Alaska Science and TechnologyFoundation, U.S. Army’s Cold Regions Re-search Engineering Laboratory, NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, Na-tional Academy of Sciences’ Polar ResearchBoard, and National Science Foundation).

■ Providing the Environmental ProtectionAgency, Indian Health Service, or the Federalagency under which an RD&D program is es-tablished, with the necessary funds to success-fully carry out the program’s objectives. Addi-tional funds might subsequently be sought by

requiring other Federal agencies with programsrelevant to Native villages to identify funds orfunding opportunities that could be utilized tosupport the RD&D program.Establishing a technology advisory group orcommission to further enhance and support theRD&D program and policies. Composed oftechnology experts from state, national, inter-national, and Native governments, as well asprivate organizations, the advisory group couldbe beneficial to the agency responsible for theRD&D program in the identification of, for ex-ample, priorities and opportunities for researchand development.Funding, as part of the RD&D program andthrough a Federal research agency, research andfield demonstrations of potentially beneficialengineering systems or concepts that requiresubstantial RD&D before they can be consid-ered for application in Native village homes.One example of this type of system is the Ant-arctica Analog Project

16 king developed and

tested by NASA and the National ScienceFoundation for use at the South Pole station.

Option 5-Hold oversight hearings on the report onsanitation issues, problems, and solutions to be sub-mitted to the Congress by the Federal Field Work Groupled 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 %en-cies, 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 carryingout 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 (Sec-tion 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 soilcondiriun.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 (Secfion105 (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..


Although their ideal is to someday have piped sanitation systems in their homes, many Native leaders, in meetings with OTAstaff, recognize that this might be economically prohibitive and call for the development of more affordable sanitationalternatives

periodic oversight hearings to review plans and pr-ograms adopted by federal agencies to implement thereport's recommendations.

Problems surrounding sanitation in rural Alas-ka are complex, and their successful eliminationoften demands participation by Federal and Stateagencies. In addition to the Indian Health Serviceand its State counterpart, Village Safe Water, vari-ous Federal and State agencies implement pro-grams that are relevant to Alaskan Native commu-nities. And even though individual agencymissions are pursued with vigor and dedication bygenerally well-qualified and motivated staff, theredoes not appear to be an overarching rural villagepolicy to coordinate all these agency functions.

Several encouraging efforts by Federal andState agencies to identify better methods for moreeffectively implementing their programs in ruralAlaskan Native villages are now under way. Of

great significance is the Federal Field-Alaska Ru-ral Sanitation Work Group convened under con-gressional mandate to prepare, under the leader-ship of the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency17 (253), a report identifying means to im-prove the coordination of policies and programsamong Federal agencies.

18 The participation of

State and Native agencies and organizations in theWork Group is also considered highly beneficial.

Starting in May 1993, and building on the workof the Governor’s Rural Sanitation Task Force, theFederal Work Group delineated three major tasks:1) to examine the status of water and waste sanita-tion projects in operation in rural Alaska; 2) toevaluate all agency programs responsible for de-livering sanitation services to Native communi-ties; and 3) to identify barriers that may still im-pede relevant agencies from providing adequatesanitation 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 Admin-istration, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Indian Health Service, Natifmal

(leearmgraphic and Atmospheric Administration, and Soil Conservation Service.


its interim report of January 1994, the WorkGroup identified several possible recommenda-tions for congressional action (253).19

Although the Federal Field-Alaska Rural Sani-tation Work Group report identifies opportunitiesfor policy coordination among Federal agencies,the actual level of commitment and support byeach agency to the report’s recommendations isstill unclear. Prior to directing each Federalagency to implement the relevant recommenda-tions of the report, congressional oversight hear-ings could be held to provide relevant agencieswith opportunities to inform the Congress about:

m

■

■

■

the process used for gathering and evaluatingdata, and for formulating the recommendationsset forth in the final Work Group report affect-ing each particular agency;the time and type of resources that would beneeded by each particular agency to carry outthe recommendations of the Work Group re-port;the opportunities for enhancing the agency’smission in case a particular agency cannot carryout a given recommendation because of limitedauthority; andthe time within which updates on the progressmade in implementing of the Work Group’srecommendations should be submitted to Con-gress and published.

Periodic oversight hearings could be then held inthe future to review the plans and programsadopted by relevant Federal agencies to imple-ment the recommendations reported by the Feder-al Field Work Group.

CONCLUSIONApproximately 20,000 of the estimated 86,000Natives living in rural Alaska do not have runningwater in their homes and use plastic buckets-eu-

phemistically called ‘*honey buckets’ ’—for toi-lets. As a result of this inadequate sanitationtechnology, the outbreak of diseases (e.g., hepati-tis A, impetigo, and sometimes meningitis) is fre-quent among Native villages that employ this sys-tem.

To eliminate the prevalence of disease resultingfrom a limited potable water supply and the use ofhoney buckets, Federal and State agencies havebuilt sanitation systems capable of withstandingthe harsh environmental conditions typical of theregion. Because Federal and State agencies fundonly capital construction, most Native villagesface serious difficulties in raising the fundsneeded for proper operation and maintenance ofthese facilities. The only direct source of fundingto Natives for O&M expenses is municipal andState revenue sharing—minimal funding that isnot always available. As a result, it is not uncom-mon to find a multi million dollar sanitation proj-ect in rural Alaska in need of preventive mainte-nance.

Despite the considerable progress made to date,nearly half of the 191 Native villages identified byIHS continue to have inadequate sanitation. Be-cause of the inability of many Native villages inwhich piped systems have already been built toprovide proper O&M, serious concerns are beingraised about installing similar sanitation technol-ogies in the remaining communities—-the major-ity of which have few economic and technical re-sources, as well as a limited potential foreconomic development. Under existing practices,however, the responsible Federal agencies couldcontinue to implement inappropriate remedies.

OTA’s analysis supports the need to adopt bothshort- and long-term measures to provide ade-quate sanitation and thus improve the health andwell-being of tens of thousands of Alaska Nativesliving 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) increasingthe 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(msingand Communlly De\ ch)pnwnt Act t)f 1974 to suppm sanitation activities in rural Alaska.


existing honey bucket systems could be made saf-er and more effective, and the O&M support re-quired could be provided. In the long-term, the de-velopment and application of more cost-effectivealternatives could be supported through a directedresearch and development program. OTA haspresented the following actions that Congress andthe Administration could take: 1 ) improve exist-ing honey bucket haul systems while better alter-natives are identified or developed; 2) provideO&M funds for special cases in which villagescannot ensure proper operation of sanitation proj-ects; 3) provide additional funds to expand the

current O&M technical assistance program so asto prevent premature deterioration of the sanita-tion facilities now in operation; and 4) establish acomprehensive Federal research, development,and testing program for innovative sanitationtechnologies. To ensure that these steps are coor-dinated effectively, Congress could hold over-sight hearings on the report requested from theFederal Field-Alaska Rural Sanitation WorkGroup, and could direct Federal agencies to adoptthe report recommendations as a means of coor-dinating more effectively their functions and ac-tivities relating to Native villages in rural Alaska.

AlaskanNative Villages

and TheirSanitationProblems 2

GEOGRAPHIC SETTlNGAlaska sweeps across approximately 30 degrees of longitude andcovers a total of almost 600,000 square miles. It is the largestState of the United States and is approximately 2.2 times the sizeof Texas. If Alaska were placed as an overlay on the lower 48,with the western end of the Aleutians matching the southernCalifornia coast, Barrow would be found at the U.S.-Canadianborder in Minnesota, and the tip of the southeast panhandle wouldbe found near Charleston, South Carolina (figure 2-1 ). The vast-ness of this envelope, which is virtually devoid of roads, in-fluences almost every aspect of life in the State.

Diversity is a hallmark of the Alaskan environment, as well asof its people. It has abundant examples of Arctic deserts, northernrain and timber forests, treeless tundra, swamps, and wetlands. Ithas sand dunes east of Kotzebue, ice fields and glaciers that arelarger than some States, the highest mountains in North America,and broad expanses of lowlands. Considerable effort has been de-voted to identify and classify the geographical wealth of Alaskatechnical y; for the purpose of this report, however, only four gen-eral areas are arbitrarily considered: southwestern Alaska, west-ern Alaska or the Bering seacoast region, interior Alaska, andthe Arctic region.

Southwestern Alaska includes the Alaska Peninsula and thelengthy sweep of the Aleutian Islands, which reach out to the Ori-ent. Of all four regions considered here, southwestern Alaska of-fers the most startling contrasts, ranging from the lightly woodedhillsides and rugged mountains of the Alaska Peninsula, to thebarren, treeless volcanic Aleutian Islands. It also includes the Yu-kon-Kuskokwim Delta, a geography of meandering rivers anda scattered population dominated by Alaskan Natives. The large |23

24 I An A

laskan Challenge: N

ative Village Sanitation

T-)x

,,

) \

\,

"

""" ; : ...

FIGURE 2-1 : Comparison of Alaska's Surface Area With That of the Lower 48 States

, c/

.. ~.

\\ \",

\ \j

SOURCE John A, Oiofsson and H, P Schroeder. University of Alaska Anchorage. Sanitation Alternatives For Aural Alaska. report prepared for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment,

Washington. DC, Aug. 15.1993.

Chapter 2: Alaskan Native Villages and Their Sanitation Problems | 25

majority of Native villages located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim region are characterized by severepoverty and inadequate sanitation conditions—the latter being the major focus of this report. Box2-1 briefly describes some of the historical char-acteristics of the Native groups who settled in thisregion.

Western Alaska, also referred to as the Beringseacoast region, stretches from Bristol Bay in thesouth to Norton Sound and the Bering Straits inthe north. It is a typically cool, rainy, and foggyarea, with summer temperatures of 50 to 70 ‘Fand winter temperatures hovering around O ‘F.The significant and sudden changes in ambienttemperature caused by the strong local winds gen-erally render this region dangerous for the unpre-pared.

Much of the Bering seacoast is virtually tree-less tundra with underlying areas of continuousand discontinuous permafrost. It also contains un-counted thousands of small lakes, tundra ponds,and rivers that are wide, shallow, and of very lowflow velocity. Low-lying areas and their commu-nities are subject to annual flooding caused pri-marily by low relief and ice jamming duringspring breakup. Most local residents often seem toendure this condition as an inevitable feature oflife, and even though some have moved to higherground, a large number still refuse to relocate.Poor sanitation conditions continue to be foundamong many Western Alaska Native villages.

The Interior Region of Alaska lies betweenthe Alaska Range north of Anchorage and theBrooks Range in the far north. The ContinentalDivide extends east-west through the BrooksRange, ending at the Chukchi Sea on the ArcticCoast. The region contains the upper reaches ofthe Yukon, Kuskokwim, and Tanana rivers, al-though the headwaters of the first two are founddeep in the Northwest Territory of Canada. TheYukon is the longest river in Alaska, with a totallength of some 1,875 miles.

Temperatures in the interior region often dropto -60 ‘F in winter, producing ice fog that hoverspersistently over frigid communities in mercifullystill air. Although winters are cold, summers can

be hot, with temperatures commonly in the 90s.Although rainfall may only average about 12inches annually, snowfall can reach 10 feet orhigher. Because of the prolonged low winter tem-peratures, snow tends to be finely divided, fluffy,and easily drifted. Winter melting and loss ofsnow through sublimation are insignificant, andan entire winter’s snowfall is usually preserveduntil spring. Fairbanks, with a population of32,000 people, which makes it the second largestcity in Alaska, is in the heart of the interior region.

The Arctic region extends from the southernlimits of the Brooks Range, which forms a9,000-foot barrier between the interior and theNorth Slope. It extends from Kotzebue, just northof the Seward Peninsula, eastward to the Canadianborder. The North Slope, which is some 750 mileslong from east to west, and about 250 miles wide,consists of vast areas of rolling uplands, moun-tains, and extensive coastal plains that stretchnorthward toward the Arctic Ocean. Trees are ab-sent from the entire Arctic Slope region, exceptfor occasional thickets of alders, willow, and Arc-tic or resin birch, which can be found mostly inriver valleys.

The Arctic region is characterized by Sum-mer’s midnight sun and sunless winters. Lowwinter temperatures are moderated by prevailingnortherly winds. For example, the average Julytemperature at Barrow is 40 oF, whereas the aver-age January temperature is -17 oF. A total annualprecipitation of some 5 inches renders the area adesert. A historical perspective of the Natives whosettled in the Arctic is presented in box 2-1.

The Arctic Slope is where the oil is. Vast depos-its of petroleum were discovered in the vicinity ofPrudhoe Bay during the late 1960s, along withequally vast deposits of natural gas. The PrudhoeBay oil fields lie alongside the Sagvanirktok Riv-er Delta, about 70 miles west of the Arctic Nation-al Wildlife Refuge. These resources have madethe North Slope and its few communities some ofthe wealthiest in the State.


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 be-

tween 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 PeopleThe 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 dis-

tinct 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 har-

poons 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 de-

gree.

Warfare was a well-developed practice among the Natives of southeast Alaska. Strife was usually di-

rected 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 PeopleThe Athapaskan Indians occupied a vast expanse of inland Alaska stretching from the Arctic and sub-

arctic 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 subsis-

tence.

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,


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 them-

selves 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 PeopleThe Aleuts, Iike other Alaska Natives, adapted themselves superbly to Iife in the unique marine archipe-

Iagic 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 domi-

nated 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 PeopleThe 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, con-

trary 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)


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, re-port prepared for the Congressional Off Ice of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, August 15, 1993

MODERN ALASKA AND EMERGENCEOF NATIVE CORPORATIONSThe five most distinct cultural groups found inAlaska are the Inupiat (Northern Eskimo), Yupik(Southern Eskimo), Aleuts, Athapaskans, andIndians (Tlingit, Tsimpsian, and Haida) (figure2–2). Throughout most of their history, these in-digenous cultures were affected by the climate andgeographic characteristics of the region in whichthey settled. Western contact, which intensifiedthroughout the 20th century, brought about socialand cultural changes that were rapid, extensive,and difficult for many of these groups to assimi-late.

By the mid- 1900s, the last of the hunters andfishermen had abandoned their nomadic ways oflife. Fur trading was usually the entry activity forAlaska Natives into a cash economy. Seasonalwage-paying jobs subsequently became morecommonplace. Although nomadic ways weregenerally abandoned, and “village” lifestylesadopted, many villagers continued to depend onseasonal subsistence hunting and fishing. Thistradition continues, and in fact is growing in someareas, as Native peoples select a modified tradi-tional or “subsistence” lifestyle as a compromisewith truly Western living.

Originally, the introduction of Western dis-eases wrought havoc among susceptible Native

populations. As the effects of diseases subsidedduring the first half of the 20th century, they werereplaced by a full range of social problems. Theseincluded alcoholism, physical abuse, suicide,sexually transmitted diseases, and lately, drug andsubstance abuse. The aboriginal population,which was estimated to be approximately 80,000a few years earlier, had declined to a low of 25,000by 1909.

During the most recent period, two separateand seemingly conflicting movements haveemerged among A1aska Natives. One is led bymore “assimilated” Natives who are working toadminister land and financial resources under thecorporate structure mandated by the Alaska Na-tive Claims Settlement Act of 1971. ] The secondmovement began with the more traditional Na-tives who are seeking to protect their land base andtheir hunting and fishing lifestyle, as well as to ob-tain greater control and autonomy over communi-ty life. These movements seem to be advocatingcontradictory “modem” or “traditional” lifestyles.The land claims and tribal movements are dis-cussed in detail in appendix A.

Life in Alaskan villages began to take its cur-rent shape by the 1950s. By this time the last of thetruly nomadic groups had settled into permanentcommunities. This ended the transformation thatbegan with the establishment of fur trading cen-

1 P.L. 92-203, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 STAT. 688 (Title 43, 1601- 1624).


ters, government and missionary schools, andother centers of Western influence. The processwas begun by the Russians in the 1780s and ad-vanced by Americans a century later after the pur-chase of Alaska. Inupiat hunters of the northeast-ern portion of Alaska were the last of theindigenous people to abandon nomadic lifestyles.New village communities were generally estab-lished on sites previous] y occupied as semiperma-nent camps.

Mechanized means of all-terrain travel and theavailability of firearms increased the land areaavailable for harvesting fish, berries, and game,making possible the establishment of permanentsettlements. There was no longer a need to travelto the resources on foot or by dogsled when theycould be easily reached by snowmobile and four-wheeler. The understandable result is an increasein population density, and a decrease in the intrin-sic worth of traditional hunting, fishing, and“country” living skills. A diminished sense ofself-value was also created because not every onewas needed as a provider. Many social and emo-tional problems have resulted from these changes.

By 1960, approximately 70 percent of the totalAlaskan Native population, numbering about53,000 individuals, was living in some 178 vil-lages of predominantly Native inhabitants. Thesevillages were scattered across the 600,000 squaremiles of Alaska and ranged in size from 25 to2,500 residents. An additional 50 locations wereoccupied by fewer than 25 inhabitants, usually in-cluding one or a few Native families. Only sixcommunities that were predominantly Native hadpopulations of more than 1,000. The median vil-lage population was 155, with larger communitiesserving as regional centers—now sometimes re-ferred to as service centers or air hubs. In westernAlaska, these hubs are Bethel, Dillingham,McGrath, Galena, Nome, and Kotzebue.

The remainder of the Native population lived incommunities that were predominantly non-Native. The non-Native communities were oftenestablished in areas that had traditionally been in-habited by Natives. In the 1950s the migration ofNatives from villages in Alaska to urban centersbegan, and it continues today. An estimated

16,000 Natives now live in Alaska’s urban cen-ters.

Anchorage is sometimes referred to as the larg-est Native village in Alaska because of its esti-mated population of some 10,000 Native resi-dents. This can be misleading because of the highdegree of seasonal migration among the urban Na-tive population. Many urban Native people returnto their village seasonally to participate in harvest-ing activities, such as fishing, whaling, berrying,and hunting, and in this way they preserve ele-ments of a traditional way of living.

Almost all Native villages are geographicallyisolated from major urban centers. Virtually inac-cessible by land during the warmer part of the yeardue to extensive wetlands, their primary means ofextended travel is by air. Overland winter travel issomewhat easier but hazardous, as is travel on riv-ers, whether frozen or not. Fewer than a dozenvillages are accessible on Alaska’s limited roadsystem. Access to the majority of the villages isavailable by airplane, boat, snowmobile, ordogsled. In the last decade, the Alaska Ferry Sys-tem (the Marine Highway) has been expanded toinclude several villages in southeastern and south-west Alaska. It is helpful to keep in mind that evenJuneau, the capital of Alaska, is not directly acces-sible by road and is frequently unreachable by air-plane due to poor weather.

Communication with the villages is generallyby mail, radio, or telephone (since the 1970s), andmore recently through the use of communicationsatellite. Television is available in most villagesthrough the Rural Alaska Television Network,bringing full exposure to world events and enter-tainment to the most remote parts of the State.

Alaskan aboriginal hunting and gatheringeconomies of the past were independent, autono-mous, and truly of the subsistence type—meaninga dependence on traditional activities for 1iving offthe land. Modem subsistence hunters and fisher-men now require cash to purchase tools, equip-ment, and supplies. Items such as snowmobiles,outboard motors, fuel, rifles, and ammunitionhave improved the efficiency of subsistence pro-ductivity and have altered many traditional sub-sistence harvest methods. The elevated level of


productivity has resulted in a better standard ofliving, a greater capacity to support one’s family,increasing village populations, and hence, an in-duced need to sustain the higher level of produc-tivity. High levels of subsistence productivity arepossible only with the increased productivity en-abled by cash-purchased goods. In this way, Na-tives have become wedded to cash economies forgoods that cannot be manufactured by village re-sources alone. Today, the term “subsistence” hasbeen adapted to include the mixed economy oftrue subsistence and cash-based pursuits.

The current nature of the village economy inAlaska is a blend of subsistence and cash, some-times with a preferred emphasis on subsistence.Cash is infused into the subsistence-based econo-my from wage employment, the sale of goods pro-duced through subsistence activities, and transferpayments from various governmental sources.

Members of the traditional social groups or ex-tended families will often alternate among them-selves between various subsistence activities andwage-paying jobs to ensure that their needs aremet. It is not unusual for a wage-earning individu-al in a village to simply not perform cash work forseveral days or weeks during the salmon or cari-bou migration. For Alaskan Natives, this is con-sidered a balanced approach that satisfies both thesubsistence need and the need for cash. (Consider-ation of a village’s subsistence practices by Feder-al and State agencies planning to use the locallabor force to build sanitation projects can oftenhelp to avoid costly construction delay s.)

This attitude is not unusual in indigenous soci-eties elsewhere in the world where cash is not aprimary motivator. For Alaskan Natives, survival(subsistence off the land) has historically been amatter of living through long winters. As in thepast, it is still possible to live off the land. Butgathering the stores of food needed to survive thelong winter without cash may prove difficult forthose Natives grown accustomed to purchasingbullets, fuel, nets, and snowmobiles. Even today,this stark reality is made apparent to non-Nativevisitors in remote Alaska when travel in the“bush” is forcibly interrupted by weather and oth-er natural phenomena. Most prudent winter travel-

ers, even those driving along the highway betweenAnchorage and Fairbanks, will carry the food andshelter needed to survive a day or two of forceddelay.

Certain village members will often contributecash, or purchase supplies and equipment for thehunters, in exchange for a share of the subsistenceharvest. The elderly do this by contributions ofvarious longevity transfer payments and therebysupport the subsistence lifestyle. In addition, artsand crafts production for sale in the cities and tolocal visitors is another source of cash to supportsubsistence pursuits.

Cash also circulates through the subsistenceeconomy as compensation for special skills andservices such as sewing, beading, and preparationof traditional artifacts for ceremonial uses. [ind-ividuals may also receive cash as a ceremonial giftin rituals such as the Tlingit and Athapaskan pot-Iatch.

In almost all cases, kinship will dictate mem-bership in a subsistence lifestyle production unit.Generally, households or extended family mem-bers comprise the basic production unit. Thesewill often join forces with other such units to formlarger groups in the communal pursuits requiredfor hunting bowhead whales, walrus, and belugawhales. It is not unusual for family members liv-ing in the cities or even “outside” Alaska to returnto the village family in order to participate in sea-sonal subsistence activities.

The cash economy of a typical rural Alaskanvillage is dependent largely on the public ratherthan the private sector. This is likely to be true intothe foreseeable future due to the tradition of thepeople, their desires, the harshness of the climate,and the utter absence of any potential local econo-my in many village locations. In most rural com-munities, local, State, and Federal Governmentexpenditures account for fully two-thirds of allearned cash income, the private sector being re-sponsible for the remaining third. The reverse sit-uation characterizes urban Alaska.

Village residents have a per capita income thatis considerably lower than that of other Alaskans.The average per capita income for all Alaska is onthe order of $18,000 to $20,000, whereas the aver-

age per capitawhat less than

Chapter 2: Alaskan

income of rural residents is some-half of this amount. For Native vil-

lagers who live outside of regional centers (i.e.,hubs and service centers), the average annual percapita income is about $6,000. Most villagers alsoreceive welfare payments (a part of this income)that are about four times that of the average urbanAlaskan recipient.

Village economies are dependent on a subsis-tence-based lifestyle and governmental support,and therefore are fundamental] y different from ur-ban economies. They are extremely sensitive togovernmental actions. For instance, decisions torestrict hunting and fishing or to reduce gover-nment payments may not affect city dwellers, butthese actions can have a severe impact on rural vil-lage economies. Among the most essentialneeds-one that is frequently unavailable to Na-tive villages because of their limited economies—is adequate sanitation.

SANITATION IN NATIVE COMMUNITIESOF RURAL ALASKA

The type of sanitary waste disposal in rural Alas-ka often varies among native villages; however,the honey bucket system remains the most wide-spread and least protective of human health innorthwest Alaska and the Yukon -KuskokwimDelta.

The level of sophistication of sanitary wastedisposal systems in remote Alaska varies amongthe 191 Native village communities identified bythe Indian Health Service (IHS) for sanitation pur-poses2. As of April 1994, only 102 of these com-munities were being provided some form of pipedsewer service (conventional, circulating, vacuum,gravity, etc.) with flush toilets. In the remaining89 communities a crude honey bucket is the only

Native Villages and Their Sanitation Problems | 31

sanitation system in operation (figure 2–2).3 Thisleads to a high risk of exposure to human waste,poor hygiene, and widespread incidence of dis-ease.

Nearly 20,000 Natives, or about 3.6 percent ofthe State’s entire population, live in these 89 com-munities that operate only honey buckets. Ac-cording to II-IS, about 55 of the 89 rural communi-ties, with an estimated population of 8,300 AlaskaNatives, have high disease exposure risk becausethey operate honey bucket systems that require theusers to carry untreated wastes to a sewage pond,bunker, or simple privy behind their homes. Less-er risks of human contamination and disease fromexposure to human waste appear to exist, IHS offi-cials believe, at the remaining 34 of the 89 Nativevillages that operate honey buckets because wasteis hauled from each house by a truck or all-terrainvehicle. Honey buckets continue to be the mostrudimentary sanitation technology in use today byrural Alaska Natives.

Use of a truck-operated system for removinghoney bucket wastes is not always a reliable healthprotection measure. In fact, the management andoperation of honey bucket haul systems have beenfound to vary from village to village: from effi-ciently operated, well-managed systems, to thosein which honey bucket waste is often spilled onstreets, boardwalks, or backyards throughout thecommunity. Under the worst-case conditions, thepotential for Natives to contract hepatitis A andother diseases is unacceptably high. Such condi-tions also have a serious effect on village aesthet-ics and quality of life. About 200,000 physician-patient encounters per year were recently reportedin the Yukon -Kuskokwim Delta alone (304). Suchstatistics help support the impression that currentsanitation conditions in many villages of Alaskaare no better than those found in developing na-

2 A conslcierably higher number of villages are listed in other databases, for example, 317 by the Alaska Department of EnvirtmmentalC(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, (wsometimes merely any convenient location.


●

I?’

Chapter 2: Alaskan Native Villages and Their Sanitation Problems 133

Piped water systems do not exist inside homes in villagesthat operate honey bucket systems. As a consequence,drinking water must be hauled by hand from a central publicwatering point

tions. Table 2-1 shows the total number of cases ofhepatitis A reported in Alaska for 1987 to 1992.The number of reported cases per individual Na-tive village is listed in appendix B.

Current plans are to replace honey buckets withpiped sanitation systems in 10 of the 89 IHS-listedvillages. If completed, this will reduce the Nativepopulation that depends on this rudimentary sani-tation technology from nearly 20,000 to about16,000. However, most Native villages have littleor no local economy and must obtain external fi-nancial assistance to build the advanced but costlysanitation technology (i.e., conventional pipedsystems) traditionally favored by Federal andState agencies. Federal and State agencies havenot formally supported the development of alter-native sanitation technologies that may be moreaffordable than conventional piped systems.

9 Health Epidemics and SanitationServices

The outbreak of epidemics repeatedly experi-enced by Alaska natives is primarily the result ofpoor hygienic conditions caused by inadequatesanitation services.

Throughout rural Alaska, but particular] yin thewestern, southwestern (mostly the Yukon-Kus-kokwim Delta), and parts of the Arctic regions,the outbreak of disease is commonly a result of ex-posure to human waste and deficient personal hy-giene. These conditions range from chronic in-fluenza-like symptoms to hepatitis and entericdiseases. Endemic enteric diseases are certainlycaused by habitual contact with human waste.Contact occurs on an individual basis, as a matterof casual contact between individuals, particular-ly through changing diapers or children playing,contact with waste in the open environment, andinadequately protected disposal areas. Because ofthe spillage of human waste that occurs on com-munity roads and boardwalks during its trans-portation to the disposal site or lagoon, the expo-sure of residents, particularly children, isfrequent.


Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Cases 241 596 643 190 96 130

SOURCE John A Olofsson and H P Schroeder, University of AlaskaAnchorage, Sanitation Alternatives For Rural Alaska, report preparedfor the Congressional Off Ice of Technology Assessment, Washington,

DC, Aug. 15, 1993

Although the majority of rural Native villagesin these regions are provided potable water at acentral location, the residents’ inability to truckwater to their homes limits the amount of waterthat could or should be available for hand washingand personal hygiene. This, in turn, increases therisk that individuals, especially children, have ofcontracting diseases from exposure to humanwaste.

The outbreak of epidemics of otherwise com-monly preventable diseases such as hepatitis A,hepatitis B, bronchitis, serious ear infection (otitismedia), impetigo, and meningitis in remote Alas-kan communities is often attributed to poor sani-tary facilities (300). In fact, virtually all sanitationimprovement projects for Native villages cite thefrequency of disease outbreaks as a major factorjustifying the need for such projects.

As part of this Office of Technology Assess-ment (OTA) study,4 the 1988 outbreak of hepatitisA was examined to determine the correlation be-tween the level of sewer service and the incidenceof disease. Although the spread of this disease isoften caused by close contact and person-to-per-son transmission, as opposed to transmissionfrom the environment directly to the individual,OTA’s evaluation showed, as have many similarstudies, that the prevalent cause in most epidemiccases of enteric diseases among rural Native vil-lages is a lack of running water to practice goodsanitation and maintain good personal hygiene(wash, flush toilets, etc.).

In communities where water is hauled from awatering point, the predominant method of dis-

posal is usually the honey bucket. This conclusionhas been supported by previous studies (204) thatcorrelated water supply and sewage systems withthe incidence of preventable disease. In fact,OTA’s brief evaluation of epidemiological datashows that throughout the State of Alaska, Nativevillages with honey bucket systems accounted for72 percent (218 of 301) of the reported cases ofhepatitis A in 1988.

Hepatitis A and B cases are most widespread inthe Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region of south-western Alaska. There, the rate of incidence ofhepatitis A and B is, according to local publichealth experts, one the highest in the UnitedStates. Nearly 2,000 people in the region, mostlychildren, were affected in the last hepatitis out-break that occurred in the mid- 1980s, whereas thenumber of cases in areas with adequate water andsewerage was minimal (173). Reviews of the 1988hepatitis A outbreak data show that village mem-bers of the Calista Regional Corp. in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta accounted for almost half (46percent) of the cases reported throughout Alaskathat year. Because epidemic waves of these dis-eases are expected every 15 to 20 years, a greaternumber of casualties may result in the future ifproper sanitation measures are not taken in ad-vance. However, prevention of an epidemic doesnot seem possible unless communities are pro-vided with sufficient water to practice good sani-tation and more adequate means of handling hu-man sewage than the 5-gallon plastic container,euphemistically called a honey bucket, now pro-vides.

| Categories of Sanitation ConditionsThe Village Safe Water (VSW) program of the

Alaska Department of Environmental Conserva-tion is the State agency with primary jurisdictionover sanitation planning and construction issuesassociated with Native villages. As part of its re-sponsibilities, the VSW has established five lev-

4 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.


els of service to categorize the different methodsused by Native communities to dispose of humansewage.

Level a represents the most rudimentary ser-vice and consists principally of the use of pit toi-lets, privies, and honey buckets. Unlike pit toiletsand privies where use and disposal are closely re-lated, proper operation of honey buckets requiresthat residents carry the accumulated wastes out ofthe house to a disposal site away from the commu-nity. More frequently, however, one finds thathoney buckets either are emptied on the ground inthe immediate vicinity of the residence or carriedto nearby pit bunkers by residents of individualhouseholds. Alternatively, they are emptied inother convenient locations, including frozen riv-ers, the ocean, tidal plains, tundra ponds, and sew-age lagoons. The rural Native villages currentlyoperating honey bucket systems in Alaska as theironly sanitation technology are shown in figure2–2 and listed in appendix C.

Level b sanitary waste disposal service pro-vides for the hauling of honey bucket wastes by acommunity employee. Individual residents inthese communities haul the waste from their re-spective households to central collection pointsknown as honey bucket bins. There are more than800 black plastic bins in use today. When filled,the bins are hauled to the community sewage la-goon by snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or truck.Although truck haul represents an improvementover level a sanitation, the inadequate design ofcertain system components (e.g., lids, trailers, andbins) means that some village residents come incontact with the waste.

In some villages operating levels a and b sys-tems the health risks are lower than others. For ex-ample, in the coastal areas of southeast Alaska,small villages might dispose of honey bucketwaste directly in the ocean. Although environ-mental damage is possible, if the populations aresmall enough the amount of waste disposed in thismanner may cause little environmental harm andhave little impact on public health. However, im-proved sanitation services will be needed as thesize of these communities increases.

Bagged human wastes are sometimes stored temporarily at aconvenient location, perhaps adjacent to the home, prior totheir disposal,

Level c encompasses systems with flush toi-lets, holding tanks for collecting waste, and haul-ing of wastes to a disposal area by a truck service.Sewage collection tanks can be either large insu-lated tanks located outside the residence or small-er containers located inside the home. The tanksare emptied periodically by a pump or vacuumcollection vehicle operated by the community.Adequate water must be provided for flushingyear-round. Although residents provided withthis level of sanitation service are ensured mini-mum contact with the waste, the costs for operat-ing truck haul technologies (operator’s salary,truck repairs, road maintenance, etc.) are higherthan those incurred by communities with sanita-tion levels a and b.

Level d systems have flush toilets that dis-charge to septic tanks and leach fields. About 26 ofthe 191 villages identified by IHS operate this sys-


. T.

In some villages, honey bucket wastes are emptied into haulcontainers or bins strategically placed along village streets orboardwalks. Bins are periodically hauled and emptied at thevillage disposal area,

tern. A high degree of community sanitation canbe achieved cost-effectively with the use of septictanks; however, they work only in regions withwell-drained soil above the seasonal water table.An adequate water supply for flushing must alsobe provided year-round. Such requirements pre-clude the application of level d systems in manyremote Alaskan locations, particularly those withriverine delta topography such as the Yukon-Kus-kokwim and Northwest Arctic regions. Operationand maintenance costs for villages operating sep-tic tanks (appendix C) are generally lower thanthose of level c primarily because road mainte-nance activities, for example, are no longer re-quired.

Level e-flush toilets and piped sewerage—represents the highest technical and safety level ofwastewater disposal service provided to Nativecommunities of Alaska. Contact with waste isvirtually eliminated, provided there is an adequatesupply of water to operate the piped technology(including gravity, pressure, or vacuum sytems).To date, 72 of the 191 Alaskan Native villagesidentified by IHS have been provided with level epiped waste sanitation services (appendix C).However, the construction of these systems hasoften been difficult and costly because of the harshenvironment and remoteness of the villages.

WATER AVAILABILITY AND SANITATIONIN RURAL ALASKA

Despite the large bodies of water found through-out the state of Alaska, the water actually avail-able at any time for practicing good sanitation isgenerally inadequate.

Rural Alaska, particularly the western, Arctic,and interior regions, appears to contain an almostendless number of rivers, lakes, and tundra ponds.Despite this hydrologic abundance, obtainingwater for drinking and sanitation on a continuousbasis in these areas is often difficult. During thewarmer months, for example, water can be col-lected from surface sources such as rivers andlakes, but treatment is generally required to elimi-nate glacial silt and other dissolved organic orinorganic materials prior to drinking. The use ofgutters or drains to collect rainwater from houseroofs, as noticed during a recent visit by OTA staffto rural Alaskan villages, is also popular. Differentmethods are employed during the winter months,including drilling intake holes through frozenArctic rivers and lakes, digging wells sometimes200 to 400 feet under the permafrost, or choppingice from lakes and rivers (ice chunks are placed in30-gallon plastic trash cans and brought into thehome to melt).

Because of the absence of some means of pip-ing and hauling water to the home, all water con-sumed and discarded by residents must be hauledby hand. The work involved in hauling water, usu-


ally by 5-gallon pail, is burdensome and continu-al. A village watering point may be a hundredyards or more from the point of intended use, thusdiscouraging increased consumption.

Summer conditions in the interior areas ofAlaska with severely limited rainfall includedusty roads, temperatures in the 80s, mosquitoes,subsistence demands,5 and other factors that con-spire to reduce one’s willingness to haul water foruse and then haul it again for discharge. Underwinter conditions of short days, cold tempera-tures, and blowing snow, the manual hauling ofwater is an onerous task.

Typically, rural residents will use and reusewater-filled wash basins in the bathroom for per-

The use of gutters or drains to collect rainwater from houseroofs for domestic consumption IS also popular among manyNative villages.

sonal hygiene. Such basins are frequent] y used un -til the water becomes visibly contaminated, atwhich point it is discarded. This is often accom-plished by simply tossing it out the back door.Clearly, the opportunity for transmission of dis-ease is increased under such conditions.

The lack of adequate water supplies often in-creases the risk of disease in Native villages thatoperate on honey buckets (61). In these communi-ties, honey buckets are used not only in residencesbut also in local government and commercialbuildings, and even medical clinics. When filled,the buckets are generally carried and emptied byhand into the village disposal site. Unfortunately,the community’s lack of adequate running waterfor washing hands after using or disposing ofhoney 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).


limit human contact with the raw sewage andavoid disease (300).

Limitations on water availability in rural Na-tive villages also affect the operation and deliveryof health care. For instance, 26 out of the 47 vil-lages with clinics utilized by the Yukon-Kuskok-wim Health Corporation are without water andsewers, even though nearly 200,000 physician-patient encounters per year were reported recently.Although clinics are the communities’ “front lineof defense,” a respected Native leader recentlyconcluded that the lack of running water precludeseither the community or its clinics from havinggood sanitary conditions (304).

The prevalence of enteric disease in rural Alas-ka may not be reduced until personal hygiene inthe home can be improved. This seems unlikelywithout sufficient quantities of clean water thatcan be obtained easily and inexpensively—a diffi-cult prospect to achieve.

CONCLUSIONTo telescope history, Western man found in Alas-ka a fully subsistence-based aboriginal peopleliving nomadically in small groups. Their liveswere originally controlled, sometimes severely,by natural events and the requirements of the envi-ronment surrounding them. With the advent of im-provements in subsistence harvesting, due largelyto the availability of cash and the implements itmade available, populations were able to increaseand the average life span lengthened.

Now, a new composite cash-subsistence life-style has emerged that is based not only on subs is-

tence abilities, but also on the vagaries of externaleconomies. Changes in external economies ripplethrough Native villages and cause their residentsto revert to a subsistence lifestyle they have moreimmediate control over--only to later find thatregulations, controls, and the realities of existingvillage conditions prevent successful reliance onpast practices to fulfill all their needs. The mostbasic of these needs is sanitation, which cannot beprovided at adequate levels by local economiesalone. Continuing subsidy appears essential if Na-tives living in rural Alaska are to have adequatewater and sewerage facilities.

In spite of these advances, nearly 20,000 Nativepeople living among 89 rural village communitiescontinue to 1ive in conditions created by in-adequate sanitation that are highly conducive tocontracting hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and other dis-eases. Children are specially at risk. Concernedindividuals and critics commonly refer to the poorsanitary conditions found in Native communitiesas being no different from those found in develop-ing nations. And, because epidemic waves ofthese diseases are expected every 15 to 20 years,additional health casualties are expected in the fu-ture if sanitation technologies more advanced thanthe honey bucket are not adopted. Improving vil-lage sanitation and preventing possible epidemicsappear highly difficult today because convention-al technologies are very expensive to build andmaintain without outside financial assistance. De-veloping alternative technologies or methods thatare more affordable for communities with 1imitedeconomies is a solution still largely untried byFederal and State sanitation agencies.

Roles andResponsibilities

of AlaskaNatives 3

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTINGPIPED SANITATION TECHNOLOGIESIn addition to the harsh climate and geographical constraintstypical of the rural Alaska environment, the economic conditionsfound among Native villagers living in these remote lands alsohave 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’ssouthwestern, western, interior, and Arctic regions creates con-siderable management difficulties for local governments in ad-dressing community needs, including sanitation. Federal andState agencies responsible for building sanitation projects areoften forced to recognize these difficulties because sanitationprojects require support for operation and maintenance (O&M) atlevels that are often beyond the technical and financial capabili-ties of local villages.

The majority of Native communities in rural Alaska rely al-most completely on transfer payments and subsidies to operatebasic village programs, including electricity, education, andtransportation. Although quantification is difficult, most expertsagree that Federal and State subsidies continue to be vital to localvillage economies.

Because of the extreme economic difficulties experienced byNatives, a subsistence 1ifestyle continues to be the dominant prac-tice in most remote communities. Many personal, social, and cul-tural values essential to the civilization of Alaskan Native groupsare intrinsically embedded in the practice of subsistence living.

I 39

40] An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Waste collected through piped sewer systems is dischargedinto sewage lagoons for treatment,

Today, subsistence constitutes a critical continu-ity with the cultural life of the past.

Several experts and expert groups have recog-nized that operation and maintenance of existingsanitation projects are vital for protection of thecommunity’s health (246). O&M costs are, how-ever, generally high. The shortage of technical as-sistance from outside agencies and the inadequatetraining of facility operators contribute to poorO&M. Among the consequences most commonlyassociated with poor O&M are shortening of theuseful life of sanitation projects, system break-downs, and sometimes, human casualties. Despiteinsufficient support and capabilities, Native vil-lages continue to be responsible for facility O&M.

The prevalence of disease throughout Alaska isdue primarily to a limited potable water supplyand the use of inadequate technologies for collect-ing and disposing of sanitary waste. This has ledto an insistent demand for installation of adequatecollection and treatment facilities in each Nativevillage.

Even though State and Federal agencies haveallocated more than $1.3 billion in the last 30years (and have been recently spending about$120 million per year), the existing sanitaryconditions in many rural Native villages of Alaskaindicate that much remains to be done to solve thisproblem.

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

and State agencies and continues to be so. Themost frequent long-term solution is piped sanita-tion. Attempts to develop and demonstrate short-term or interim promising technologies that mightimprove sanitary conditions have been limited.Three types of sanitation technologies are used inAlaska: gravity, pressure, and vacuum (see box3-l).

Although large-scale piped systems continuedto be the type of sanitation technology most fa-vored by Federal and State agencies, deliveringpiped sanitation services takes time and, more im-portantly, large sums of money for facilityconstruction, operation, and maintenance, whichmost Native communities now lack. The discus-sion that follows focuses mainly on the economichealth of, and the role played by, Native commu-nities in sanitation projects.

ECONOMIC HEALTH AND CULTURE OFNATIVE VILLAGES

B Role of Subsistence Practices in VillageCost of Living

Subsistence practices among Natives often hidethe actual cost of living and economic difficul-ties of communities, as well as their ability to payfor the construction, maintenance, and opera-tion of new or improved large-scale sanitationprojects.

From a distance, cash expenses have tradition-ally appeared to be the primary means of acquiringfood by Native families. A closer look, however,has enabled researchers to conclude more accu-rately that subsistence practices are as critical tothe survival of Natives as food purchased from thelocal community store. In a 1983 study, subsis-tence harvests of salmon, for example, were re-ported to be not only a significant protein source,but also capable of providing up to 55 percent ofthe food consumed by the average household peryear in some localities.

Considerable research on village economicshas been carried out since the 1983 study (204).As a result of these efforts, it has been shown thatof 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 vil-

lages 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 im-

practical, 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, per-

mafrost, 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 ser-

vices to seven Arctic Slope Regional Corp. villages,

The third type of conventional piped technology used in rural Alaskan Native communities is vacuum sew-

er 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 dis-

charging 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 surfaceor 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, Alaska3 Generally between 2 1/2 and 4 inches m diameter


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 high-

density 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 Em-

monak 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 pro-

vide 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 thewater 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 greywa-

ter valve To drsmse of human waste, the user flushes the vacuum toilet, which m turn causes a vacuum mterfacevalve to open andallows 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 Iagcmn7 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 Ilnes6 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 Envi-

ronmental Protection Agency

SOURCES Archc Slope Consulting Group, Inc (ASCG), WaterandSewer Uti/lties MasterPlan Report forSelaw/k, Alaska, preparedfor City of Selawlk, Alaska, Jan 1992, Canadian Society for CIVII Engmeermg, Co/d Chrnate Uti/@Manua/ (Montreal, Canada Beau-regard 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 ac-southwestern, western, and Arctic regions of theState— are the most economically depressed. Thevirtual absence of any viable economic base inthese areas creates considerable management dif-ficulties for local governments in addressing com-munity needs. Similar difficulties are experiencedby those responsible for sanitation facilities in thecommunity because such projects require supportfor operation and maintenance at levels that areoften beyond the technical and financial capabili-

quire “matching” capital funding from the villagehave been largely unsuccessful due to the virtualabsence of any self-sustaining economic base.

Villages in the Bering Straits, Calista, and theNana corporations fall well below the overall av-erage income for the 12 regional corporations andbelow the overall statewide Alaskan average. TheCalista Region, for example, ranked last in theaverage per capita category and next to last in theaverage median household income category.


Dismal regional economies and generally lowper capita income are exacerbated by the high costof living in rural areas. Although Anchorage isconsidered a high cost of living area by most eco-nomic experts, the cost of living in areas such asthe Calista Region is nearly 40 percent higher thanthat in Anchorage because of their limited accessi-bility and the increased shipping costs

A recent comparison between the averageannual expenditures reported for Calista RegionalCorp. villages and their average annual medianhousehold income showed a shortfall of up to$255 (204). An obvious conclusion is that thesevillage households operate at a loss or at a nearbreak-even level. Severe winters with increasedheating cost and utility bills, and poor subsistenceharvests, are known to place Native residents inthese communities in a deficit position. For exam-ple, the unprecedentedly low salmon harvest re-ported to Office of Technology Assessment staffduring a visit to the City of Buckland in August1993 was considered a potentially serious eco-nomic concern by community leaders. This wasprimarily because of the uncertainty about howthe community would be able to simultaneouslymake up for the loss and pay for services duringthe coming winter months.

Throughout the State of Alaska, the level ofsewerage service can be linked directly to theannual average per capita income. Of the 223 Na-tive and non-Native village communities sur-veyed during the 1990 U.S. Census (53), about100 did not have a flush toilet inside their homes.Of these, 85 villages (89 percent) fell below theaverage per capita income, indicating that in addi-tion to geotechnical constraints, economic condi-tions in remote Alaskan villages limit their abilityto support and maintain highly complex and cost-ly sanitation projects, once they have been built.

Any additional monthly payments required forimproved water and sewer systems may easilyoverwhelm the residents’ ability to meet their ba-sic living expenses. Because of this, it appearsimperative that any proposed technological solu-tions—particularly those that are large scale in na-ture—to the waste sanitation problems in NativeAlaskan communities need to be based on a de-

tailed analysis of the economic health of each vil-lage. Only in this way can its ability to sustain theadditional costs for such sanitation systems be de-termined.

1 Transfer Payments and SubsidizedGoods and Services

The ability of most native governments of ruralAlaskan villages to provide vital goods and ser-vices to their residents, including water and sew-er sanitation, is extremely limited without ade-quate external financial support.

Without subsidies of goods and services byFederal and State agencies, Native village com-munities throughout rural Alaska are unlikely tosurvive. Subsidies are also key to the success oflarge-scale waste sanitation projects. Althoughquantification is almost impossible, annual subsi-dies are estimated to be in the range of severalthousand dollars per capita. This is a fair assump-tion, according to most experts, since subsidizedgoods and services cover a wide range of needs in-cluding electric power, education, postal freightservice, television and telephone, passenger airservice, school lunch programs, and several Stateloan programs, to name a few. Eligibility y for trans-fer payments from Federal and State agencies isbased on the financial needs of a particular com-munity.

Federal and State subsidies are considered vitalto the local economy of most villages, particular yin the Bering Straits, Calista, and Nana regionalcorporations. Other regional corporations in thewestern, interior, and Arctic areas of Alaska,where similar problems exist, are Ahtna, ArcticSlope, and Doyon. In 1984, for instance, the aver-age per capita income from transfer paymentsalone was $5,338 for Calista residents. Federalfunding of Native health care, education, and a va-riety of Native social programs is also included inthis figure.

The disturbing conclusion drawn by many ex-perts is that the majority of Native communities ofrural Alaska rely almost completely on transferpayments and subsidies to operate their programs.Some view per capita income today as a clear re-


suit of direct transfer payments. “Villages are nolonger self-sufficient,” said a respected Nativeleader recently (221 ). Since sustaining the currentlevel of external financial support appears uncer-tain in light of recent reductions in State oil reve-nues and Federal Government contributions, theeconomic potential of Native communities mustbe evaluated carefully prior to undertaking anylarge-scale, costly sanitation projects. The rele-vance of this consideration cannot be neglected inregional corporations such as Ahtna, Arctic Slope,Bering Straits, Calista, Doyon, and Nana, whereat least half of the Native villages operating honeybuckets have per capita incomes below the Stateaverage.

1 Cultural Importance of SubsistenceAmong Alaska’s Native Villages

Although Alaskan Native culture has been af-fectedly outside forces, it is vital for Federal andState agencies to recognize the importance ofsubsistence as a cultural factor.

Subsistence is critical to the existence of Alas-ka Natives. From their beginnings as hunter/gath-erers, Alaskan Natives have consistently relied onthe land as the source of their most basic needs.Additionally, religious and spiritual ties with na-ture have long been part of Native culture. As in-fluential as Western culture might be today amongrural communities, subsistence continues to be animportant factor in defining the cultural fabric ofmost Natives in the State.

On close inspection of the sociocultural condi-tions in the southwestern, western, interior, andArctic regions of Alaska, one finds that withoutexception, subsistence—not merely economical-ly, but also culturally—is the dominant and large-ly preferred practice in these regions. More thanany other factor, subsistence inspires powerfulsentiments, represents significant bonds betweenfamily and community members, defines domes-tic roles and personal identity, represents greatcultural achievement, provides critical sustenanceand commodities, and demonstrates the persis-tence of Native culture through time and in theface of adverse conditions.

Therefore, the importance of subsistence as ameans of both physical and cultural survival can-not be overemphasized. Although fish wheels andmodem technology have thrust Alaskan Nativesbeyond basic subsistence into a partial cash econ-omy, subsistence salmon fishing, for example,still represents a critical continuity with the cultur-al life of the past. The importance of subsistencealso frequently results in conflicts between peri-odic summer employment (e.g., cash earningsfrom sanitation construction projects) versus theneed to maximize the salmon catch to survive thewinter.

With relatively few exceptions, the economicand sociocultural conditions of most villages inrural Alaska represent significant barriers to plan-ning complex sanitation projects. Examples ofthis can be found in most villages within the Calis-ta Regional Corp., whose lack of a viable econ-omy reflects their potential inability to supportnew complex sanitation projects satisfactorily.Furthermore, the lessons learned from previousfailures indicate clearly the need for better coor-dination among Federal, State, and Native gov-ernments to create the management base neces-sary within each village to ensure proper O&M ofexisting projects. Strong local leadership andcommunity support are also essential for ensuringthe success of sanitation projects (221). Similarly,serious consideration must be given to the socio-cultural patterns of Alaska Natives early andthroughout the planning, construction, and opera-tion of sanitation projects.

| Western Influence and Accessibilityof Native Communities

The level of accessibility to external organiza-tions and institutions varies among Native vil-lages.

The cultures and people of Alaska areas differ-ent as the many types of land areas found through-out the State. The Native people are ancestrallylinked to Eskimo, Aleut, and Indian groups. Eachof the Native groups inhabits a specific region ofAlaska and is historically related to the people ofthe Russian Far East to some degree. A major por-


tion of the State’s non-Native population has mi-grated from the rest of the United States or otherlocations and is generally found in urban areas.

The relationship with the Westerner or “whiteman” has sometimes been considered tolerable atbest. Two factors have been cited as being mostdisruptive to this relationship: the gold rushes thatintroduced Eskimos to a variety of Western ways,including intermittent economic opportunities,and the introduction of diseases of epidemic pro-portions that halved the historical Eskimo popula-tion by the early 1900s. The impact of epidemicsresulted in a dramatic loss of the elderly. YoungNatives frequently lacked the knowledge to con-tinue traditional customs and ceremonies. The re-maining Native population was further affected bythe introduction of family dwelling units, Ameri-can political institutions, village schools, tradingposts, and post offices, which more gradually, butperhaps also more conclusively, altered the Eski-mo lifestyle.

The presence of exploitable resources may alsodetermine the degree of Western exposure that avillage has experienced. The gold rush era in thelate 1800s and early 1900s, for instance, broughtsudden and vast exposure of the Yukon Rivercommunities to Western culture. However, theexposure of the Kuskokwim communities wasless disruptive, primarily because of the absenceof large gold finds along the Kuskokwim River.Additionally, early difficulties in navigating theKuskokwim further delayed exploration and ex-ploitation of limited resources along the river. Con-sequently, with much later exposure to Wester-ners, Kuskokwim communities tend to be moretraditional and to favor retaining the old ways oflife. A comparative overview of Yukon and Kus-kokwim River communities is presented in box3-2.

Although the intrusion of Western culture hasmet with resentment, Alaska Natives have occa-sionally welcomed Western social and economicprograms. Many Natives believe that the mainsource of resentment has emerged primarily frombeing told by outsiders what to do and how to do it,and rarely being included in the development ofsolutions to local problems—an obviously under-

standable response to the worsening economicconditions being experienced by villagers. Someattempts by outside institutions to install sanita-tion systems unilaterally, and then expect villageresidents to operate and maintain them, have re-ceived little acceptance and consequently havefailed.

The misapplication and subsequent abandon-ment of comporting toilets by Fort Yukon and Ga-lena residents appear to indicate that agencies—inthis case, the Farmer’s Home Administration—need to evaluate in advance how the technologywould perform in a particular community (e.g.,through pilot tests), as well as involve potentialusers in the planning and technology selectionprocess. In the view of many, this is essential formaintaining the agency’s credibility. Of the manyState and Federal institutions involved with Na-tive communities in rural Alaska, the IndianHealth Service (IHS) and the Village Safe Water(VSW) program have been the most successful inencouraging and supporting villagers’ participa-tion in the planning, design, and construction ofprojects. This is extremely important because thedegree of project success will ultimately dependon the level of commitment of community leadersand residents.

ROLE OF NATIVE COMMUNITIES INOPERATION AND MAINTENANCEOF SANITATION PROJECTSAlaska’s rural Native villages are responsible formanaging their waste sanitation projects butoften lack the financial resources needed to en-sure their long-term operation on and mainte-nance.

The hope of some Native leaders is to see a gov-ernment program that provides “all Alaskan vil-lages with piped water and sewer systems to serveevery home within the village” (300). Others,however, recognize that this might in some casesbe economically prohibitive, and they call for thedevelopment of more affordable sanitation alter-natives. Under the current system, villages aregiven the responsibility for operating, maintain-


There are several major differences between Yukon and Kuskokwim River communities, including eco-

nomic, 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 drain-

age 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 improve-

ments 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 sanita-

tion systems. Permafrost distribution does not significantly favor either region.

Regarding water quality, none of the 10 villages along the Yukon experience problems with iron, manga-

nese, 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 -Kuskok-

wim Delta, 8 of 16 villages recorded high iron concentrations in their drinking water source. From a cost per-

spective, 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 “ad-

equate. ” 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 ComparisonHistorically, 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 com-

munities. 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 com-

petitive 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 house-

hold 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.


The size of each village should also be considered in terms of operating and maintenance cost dlstribu-

hon. 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, reportprepared 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 fu-funds needed to hire trained, certified operatorscapable of ensuring that such projects are safelyand properly operated (58). One reason villagesfeel that they should receive adequate support isthat other communities in high-altitude regionsare supported with O&M funds by their govern-ments. Alaskan sanitation experts have been madeaware of this when attending international confer-ences held in other high-altitude countries, such asCanada, Denmark, Finland, Russia, and Sweden.

Operation and maintenance were recently rec-ognized by the Governor’s Sanitation Task Forceas the most vital components for ensuring thelong-term success of sanitation projects and pro-tecting the health of Alaska Natives. Unfortunate-ly, most communities lack the funds to pay for ad-equate maintenance (58). This difficultysometimes results in shortening the useful life ofthe system, as well as in breakdowns. InadequateO&M has also been responsible for some humancasualties. For instance in 1992, a malfunctioningpump allowed excess fluoride to enter the HooperBay water supply, killing one person and causingmany other village residents to be ill (300).

According to the Alaska Native Health Board,the State of Alaska spent about $11 million forequipment repair or replacement at sanitation faci-lities between 1988 and 1991 (58). Many moresanitation projects are expected to require replace-

ture. Although specific figures are difficult to ar-rive at, the Governor’s Sanitation Task Forceestimated that the cost of repairing all existing fa-cilities that are inoperative or operating with diffi-culty due to equipment malfunction will exceed$750 million (67).

Unfortunately, operation and maintenancecosts are generally too high for Native communi-ties to afford. Operation of sewer and water sys-tems in remote villages, generally considered theprovince of local governments, is typically “in the

The inadequate condition of roads in some villages oftenresults in spillage of human waste during its transportation todisposal sites


red” or technically bankrupt. The scarcity of Fed-eral or State subsidies makes the operation of sani-tation systems at village communities challenging(104). In some cases, State subsidies for electricpower, heat, and fuel are helpful, but insufficientto meet the high O&M costs typical of rural Alas-ka which are several times higher than those inmajor Alaskan cities.

FACTORS THAT HAMPER SUCCESSFULOPERATION AND MAINTENANCE INNATIVE COMMUNITIESSeveral factors appear to be hampering the suc-cessful operation and maintenance of sewerage fa-cilities in Native communities. These include, forexample, a shortage of technical assistance fromoutside agencies and inadequate training of facil-ity operators. Little change is expected in the nearfuture because Federal and State agencies contin-ue to favor the construction of new capital projectswith little direct financial support for O&M of ex-isting sanitation systems.

Other relevant factors hampering successfulO&M throughout rural Alaska include the follow-ing:

Factor 1—The limited ability of remote vil-lages to hire certified and trained personnel canoften result in higher O&M costs. Because a largesegment of the rural Native population of commu-nities found in the southwestern, western, interior,and Arctic regions of Alaska falls below the na-tional poverty level, only a few villages can affordto hire an operator on a full-time basis. Where thisis not possible, the level of oversight is inadequateand responsible for system malfunctions. Becausemost communities lack the funds to correct suchmalfunctions, they often wait until system partsare seriously damaged or inoperative, at whichtime, their repair or replacement costs are consid-erably higher and even more difficult to afford.According to Willie Thomas, Vice Mayor ofBuckland, a village of 300 residents:

It is difficult to generate jobs. Some peopleare trying to develop their own skills. Trainingwould be helpful but once investments are made

Sanitation facility operators are trained in many technicalareas, including water chemistry and treatment, vacuumpumps, operational safety and record keeping.

[by the Native village], there would not be anyjobs [in the Village] and trained personnel wouldgo somewhere else (238).

Factor 2—The small size of the communityadversely impacts its ability to pay for O&M be-cause of the inability to develop the economies ofscale capable of reducing rate of payments or tosupport the construction of more advanced, andgenerally more expensive, sanitation projects.

Factor 3—In addition to the poor economy,lack of roads makes it difficult for communities toacquire spare parts and supplies because of thehigh costs of freight and fuel (70).

Factor 4—The inability of governments ofsmall villages to fund the O&M of sanitation proj-ects often places an increasing number of opera-tion, maintenance, and management responsibili-


ties on a relatively small number of facilityoperators. This, in turn, makes the protection ofresidents’ health and the success of sanitationprojects problematic (64).

Factor 5—Inadequacies of staffing, planning,and accounting in many small rural villages haveresulted in equipment and mechanical failures—many of which are premature in nature. In addi-tion, the lack of consistency and uniformity in feecollection practices results in insufficient fundsfor O&M expenses and operators’ salaries.

Factor 6—Most villages find it difficult tofund a public works department or a full-time, cer-tified sewerage operator. Sanitation facilities areoften run by part-time operators, and occasionallyvolunteers, who are often ill-equipped to deal withthe challenges posed to sanitation projects by theharsh climatic and environmental conditions typi-cal of rural Alaska (64).

Factor 7—Some local governments haveshown little interest in assuming or sharing re-sponsibility for utility management. Thus, prob-lems relating to utilities are often referred to citymanagers and facility operators ( if they exist) or toother individuals, who do not have the authorityrequired to effect corrective policy within thecommunity.

Factor 8—City clerks and administrators areoften left with the responsibility of collecting userfees and keeping records of all financial transac-tions associated with a waste sanitation facility.The lack of support by local governments, alongwith low salaries and heavy work loads, has con-tributed to the high rate of city clerk and/or admin-istrator turnover-ften precluding communitiesfrom having skilled clerks and administrators and,therefore, well-managed sanitation facilities (70).

Factor 9—The use of computers is wide-spread, but the knowledge of software and techni-cal support are highly deficient. Computer sys-tems are generally purchased on the basis of cost,with little attention given to the capability of the

software, manuals, and training (227). Unfortu-nately, the high turnover rate of capable village ad-ministrators or city clerks does not allow time forpersonnel familiar with a computer system to trainothers in its use.

Factor 10-Many local governments lack theleadership and leadership stability required to en-sure the success of a project. Unfortunately,among agencies involved with sanitation projectsin rural Alaska, the number of programs to dealwith community dysfunctionality is extremelylimited.

Factor 11—the lack of meaningful participa-tion in the planning, construction, and manage-ment phases of waste sanitation projects leads tocommunity frustration. In addition, the lopsidedsupport by Federal and State agencies forconstruction, rather than for O&M, often leaves apoor perception among community leaders andmembers that subsequently may lead to the ne-glect of the facility (70).

FUNDING OF OPERATION ANDMAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

Although Federal and State agencies have pro-grams to provide essential capital funds for repair-ing existing facilities and building new ones, thefunding for proper O&M of sanitation facilities isnot traditionally part of any Federal and Stateplans. It is not rare to find a recently built multi-million-dollar facility in need of preventive main-tenance due to lack of proper operation and ade-quate local financial support.

Recognizing this deficiency, Congressamended the Indian Health Care ImprovementAct of 19761 by passing the Indian HealthAmendments of 1992,2 and authorizing the IndianHealth Service (IHS) to provide, for the first time,up to 80 percent of the O&M funding needed byeconomically deprived Native communities. Vil-lages with fewer than 1,000 residents, which in-

I 25 LJ. s,c. I 601 et seq.

‘P.L. 102-573; 106 STAT. 4526-4592.


elude all villages operating honey buckets, couldobtain additional funding. To date, IHS has not re-quested any funding for this purpose. IHS officialshave found it dificult to clarify the congressionalintent as to how to implement the law, particularlythe language of the Act indicating that “. . . thenon-Federal portion of the costs of operating,managing, and maintaining such facilities may beprovided, in part, through cash donations or inkind property, fairly evaluated.”3 Therefore, Na-tive communities have yet to receive this much-needed help. Under one scenario, it was estimatedthat if funds are authorized, about $15.1 millionwould be required to implement the 1992 lawthroughout rural Alaska (122,204,206).

The need to protect public health often forceslocal officials to implement programs and activi-ties through which revenues can be obtained topay for the O&M costs of sanitation facilities. Un-fortunately, success has been achieved only inthose few communities with the best economiesand most effective local leadership. To obtainneeded O&M funds, the leaders in these commu-nities have: 1 ) adopted user fee ordinances anddisconnection policies; 2) hooked up and chargedindustrial-type users such as schools, stores,apartment houses, and businesses; and 3) adoptedsales taxes (e.g., 1 percent). Once collected, thesefunds are used to setup reserve accounts to pay foroperational costs and defray residential usercharges (104).

Unfortunately, most villages in rural Alaskawith fewer than 1,000 residents have almost nobasic economy (limited fishing, very limited min-ing, some tourism), their cash flow is extremelylow, and their potential for economic improve-ment in the future is restricted. All Native villagesoperating honey buckets as their only means ofwaste sanitation exhibit these characteristics. The

absence of trained managers is also evident amongmany villages. As a consequence, the difficulty inobtaining funds for O&M activities is expected toincrease further in the future.

CONCLUSIONThe prevalence of certain diseases in Native Alas-kan villages is in large part a direct result of a lim-ited potable water supply and the use of inade-quate waste disposal technologies such as honeybuckets. Federal and State agencies have providedsome villages with more adequate technologiessuch as gravity, pressure, or vacuum piped sys-tems. These are now installed in more than half ofthe 191 Native villages identified by the IndianHealth Service. However, the continuing inade-quate sanitary conditions still found among the re-maining communities show that much remains tobe done to solve this problem.

Unfortunately, delivering piped sanitation sys-tems takes time and, more important, substantialfunds that most Native communities now operat-ing honey buckets lack. In addition, the mainte-nance and operation of sanitation projects in re-mote villages—generally considered the provinceof local governments-are typically unfundedand inadequate. In fact, the virtual absence of a vi-able economic base among these communitiescreates considerable management difficulties forlocal governments in addressing sanitation as wellas other important community needs, includingelectricity, education, and transportation. The al-most complete reliance on transfer payments andsubsidies forces many experts to conclude thatwithout continued Federal and State subsidies,most Native village communities throughout ru-ral Alaska are unlikely to be able to provide mini-mally safe and effective sanitation for theirpeople.

3106 STAT. 4561.

Roles andResponsibilities

of Federaland StateAgencies 4

INTRODUCTIONWith the passage by Congress of the Indian Sanitation FacilitiesConstruction Act in 1959,1 the Indian Health Service (IHS) be-came the primary Federal agency directly responsible for plan-ning, designing, and constructing water and sewer projects in Na-tive communities. More than $350 million of the $1.3 billionalready spent on sanitation projects in rural Alaska has been pro-vided through IHS to accomplish these objectives. About anequal amount comes from the Village Safe Water (VSW) programwithin the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation(IHS’S State counterpart). Coordination of efforts between theseagencies often results in successful cooperative ventures for de-livering water and sanitation services to Alaska Natives.

The major phases or steps associated with delivering water andwaste sanitation are project planning, design, and construction.All of these steps, however, rely on the capital funding providedby Federal and State agencies. Other areas in which participationby these agencies is essential are the training and certification offacility operators, and the provision of technical and financial as-sistance.

The planning, designing, and construction of sanitation facili-ties in rural Alaska often face barriers not commonly found in oth-er areas of the United States. Such barriers include, among otherfactors, limited drainage, ice-rich soils, water scarcity, high fuel

I 511 P.L. 86-121.


and shipping prices, limited or inadequate roads,and short construction seasons. Early communityinvolvement is also considered essential to ensur-ing project success. Many past failures havelacked this involvement.

Considerable political pressure has been placedon IHS and VSW to deliver adequate sanitationservices to Native communities in rural Alaska.As a result of efforts to meet this challenge, theseagencies have built many piped sanitation sys-tems but with the considerably higher degree ofcomplexity necessary to meet the harsh climaticconditions typical of the region. All of these fac-tors have made sanitation projects among the mostdemanding and costly capital ventures foundthroughout rural Native communities of Alaska.

Despite considerable progress, more than halfof the 191 rural Native villages identified by IHSstill lack adequate or safe water and waste sanita-tion service. By themselves, these communitieslack the resources to build large-scale piped san-itation projects. Moreover, many communities al-ready served with piped sanitation lack the re-sources to operate them properly. In the future,expected declines in State revenues threaten to af-fect capital funding availability for new projectsand reduce revenue for other municipal assist-ance, including technical training, to support ex-isting sanitation systems. Many existing systemslack operation and maintenance (O&M). Accord-ing to IHS, nearly 90 percent of the villages withpiped sanitation services were out of compliancewith relevant Federal and State regulations.

Although there is a continuing need to buildnew sanitation projects in Alaskan villages, theymust have adequate operation and maintenancesupport as well. The poor economic conditions inmost rural Native communities make systemmaintenance difficult. Agencies have to avoidinstalling complex technologies in communitieswith 1ittle economic and technical resources to op-erate them. IHS and VSW personnel have recentlybegun to work with Native communities in the

identification and testing of simpler and morecost-effective systems.

INSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORYFRAMEWORK RELEVANT TO ALASKANVILLAGE SANITATIONThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and the Alaska Department of Environ-mental Conservation are the two agencies withmajor regulatory oversight of sanitation projectsand programs in rural Alaska. Permitting deci-sions by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers arealso relevant to the process in which village san-itation projects are proposed, built, and operated.

Since 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency has been the principal Federalagency responsible for the promulgation and en-forcement of regulations designed to protect theenvironment and decrease pollution throughoutthe United States. EPA also coordinates and sup-ports research and antipollution activities carriedout by other Federal and State agencies.2

The primary focus of the Alaska Departmentof Environmental Conservation (ADEC) is onthe conservation, improvement, and protection ofAlaska’s natural resources and environment.ADEC is particularly concerned with air, land,and water pollution. Agency responsibility ex-tends to matters affecting the health, safety, econ-omy, and social well-being of people throughoutthe State. It does so through enforcement of envi-ronmental laws, regulations, and quality stan-dards developed in some cases by EPA. One par-ticular function relevant to village sanitation, thatof project construction and improvement, is car-ried out by the Village Safe Water program with-in ADEC. Less than 3 percent of the more than 450ADEC employees make up the VSW staff, whountil recently were delivering sanitation projectsto nearly 60 rural Alaskan Native villages. (TheIndian Health Service, discussed throughoutthis 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 Federalagency responsible under Section 404 of theClean Water Act3 for reviewing, approving, or de-nying permit applications to discharge dredge orfill materials into U.S. waters. All sanitation proj-ects proposed for construction in rural Alaska byIHS and VSW require Corps of Engineers’ ap-proval because many of the areas in which suchprojects are to be built have been designated wet-lands. A large portion of the western Alaska re-gion-where many Native communities have ex-perienced disease epidemics from inadequatesanitary conditions-is located on wetlands.

The Corps is also responsible for carrying outprojects relating to the development and manage-ment of water resources; and for the design, engi-neering, and O&M of flood control, navigation,and energy-related projects. No economic assist-ance for waste sanitation projects in rural Alaskais specifically listed in the Corps for fiscal year(FY) 1994 budget.~

Until very recently, the level of institutional in-teraction and coordination among EPA, ADEC,and the Corps of Engineers, or between theseagencies and Native village governments, waslimited. Some experts at the Office of TechnologyAssessment (OTA) Workshop on Alaska VillageSanitation held in Anchorage in August 1993(246), voiced their concern about the lack of flexi-bility in regulatory programs to recognize theharsh environmental and socioeconomic condi-tions that prevail in rural Alaska. This concerncontinues to be evident today.

Native communities are often not in com-pliance with environmental regulations. In 1991,only 60 of 164 Native villages surveyed wereidentified as having some variation of a piped sys-tem capable of meeting established regulatory re-quirements. IHS has more recently reported thatabout 90 percent of the villages it serves operate awater or waste sanitation system that is not in

compliance with some aspects of Federal or Stateregulations. IHS data also show that the large ma-jority of Native residents of rural Alaska do nothave any other recourse but to haul water to, andhuman waste from, their homes (59,61 ).

The recent promulgation by enforcement agen-cies of additional regulations for drinking waterand waste disposal practices is expected to ad-versely impact most Native villages with limitedeconomies, particularly because substantial facil-ity upgrades would have to be made to demon-strate compliance. Large expenditures are antici-pated by many local Native governments in theirefforts to comply with the new surface water treat-ment, lead, and copper rules (67,246). ProvidingNative villages with an opportunist y to use less ex-pensive alternative approaches could minimizecompliance costs while ensuring relatively simi-lar levels of health and environmental protection.

The regulatory framework applicable to Nativevillages also affects IHS plans to deliver sanita-tion projects within a reasonable time frame. Ac-cording to IHS officials, about 20 percent of thetime taken by agency engineers to carry outconstruction projects is devoted to developing thepaperwork required by existing regulations. Insome cases, IHS has needed as much as 39 monthsto prepare all the documentation required to ob-tain a construction permit from the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers alone. The extremely longtime occasionally taken between submission ofpermit application and permit approval is viewedby many as highly incongruous with current poorsanitation and economic conditions of rural Alas-ka, as well as unnecessarily costly to Federal,State, and Native governments alike. Examples ofsome of the Federal and State permits that IHSmust have approved are listed in table 4-1.

Several encouraging efforts by Federal andState 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).


Permit Grantor Permit Type

Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation(ADEC)

Alaska Department of Fish andGame


effectively addressing regulatory enforcementand technology implementation in rural AlaskanNative villages are now under way. Of great rele-vance is the decision by the Corps of Engineers in1994 to adopt policies for expediting the review ofpermit applications proposing the construction ofsanitation projects in Native villages. Also signif-icant is the work of the Federal Field-Alaska RuralSanitation Work Group convened by EPA to iden-tify and coordinate sanitation policy and programsamong Federal and State agencies. Some of theagencies participating in this effort are the Bureauof Indian Affairs, Department of Transportation,Department of Education, Farmers Home Admin-istration, Department of Energy, Department ofLabor, Department of Housing and Urban Devel-opment (HUD), Alaska Department of Environ-mental Conservation, and Alaska Federation ofNatives.

Other examples include EPA’s funding of pro-grams designed to provide technical training as-sistance to Natives (e.g., the Rural Utility Busi-ness Advisor (RUBA) and Volunteers In ServiceTo America (VISTA) programs)5 and the effortled by Bureau of Indian Affairs and other Federalagencies (including IHS, EPA, and HUD) to coor-dinate future construction and improvement ef-forts in Native villages and to share costs. In thisway, community needs such as housing, roads,and sanitation will be addressed simultaneously.

Despite these efforts, the approach taken is stilllargely piecemeal, rather than the result of a co-herent plan developed by all relevant Federalagencies to ensure adequate sanitation in all Alas-kan Native communities. In other words, althoughindividual agency missions are pursued with vig-or and dedication by generally well-qualified andmotivated staff, overall policy guidance and unityof focus at the highest levels appear to be lacking.Several examples of State and Federal agencies

with programs relevant to Native villages are giv-en in box 4-1.

CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDING1 Role of Federal Government in Capital

ConstructionThe concern of the U.S. Congress about sanitationissues in rural Alaska spans more than three dec-ades. In recognizing the need to develop formalsolutions to this problem, Congress passed the In-dian Sanitation Facilities Construction Act in19596, giving the Indian Health Service the au-thority to plan, design, and construct water andsewer projects in Native communities. Since pas-sage of the Act, IHS has contributed more than$350 million to sanitation projects in rural Alaska.

Setting priorities within the IHS process takesinto consideration, among other factors, the over-all health of the population; the deficiencies insanitation systems found in the community inquestion; and the community’s perception of theproject (priority, nonpriority). Of great impor-tance to IHS officials is identifying with some cer-tainty the capability of Native villages to financethe operation and maintenance of sanitation proj-ects under consideration for construction ( 123).

Funds for construction of sewer systems in Na-tive village communities of rural Alaska are pro-vided under the Indian Sanitation FacilitiesConstruction Act and distributed through theAlaska Area Native Health Service. Provision ofFederal funds for capital construction, however,requires certain commitments from the receivingcommunities. For example, IHS will not providethe City of Selawik with capital funds to constructor improve sewer systems unless it is assured ofthe community’s commitment to: 1 ) pay for op-eration 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 commu-nities. EPA will also contribute about $100,000 to have five VISTA volunteers, already trained by IHS, provide technical planning assistanceto Native communities. About 25 VISTA volunteers already operate in Alaska ( 163).

6 P.L. 86-121,


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 wide-tise required to operate the system; and 3) provideequipment and materials required for successfuloperation of the system (78). As part of their ef-forts to meet these requirements, local govern-ments in turn may delegate many of these respon-sibilities to a Utility Board, a Public WorksManager, or a City Administrator (78). Local gov-ernment leaders of the City of Selawik in the NanaRegional Corp., for example, have appointed autility board as a means to assure IHS of theircommitment to properly operate the $2.3 millionwater and waste sanitation project currentlyplanned for construction,

Several approaches are used by IHS to deter-mine overall project funding. They range fromperforming an engineering analysis, to definingthe steps that must be taken to develop a particularlevel of service, to preparing a feasibility y study ormaster plan. The high costs of producing a master

spread use of this option. Many of these ap-proaches can: 1 ) involve coordinating activitiesand identifying available funding from otheragencies (e.g., Housing and Urban Development,Village Safe Water, Farmer’s Home Administra-tion); 2) recommend, as for Selawik, that im-provements to the “basic utility infrastructure”(e.g., water treatment and sewage disposal) becompleted prior to construction of the recom-mended piped distribution and collection systems(78); or 3) provide IHS and receiving Native vil-lages with the estimated capital and operationalfunding needed for the project, along with aphased construction schedule.

Feasibility studies and master plans are used byIHS primarily as a means to support decisions andto coordinate and work with community leadersand residents. Through these documents, the IHSdiscusses how to achieve the following goals:


1 ) to provide the safe water and sewage disposalneeded for improved health; 2) to develop projectsthat are ‘*within the economic abilities of the com-munities;” 3) to improve sanitation service deliv-ery to all village residents; 4) to reduce operationand maintenance costs as a means of ensuring con-tinued support for the project; and 5) to utilize fa-cilities already built in the community to the max-imum extent possible (78,1 23).

IHS may also arrange the construction projectscontained in feasibility studies, master plans, orother planning documents, into packages. Eachpackage tends to be a stand-alone project that canbe built and put in service when demand warrantsand funds are available. The master plan for theCity of Selawik, for example, consists of severalinterrelated, intermediate steps planned for thenext two decades, culminating with the construc-tion, operation, and maintenance of a piped vacu-um sewage collection system. A phased scheduleis considered essential by IHS for providing thecommunity with a strategy that is realistic enoughto allow it to successfully improve water and sew-er service (78,123,127).

1 Role of the State in CapitalConstruction

The Village Safe Water (VSW) program withinthe Department of Environmental Conservation isAlaska’s main agency responsible for improvingwater and sewer systems in Native communitiesof the 49th State. As of July 1993, VSW was car-rying out projects in nearly 60 different Native vil-lages throughout rural Alaska.

State funds for construction of sewer systemsin Native communities are provided under the Vil-lage Safe Water Act. Once funds have been appro-priated and an engineering feasibility study iscompleted, engineers work with communities toselect the firm responsible for developing theproject design. Potential candidates are invited tovisit the community and interview with State andNative village representatives. Once a particularfirm is selected, work on investigating geotechni-cal characteristics and possible technologies be-gins ( 104).

To identify the waste sanitation needs of Nativecommunities and secure funds to address them,Village Safe Water ofiicials distribute a question-naire to each community annually. Returned ques-tionnaires are scored and prioritized according to acapital project ranking methodology that consid-ers factors such as health needs, contamination,local priorities, Federal assistance, and projectplanning status. If the scoring of the returnedquestionnaire is sufficiently high to consider therequested project a priority, the VSW programthen tries to secure State funding for its construc-tion.

The Alaska Area Native Health Service(AANHS) also reviews the ranking methodologyand returned questionnaires to ensure data reli-ability, check coordination, and sometimes securematching funds (58). If its review also finds theproposed sanitation project a priority, the AANHSEnvironmental Health and Engineering Branchparticipates with Village Safe Water in projectplanning, design, and ultimate construction. Oneextremely important result of this interaction isthat many construction projects have becomecooperative ventures between VSW and IHS.

Alaskan officials have noted a recent decline inState revenues. Many believe this might adverselyaffect the State’s support of sanitation projects inthe future (43). One effect anticipated by many is areduction in funds to support capital constructionprograms. Another significant effect is the reduc-tion in both revenue sharing and municipal assist-ance programs, two major funding sources onwhich the operating budgets of many Native com-munities now depend (43,87).

1 Community Concerns RegardingCapital Construction in Rural Alaska

According to public health officials working inNative communities of Alaska, the installation ofwells and water treatment plants during the 1950sand 1960s constituted a “dramatic step forward”because it virtually eliminated one cause of dis-ease and even death, namely, the drinking of waterfrom lakes and rivers. Prior to that, diarrhea wasthe cause of death of 1 in 10 children in the Yukon-


Kuskokwim Delta region, for example. Since the1960s, however, Natives in communities withpoor economic potential, such as those found inthe Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta, have seen “little vi-able progress” ( 173).

In recent years, VSW and IHS have experi-enced substantial political pressure to deliver san-itation services to Native communities in ruralAlaska. To meet this challenge, they have built aconsiderable number of sanitation projects butwith more special features and rugged construc-tion than similar systems built in the lower 48States—primarily to withstand the harsh condi-tions typical of rural Alaska. Many concerned in-dividuals, however, have voiced the need for de-veloping a process that refrains from foreing VSWand IHS to build complex water and sewer sys-tems in communities that have neither the finan-cial nor the technical resources to maintain andoperate them. Even when communities tax them-selves and hold fund-raising activities, theconstant increase in O&M costs outpaces their fi-nancial capability to manage such sanitation proj-ects proper] y. As pressure for building new sanita-tion projects continues to increase, it must beunderstood by all relevant Federal, State, and Na-tive entities that, in time, Native communities willbe forced to support these sanitation projects fi-nancially with even less revenue sharing.

Concerns about the methodologies employedto set priorities for capital construction projects interms of cost ceilings applicable to all 50 Stateshave also been raised. These relate in particular toclaims by Native leaders that financial assistanceto Alaskan villages is unfairly curtailed throughthe application of cost evaluation formulas thatmay be applicable to the lower 48 States but areirrelevant to rural Alaska. Leaders argue, for ex-ample, that when such formulas are used tocompare transportation costs, rural Alaskan com-munities are at a disadvantage because their trans-portation costs are incrementally higher thanthose of communities in the lower 48 States,where roads not only exist but are federally subsi-dized (300). In their view, the high constructioncosts in extremely cold areas of rural Alaska ren-der the majority of potential IHS projects in the

49th State “infeasible.” In addition to the weight-ing of capital cost ceilings, these critics point tothe lack of uniformity in data collection through-out the State as another adverse factor.

Contrary to critics, IHS officials report the useof higher cost factors when considering potentialsanitation projects for rural Alaska. But even withthe use of higher cost indices, the agency finds thatit is difficult to obtain funding approval becauseits budgetary process does not allow for the differ-ence in required complexity—and therefore cost—between building a sanitation project in Alaskaand one in the lower 48 States. Greater attention tothis factor might be warranted since the cost ofpipe alone, generally $2 per linear foot in the low-er 48 States, may be $30 or more in rural Alaskabecause of the insulation and heating required tokeep it functional, as well as transportation costs.

Critics maintain, however, that the level of ser-vice, rather than cost, should be the criterion forproviding sanitation services to Native communi-ties. Such is the case for IHS, whose funding rec-ommendations are traditional y based on cost con-siderations rather than level of service. Sinceprotection of human health is the primary goal,critics claim that “. . . the objective should be toprovide uniform basic levels of water and sanita-tion services to all communities” (300).

In light of the limited economic base of manyNative communities, careful planning and period-ic reevaluation of projected user fees might be-come necessary to ensure project success. One ex-ample is the City of Selawik in western coastalAlaska. In this community, IHS foresees provid-ing local residents with adequate sanitation ser-vices in about 12 years, with work that began in1993. As part of its plan, every household is ex-pected to pay $100 per month at the initiation ofthe $2.3 million project and up to $203 by the endof the planning process. However, the expecteddecline in the State economy might reduce Sela-wik’s projected revenue sharing funds even more,rendering the project infeasible unless subsidiesare provided to reduce household payment re-quirements.

Most concerns relating to capital constructionlogically originate in communities where such


projects do not exist or are in the planning phase.With the increasing limitation of available fund-ing, responsible agencies may also find it neces-sary to work with communities in which sanita-tion facilities already exist to ensure their properoperation during the remaining design life of theproject. Because the design life of certain compo-nents of sanitation facilities does not generally ex-ceed 15 years, a large number of them are expectedto require replacement of their mechanical equip-ment in the near future. Finding the funds neces-sary for this purpose appears increasingly difficulttoday.

| Factors Affecting CapitalConstruction Funding

Based on IHS projections and current State andFederal funding rates, many researchers suggestthat by adopting nonpiped systems, waste sanita-tion problems in the areas of greatest concerncould be solved within two decades for $2.5 bil-lion, or an estimated annual cost of about $125million. In light of recent appropriations, how-ever, State and Federal agencies appear unable tomeet this funding level. For instance, in FY 1993,the IHS appropriated budget was $40 million lessthan the estimated $125 million needed annuallyto meet its schedule. Although the remaining gapin capital expenditures is being filled by agenciessuch as Village Safe Water ($25 million), the En-vironmental Protection Agency ($6 million), andthe Farmers Home Administration (about $6 mil-lion), future increases in IHS appropriated bud-gets, as well as the long-term budgetary commit-ment by these agencies to capital constructionprojects, remain largely undetermined.

Provision of seed money to construct sanitationprojects in some cases has been neither sufficientnor expeditious. After the Alaska Legislature ap-

propriated $1.8 million in 1983 to the City of Em-monak, for example, additional funding was re-quested so that the project could be carried tocompletion by the Village Safe Water program.The time between requesting and obtaining Statemoney, and the actual start of construction of theEmmonak project, was about 8 years (104).

Under current procedures, the IHS has limitedtime to work adequately with Natives to identifyrelevant community needs and arrive at well-thought-out solutions prior to the selection ofprojects. The limited time allowed for obligatingfunds can leave the impression that decisions byIHS must also be made in haste; however, once theobligation occurs, IHS can hold funds until theproject construction phase is completed. One sig-nificant adverse consequence created by the accel-erated schedules of the Federal appropriationprocess is that they place an additional burden onalready limited ,IHS resources and personnel tocarry out project decisions in a timely manner andwith ample community involvement. The recent-ly mandated financial participation by the Farm-ers Home Administration in sanitation programs($15 million for FY 19947) is considered highlybeneficial to improving the sanitation needed inother villages. Some experts, however, are con-cerned because this decision might only serve toincrease the already accelerated pace of the plan-ning process, particularly since the Farmers’Home Administration role is simply to provideconstruction funds with little or no personnel orguidance to assist IHS and VSW.

Contrary to the Federal budgetary process,State funding of capital construction projects isconducted on a line-item basis. For this reason,agencies such as Village Safe Water sometimeshave a greater opportunity to work with Nativecommunities in advance, to identify the types of

7 Maintaining this level of support in future years will depend on congressional action ( 148).


sanitation projects that might be most suitable forthem.8 Considerable attention would have to begiven, however, to the implementation of the in-teragency efforts to fund sanitation projects in ru-ral Alaska as a means to avoid accelerating thefunding process and increasing the work load ofengineering personnel at IHS and VSW.

PROJECT PLANNING, DESIGN,AND CONSTRUCTIONPlanning and designing sanitation facilities in ru-ral Alaska often require taking into considerationphysical, social, and economic barriers not com-monly found in other areas of the United States.Such barriers may vary from limited drainage andpoor soil conditions caused by discontinuous per-mafrost, to seasonal variations in the quantity andquality of water that is available, to the high costsof electricity and fuel. It is not unusual to find thatFederal and State agencies responsible for provid-ing sanitation facilities must delay their projectschedules to repair the structural damage causedby spring floods or by ice floes that follow ex-tremely cold winters.

In addition to these factors, agencies must alsodeal with other rather unique challenges duringthe critical construction phase. For instance, theymust order supplies well in advance, such as toi-lets, plumbing fixtures, and hundreds of other sys-tems and components, including thousands of feetof specially insulated pipe. Shipping equipmentfrom distant locations, such as Seattle, requiresthat inspectors visit manufacturing sites to ensuregood-quality products prior to shipment and,therefore, avoid unnecessary costs and delaysassociated with having to store inadequate—andperhaps no longer guaranteed or needed—parts.Without proper planning, the relatively short

length of the construction season and erratic bargeschedules can result in costly construction de-lays.9

The pace of construction can also be delayed bythe slowness and uncertainty of the funding pro-cess. The untimely availability of State construc-tion funds, for instance, is a factor that must becarefully considered by agencies involved duringthe design, planning, and construction phases of asanitation project. This uncertainty results pri-marily from the appropriations process of theState Legislature, which calls for allocating fundson a yearly basis. As a consequence, funds do notbecome available until July or August—themiddle of the construction season (104). A notori-ous case of insufficient and inexpeditious fundingpractices involves the construction of Emmonak’ssanitation project, for which, not only initial fund-ing was inadequate, but more importantly, thetime taken between requesting and obtaining Statefunds to actually start project construction wasabout 8 years. The adverse consequences of fund-ing uncertainties can be easily prevented in mostcommunities by developing projects that are prop-erly scoped and planned. Multiyear sanitationprojects, such as those built by IHS, are not af-fected by funding uncertainties because funds areappropriated in full before construction starts.

The absence of adequate roads to waste dispos-al areas is another barrier that makes planning, de-sign, and construction of, for example, truck haulsewage collection projects difficult. During a re-cent visit to western coastal Alaska, primarily vil-lages in the Calista and Nana regional corpora-tions, the Office of Technology Assessmentobserved many roads and boardwalks lacking thedesign and maintenance to ensure safe transport ofwastes from collection containers to sewage la-

g 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)j-ects.

g A Slgnlficant increase in the unre] iabi]ity of barge schedules, for example, was experienced in several Alaskan c{mlmunities during cl~an-

up operati(ms of the Exxon Vldde: oil spill.

62 | An

goons.

Alaskan Challenge: Native Village Sanitation

Although no evaluation was done, onemight also predict that the transport of heavier,larger construction equipment and materialswould be similarly problematic. According to thedraft report prepared by the Governor’s SanitationTask Force, nearly 100 Native villages in ruralAlaska, including many in the areas visited byOTA, lack adequate roads today. Remedying thisdeficiency, the Task Force estimated, would costat least $100 million (71)

Another important consideration in planning,designing, and constructing sanitation systems isthe number of persons residing in each household,as well as the perception they have about particu-lar sanitation technologies. In Calista RegionalCorp. villages, for example, the average house-hold consists of about five persons, the highest ra-tio for the entire State.10 Some believe that, withthe exception of piped systems, this large house-hold size reduces the number of possible sanita-tion alternatives that can be built readily to meetsuch demand. Biological or comporting toilets areassumed by some to be limited in capacity andprone to shock loading, whereas septic and hold-ing tank systems are considered unsuitable underlow or inadequate drain field conditions. As an ef-fort to evaluate the actual performance of techno-logical alternatives, the University of Alaska An-chorage is conducting a field demonstration studyof comporting toilets in the Northwest Arctic withfunds from the Alaska Science and TechnologyFoundation, and in cooperation with the Nana Re-gional Corp., the Alaska Department of Environ-mental Conservation, and IHS.

Opportunities for local employment are alsorelevant to project planning. Communities natu-rally want the contractor that is building the newwater or sewage facility to use local labor to thegreatest extent possible. Sometimes this requiresadditional time and resources to provide the nec-essary training and to develop mutually accept-able wage scales, working hours, and hiring or fir-ing practices. IHS and VSW are committed to

using local workers on almost all projects. Thiscommitment is often met through the use of “forceaccounts” or labor agreements that ensure em-ployment to local residents.

Communication begun in the planning phasemust be maintained constantly and effectivelyduring the construction phase to eliminate ten-sions and avoid unnecessary or costly delays(104). Early communication with Emmonak lead-ers, for example, was crucial in obtaining the com-munity’s approval and support, which allowedoutside contractors to come in and perform highlyspecialized electrical work for the project.

The perception by many local Natives that Fed-eral and State agencies have failed to involve themearly in the planning process sometimes leads tothe erroneous conclusion that sanitation projectsbuilt in the past were merely “costly waste sanita-tion problems” rather than “solutions.” In the cityof Buckland, for example, some believed that thefailure of engineers to consult with city residentswas the primary reason for construction of thecommunity sewage lagoon at a site where rawsewage was washed out of the lagoon and downthe city streets during spring floods. Informationprovided by IHS shows that, contrary to this be-lief, the site selected for the lagoon was based on asound engineering decision. Unfortunately soonafter the facility was built, a catastrophic flood oc-curred that filled the lagoon and washed the con-tained waste downtown. To prevent this from re-curring, IHS built a steel structure around thelagoon at a cost exceeding $300,000. Efforts byIHS and VSW to work more closely with Nativeleaders and residents in Buckland and other vil-lages continue to be instrumental in improvingcommunication with Natives.

Failure to involve Natives in the planning, de-sign, and construction of sanitation facilities mayalso result in the community’s perception that ithas little ownership of the project. This perceptionis considered a major roadblock in solving thewaste sanitation problems of Alaskan villages.

1) Alaska averages slightly fewer than four persons per household.


Soliciting community participation early in theplanning process and actively responding to thecommunity suggestions and concerns are meansby which to institute community ownership (70).

To ensure a positive ownership perception, IHSand VSW have, for several years, adopted Nativecommunity participation as an integral part oftheir programs responsible for building piped san-itation facilities in rural Alaska. One of severalIHS strategies to improve the community’s per-ception of ownership involves a two-step process.Step one consists essentially of providing a grantto the community for planning purposes. This isfollowed, about a year later, by a second grant sothat the community can review alternative tech-nologies and develop operation and financialmanagement plans well in advance of actualproject construction. Through these types of strat-egies, community leaders and residents are pro-vided with an opportunity to significantly influ-ence project planning and design decisions, aswell as identify economically feasible solutions.

The pressure placed on IHS to build sanitationfacilities soon after construction funds have beenappropriated often limits its time for working withcommunities. IHS and VSW regularly find them-selves making decisions too quickly. One notableexception is in Emmonak, where the time pro-vided for technical design teams to consult withresidents (e.g., explaining details, listening tosuggestions, and making changes), and allowcommunity members to modify proposed plansand designs, was largely responsible for the suc-cessful completion of the project. The Emmonaksuccess story shows that instilling a sense of own-ership requires that Federal and State agencies beprovided needed construction funds, as well assufficient flexibility to work with Native commu-nities in identifying and carrying out solutionsthat are truly suitable for eliminating their wastesanitation problems.

TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION OFSANITATION FACILITY OPERATORSTraditionally, funds to support training programsfor operators of sanitation projects in Native vil-

lages of rural Alaska have been provided throughFederal and State training programs. IHS involve-ment in operator training has existed for more than17 years (123). The Alaska Department of Envi-ronmental Conservation (ADEC) is the State or-ganization with primary responsibility for the cer-tification of sanitation project operators, whereasVillage Safe Water, also under ADEC jurisdiction,is responsible for their training. VSW efforts totrain operators generally begin during theconstruction phase of the project. Areas coveredin the training of operators include water chemis-try and treatment, vacuum pumps, controls, safe-ty, and record keeping. As a result of recentchanges in State policy, many operators must nowpass State certification prior to running a Nativecommunity’s sanitation facility (104).

Use of off-the-shelf packaged training pro-grams has not always been successful. The pro-grams and materials are often not relevant to therural community for which they are intended. As asolution, the Governor’s Sanitation Task Forcesuggested that the State develop culturally sensi-tive and practical training programs whose mainfocus is to address realistic village situations. Ac-cording to the Task Force, ‘b[Operator training]Manuals which require extensive reading skillsand [contain] outdated ‘canned’ programs shouldnot be used. Lectures should be kept to a mini-mum and real 1ife problems emphasized” (70). Inaddition, some suggest that training be repeated atperiodic intervals to limit the adverse conse-quences associated with the high rate of operatorturnover experienced among Native communi-ties.

Like local funding shortages, training is anoth-er critical factor that must be supported if properoperation, maintenance, and management of sa-nitation facilities are to be achieved in rural Alas-ka. According to the Alaska Native Health Board.the greater emphasis placed on enforcing regula-tions rather than supporting training programs hasbeen partially responsible for the deteriorationand breakdown of sanitation facilities in variousAlaskan villages (58). Others experts, however,


point to the limited functionality of local gover-nments as a barrier to training programs.

As the State’s inability to fund an expandedtraining program increases, the suggestion hasbeen made that needed revenues be obtained bysetting aside a small fraction of the Federal andState capital budgets. Financial assistance fortraining programs could also be sought from pri-vate organizations and foundations. And althoughimproved funding for training programs is crucialto ensure adequate sanitation in rural Alaska,many firmly believe that complete success willnot be attained unless such support emphasizes re-cruitment of local Native workers (58, 223).

The Governor’s Sanitation Task Force, perhapsrecognizing the need for training programs to in-clude a business management component, recom-mends in its unpublished report that once relevanttraining programs have been assembled, anassociates program on ‘“rural government man-agement and administration” be developed at theUniversity of Alaska Anchorage.]} Because of thelimited funding available at the village level, theTask Force suggested that Federal and State agen-cies provide the financial support (e.g., scholar-ships) needed by members of Native villages toparticipate in the program and learn to manage andoperate their sanitation systems (70).

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCETechnical assistance to Native communities in ru-ral Alaska is provided through various indepen-dent programs supported by Federal, State, andNative corporation funds. The most relevant pro-grams today include the Remote MaintenanceWorker (RMW) Program and the Rural UtilityBusiness Advisor Program. Another programwith potential is the Local Utility Matching Pro-gram (LUMP) being tested by Village Safe Water.IHS also funds a Utility Maintenance Specialistprogram whose four staff members provide a ser-

vice similar to the RMW program but in areas notserved by RMWS (83,127,177). Technical andtraining assistance is also provided by smaller re-gional groups. ]2

| Remote Maintenance Worker ProgramCreated by Alaska’s Legislature in 1981, the Re-mote Maintenance Worker Program under the De-partment of Environmental Conservation pro-vides expert assistance to Native communities onhow to maintain their water and sewer systemswhile complying with environmental regulations(105). In the view of a regional health expert, thecrucial role of the RMW program is that it allowsvillages to become self-sufficient (229).

Individuals in the Native community expectedto benefit most directly from the creation of theRMW program were initially thought to be the lo-cal utility operators. More recently, however, theentire community has been the benefactor be-cause, in addition to routine operation, mainte-nance, and emergency response, RMW staff helpNative communities to minimize the adverse ef-fects of frequent operator turnover. Since incep-tion of the program, RMWS have become “circuitriders,” each serving anywhere between 10 and 15communities. The State currently funds a programcomposed of nine RMWS serving rural parts ofAlaska (219). The Governor’s Sanitation TaskForce has termed the success of the RMW pro-gram “phenomenal” (65).

Continued provision of technical assistancewill be extremely difficult in the future withoutfunding increases for the RMW program. Accord-ing to the Alaska Native Health Board, the numberof RMWS is inadequate to assist the increasingnumber of remote villages that need to be coveredby the program. In 1991, for example, only eightRMWS were available to assist Native nonprofitinstitutions (58), Recent estimates indicate thatmore 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.


use the assistance of skilled RMW staff. In theview of many members of organizations who dealwith RMWS in the field, expansion efforts wouldbe highly beneficial, particularly if the staff addedinclude Alaskan Natives (223).

| Rural Utility Business Advisor ProgramThe activities of the Rural Utility Business Advi-sor Program, though originally financed by Feder-al government agencies such as IHS, are nowfunded by the Environmental Protection Agencyand Village Safe Water Program, and carried outby the Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs. The program’s objectives focusprimarily on improving government, financial,and managerial activities in Native communities(89). Although variations might exist amongcommunities, carrying out these objectives fre-quently requires RUBA staff to develop policiesand procedures for effective utility management,including record keeping, accounting, and budg-eting. Ensuring continuity when staff turnover oc-curs and serving as a local information source forFederal and State agencies are also importantfunctions.

Program assistance is available to Native vil-lages now served by water and sewer utilities, aswell as those that are planning future sanitationprojects. By building close working relationshipswith village leaders and administrators prior toproviding management training, RUBA staff havealready contributed to strengthening sanitationprograms in at least 10 Native villages. Trainingprovided to key village personnel is “one-on-one,over-the-shoulder” (227). Once training is com-pleted, city administrators become equipped inareas essential to managing their piped sanitationfacilities. Included among the areas of training areorganizational structure, budgeting, billing andcollection procedures, contract negotiations, andaccounting. 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 mini-mal. For instance, in 1990 the future of the pro-gram and its expansion to other villages becamedoubtful when State funding was near] y depleted.Only when EPA assumed responsibility for pro-viding funds was program stability ensured. Manyargue that compared to the more than $1 billion in-vested in the construction of sanitation facilities inrural villages, or the total that would have to bespent for premature facility repairs and equipmentreplacement, the amount needed to improve util-ity management through the RUBA program isnegligible: $125,000 per year for every 10 to 15 communities. As a probable solution to this fund-ing shortage, the Alaska Native Health Board hassuggested that Federal agencies (e.g., EPA, IHS)work with the Alaska Department of Environmen-tal Conservation to ensure adequate funding andneeded expansion of the program-from a staff of8 to 16 (58). Recognizing the importance of the in-fusion of Federal funding into RUB A, the Gover-nor’s Sanitation Task Force concluded in its draftreport that “[RUBA] is possibly the most impor-tant program the State could institute to ensure thesuccess of rural sanitation systems” (70).

If future funding permits, RUBA officials planto provide management and training assistance re-lated to water and waste sanitation utilities to atleast 16 additional Native communities during FY1994. These villages are listed in table 4-3. Themost active RUBA participation is planned inlow-income villages of the Yukon-KuskokwimDelta and the community of Gambell (NortonSound) since most chronic O&M problems arefound in these areas (89). To help communitiesmore effective y, RUBA activities will be coordi-nated with those being carried out by other agen-cies such as the Indian Health Service and the En-vironmental Protection Agency (89).


Method ofNeed/problem Objective accomplishment Benefits obtained

Villages do not planfor future replacementor major repairs, andrely on outsideagencies (PublicHealth Service (PHS)and VSW) forassistance in O&M ofsanitation uyilitiesfacilitles,

PHS and VSWprograms often needreliable onsiteInformation aboutVillage managementcapabilities during theplanning of projects

Due to lack of training,village staff do nothave adequatetraining on recordkeeping, billing, anduse of computers fordata processing.Maintaining qualifiedpersonnel is oftendifficult

●

■

●

●

■

■

✘

■

■

Develop/revise utilityordinances when theydo not exist or areoutdated.Develop office policies

and procedures forImplementing localordinance provisions.Determine proper rateor fee structures andshutoff policies.Develop better financialrecord keeping andreporting tools socommunity can exercisemore effective utilitymanagement,Develop more realisticbudgets that reflectneeded O&M, as well asreserves for futureemergency problems.Increase villageawareness of utilitymaintenance andbudgeting Issues.Act as a resource toVSW or PHS personnelto provide current localinformahon on villagesuccesses and potentialproblem areas,particularly in relation toeconomy andmanagement,

Ensure programcontinuity when staffturnover occurs.Help villages in properrecord keeping activitiessuch as billmg andreceivables.

9

■

9

■

●

—

Hold meetings with staffand council ondeveloped/revised utilityordinance.Work with staff todevelop policies andprocedures forimplementing utilityordinances; hold regularmeetings with villageadministrators; andissue brief, periodicnewsletters onutilty-related issuesrelevant to the village,Work with RemoteMaintenance WorkerProgram staff to ensurethat operationalconcerns are reported tothe village council andmanagement

Maintain villageInformation files,on management

Focusas

well as financial andeconomic indicators

Help staff developwritten policies andprocedures for billlng,budgeting, and handlingrevenues from water andsewer utilities.

More consistentmanagement policies thatcan be used by Natives.Better understanding ofO&M obligations andresponsibilities of councilmembers during thebudgeting process.Advanced Identification ofpotentially serious fiscalproblem areasIncreased awareness ofbudgeting and O&M needsamong administrators

Increased awarenessother agencies of the

by

community’s social andeconomic realities,particularly during theplanning phase of futuresanitation projects.

More consistent policiesthat might be Implementedindependently of staff orCouncil composition.Better recovery of revenuesby 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

—


Native villages receiving Native communities to benefitArea 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 ChalkyitsikBirch CreekRampart

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 AssistanceDivision letter to German E Reyes, Off Ice of Technology Assessment, Aug. 9, 1993

| Local Utility Matching ProgramThe Local Utility Matching Program (LUMP) isa pilot subsidy program established under VillageSafe Water of the Alaska Department of Environ-mental Conservation. Because of its experimentalnature, the LUMP program is being implementedonly in 11 Native villages of the Northwest ArcticBorough , l3 at an estimated cost of nearly$500,000 ( 106). Among the main goals of the pro-gram are the creation of incentives to improveO&M within local governments and increasingthe amount of revenue available to manage theutility. To achieve these objectives, the programrequires communities to collect user fees, pro-mote hiring of qualified facility operators, and es-tablish effective preventive maintenance proce-dures at each receiving village.

To provide technical assistance more effective-ly, LUMP staff have very specific areas of exper-tise, including training and certification of facilityoperators, O&M budgeting, and compliance with

drinking water regulations (51 ,106,152). LUMPhas already initiated communication with all vil-lages in the Borough; collected partial data rele-vant to village qualification for the program; andestablished monthly collection rates and payrolldeductions, facilitating the work of many villageadministrators. The Village of Noorvik has al-ready met the requirements for receiving LUMPassistance (152).

As a way to supplement the program, LUMPofficials require Native communities to matchprogram contributions with revenues collectedfrom local user fees. Many experts consider thefunctions of this program essential to raising com-munity ownership of sanitation projects (106,153,1 71). Because of current funding shortages,these experts suggest that an infusion of Federalfunds, at least at a matching level, would enablethe expansion of the program to other Native com-munities in need of training in utility manage-ment.

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.


| Coordination Needs Among TrainingPrograms

The bulk of training and technical assistance pro-vided to Native communities of rural Alaska orig-inates at three major agencies: the Indian HealthService, Alaska Department of EnvironmentalConservation, and Department of Communityand Regional Affairs (DCRA). Whereas the majoremphasis of IHS and ADEC training programs isto provide operators with the technical skills need-ed to keep their utilities operational, DCRA fo-cuses on improving government operations andthe financial and managerial skills of utility opera-tors in Native communities.

All training and certification programs devel-oped to ensure that Native communities operateand maintain their water and sewer projects prop-erly were created independent of one another. As aconsequence, there has been little interactionamong them in the past. This has recently been im-proved by various coordinated efforts and inter-agency agreements to streamline training. Withthe increasing need to protect the health of com-munity residents, and the expected decline in Fed-eral and State funding, continued coordination isan absolute necessity

EXTERNAL SUBSIDIES FOR OPERATIONAND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIESSanitation facilities are still among the most de-manding and costly capital projects found amongNative communities in rural Alaska. Their highcost is associated not merely with their construc-tion but also with high expenditures for electricpower, fuel, equipment, training, and labor. Inmost cases, the more remote the community is, thehigher are the costs and the greater is the difficultyencountered in operating the system (69). Accord-ing to government reports, the greatest need forfunding sanitation projects in the United States isstill found in Alaska. Of the $633 million in Fed-eral assistance funds estimated by IHS in 1990 asrequired to build sanitation facilities in U.S. Na-tive areas, nearly 74 percent was needed for Alas-ka’s rural areas (254).

The Indian Health Service is the primary Feder-al agency responsible for funding the planning,design, and construction of sanitation projects inrural Alaskan Native villages. In the past, IHSevaluated the capital investment needed to pro-vide sewage treatment and collection on the basisof the economic and technical feasibility ofconstruction. Because of the high costs ofconstruction, past IHS criteria often excluded rec-ommendations for piped systems. Today, IHSevaluates capital investment needs in terms of thecost of providing piped indoor systems (254).

Construction funds have essentially been uti-lized by Federal and State agencies to provide sa-nitation technologies or systems with a significantdegree of advanced engineering. During Alaska’s“oil boom,” millions of doI1ars were spent to buildsanitation projects in rural communities. Not allvillages benefited during this period, and in thosethat did, the overwhelming emphasis was on facil-ity construction, not O&M. Many of these com-munities are now experiencing facility break-downs and costly repairs or replacements.

Although IHS funding is also essential for re-pairing existing facilities, one element not tradi-tionally permitted under existing Federal andState systems is the funding of operation andmaintenance of sanitation projects in Native vil-lages. Until 1992, only one State agency sup-ported-in a limited and sporadic fashion—O&Min a few Native communities. The virtual absenceof any external contribution to enable local Nativegovernments to properly operate and maintaintheir piped sanitation projects has forced them touse already-limited municipal and State revenuesharing and entitlements, and local revenues fromfund-raising activities, to pay for O&M of sanita-tion projects.

The majority of rural Alaskan Native commu-nities rely almost completely on transfer pay-ments and subsidies from Federal and State agen-cies to operate all basic village programs.Quantifying the actual level of external subsidiesprovided today is difficult. Nonetheless, most ex-perts agree that without this assistance, Nativecommunities would most likely be unable to sur-vive for long. In the villages, a lack of O&M


funding, shortage of technical assistance fromoutside agencies, and inadequate training of facil-ity operators continue to shorten the useful life ofexisting sanitation projects, lead to their break-down, and sometimes even result in human casu-alties.

As operational costs of sanitation projects in-crease, so does the need to obtain external O&Massistance. These higher costs, combined with anearly 50-percent decline in State revenue sharingand municipal assistance, are making the O&Mproblem even more acute. It is not rare to find amultimillion dollar sanitation project in ruralAlaska in need of preventive maintenance becauseof inadequate O&M and limited funding. Addedto this concern is the fact that most ‘Native villagesdo not have, as the Governor’s Sanitation TaskForce noted in its report, an “equipment replace-ment account” to ensure facility replacement onceexisting projects reach the end of their design life(69).

Recognizing these deficiencies, Congressamended the Indian Health Care ImprovementAct of 197614 by enacting the law commonlyknown as the Indian Health Amendments of1992.5 In Section 302 of the new law,

16 Congressauthorized the Indian Health Service to fund up to80 percent of the costs incurred by Native villagesand Indian Tribes for the operation, maintenance,and management of their water and sewer sys-tems. This is considered by many experts and Na-tive residents essential not only for avoiding thefrequent premature weardown of system compo-nents, but also for providing an opportunity forvillages with honey buckets to obtain more ade-quate sanitation technology—an expectationoften rejected because of their lack of O&M funds.However, appropriation of funds under the IndianHealth Amendments of 1992 to assist Native com-munities has not yet been requested by the IndianHealth Service.

CONCLUSIONAs a result of Federal and State mandates to deliv-er adequate sanitation services to Native commu-nities in rural Alaska, IHS and VSW have builtlarge-scale piped sanitation systems in more thanhalf of the 191 Native villages identified by IHSfor sanitation purposes. In addition to projectconstruction, IHS and VSW also support trainingfor operators of sanitation projects and providetechnical assistance to Native communitiesthrough various programs (e.g., RMW, RUBA,IHS operator training, and LUMP). The high de-gree of complexity inherent in these systems,however, has made sanitation projects some of themost demanding and costly capital ventures in allof rural Alaska.

Even though funds are provided for projectconstruction and technical support and trainingprograms, one element not provided under thepresent Federal and State system is O&M subsi-dies for the villages. In the absence of external fi-nancial assistance, local Native governments areoften forced to use their limited funds—primarilyfrom municipal and State revenue sharing and en-titlements, and from fund-raising activities—topay for O&M of sanitation projects. Continueddependence on this practice can not ensure properoperation and maintenance of sanitation projects,and most likely will continue to shorten the usefullife of existing sanitation projects or cause theirbreakdown. Recognizing these deficiencies, Con-gress enacted the Indian Health Amendments of1992 to assist Native communities with FederalO&M funds. Requests for funds to carry out thiscongressional mandate have not yet been sub-mitted by the Indian Health Service.

IHS and VSW continue to experience growingpressure to provide improved sanitation projectsto villages still operating honey buckets. The in-creasing economic and O&M-related difficulties


faced by those communities in which sanitationprojects have already been built, illustrates theneed to avoid installing similarly complextechnologies in other communities that appear tohave few economic or technical resources to oper-ate them, unless outside support for O&M couldbe guaranteed. IHS and VSW personnel have re-cently begun to work with Native communities inthe identification and testing of other simpler andless costly systems. ]7

Problems surrounding sanitation in rural Alas-ka are complex and should demand participationby all potentially relevant Federal and State agen-cies. In addition to IHS and VSW, a considerablenumber of Federal and State agencies currently

exist with programs that directly or indirect] y sup-port sanitation-related functions in Native com-munities. A strong framework for cooperation be-tween agencies exists at all levels; however, theredoes not appear to be an overarching rural villagepolicy to guide agency coordination and concreteaction in the field. It appears that throughout theorganizational structures of existing agencies,government officials interact with counterpartsonly in accordance with the demands of their indi-vidual responsibilities. And although some suc-cess has been achieved by this action-orientedprocess, greater efficiency of service deliverycould be realized with more coordinated inter-agency policies and guidelines.

IT Alternative Was[e Smitatlon techno](~gies with potential for applicati(m in rural Alaska are discussed in ch. 5.

AlternativeSanitation

Technologies 5INTRODUCTIONThis chapter discusses a number of new and innovative ap-proaches to providing adequate sanitation systems to NativeAlaskan communities. Many approaches have been proposed, butfew have been evaluated and tested under realistic conditions.There is, however, a growing need to improve sanitation systemsat a realistic cost and with confidence in safe and practical results.For more than three decades, Federal and State efforts to improvewaste sanitation among rural Native communities in Alaska havefocused on building centralized conventional piped systems.However, these systems have a high initial cost, especially whenbuilt in remote regions with harsh cold climates, and because ofthe environmental extremes, operational maintenance is also dif-ficult and costly. To date, only 72 of the 191 rural Native commu-nities identified by the Indian Health Service have been providedwith piped sewerage services. The level of sophistication of wastedisposal technologies operating in remote Alaska varies signifi-cantly among villages, ranging from complex piped sewerageservice with flush toilets to the rudimentary privy and honeybucket systems. Between these two extremes, one finds technolo-gies such as the septic tank and the truck haul approach.

For the most part, the sanitation technologies operating in ruralAlaska are merely modifications of approaches designed decadesago for use in more moderate climates. Recently, a modificationof the conventional truck haul system tested in the City of Meku-ryuk (Nunivak Island, Yukon-Kuskokwim region) is being re-garded as a promising alternative to honey buckets. Other sys-tems, such as composting, incinerating, or propane toilets havealso been proposed. These alternatives may overcome some ofthe cold-temperature problems encountered by larger conven-

e------#——————————— IIt+~— ‘ - . . .


tional systems and be more effective than honeybuckets indisposing of waste and reducing humanexposure. The fact that these systems can incorpo-rate low-flush or waterless toilets and eliminatethe need for maintaining sewage lagoons is alsoadvantageous. However, because these systemsdo not require potable water, they defeat, in theview of many, the objective of promoting an am-ple supply of potable water and thus better sanita-tion practices in the villages.

Although potentially useful, some of the otherinnovative technologies discussed in this chapter,such as the National Aeronautic and SpaceAssociation (NASA) waste treatment methods,thus far appear either too complex and too expen-sive for immediate application or are just in theirpreliminary phase of development. (Currentcooperative efforts among Federal and State gov-ernments and private organizations to demon-strate NASA’s technologies, however, appear tobe potentially useful for transferring knowledgeand technical experience to remote communitieswith waste sanitation problems.) Others systems,though already developed, suffer from limited in-formation about their actual full-time perfor-mance in treating human waste in areas of harshclimate such as rural Alaska. Finally, an overallmechanism to test and evaluate new systems un-der actual conditions in these Alaskan villages hasyet to be developed. Until this is done, it will bedifficult to select a system that is the most cost-ef-fective, safe, and acceptable to the communitythat must operate it.

DESCRIPTION OF NEW ADVANCEDSYSTEMS CURRENTLY PROPOSED FORALASKAN VILLAGES| Cowater Small-Vehicle Haul SystemThe Cowater small-vehicle haul system, a varia-tion of the larger conventional truck haul systemand developed by Cowater International of On-tario, Canada, is currently being evaluated in theCity of Mekuryuk (Nunivak Island, Yukon-Kus-kokwim region) as a possible sanitation approachfor Alaska (figure 5-1 ). This technology involvesthe use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVS; during the

SOURCE Cowater International Inc , Ontario, Canada, Mekoryuk Sew-

age Haul System Development Prototype Household DemonstrationFinal Report, October 1993

summer) and snowmobiles (for winter opera-tions) equipped with a tow trailer and a small vac-uum/pressure tank to remove wastewater fromhouse holding tanks (figure 5-2).

Although similar in concept to the truck haulapproach, the Cowater system does not require ex-pensive conventional vacuum trucks and is lesscostly to maintain and operate. In addition, it doesnot require load-bearing roads and snow removalequipment for its operation. The major elementsof this system are: a dual flush toilet, an in-housewater storage tank, an outside wastewater holdingtank, and a small haul vehicle equipped with ahaul tank.

Dual Flush ToiletThe dual flush toilet looks like a conventionalhousehold toilet, can be connected to a gravity-fed

Chapter 5: Alternative Sanitation Technologies | 73

SOURCE Cowater International Inc Ontario, Canada, Mekoryuk Sew-age Haul System Development Prototype Household DemonstrationFlnal Report, October 1993

water source, and does not require a pressurizedwater supply. It is designed to control the amountof water consumed, requiring only 1 pint perflush. Sometime in early 1995, one firm expectsto begin the large-scale manufacturing of the dualflush toilet ( 186,1 87,237).

In-House Water Supply SystemThe in-house system consists of a tank capable ofholding up to 150 gallons of potable water. De-pending on the desired level of operation, the in-house water supply system can provide water fortoilet flushing only; can incorporate a washbasinoption in which the water used for hand washingcan be recycled as flush water; or can supply waterfor washing, cooking, and drinking. A small elec-tric pump fitted on the tank provides a constantsupply of water whenever needed.

The water stored in the water supply tank is de-livered from a small tank mounted on a wagon anddrawn by a small haul vehicle. The operator usesthe air compressor at the local water treatmentplant to draw water from the large storage tanks of

fill the small air tank located on the wagon withcompressed air. The compressed air is used toforce the water from the haul tank into the watersupply tank located inside the house.

Wastewater Storage TanksDepending on the house’s design and the user’sneeds, the sanitation system may be equippedwith either an indoor or an outdoor wastewaterholding tank for discharging and storing wastes.Made of a flexible rubber or plastic bladder andaligned by a rigid enclosure, indoor holding tankscan store up to 100 gallons of wastewater. Indoortanks are evacuated by a blower that pressurizesthe tank, pushing the sewage through a pipe intoa haul vehicle outside.

Outdoor holding tanks, on the other hand, areheavily insulated and capable of holding largervolumes. These tanks are generally set on skidsalongside the house and are connected to the in-door sanitation system by insulated pipes. Out-door tanks are emptied the same way as indoortanks. Outdoor holding tanks are preferred to in-door ones because they remove the sewage fromthe home and eliminate the need to build steps toreach the toilet (120).

Haul Tank and Haul VehicleA tank designed for hauling human sewage fromthe house to the disposal area is made of stainlesssteel and sized to exceed the capacity of holdingtanks.

As shown in figure 5-2, the haul tank can bemounted on a trailer fitted with wheels or skis andhauled by snowmobile, ATV, or a small tractor.With the exception of the pump-evacuated systemin which a pump is provided, the system operatoris required to use the blower located on the haulvehicle to empty the collected waste into the haultank. Once the tank is filled, the operator pulls it tothe sewage lagoon or disposal area and empties itby gravity. The pump-evacuated system allowsthe operator to empty the indoor holding tank intothe 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.


According to Cowater reports, the field demon-stration at Mekuryuk has provided an opportunityfor increasing the understanding of the system’sengineering and performance, and for successful-ly working with Native residents in achieving thecommunity’s desired level of sanitation and aes-thetics (82,1 19,120,1 85).

| The “AlasCan” Organic Waste andWastewater Treatmentl

The AlasCan is a modular, high-technology, self-contained comporting system designed to handlesanitary and kitchen wastes and greywater(181 ).2

The essential components of the AlasCan systemare a custom-made comporting tank and a ce-ramic toilet (consisting of either the fully auto-matic, computer-operated Nepon Pearl foam-flush toilet 3 or the pedal-operated vacuum toiletknown as SeaLand VacuFlush). This combina-tion, according to its designers, provides the userthe comfort of a flush toilet and the advantage ofcomporting treatment (97). The AlasCan is alsoequipped with a kitchen waste disposal systemand a greywater treatment tank.4 To avoid prob-lems experienced with other models in the past(e.g., odor escaping into homes), AlasCan design-ers built the toilet and compost treatment tank astwo separate units (146).

The AlasCan comporting technology has beenin use in several facilities in Alaska, Canada, andthe lower 48 States. Most of the Alaskan sites,however, are National Guard armories. One par-ticular unit is being used on an oil drilling rig nearPrudhoe Bay. Field tests are also being conductedat a few selected locations in the Yukon-Kuskok-

wim region to evaluate its potential for use inAlaskan Native villages.

Major Components of AlasCanCompost Technology

Comporting TankThe central component of the AlasCan comport-ing system is a double-walled “superinsulated”plastic tank containing a fully automated chamberwith aerobic bacteria and red worms to decom-pose sanitary waste or backwater into a safe, fer-tile humus material similar to garden soil(6,7, 182).5 Wood shavings are added to reduce ex-cess liquid in the tank and to provide the carbonand other minerals needed for effective biodegra-dation.

The treatment tank is equipped with a series ofbaffles, air channels, and mixers. A fan is alsoused to draw warm air into the treatment tank topromote organic decomposition of the waste (fig-ure 5-3). To improve the rate of decomposition,the treatment tank is fitted with two items: auto-matic churners or agitators capable of mixing thewood shavings, red worms, and waste; and sprin-klers, which reincorporate accumulated liquidsinto the mixture when needed (6,7, 181 ). The com-puter-controlled agitators are set to operate forabout 20 minutes daily so that recently disposedwaste is properly mixed, and the compost pile lev-eled (6,7). Installation of an auxiliary heating unitmay be required in locations where ambientconditions could force the internal temperature ofthe comporting tank to drop below 60 “F.

The treatment of human waste with the Alas-Can comporting technology results in three by-

1 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 ap-

pliances 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 userfrom compat mass

Organic Wastewater Treatment System

Low-pressure air-powered

Surface skimmer water transport systemSludge removalsystem (to hand-

/ operated removalpump)

Effluent (outlet)pipe toabsorption field\

Clanficat]on baffle /

Y x Influent (Input)pipe

\Large surge chambercapable of handling

/

\

\ \

washing machmes,Polyurea plastlc shells dishwashers, bathtubs,separated by 4“ rigid

Clarification Aerobic reactionsinks, etc.

polyurethane insulation(greater than R20) chamber chamber

Low pressureaerator

SOURCE Al Gelst, Markellng Director AlasCan Inc Fairbanks Alaska, personal communlcatlon, Nov 23, 1993


products: water vapor and carbon dioxide, whichare released through an insulated vent installed inthe home or building, and humus, which collectsin a tray in the lower portion of the tank. The aero-bic nature of this technology prevents the genera-tion of malodorous methane gas (181).

Its modular design makes the AlasCan systemeasy to install and maintain. For homes built onslab floors or with limited crawl space, AlasCanuses a special vacuum flush toilet6 to lift waste upto the comporting tank. Lifting of greywater intothe treatment tank is accomplished by a transfervacuum pump fitted to a small reservoir (6,7,145).For homes without running water, the bathroomtoilet is fitted with a small reservoir or water tank.

Ceramic ToiletThe AlasCan system is an improved design overthe internationally known Clivus Multrum com-porting toilet. 7 Such improvements include,among others, automation of the comportingprocess; connection of the comporting tank to amodern foam-flush toilet; and addition of a sepa-rate greywater treatment tank unit (181). Toiletsmay be of a “straight drop” waterless or a foam-flush design. The foam-flush toilet design uses asmall air pump, which upon flushing, mixes asoaplike substance stored in the tank with water toproduce a soapy foam layer inside the bowl thatcarries the waste down to the treatment tank withminimal splashing. The use of a biodegradablesoap is also advantageous because it minimizesthe need for toilet cleaning. When the toilet isflushed, waste is discharged to the insulated treat-ment tank where it is decomposed by organisms(bacteria and red worms) into organic humus(181).

Kitchen Waste Disposal SystemThe AlasCan system can also be equipped with asmall garbage disposal sink fitted with a sprayer.

6 Known as the Seaiand VacuFlush toilet system

This device is typically located in the vicinity ofthe kitchen sink. Garbage, placed in the disposalsink for processing, is subsequently piped to thetreatment tank where human waste is also treated(181).

Greywater Treatment TankIn addition to treating black water, the AlasCancomporting technology can be used to treat grey -water (figure 5-3). The treatment of greywater isconducted in a three-chambered tank fitted with aseries of baffles and filters. After treatment, thetreated water is filtered and released into theground, while the remaining solids are sent to thecomporting tank for further decomposition. Ac-cording to the manufacturer, treated wastewatercan be returned safely to the environment becausethe AlasCan system removes the majority of pol-lutants found in it, including nitrites, volatile or-ganic compounds, suspended solids, and organicmatter (6,7,170).

1 Phoenix Comporting ToiletThe Phoenix comporting technology has been de-signed primarily for indoor installation. Its com-pact shape results in small tank and maintenanceareas. The major components of this technologyare a toilet, a kitchen waste inlet (optional), and acomporting tank (figure 5-4). Electricity can besupplied by an independent energy source, such asa photovoltaic system or by the small plug-in al-ternating current (ac) power plug supplied withthe unit.

Use of the Phoenix comporting technology inrural communities of Alaska is limited in compar-ison to areas in the continental United States andCanada. The School of Environmental Engineer-ing of the University of Alaska Anchorage willsoon field-test two Phoenix units as part of an on-going effort to identify potential alternatives tohoney 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.


Toilet II

Exhaust1

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 toToilet System three toilets (3,197 ).8

Toilet System Kitchen Waste Disposal InletThe toilet provided in the Phoenix comporting Manufacturers of the Phoenix comporting systemsystem is contemporary in design and made of have built two types of kitchen waste disposal op-white plastic. The bowl is attached to the com- tions. One model consists of a stainless steel rimposting tank by a chute and secured with a special- and bowl fitted with a maple chopping block cov-1 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 beinstalled either on countertops or on vertical sur-faces (3).

Comporting TankThe Phoenix operates much like a garden compostpile, requiring adequate food, air, moisture, andtemperature to support the breakdown of sanitaryand kitchen wastes into a stable humus-like mate-rial. Depending on the model, a Phoenix treatmenttank is capable of safely comporting the sanitaryand kitchen wastes of four full-time users (ModelR200) or eight part-time users (R201 ). OtherPhoenix models, such as the R199, have smallertreatment capacity because they are generally in-tended for cabin use (two people full-time; moreif use is intermittent).

The Phoenix comporting system is ventilatedby a multiple speed, 12-volt direct current (de),4-watt fan.9 The continuous insulation of thewalls of the treatment tank seals the ventilationpath and allows the air baffles to perform as heatexchangers; this, in turn, promotes heat retention(up to 80 percent) and increased decompositionrates. Aerobic conditions are maintained by airbaffles installed on the side walls of the tank toaerate the compost pile and by rotating tines tokeep the compost materials from compacting. Useof coarse wood shavings is required as a bulkingagent (2,4,5,196,197) .

Transport of composted material through thetank is facilitated, according to the manufacturer,by the vertical and uncomplicated tank design,and by the incorporation of rotating tines. A built-in hand pump allows accumulated liquids to besprayed back on the compost pile to maintainproper moisture. The sloped design of the internaltank floor helps separate treated liquids fromtreated solid byproducts. A liquid evaporatorequipped with a small storage tank for peak load-ing is also used to reduce the amount of treated liq-uid byproduct that must be drained from the Phoe-nix system to a holding tank or to the outside

environment (small leach field, soil bed, etc.)(197). For conditions in which liquid effluentscannot be discharged, the comporting tank isfitted with a highly specialized system (consistingof a 50- to 100-gallon storage tank, an evaporationtower, a pump, a dc fan or ac blower, and controlsand sensors) capable of evaporating between 5and 13 gallons of liquid effluent per day (2,5).

To ensure proper system operation in areascharacterized by subfreezing temperatures, how-ever, it is critical that the Phoenix tank be locatedin a well-heated area and that all vent pipes be in-sulated to reduce condensation and freezing(1 11,1 12,197).

Maintenance RequirementsThe Phoenix treatment tank (approximately 3 feetwide, 5 feet long, and 8 feet high) requires about5 feet of additional space in front of the tank, andabout 1 foot of clearance above the tank, for prop-er operation and maintenance. The degree ofmaintenance required by this technology dependshugely on the frequency of use. The manufacturerrecommends that bulking agent be added—about1 gallon for every 100 uses—and thoroughlymixed into the waste pile. A heavily used systemrequires more frequent attention and care.

Similarly, the amount and frequency withinwhich by-product materials must be removed de-pend on the extent of use, the rate of decomposi-tion, and the maintenance of the unit. Accordingto the manufacturer, treated materials should beremoved at least once a year, starting after the firstyear the system has been in operation. It is esti-mated that about 8 gallons of humus would haveto be removed from the tank for every 1,000 uses.

| Sun-Mar Comporting ToiletsSun-Mar Corp. of Ontario, Canada, has developeda series of composting toilets capable of biologi-cally treating human and kitchen wastes, toilet pa-per, and otherplication of

organic materials (figurethe Sun-Mar system

5-5). Ap-in rural

9 A 24-vtdt dc fan is also available.


1 .Seat2. Bowl liner

(removable)3. Toilet top4. Main shell5. Drum bearing6. Step support7. Compost drawer8. Drum door hinges9. Drum door

10. Crank shaft11. Drum locker12. Crank handle

13. Drum drain screen14. Fan mounting plate15. Fan 30 Watts with

speed control16. Crank sprocket17. Drum sprocket

(moulded into drum)18. Drum19. Insulation base20. Heating element 250 Watts21. Insulation22. Vent hole

SOURCE Sun-Mar Corp , Burlington, Canada, “Sun-Mar Cottage Toilets, ” undated

communities of Alaska has been limited in thepast. The School of Environmental Engineeringof the University of Alaska Anchorage plans toconduct a field test of this technology in an effortto evaluate its feasibility as an alternative to honeybuckets (197).

System CharacteristicsSun-Mar comporting toilets are available in elec-tric (ac, dc, solar) and nonelectric designs. During

operation, waste is transformed into humus byheat from the compost pile or a heating element,oxygen provided by the ventilation system, andorganic material (e.g., peat moss) added to the sys-tem by the homeowner (236).

The fiberglass and high-grade stainless steelconstruction, according to the manufacturer, pro-tects Sun-Mar compost toilets from structuraldamage at freezing temperature. As with mostcomporting systems, however, temperatures be-


low 60 ‘F will adversely affect the rate at whichthe Sun-Mar system can degrade waste. For thisreason, the manufacturer recommends that the 1l/2-inch vent pipe provided with the system be in-sulated adequately.

The use of a 30-watt centrifugal blower fan toprovide a negative pressure within the treatmentunit prevents back-draft and, with it, the formationand release of offensive odors from the toilet sys-tem into the home environment. Rotation of thecomporting medium with the mixing system,along with the addition of peat moss, helpsachieve rapid, odorless treatment of the waste(77,169,236).

The Sun-Mar models considered most likely tobe used in rural Alaska are:

Compact and X-L (EXCEL)The “Compact” model is a self-contained com-post toilet system designed to accommodate low-capacity use (1 to2 people for residential use). TheX-L model is recommended for larger demand (2to 4 people). Both models are available in electricand nonelectric versions.

In addition to the toilet, these units containthree separate chambers for waste comporting,compost finishing, and the evaporation of liquideffluents. Comporting is carried out in a unit orchamber called Bio-Drum in which wastes aretumbled to achieve better mixing, aeration, andhigher rate of comporting. Liquids are evaporatedby means of a 250-watt electric heating unit with areplaceable thermostat installed at the base, andare drawn out of the system through a vent by asmall 30-watt fan. The overall weight of theseunits is about 45 pounds, and their dimensions are22 1/2 inches wide; 31 inches high, and 32 incheslong (194,236).

Centrex and Water Closet Multrum ModelsSun-Mar Corp. has also developed a comportingtoilet system consisting of a specially designedlow-flush, ceramic toilet10 connected by a 3-inch

pipe to a comporting unit located some distanceunderneath the floor on which the toilet has beeninstalled. Weighing nearly 60 pounds, the com-porting unit of these models is about 33 incheswide, 25 inches deep, and 26 l/2-inches high.These toilets can accommodate the demand of 3 to5 full-time users and twice as many under part-time use conditions.

Although the toilet does not have a holdingtank, the use of water to flush waste into the com-porting unit (less than 1 pint of water per flush) re-quires that the house be connected to a piped watersystem. Although a septic field is not required,these comporting systems have been fitted with adrain pipe for situations in which complete evapo-ration of the liquid cannot be accomplished.

Maintenance RequirementsTo maintain the Sun-Mar compost technology ingood condition, the homeowner must add one cupof peat moss per person per day plus, if available,organic materials or waste such as vegetable cut-tings and greens. Adding warm water is also rec-ommended whenever the compost appears to betoo dry. The compost must be mixed and aeratedevery third day; this is easily done by turning thecrank handle on the side of the toilet. Removal ofthe solid byproduct of comporting (humus) is rec-ommended at least once a year for Sun-Mar sys-tems undergoing residential application; less fre-quent use requires less maintenance (236).

| Incinolet Electric Toilet SystemINCINOLET toilets have been designed for a va-riety of applications, including, homes, cabins,barns, shops, boat docks, houseboats, barges, mo-bile homes, remote work areas, and laboratories.Most systems are about 15 inches wide, 20 incheshigh, and 24 inches deep (figure 5-6). Dependingon the model, INCINOLET toilets can accommo-date up to 10 persons (183,184,199,211).

The INCINOLET toilet is designed to use elec-tric 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 ‘hatE\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 twosteps: installing a pipe through the bathroom wallto vent incineration gases to the outside, and plug-ging the electric cord supplied with the unit into anearby outlet (21 1).

Placement of a bowl covering or insert made ofpolyethylene film prior to each use prevents hu-man waste from contacting the bowl surface andreduces the risks of exposure to users. The pur-

pose of the plastic insert is to capture the incomingwaste or urine. Once use is completed, the residentcan flush the INCINOLET system by stepping onthe toilet’s foot pedal, which causes the plastic in-sert and its contents to drop into the incineratorchamber located at the bottom of the toilet.

Although incineration of waste begins immedi-ately after it enters the chamber, home residentscan use the toilet even while the incinerator is run-ning, because combustion heat and vapors arevented to the outside to prevent the surface of thebowl from getting hot. INCINOLET can also al-low the accumulation of up to four deposits beforeflushing (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 sys-tems, removes offensive odors from the treatedwaste or ash.

Because electric toilets are appliances, severalfeatures have been incorporated into the INCINO-LET system to ensure its safe operation (1 83,2 11).These include an operating timer that limits theheating cycle to 1 hour; a temperature controller tolimit heater temperature; and a safety thermostatto prevent overheating of the system m case ofblower failure. A second thermostat has also beenincorporated into the design to eliminate the ex-tremely high temperatures that may occur follow-ing failure of the temperature controller. Eventhough it appears promising, there are few perfor-mance data on the use of INCINOLET in rugged,extremely cold environments such as that of ruralAlaska.

Maintenance RequirementsTo ensure proper operation, emptying of the ash isrecommended at least twice a week. wiping sur-

faces with a damp cloth is also suggested for over-all cleanliness” The manufacturer advises inspect-ing the level of the catalyst (white pellets)contained in the incineration chamber every sixmonths (183,21 1).

The Storburn Propane Toilet SystemThe Storburn technology is a compact, self-con-tained toilet designed and manufactured by Stor-bum lntemational, Inc., of Ontario, Canada, to in-cinerate human waste. Models available canoperate with propane or natural gas. Most applica-tions to date are found in cabins, mobile shelterunits, and industrial and construction sites. Ac-


.

.●

●

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 arealready in use in Alaska (144,234).

The Storburn system consists of a toilet madeof fiberglass reinforced with plastic material, astainless steel top deck, and a 3-gallon waste com-bustion chamber made of cast nickel alloy (figure5-7). Nearly 4 1/2 feet high and weighing 170pounds, the entire toilet system covers a floor areaof only 18 by 31 inches. A vent and a hookup to apropane or natural gas tank are required for opera-tion.

The Storburn toilet can accommodate between40 and 60 uses before incineration becomes neces-sary. Prior to burning of the waste, a chemicalpowder is added to the toilet system and a specialcover is placed on top of the bowl to trip a safetyswitch, which ignites a pilot light and the burnerthat heats the combustion chamber. The burnershuts off automatically immediately after allwastes are burned. Depending on the ambientconditions of the area in which it is used, the Stor-bum toilet system can bum between 10 and 16


maximum-capacity loads (i.e., 600 to 900 uses)with a full 100 pound propane cylinder. The timetaken to bum a loaded storage chamber is general-ly about 4 1/2 hours (234).

According to its manufacturers, the Storburnsystem is easy to maintain because it has no mov-ing parts and only a few simple electrical controls.The high temperatures reached inside the wastestorage chamber sterilize the chamber walls, thuseliminating the generation of foul odors and theneed for cleaning the chamber. The only mainte-nance required is cleaning the burner about once ayear (234).

| Entech Thermal Oxidation SystemEntech, Inc. of Anchorage, Alaska, developed athermal oxidation process to treat solid waste andsewage from small, remote communities. In addi-tion to incineration treatment of sewage, thistechnology can be used to treat other wastes andprovide some energy as a byproduct.

The Entech thermal treatment system has threebasic parts: a primary combustion cell or refrac-tory chamber, where trash and other communitywastes are loaded without preprocessing or pres-orting and are heated—by gas, diesel, or propanetorches—to convert them into a combustible gasand other incinerated materials (inert ash, glass,metal, etc.). 11 Removal of treated waste materialsfrom the insulated chamber is required every 6 to10 cycles.

12 A secondary combustion chamber

receives and ignites the gas produced by the pri-mary cell to 2,000 “F to eliminate pollutants andproduce a smoke-free, hot air and water vaporemission. According to company literature, “noodor from combustion during the operation of thesystem is detectable” (134,135,209).

The third major component of this technologyis a computerized device called the process logiccontroller, designed to automatically control the

system’s operation and reduce the need for hiringhighly trained operators. This device monitors thetreatment, finishes the cycle, and shuts down thesystem within a period of 10 to 12 hours after op-eration was initiated. About 2 or 3 hours aftershutdown, the primary cell will be sufficientlycool to allow the next load of waste. Another ad-vantage of the process logic controller is that itpermits remote monitoring of performance, andrepair diagnosis of the system, by phone from An-chorage to anywhere in the State of Alaska.

Depending on the community’s waste disposalneeds, schedule of operation, and design prefer-ences, the chambers may vary in size, number, andability to recycle waste heat. According to itsmanufacturers, the Entech system can be adaptedto operate on a daily, every-other-day, or weeklybasis. The configuration of the Entech system canbe further designed to collect the radiant heat pro-duced during operation for use in a number of dif-ferent applications. They may include space heat-ing, water heating, steam production, andrefrigerated warehousing—through the use of re-verse chillers ( 135,209).

According to company officials, the operationand maintenance (O&M) of the Entech ThermalOxidation System are relatively simple. An indi-vidual who has the capability to read and write atthe high-school level, and is familiar with equip-ment and truck maintenance, is generally quali-fied to run and service this waste treatmenttechnology. Entech can train operators and supplytechnical O&M assistance.

Although not specifically designed and built totreat human sewage, the thermal oxidationtechnology (figure 5-8) could potentially be use-ful in some communities because it may solveboth their honey bucket and their solid waste(trash) disposal problems (208). The initial capitaland 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 nledical waste, [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).


SOURCE Michael G. Pope, President, Entech, Inc., Anchorage, AK,personal communication, Apr. 7, 1994

cording to the size of the community for which it isbeing considered. High capital and operationalcosts might make the application of this technolo-gy for treating honey bucket waste difficult incommunities with few economic resources. How-ever, expanding its application to other wastestreams, such as trash, might make it cost-effec-tive overall. The necessary technical and econom-ic studies of the Entech system for treating solidand sanitary wastes in a rural Alaskan village havenot been conducted to date.

| NASA’s Controlled EcologicalLife Support System

The Controlled Ecological Life Support System(CELSS) is one of the cooperative applied re-search programs of NASA that might be useful in

solving future sanitation problems in rural areas ofAlaska. The major objective of CELSS is to testadvanced technologies to support human life inharsh environments such as the moon, Mars, andremote or isolated regions of Earth (96,192). Theprogram focuses on technologies that, 1) produceand recycle food, air, and water in a way that re-sembles natural processes; and 2) eliminate theneed for frequent resupply, and overcome theharsh environmental conditions.

13 Another por-

tion focuses on developing technologies capableof treating human waste and recycling wastewaterin a manner that reduces health and environmentalrisks of exposure. NASA plans to demonstratetechnologies relevant to sewage treatment in twoprograms: the Antarctic Analog Project and theLife Support Research Testbed in Barrow,Alaska. The possibility for commercialization ofthe technologies employed in these programs willalso be explored. It is too early to evaluate whetherthese systems could be adapted to solve sanitaryproblems in Native Alaskan villages.

Currently, several advanced waste processingtechnologies are being tested by Ames ResearchCenter scientists at Moffett Field, California, forpossible application in rural Alaska, Antarctica,and space flight (95,96,308,309). Examples of po-tential candidates include the following: 14

Incineration—This approach would involvethe thermal treatment of concentrated humanwaste to produce dry, inorganic ash and gases(e.g., water vapor, carbon dioxide). NASAplans testing to evaluate overall system perfor-mance, energy consumption requirements, andlevel of treatment that may be needed after in-cineration.

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 beused 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). Severalaquiculture tanks are being operated and tested at Ames Research Center for identifying types of fish (e.g., tilapia) and other aquatic animalsthat 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 kWiped-Film Rotating Disk Evaporator.


m

■

■

●

m

●

Pyrolysis-Thistern uses intense

commercially available sys-heat to treat hazardous waste

in the absence of oxygen. To evaluate its poten-tial in controlled ecological life support strate-gies, NASA plans to test conventional andmore advanced pyrolysis technologies (e.g.,pyrolysis technology assisted by microwaveradiation) by themselves or in combinationwith incineration.Wet oxidation-Wet Oxidation, unlike inciner-ation, which requires wastes to be sufficientlydried prior to treatment, involves the combus-tion of either a dilute or a concentrated wasteslurry at high temperature and pressure. Inaddition to reducing waste volume, wet oxida-tion allows the recovery of water and nutrientmaterials. According to NASA, a small proto-type for space application already exists.Supercritical water oxidation-This technolo-gy combines high temperature and pressure tocreate an environment—supercritical—inwhich organic and inorganic compounds pres-ent in wastes become highly soluble, reducingtheir complex chemical structure to their mostbasic forms: carbon dioxide, water, and salts.Studies are needed to evaluate means to preventpossible corrosion and clogging of systemcomponents prior to the actual deployment ofthis technology.Electrochemical oxidation—This technologyis designed to treat organic compounds at ambi-ent temperature and pressure with the assist-ance of electrochemical- and ultraviolet-gener-ated chemicals, such as ozone. Near term use isnot possible because the technology is still inits early phase of development.Plasma-arc incineration-This treatment proc-ess involves the passage of waste materialsthrough a thermal plasma field to reduce theirchemical compounds to more basic compo-nents such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide, andash. Because the technology is only in its pilot-scale research stage, additional work is re-quired before it can be applied to NASA’s fieldprograms in Alaska and Antarctica.Composting or microbial bioprocessing—Thistype of technology employs microorganisms to

degrade organic waste under near-ambientconditions and in the presence or absence of ox-ygen. In addition to volume reduction, com-porting technologies reduce organic wastes to:1) carbon dioxide, water, and microbial bio-mass when oxygen is present; or 2) methanegas and generally smaller microbial biomass inoxygen-starved processes. Application of thistechnology thus far appears limited because ofits inability to break down slurries and solidmaterials completely.

Life Support Research Testbed inBarrow, AlaskaNASA, in cooperation with various Alaskan orga-nizations (i.e., Alaska Science and TechnologyFoundation, University of Alaska, Native corpo-rations, and the private sector) is planning to testone version of its multi system approach at the Na-tional Arctic Research Laboratory in Barrow,Alaska (96,72,196). This test is expected byNASA officials to generate scientific informationuseful for supporting future use in rural Alaskanvillages and other polar regions of the world, aswell as for developing an educational outreachprogram.

Located adjacent to the kitchen of the NationalArctic Research Laboratory in Barrow, the testbedis planned to consist of only a modularized cropproduction chamber equipped with an advancedwater recovery system. The capability to processhuman waste will be added once one of the treat-ment technologies mentioned above is deter-mined as appropriate for use. Once the entire sys-tem is deployed, scientists will have theopportunity to investigate its market potential andadaptability in remote communities where sanita-tion problems continue to exist.

Antarctica Analog ProjectThe Antarctica Analog Project is a cooperative ef-fort between NASA and the National ScienceFoundation to use advanced food production(crop production and aquiculture) systems, waterrecycling methods, and human waste processingtechnologies now undergoing development and


SOURCE David Bubenheim, Chief Scientist, CELSS Research and Technology Development, Advanced Life Support Division, NASA Ames Re-search Center, personal communication, Jan 25, 1994

testing. At present, most advanced technologies tosupport researchers stationed in the South Pole arein their initial stages of project development.NASA researchers are currently identifying allrelevant design and performance characteristicsassociated with crop growth, aquiculture, andwaste processing technologies. Evaluation of pi-lot plant studies is scheduled for sometime in1995 and 1996 at the South Pole, with deploymentof a full-scale system (figure 5-9) by the year2,000 when construction of a new South Pole sta-tion is planned for completion (96,192,235).

When installed, the final Antarctic AnalogProject is expected to be fully integrated with theinfrastructure of the research station and to consistof a minifarm, a park, a food production system

(for growing fish and vegetables), and water re-covery and recycling (figure 5-10). Treatment ofhuman waste will be provided by one of thetechnologies described above once it is success-fully demonstrated for use (94, 192, 235). Lessonslearned from this research may be applicable in re-mote areas of Alaska (96,192, 309).

| NASA’s Space Shuttle Orbiter WasteManagement System

The technology used by NASA to collect sanitarywaste during space missions is commonly knownas the Space Shuttle Orbiter Waste ManagementSystem (figure 5-11 ). The primary purpose of thistechnology is to safely collect and store urine, hu-


.

SOURCE David Bubenheim, Chief Scientist, CELSS Research and Technology Development, Advanced Life Support Division, NASA Ames Re-search Center, personal communication, Jan 25, 1994

man waste, and wash water generated duringspace flight for treatment upon the shuttle’s returnto earth. The major components of this waste man-agement technology are a urine collection systemand a sewage collection-storage system. The sys-tem is highly specialized, very costly, and de-signed for a short-duration, specific mission. Onlycertain design concepts and unique features maybe applicable to the problem of providing ade-quate sanitation in rural Alaska.

Urine Collection SystemTo collect urine, air is drawn from the urinalthrough the piping, and into a fan/pump separatorwhose rotating and pumping action separatesurine from air prior to its storage in a pressurizedwastewater tank (90,3 10). Because the lack ofgravity prohibits the use of standard urinals, theurinal in the Orbiter waste management system isdesigned with clear plastic funnels (straight coni-cal design for male use; oval in shape for use byfemale astronauts) directly connected to theplumbing system (90,3 10).


To avoid the clogging and airflow loss problemcaused by drawing debris into the pump/fan sepa-rator, which was experienced in early spaceflights, NASA engineers fitted the base of the uri-nal with replaceable filtering screens (310). Thepumped air used to transport urine through theplumbing is subsequently treated by odor andbacteria filters, and returned to the cabin. Drainwater and wash water are stored in a relativelysimilar fashion (310).

One of the central components of NASA’swaste collection and storage technology is thepump/fan separator because it is the system re-sponsible for: 1 ) providing suction airflow neededfor transporting urine and feces; 2) separatingwastewater from transport air; and 3) pumpingwastewater into the pressurized holding tank.

Sewage Collection/Storage SystemNASA’s space waste management technologywas originally designed to use forced air to pushwaste into a commode tank where a rotating sling-er (a wheel with 10 tines rotating at 1,650 rpm15)breaks up and stabilizes the waste before storing itin the commode’s tank. After defecation occurs,the user actuates the commode handle to close theslide valve. The fecal material is then stabilizedand dried by vacuum action, thus rendering thewaste odorless. The air that was used to pushwaste into the commode tank is filtered by debris,odor, and bacteria filter systems and recirculatedto the cabin.

The clogging of filters and loss of airflowcaused by fine, dried fecal material experiencedduring heavy toilet usage in early flights often re-sulted in poor waste separation, incomplete trans-port into the storage tank, and inadequate sanitaryconditions in the cabin where such fecal particlesfrequently escaped. The slinger was subsequentlyremoved and replaced with a bag liner that oper-ates like a vacuum cleaner bag: it retains bacteriaand waste particles inside it without preventing airfrom passing through (90).

The rapid filling of the bag liner system withtissue paper as opposed to human waste-causedby the absence of gravity, which, in turn, pre-cludes the separation and dropping of human fecesfrom the body—forced NASA engineers to ulti-mately replace the bag liner with a feces compac-tor. By rotating a movable vane located inside thetank, the stretchable fabric material, attached tothe movable vane at one end and to a stationaryvane on the other, is forced to sweep the interior ofthe ellipsoidal waste commode and compact thewaste. Air drawn through the commode is treatedand returned to the cabin. Compaction of waste bythis currently used technology is required only ev-ery fifth or sixth day of operation.

| NASA’s Extended Duration OrbiterWaste Management System

Another very specialized design may be useful forits concepts and unique features. NASA is testinga new waste collection technology known as theExtended Duration Orbiter Waste ManagementSystem (figure 5-12) that uses a mechanical pistoncompactor and disposable bags with plastic lids.Prototypes of this less expensive and easy tomaintain waste collection system are being builtand scheduled for use in future space flights(90,191 ,239).

The Extended Duration Orbiter waste collec-tion system is designed to be used as a convention-al toilet. Its size (12 inches long, 16 inches wide,and 35 inches high), weight (60 pounds), and lowpower consumption makes this technical ap-proach, according to its developers, one of themost promising for future extended space use(239). One particular advantage of this system.over the currently used one is its capability to meetthe sanitation needs of up to seven astronauts for aperiod of 18 to 30 days (90).

During its use, proponents indicate, wastes (in-cluding feces, urine, and tissue paper) disposed inthe bowl are contained inside a cylindrical bag thatpermits 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.—

aac.=3

/ f u


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 thetransport tube pushing the waste-containing bagand its lid to the bottom of the collection canisterwhere they are compacted. The rigid collar andwiper-like design of the lid are used to scrape anywaste that may have adhered to the walls of thetransport tube. The bag is then left behind as partof the stored waste material.

Once the piston returns to its original position.the user places a fresh bag in the toilet for the nextuser before closing the toilet seat and 1 id. Replace-ment of collection canisters in the proposed Ex-tended Duration Orbiter system is expected totake place only after an average of 30 uses. Test re-sults from recent space flights show the individual

bag collection system to be relatively cleaner thanthe commode system currently in use by theshuttle (21 2).

| The “Self-Contained Home” SystemAccording to its designer, the Self-ContainedHome technology has been conceived to addressin a cost-effective manner the most basic needs ofNatives in rural Alaska: housing, heating, and san-itation. As planned, the technology will consist ofan insulated house (36 feet by 38 feet) speciallydesigned for the Arctic environment and servedwith a heat/cook stove, a self-generated water sys-tem, 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 cornerstoneof this system-can be operated with wood, coal,or fuel (92,93).

The Self-Contained Home appears to be poten-tially useful in addressing more than the waste dis-posal needs of Native communities in rural Alas-ka, but because this technology is still in itsdevelopmental stage, field studies would have tobe undertaken to ascertain the actual applicabilityof this approach.

SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGYISSUES AND NEEDSAll of the alternative technologies describedabove require some degree of development, test-ing, and evaluation before they could be chosen asa proven system with satisfactory performance en-sured. Identifying and developing appropriatetechnologies, while meeting safety and reliabilitystandards within cost constraints, constitute themajor challenge for designers and developers ofany sanitary technology in the Arctic. In yearspast, most Federal and State agencies providedrelatively little support for the basic engineeringand environmental research required to producethe data necessary to design and implement spe-cific technologies. This deficiency resulted in ashortage of information in several areas, such ashydrology (e.g., snow surveys), soil (e.g., perma-frost), ice research, and climate and natural haz-ards (8). Considerable progress was achieved inthese areas during the 1980s, particularly with theconstruction of the Alaskan oil pipeline and theinstallation of piped sanitation systems at majoroil industry facilities in Pruhdoe Bay. These ad-vanced piped systems cannot be applied in mostvillages, however, because of high construction,operation, and maintenance costs.

Very few alternative sanitation methods havebenefited from field demonstration tests in ruralAlaskan communities in the past. Most of the at-tempted evaluations failed. The failures werelargely the result of limited or inadequate guid-ance provided to Natives by technology develop-ers. With the exception of certain comporting

technologies, the Office of Technology Assess-ment (OTA) found no long-term effort dedicatedto the demonstration of alternative sanitationtechnologies.

Even today, relatively little information existson the application of alternative sanitationtechnologies in environments such as that of ruralAlaska. Adopting these systems without first ex-ploring the factors that will make their applicationin Native villages successful is risky and subjectto failure. In many Alaskan villages, there arephysical, social, and economic conditions notcommonly found in other areas of the UnitedStates. Such conditions include limited drainageand poor soil conditions caused by discontinuouspermafrost, seasonal variations in the quantity andquality of the water available, and high costs ofelectricity and fuel. Unfortunately, programs tofund field demonstrations of alternative technolo-gies, to coordinate Federal and State technologyprograms and policies, and to establish a forum forthe advancement of innovative sanitation systemsdo not exist.

Alternative sanitation technologies must beevaluated prior to their actual use among Nativecommunities and must be designed to accommo-date the unique Alaskan environment, includingfactors such as:

■

m

Permafrost—This is of great importance in theengineering and design of structures and sys-tems, particularly in ice-rich, fine-grained soil,where the ground forms an extremely strongand stable foundation material when frozen butan extremely weak foundation when thawed.The location, depth, and extent of permafrostmay preclude the selection of certain sanitationsystems due to its influence on local soil condi-tions, groundwater table, and seasonal flood-ing.Availability of water—Adequate availabilityof water is a key consideration in the selectionof flush toilet systems because without it, sew-er, septic tank, and truck haul holding tank sys-tems cannot perform properly. (Water is alsoextremely important for practicing hygiene. )Piped water is normally incorporated into


piped sewerage projects because the two sys-tems are mutually dependent; however, theyalso lead to increased water consumption, thuscreating a need for additional disposal capacity.The interior region of Alaska is generally sup-plied with water and contains large areas of wetmuskeg and lakes, with significant snowmeltrunoff and river drainage. In the Arctic region,however, a myriad of shallow lakes disguise thefact that water supplies are actually very lim-ited for supporting sanitation technologies thatconsume large amounts of water.

■ Household size and design—Identifying thenumber of persons residing in each house forwhich use of a particular technology might beplanned, as well as recognizing the perceptionthey have about that particular technology, isimportant in estimating in advance the technol-ogy’s potential for success. Consideration ofhousehold size and design is also important indetermining waste volumes to be treated ormanaged, projecting future system expansions,and estimating costs over extended periods oftime.

■ Technical training—Training Natives in howto operate sanitation technologies has not al-ways been successful. The reasons for suchfailure have been primarily the use of inap-propriate off-the-shelf packaged training pro-grams and the increasing shortage of technicalassistance from Federal and State agencies. Toavoid these failures, there is a need to developprograms that are culturally sensitive and prac-tical, and that focus on the realities of the partic-ular village in which the technology will be ap-plied. Examples of these include locallimitations in management capability, leader-ship, and fiscal responsibility. Identifying theextent of the external financial and technical as-sistance that will be needed once the technolo-gy is installed will be also useful.

- Native community involvement—Althoughthe intrusion of Western culture has sometimesmet with resentment, many Natives continue tobelieve that the main source of resentment hasemerged primarily from being told by outsiderswhat to do and how to do it, and rarely being in-

cluded in the development of solutions to localsanitation problems. Encouraging and support-ing continued village participation in the selec-tion and implementation process are extremelyimportant for ensuring a strong perception ofcommunity ownership over the project-—anelement crucial to the successful application ofany technology.

■ Local village economy—The majority of Na-tive communities of rural Alaska rely almostcompletely on transfer payments and subsidiesfrom Federal and State agencies to operate ba-sic village programs, including sanitation proj-ects. Despite the increasing demand for newsanitation projects, the serious economic diffi-culties faced by Native villages with existingsystems raises the need to avoid installing simi-lar complex technologies in communities withfew economic and technical resources to oper-ate them. Consequently, addressing the wastesanitation problem in Alaska’s Native commu-nities requires steps that focus on identifying,demonstrating, and adopting more cost-effec-tive alternatives to honey buckets. Selectingtechnologies that deliver sanitation with littleadditional adverse impact on the limited or de-clining local economies is needed.

■ Actual costs to Native village residents--Inrecent years, Federal and State agencies havefocused primarily on providing conventionaltechnologies that require high capital costs anda significant degree of advanced engineering.Their efforts to assist Native villages financial-ly with the operation and maintenance of theseprojects have been rare. This, and the failure totrack community expenses for O&M, have lim-ited the information available today for esti-mating the actual costs of sanitation projects.

Actual cost data for estimating life cycle costsof complete systems in Alaskan Native communi-ties do not exist. Accurate life cycle cost compari-sons of alternative and conventional systems arenot possible. Not only does this impair the evalua-tion of each system’s cost-effectiveness but it pro-hibits agency officials from making valid esti-mates of the overall economic impact of each

Chapter 5: Alternative Sanitation Technologies| 93

technology on the community. There are no dataon the potential economic savings by communi-ties that might employ alternative technologiesrather than conventional ones. Savings associatedwith the use of alternative sanitation technologiescould include, for example, eliminating local ex-penses associated with building and maintaining asewage lagoon, reducing the community waterand energy consumption, reducing the need forcertified facility operators, and reducing equip-ment repair or replacement costs. Limited dataalso prohibit the evaluation of the potential im-pacts of using alternative systems that do not de-liver potable water to the home.

Technology selection decisions to date havebeen based on a capital planning process that takesinto consideration the type and size of the sanita-tion facility to be installed, the financing processto follow, and the methods by which costs will berecovered. This process, however, is largely lim-ited to the construction of conventional technolo-gies and does not allow for a comparison of con-ventional and alternative approaches based ontotal life cycle costs. Only minimal attempts havebeen made to formally incorporate existing alter-native sanitation systems into the technologyselection process currently in place.

CONCLUSIONAlternative sanitation technologies, such as com-porting, electric, and propane toilets, appear to bean improvement over honey buckets because theyreduce the possibility of users coming in contactwith human waste and they may reduce overall,

long-term costs. Not only do these technologieseliminate the need for a sewage lagoon to hold thewastewater for treatment, as in a conventionalpiped or haul system, they may also yield a by-product that is generally more environmentallysafe or easier to handle. These alternative ap-proaches, however, do not provide the potable wa-ter that is needed to practice good sanitation.

Certain of the advanced engineering systems orconcepts presented in this chapter appear poten-tially beneficial. Some, as in the case of NASA’slife support systems, still require substantial de-sign modifications, adaptation, or testing beforethey can actually be considered for waste treat-ment in Native Alaskan villages. Others, like En-tech’s thermal oxidation system, might be appli-cable to treating human waste, but they requiretesting and evaluation.

Conditions in Native villages (i.e., inadequatewater supply, poor soil drainage. permafrost, un-acceptable topography, high seasonal floodingpotential, and weak local economies) appear to fa-vor the application of less costly and complex sys-tems. With the exception of the limited testingconducted on certain comporting methods, mostalternative technologies have not been tested forthe treatment of human waste in the harsh environ-mental conditions typical of rural Alaska. Devel-opment of a more comprehensive technologyevaluation and selection approach capable of sup-porting demonstration, applied research, andapplication of innovative technologies is still nec-essary.

References

1. Advanced Comporting Systems, Whitefish,MT, ‘bTesting the Phoenix Comporting Toi-let,” 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: AnEconomical and Environmentally SoundMethod of Waste Treatment, a brochure, un-dated.

5. Advanced Comporting Systems, Whitefish,MT, “Phoenix Comporting Toilet System:Design Features,” undated.

6. AlasCan, Inc., Fairbanks, AK, The AlasCanModel 10 Organic Waste and Wastew’aterTreatment, a brochure, undated.

7. AlasCan Inc., Fairbanks, AK, ‘bAlasCan: 34of the Most Frequently Asked QuestionsAbout the AlasCan Organic Waste andWastewater Treatment System,” undated.

8. Alaska Council on Science and Technology,Federal Involvement in Scientific Researchand 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 Re-gional Affairs, Alakarzuk , a brochure, 1979.

11. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Aniak, a brochure, 1979.

12. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Che)wk, a brochure, 1979.

13. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, City of Bethel Comprehen-sive Plan, a brochure, 1981.

14. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Crooked Creek, a brochure,1979.

15. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Ernmonak, a brochure, 1979.

16. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Fortuna Ledge, a brochure,1979.

17. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Hooper Bay, a brochure,1979.

18. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, KotZik, a brochure, 1979.

19. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Kw’ethluk, a brochure, 1991.

20. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Lime Village, a brochure,1979.

21. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Lower Kalskag, a brochure,1979.

22. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, lklekoryuk, a brochure, 1991.

23. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Mountain ViI[age, a bro-chure, 1979.

24. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Napuimute, a brochure,1979.

25. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Napakiak, a brochure, 1991.

95 I


26. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Newtok, a brochure, 1986.

27. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, OscarviZZe, a brochure, 1991.

28. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Pilot Slation, a brochure,1979.

29. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Pikn Point, a brochure,1979.

30. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Plalinum, a brochure, 1991.

31. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Quinhagak, a brochure,1991.

32. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Red Devil, a brochure, 1979.

33. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Russian Mission, a brochure,1979.

34. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, St Mary’s, a brochure, 1979.

35. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Scammon Bay, a brochure,1979.

36. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, SheZdon Point, a brochure,1979.

37. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, SZeetmute, a brochure, 1979.

38. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, S/ony River, a brochure,1979.

39. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, TuntutuZiak, a brochure,1991.

40. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Tununak, a brochure, 1991.

41. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Upper Kalskag, a brochure,1979.

42. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Division of CommunityPlanning, Alaskan Statewide HousingNeeds Study, Phase I Report: TechnicalFindin~s. 1982.

43. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Capital Improvements Plan-ning: A Guidebook for Rural Alaskan Com-munities, May 1985.

44. Alaska Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Marketing and ResearchGroup for the State of Alaska, 1991 HousingNeeds Assessment Study (Part One), 1991.

45. Alaska Department of Education, Off’ce ofPlanning and Research, Alaska EducationCosts and Enrollments, May 1983.

46. Alaska Department of Environmental Con-servation, Division of Environmental Quali-ty, Water Quality Management Section,Alaska Nonpoint Source Pollution ControlStrategy, August 1990.

47. Alaska Department of Environmental Con-servation, Division of Facility Constructionand Operations, Alaska Village SanitationInventory, 1989.

48. Alaska Department of Environmental Con-servation, Village Safe Water, Waste Dis-posal Facilities Feasibility Study, Kwe~hluk,Alaska, Juneau, 1990.

49. Alaska Department of Environmental Con-servation, Drinking Water Regulations (18ACC 80), 1991.

50. Alaska Department of Environmental Con-servation, Village Safe Water, Village Waterand Sewer Service Summary, 1992.

51. Alaska Department of Environmental Con-servation, Village Safe Water, “FY93 Capi-tal Budget Request,” 1993, pp. 161-162.

52. Alaska Department of Environmental Con-servation, Village Safe Water Program andU.S. Public Health Service, Alaska Area Na-tive Health Service, OffIce of Environmen-tal Health, Village Sanitation in Alaska, Oct.15, 1977.

53. Alaska Department of Labor, Alaska Popu-lation Overview: 1990 Census and Esti-mates, 1991.

54. Alaska Department of Labor, PopulationProjections: Alaska 1990-2010, 1991.

References I 97

55. Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc., “1991Annual Convention: Resolution 91-40,”1991.

56. Alaska Growth Policy Council, 1982 Reporlto the Governor, 1981.

57. Alaska Journal of Commerce and Paci@cRim Reporter,” Fighting Garbage Toxins:Answer is Comporting John and Greywa-ter,” week of Sept. 26, 1988.

58. Alaska Native Health Board, “Water, Sewerand Sanitation in Alaska Native Villages:Problems and Recommendations,” January1991, 7 pp.

59. Alaska Native Health Board, “FY-92 Feder-al Legislative Briefing Paper, “ pp. 2-3.

60. Alaska Native Health Board, “FY-93 Feder-al Legislative Briefing Paper, “ pp. 13-16.

61. Alaska Native Health Board, ‘bFY-94 Feder-al Legislative Briefing Paper,” pp. 16-17.

62. Alaska Public Health Association, Energy,Health, and the Environment: The HealthImpact of Petrochemical De\~elopment, Pro-ceedings of the Seventh Alaska Health Con-gress, May 6-8, 1982.

63. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, ● ’A Commit-ment to Alaskans-Executive Summary:Recommendations of the Alaska SanitationTask Force,” draft report, 38 pp., Oct. 14,1992.

64. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, “Corpora-tions,” unpublished draft notes, 1992, pp.Al -Al 2.

65. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, “OperatorTraining and Certification, “ unpublisheddraft notes, 1992.

66. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, EducationWorkgroup, “Draft Report Narrative,” un-published, 1992, 10 pp.

67. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, FinanceWorkgroup, “Financing Sanitation Proj-ects,” unpublished, 1992.

68. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, Research andDevelopment Workgroup, “Final Report,”unpublished, July 15, 1992.

69. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, SubsidiesWorkgroup, “Overview,” unpublished, De-cember 1992, 5 pp.

70. Alaska Sanitation Task Force, Utility Man-agement Workgroup, “Utility Manage-ment,” 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 Founda-tion, Anchorage, AK, “Grant Informationand Forms,” circa 1993.

73. Alaska Science and Technology Founda-tion, Anchorage, AK, “Fourth Request forProposals,” Mar. 15, 1993.

74. American Association for the Advancementof Science, Arctic Division, Science in theNorth: Proceedings of a S~wlposium on Ap -propriate Energy Technology in Arctic Re-gions, Sept. 17, 1982 (Portland, OR: Seton,Johnson & Odell, Inc., 1983).

75. Anchorage Daily NCJI’.S, “-Nunivak HalibutCatch Surpasses Expectations,” Sept. 1.1992.

76. Angellan, Max, Tribal Administrator, Vil-lage of Kwethluk, information provided toOffice of Technology Assessment staff dur-ing a site visit, Aug. 5, 1993.

77. Apollo Energy Systems, Anchorage, Alas-ka, “Sun-Mar Comporting Toilets: SuperLow Flush Toilets,” a price list, 1993.

78. Arctic Slope Consulting Group, Inc.(ASCG), Water and Se\+er Utilities MasterPlan Report for Sela~~ik, Alaska, preparedfor City of Selawik. Alaska, January 1992.

79. Australia Institute of Engineers, Cairns Lo-cal Group, papers presented at the NorthernEngineering Conference, Cairns, Sept. 9-Nov. 6, 1973.

80. Averill, D.W. and G.W. Heinke, V(lcl{umSewer- Sys(ems, prepared for Northern Sci-ence Research Group. Department of Indian


Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa,Ontario, Canada, September 1974.

81. Averill, D. W., and G.W. Heinke, VacuumSewer Sys?ems, prepared for Northern Sci-ence Research Group, Department of IndianAffairs and Northern Development, Ottawa,Ontario, Canada, 1987.

82. Baron, Mark J., Principal, Cowater Intern-ational Inc., personal communication, Dec.24, 1993.

83. Barror, Rick, Division of EnvironmentalHealth, Indian Health Service, Public HealthService, Rockville, Maryland, personalcommunication, Jan. 24, 1994.

84. Berg, C., and J. Adler-Nissen, ● *Housing andSickness in South Greenland: A Sociomedi-cal Invest igation,” paper presented at the In-ternational Symposium on CircumpolarHealth, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories,Canada, 1974, pp. 627-634.

85. Bergstrom, Daniel, State of Alaska Depart-ment of Fish and Game, Commercial Fish-eries Division, personal communication,1993.

86. Bemhardt, A. P., “Treatment and Disposal ofWastewater from Homes by Soil Filtrationand Evapotranspiration,” Individual Orzsi~eW~lLste)iater S}~stems: Proceedings of theFirst National Conference 1974 (Ann Ar-bor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers,1974) pp. 77-106.

87. Black, Michael L., Special Projects Supervi-sor, Alaska Department of Community andRegional Affairs, Municipal and RegionalAssistance Division, personal communica-tion, July 28, 1993.

88. Black, Michael L., Special Projects Supervi-sor, Alaska Department of Community andRegional Affairs, Municipal and RegionalAssistance Division, information providedat the Office of Technology Assessmentworkshop on ‘b Waste Sanitation Problems ofRural Alaska,” Anchorage, AK, Aug. 4,1993.

89. Black, Michael L., Special Projects Supervi-sor, Alaska Department of Community andRegional Affairs, Municipal and Regional

Assistance Division, letter to German E. Re-yes, Office of Technology Assessment, Aug.9, 1993.

90. Brasseaux, H. J., Jr., H.E. Winkler, J.D.North, and S.P. Orlando, “The ExtendedDuration 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 Sani-tation Systems on Disease Patterns on Mun -itobu Indian Reser~’es, 1986, ASCE Pro-ceedings, 4th International Conference,1986.

92. Brown, Patrick, Seward, AK, letter to theHonorable Senator Ted Stevens, U.S. Con-gress, May 26, 1993.

93. Brown, Patrick, Seward, AK, personal com-munication, Nov. 7, 1993.

94. Bubenheim, David, “Plants for Water Re-cycling, Oxygen Regeneration and FoodProduction,” Waste Munugement and Re-search, vol. 9, 1991, pp. 435-443.

95. Bubenheim, D. and T. Wydeven, “Ap-proaches to Resource Recovery in Con-trolled Ecological Life Support Systems,”Ad\*anced Spuce Research (in press), 1993.

96. Bubenheim, David, Chief Scientist, CELSSResearch and Technology Development,Advanced Life Support Division, NASAAmes Research Center, personal commu-nication, 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 ResourcesDepartment and Village Management Ser-vices, The Culista Region: A GentlePeople-A Harsh Life (Anchorage, AK: TheCalista Corp., 1991).

99. Cameron, J. P., and Bryan C. Armstrong,Northern Technology, Unit EnvironmentalProtection Service, Environment Canada,Water and Energy Conser\ution Alterna-tives fbr the North, 1979.

100. Cameron, J. P., Vancouver, Canada, “Cultureand Change in the Northwest Territories:

References I 99

101.

102.

103,

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

Implications for Community InfrastructurePlanning,” a master thesis, October 1985.Cameron, J. P., “Water and Sewage Servicesand Systems in the Northwest Territories,Canada,” paper presented at the Village SafeWater Seminar on Alternatives for Wastewa -ter Collection and Disposal in Rural Alaska,Anchoruge, Alusku, Feb. 13, 1992.Canadian Environmental Health Director-ate, Health Protection Branch, SanitationMunual<fi)r l.\olut(~~lRegi{)rl~ (Ottawa, Cana-da: Information Canada, 1973).Canadian Society for Civil Engineering,Cold Climate Utility Manual (Montreal,Cantida: Beauregard Press Ltd., 1986).Capito. Gregory, and B. Gajewski, AlaskaVillage Safe Water, ‘“Lessons Learned Fromthe Emmonak Water and Sewer Project,”The Northern Engineer, vol. 23, No. 1,1991, pp. 30-35.Capito, Gregory. Village Safe Water, “A Re-mote Maintenance Worker Program forAlaska,” T. Tilsworth and D. W. Smith(eds.). Proceedings of the Cold Regions En-~ironmental k“ngineering Conference, Fair-banks, Alaska, May 18-20, 1983 (Fairbanks,AK: University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1983).Capito, Gregory, Section Chief, Village SafeWater. Alaska Department of Environmen-tal Conservation, personal communication,Aug. 27, 1993.Carnegie Commission on Science, Technol-ogy, tind Government, En\’ironmental Re-search an~! De\’elopment: Strengthening theFederal l~lfr[i.vtrldctl(~-(~ (New York, NY: Car-nagle Commissio n” on Science, Technology,and Government, December 1992).Case, David S., The Special Relationship ofAlaska Nati\’es to the Federal Government:An Historical and Legal Analysis (Anchor-age, AK: The Alaska Native Foundation,1978).Chowdhry, N. A., Canada Ministry of theEn\rironment, Applied Sciences Section,Domestic Waste W[iter Disposal and Nutri-ent RemoLwl by Septic Tbnk-Sund Filter Sys -

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

(em, Report No. 77 (Toronto, Canada: Min-istry of the Environment, 1979).Clark, Roger, Administrator, City of Sela-wik, AK, information provided to Office ofTechnology Assessment staff during a visitto the City of Selawik, Aug. 1, 1993.Coggins, Shawn W., Advanced ComportingSystems, Whitefish, Montana, personalcommunication, Dec. 7, 1993.Coggins, Shawn W., Advanced ComportingSystems, Whitefish, Montana, personalcommunication, Jan. 7, 1994.Cohen, Steve, Department of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare, Public Health Service,Health Services and Mental Health Admin-istration, “Ft. Yukon, HUD Ecolet HumusToilets,” Sept. 28, 1977.Caimcross, Sandy, Sanitation and WaterSupply: Practical Lessonsjiom the Decade(Washington, DC: The International Bankfor Reconstruction and Development/TheWorld Bank, September 1992).Cover, A., and Frank Lucian, “An Opera-tor’s View of Performance: Sanitation Dis-trict #3, Boyd County, Kentucky,” Nina I.McLelland (cd.), Individual On.~ite Waste-M’ater SystemLY: Proceedings of the FourthNational Conference 1977 (Ann Arbor, MI:Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1977), pp.135-143.Cowater International Inc., Ontario, Cana-da, Mekoryuk Sewage Haul S~stem De\Yel-opment, Phase I: Final Report, April 1990.Cowater International Inc., Ontario, Cana-da, Mekoryuk Se\iage Haul System De~el-opment, Phase II: Prototype and City O@ceDemon stration–Evalua tion Report, No-vember 1990.Cowater International Inc., Ontario, Cana-da, A4ekoryuk Se\~age Haul System Devel-opment (Four- Unit Household Demonstra-tion): Evaluation Report, 1992.Cowater International Inc., Ontario, Cana-da, “Cowater Water Supply and SanitationSystem for Small Northern Communities,”July 1993.


120. Cowater International Inc., Ontario, Cana-da, Mekoryuk Sewage Haul System Devel-opment Prototype Household Demonstra-tion: Final Report, October 1993.

121. Crum, Jim, Alaska Area Native Health Ser-vice, Alaska Arctic Community SanitationConstruction, document presented at theEnvironmental Protection Agency Cold Cli-mate Research Seminar, Washington, DC;,1990.

122. Crum, Jim, Director, Division of SanitationFacilities, Alaska Area Native Health Ser-vice, Anchorage, communication with Mar-tha Knight, Department of Housing and Ur-ban Development, Anchorage, AK, May 7,1993.

123. Crum, Jim, Director, Division of SanitationFacilities, Alaska Area Native Health Ser-vice, Anchorage, information provided dur-ing a briefing of Office Technology Assess-ment staff, Aug. 3, 1993.

124. Crum, Jim, Director, Division of SanitationFacilities, Alaska Area Native Health Ser-vice, Anchorage, information provided atthe Office of Technology Assessment work-shop on ‘*Waste Sanitation Problems of Ru-ral Alaska,” Anchorage, AK, Aug. 4, 1993.

125. Crum, Jim, Director, Division of SanitationFacilities, Alaska Area Native Health Ser-vice, Anchorage, personal communication,Oct. 10, 1993.

126. Crum, Jim, Director, Division of SanitationFacilities, Alaska Area Native Health Ser-vice, Anchorage, “Waste Disposal in RuralAlaskan Villages: Data Analysis,” Nov. 9,1993.

127. Crum, Jim, Director, Division of SanitationFacilities, Alaska Area Native Health Ser-vice, Anchorage, personal communication,Nov. 9, 1993.

128. Curley, Michael, Handbook of Project Fi-nance for Water and Waste water Systems(Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 1993).

129. Dan, William H., Alaska and Its Resources.American Environmental Studies (reprintedition by Amo Press, Inc., 1970).

130. Davies, Tudor, (Former) Acting AssistantAdministrator, Office of Water, U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency, testimony ata hearing of the Senate Select Committee onIndian Affairs on ● ’Water Sanitation Prob-lems in Alaska,” May 5, 1993.

131. DeParle, Jason, ‘*Lacking Plumbing, Vil-lages in Alaska Face Health Crisis,” TheNew York Times, Nov. 28, 1992, pp. 1,9.

132. Dickens, H. B., “Water supply and sewagedisposal in permafrost areas of northernCanada,” The Polar Record, vol. 9, No. 62,1959, pp. 421-432.

133. Eggener, C., Chuck Eggener Consulting En-gineers, Anchorage, AK, personal commu-nication, Aug. 3, 1993.

134. Entech, Inc., Anchorage, AK, ● *Entech’sThermal Oxidation System Reduces SolidWaste by More than 9070,” company bro-chure, circa 1993.

135. Entech, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, “Environ-mental Technologies for Cleaner Waste Dis-posal,” a report presented to Senator TedStevens of Alaska, Aug. 23, 1993.

136. Environment Canada, Environmental Pro-tection Service, Cold Climate Utilities De-livery Design Manual, Report No. EPS 3-WP-79-2 (Edmonton, Canada: Environ-ment Canada, March 1979).

137. Environment Canada, Cold Climate Se}\’ageLagoons: Proceedings of the 1985 Work-shop, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Report EPS3/NR/l, April 1987.

138. Escritt, L. B., Sewerage and Setiage Dispos-al: Calculations and Designs (London:Contractors Records Limited, 1956).

~ 39. Escritt, L. B., Sewerage and Se\~age Trrat-ment: International Practice, (New York,NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1984).

140. Fastenau, Frits A., H. Jaap, J.M. van derGraaf, and Gerard Manse, “Comparison ofVarious Systems for On-Site WastewaterTreatment,” Water Science Technology, vol.22, 1990, pp. 41-48.

141. Faulkner, Brad, Alaska Database Consult-ing, 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 andanalysis for rural CAP, 1991.Fortuine, Robert, Circumpolar Health 84,Proceedings of the Sixth International Sym-posium on Circumpolar Health (Seattle,WA: University of Washington Press, 1984).Foster, Keith E., Martin M. Karpiscak, andRichard G. Brittain, ‘6Casa del Agua: A Res-idential Water Conservation and ReuseDemonstration Proved in Tucson, Arizona,”Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 24, 1989, pp.1201-1206.Gabriel, David R., President, Storburn In-ternational Inc., Ontario, Canada, personalcommunication, Jan. 24, 1994.Geist, Al, Marketing Director, AlasCan,Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska, personal commu-nication, Nov. 23, 1993.Gerhardt, Michael, “NANA Discovers BestSeat 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 fromArctic and Sub-Arctic Work Camps,” Re-port No. 73-19, report prepared for Informa-tion Canada, Environmental-Social Pro-gram, Northern Pipelines, September 1973.Hardin, Samuel E., Chief, Community andBusiness Programs, Farmers Home Admin-istration, U.S. Department of Agriculture,personal communication, Nov. 3, 1993.Harrison, G. S., Alaska Public Policy: Cur-rent Problems and Issues (Fairbanks, AK:University of Alaska Institute of Social,Economic and Government Research,1971 ).Hartman, Charles W., University of AlaskaFairbanks, Environmental Atlas of Alaska,1984.Hartz, Gary, Public Health Service, Rock-ville, MD, personal communication, Oct. 5,1993.Henry, Albert Y., Local Utility ManagementProgram Administrator, memorandum on“LUMP Progress Report for 2nd Quarter” toBob Lundell, Village Safe Water Local Util-

153.

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 ManagementProgram Administrator, memorandum on“LUMP Progress Report for the 4th Quarter’93” to Bob Lundell, Village Safe WaterLUMP 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 ResearchCentre of Finland, “Machines, Instruments,and Materials for Cold Climates”, Cold Cli-mate Research in Finland, draft (Helsinki,Finland: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1989).Hulen, David, ‘* Honeybuckets Leave a Trailof Sickness,” Anchorage Daily Newts, Sept.21, 1992, Al, A4-A5, A7.Hulen, David, “In a State of Disrepair,” An-chorage Daily New’s, Sept. 23, 1992, pp. A 1,A5Hulen, David, “One Village Says Enough isEnough,” Anchorage Daily NCM*S, Sept. 24,1992, Pp, Al, A6, A7, A8.Hulen, David, “Third World Sanitation in20th Century Alaska,” Anchorage Dai/yNew’s, Sept. 20, 1992, pp. Al, A6-A9.Hulen, David, “Where the Water TurnedDeadly,” Anchorage Daily Ne\t’s, Sept. 22,1992, Pp. Al, A4, A5, A7.Hulen, David, ● ’Hickel Wants $25.9 Millionto Clean up Villages’ Water,” AnchorageDaily Ne~s, Mar. 3, 1993.Hulen, David, Anchorage Daily News, per-sonal communication, May 25, 1993.Hulscher, Thomas, ACTION, Region 10,Seattle, WA, personal communication, Oct.16, 1993.Hydro-Quebec, “Research and Develop-ment, a Key to Customer Satisfaction,*’ vol.8, No. 3, spring-summer, 1993, p. 20.Hypes, Warren D., ‘*Characterization ofTypical Household Greywater” Manual ofGrey Water Treatment Practice: Part U(Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Pub-lishers, 1974), pp. 79-88.


166. Hypes, Warren D., “Laboratory and FamilyLive-In Experiences With Domestic Grey -water Reuse Systems “Individual OnsiteWaste w’ater Systems: Proceedings of theFifih National Conference 1978 WastewaterTreatment Alternatives for Rural and Semi-rural Areas, (Ann Arbor, MI: Ann ArborScience 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 SystemsTechnical Review Committee, TechnicalReview Committee Report: Individual Sew-age Treatment Systems (olmstead County,MI: Technical Review Committee, 1990).

169. “It’s as Simple as 1-2-3,” Sun-Mar’s Com-po.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, letterto the Honorable Senator Daniel Inouye,Chairman, Select Committee on Indian Af-fairs, U.S. Senate, Feb. 28, 1994.

172. Kelley, John J., Director, Polar Ice CoringOffice, University of Alaska Fairbanks, per-sona] communication, Jan. 19, 1994.

173. Kruse, D. G., Medical Director, Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Cm-p., testimony beforethe U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Indian Af-fairs, May 5, 1993.

174. Kruse, J. A., ‘*The Inupiat and Development:How Do They Mix?,” W.E. Westermeyerand K.M. Shusterich, United States ArcticInterests: The 1980s and 1990s ( New York.NY: Springer-Verlag, 1984), pp. 135-157.

175, Laak, Rein, “Relative Pollution Strengths ofUndiluted Waste Materials Discharged inHouseholds and the Dilution Waters Usedfor Each, ” Manual of Grey Water TreatmentPractice: Part U. (Ann Arbor, MI., Ann Ar-bor Science Publishers, 1974), pp. 68-88.

176, Larson, E., Institute of Social and EconomicResearch, The Alaska Economy: An Over-view’, report prepared for the Alaska Depart-

ment of Commerce and Economic Develop-ment, Division of Business Development,June 1990.

177. Lincoln, Michael E., Acting Director, U.S.Public Health Service, Indian Health Ser-vice, Rockville, MD, letter to John A. San-der, Dec. 2, 1993.

178. McDonnell, Ralston, “Vacuum Sewers asan Alternative in Some Nova Scotia Com-munities,” Appropriate Wastewater Man-agement Technologies for Rural Areas Un-der Adverse Conditions (Halifax, NovaScotia: Technology Press, 1987).

179. McPherson, James, “Y-K Sewer, WaterProblems Staggering; Solutions Few,” Tun-dra Drums, Apr. 23, 1992.

180. Marshall, David, Alaska Science and Engi-neering Advisory Commission, Office of theGovernor, State of Alaska, “Interface Be-tween Technology and Social Issues,” Con-ference on Design and Construction of Re-mote Facilities Under Arctic Conditions,1989.

181. Martin, Ingrid, “AlasCan Inventor FlushWith Success,” Fairbanks Daily New*s-Min -er, Feb. 4, 1990, p. B-6.

182. McCormick, John, “County Hopes It Isn’tFlushing Money Away,” Rochester PostBulletin, May 26, 1993.

183. McFarland, Carol, Research Products/Blakenship, Dallas, Texas, letter to DuaneGibson, Senator Ted Stevens’ office, andGerman E. Reyes, Office of Technology As-sessment, July 20, 1993.

184. McFarland, Carol, Research Products/Blakenship, Dallas, Texas, personal cc)m-munication, Mar. 3, 1994.

185. McKieman, Ed, President, SeaLand Tech-nology Inc., Big Prairie, Ohio, personalcommunication, Oct. 4, 1993.

186. McKieman, Ed, President, SeaLandTechnology Inc., Big Prairie, Ohio, “DualFlush Toilet Proves to be an InnovativeSolution to Native Village Sanitation Prob-lems,” a technical brochure, October 1993,18 pp. This brochure was translated from

References I 103

Japanese for use by the Office of TechnologyAssessment.

187. McKiernan, Ed, President, SeaLand Tech-nology Inc., Big Prairie, Ohio, personalcommunication. Nov. 23, 1993.

188. Melbourne, John. and Gerald Quick, ‘bLocalExperiences With Individual Onsite Waste-water Systems,” Proceedings of the FourthNational Conference on Individual OnsiteWastewater Systems, 1977 (Ann Arbor, MI:Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1977), pp.35-40.

189. Midwest Plan Service, Onsite Dmnc~sticSe}iage Disposal Han{ibook, MWPS-24(Ames. IA: Midwest Plan Service, August1982).

190. Municipal and Regional Assistance Divi-sion, Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Y[iko~~-Kl!.\kok\~i~?l” Need.~ As-.~e.~.~r?lent and Regional P/un, ~ 984.

191. “NASA Starts Busy 1993 Slate Of ShuttleFlight s,” Chemical and Engineering Ne\tY.~,Feb. 8, 1993.

192. National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-tration (NASA), Ames Research Center,Advanced Life Support Division, “CELSSGround-Based Research and TechnologyDevelopment Program,” circa 1993.

193. National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors, Falls Church, VA, andEnviro-Management and Research, Inc.,Springfield, VA, A.\.\c~.~.~t?lc~)lt of On-siteGra)v~wter an(i Combinc(i W(l.vtm’uterTreatmen! and Re[~~(ling S)stems, reportprepared for U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Aug. 3, 1992.

194. Nutiomd Sanitation Foundation, Wu.~tc-~juter Tt~(.hnolog>’.” Report on PerformanceEvaluation of Sun-,Var X.L CompostingiBiological Toilet (Ann Arbor, MI: NationalSanitation Foundation, July 1990).

195. National Sanitation Foundation, Wu.ste\t’u-{Cr T(’chnok)cqy.. Rcporl on PcrformaneeE\alld~ition of CLIVUS MULTRUM Model07 (\iith one midsection) Compost De\ice,

Report No. S-41 -3 (Ann Arbor, MI: Nation-al Sanitation Foundation, April 1992).

196. Nelson, Doug, University of Alaska An-chorage. School of Engineering, personalcommunication, Nov. 23, 1993.

197. Nelson, Glenn, Advanced Comporting Sys-tems, Whitefish, Montana, “Phoenix Com-porting Toilet: Information and ApplicationGuide for Public Facilities,” April 1993.

198. Nelson. Glenn. Advanced Cornposting Sys-tems, personal communication, Jan. 26,1994.

199. Newton, Bill, Research Products/Blaken-ship, 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, Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation, Bethel,Alaska, “List of Functions and Responsibili-ties, ” undated.

202. Olofsson, John A., and Lawrence A. Iwamo-to, University of Alaska Anchorage and Vil-lage Safe Water, Final Drap, Research andDc}elopmcnt Sl(b-Cor?l}?litt(~(~ Report, pre-pared for the Governor’s Task Force on San-itation in Rural Alaska, 1992,

203. Olofsson, John A., and Lawrence A. Iwamo-to, University of Alaska Anchorage and Vil-lage Safe Water, T/-ij> Report: R&D Sub-Cotnmittee Orientation Visit, 1992.

204. Olofsson, John A., and H. P. Schroeder, Uni-versity of Alaska Anchorage, Sanitutio}l Al-ternatilcs For Rural A lasku, report preparedfor the Congressional Office of TechnologyAssessment, Washington, D C. Aug. 15,1993.

205. Olofsson, John A. and Carol M. Campbell,“Solving Sanitation Problems in the Alas-kan Bush,” P~-c)c’c~(~(iirl(q.~ of the NationalConference of E}l\’i~-())l\rl(~)jt(il Engineering,Montreal, Canudu, Ju1> 12-14, 1993, vol. 1,pp. 347-356, published by American Soci-


ety of Civil Engineering and Canadian Soci-ety of Civil Engineering, 1993.

206. Olofsson, John A., University of Alaska An-chorage, School of Engineering, personalcommunication, Sept. 28, 1993.

207. Oswalt, Wendell H., Bashfil No Longer(Norman, OK: University of OklahomaPress, 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 Guideto Water and Waste\iater Financing andPricing (Ann Arbor, MI: Lewis Publishers,1 993).

211. Research Products/Blankenship, Dallas,TX, “Incinolet: That Electric Toilet,” aninstallation and maintenance manual, circaNovember 1993.

212. Rethke, D. W., and C.R. Murphy, “FlightTest Results of the DTO Waste CollectionSubsystem (WCS) for Shuttle ExtendedDuration Orbiter (EDO),” SAE TechnicalPaper Series, No. 932295, 1993.

213. Robinson, B.A. and G.W. Heinke, North-west Territories Municipal and CommunityAffairs, Canada, The E#ect of MunicipalSer~’ice Impro~)ements on Public Health inthe North\ ~’e.st Territories, January 1991.

214. Rogness, Daniel R., Status of Water Supplyand Waste Disposal Services in Rural Alas-ka, International Conference on Circumpo-Iar Health, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory,Canada, 1990.

215. Rogness, Daniel R., and W. L., Ryan, Sew!-uge Collection in Northern Alaska, Third In-ternational Symposium on CircumpolarHealth, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories,Canada, 1974.

216. Ryan, William L., ‘“Village Sanitary Prob-lems,” En~ironmental Standards fbr North-ern Regions, Symposium sponsored byInstitute of Water Resources, Division ofStatewide Services, Program of Environ-

mental Quality Engineering, University ofAlaska, 1975.

217. Ryan, William L., “Sanitation and Utilities,Alaska Science and Engineering AdvisoryCommission, Office of the Governor, Stateof Alaska, Conference on Design andConstruction of Remote Facilities b’nderArctic Conditions, 1989.

218. Ryan, William L., “Status of sanitation facil-ities in Alaska—1 982,” presented at Pro-ceedings: Third Symposium on Utilities De-livery in Cold Regions, Edmonton, Alberta,Canada, 1982.

219. Sandor, John A., Commissioner, Alaska De-partment of Environmental Conservation,letter to Honorable Donna E. Shalala, Secre-tary of Health and Human Services, Sept.24, 1993.

220. Savikko, Herman, and Tim Page, Depart-ment of Fish and Game, Division of Comm-ercial Fisheries, 1989 Preliminary AlaskaCommercial Fisheries Harvests and Values(Juneau, AK: Department of Fish and Game,1 990).

221. Schaeffer, J., Director of Business Develop-ment, NANA Corp., information providedduring the Office of Technology Assessmentworkshop on ‘bWaste Sanitation Problems ofRural Alaska,” Anchorage, AK, Aug. 4,19930

222. Schubert, Daniel, Past and Future Costs ofWater, Waste~ater and Solid Waste for Ru-ral Areas, presented at the Water PollutionControl Association and the Alaska SectionAmerican Water Works Association 3 1stAnnual Conference, Fairbanks, AK, 1991.

223. Shoultz, Dave, P. E., Sanitation Facility Op-erations and Maintenance Consultant, Yu-kon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation, in-formation provided to Office of TechnologyAssessment staff during a visit to Belhel,AK, Aug. 5, 1993.

224. Siebert, J., Executive Director, Alaska Sci-ence and Technology Foundation, informa-tion provided at the Office of TechnologyAssessment workshop on “Waste Sanitation

References I 105

Problems of Rural Alaska,” Anchorage, AK,Aug. 4, 1993.

225. Siegrist, Robert L., ● ’Waste Segregation toFacilitate Onsite Wastewater Disposal Al-ternatives, “Procccdings of the Second Na-tional Home Se\i’u,qe Treatment Symposium,(St Joseph, MI: American Society of Agri-cultural Engineers, 1978), pp. 271-281.

226. Skin, Glenn, Administrator, City of Noor-vik, information provided to Office ofTechnology Assessment staff during a visitto the City of Noorvik, Aug. 1, 1993.

227. Smith, W. B., RUBA Advisor, letter to MikeBlack, Department of Community and Re-gional Affairs, Feb. 18, 1993.

228. Smith, W. B., RUBA Advisor, letter and oth-er informational sources sent to German E.Reyes. Office of Technology Assessment,Aug. 5, 1993.

229. Spriggs, John W., Environmental HealthSpecialist, Maniilaq Association, Kotzebue,information provided to Office of Technolo-gy Assessment staff during a visit to NANACorp. villages, Aug. 1, 1993.

230. Stephens, Tamar J., “Aeration in an Individ-ual On-Site Aerobic Greywater TreatmentSystem,” master’s thesis, University ofAlaska Fairbanks, 1993.

231. Stephens, Tamar J., and Mark A. Tumeo,“Pulsation Errors in Compressible FlowMeasure merit,” Journal of En~*ironmentalEngineering, vol. 119, 1993, pp. 384-389.

232. Stephens, Tamar J.. AlasCan, Inc., Fair-banks, AK, ‘comparison of AlasCan Grey -water Treatment Systems With SepticTanks,” September 1993.

233. Stokes, Willitim, Alaska Department of En-vironmental Conservation, personal com-munication, Aug. 5, 1993.

2S4. Storbum Int., Inc., Ontario, Canada, 6* Stor-bum: Pollution-Free Toilet,” ] 993.

2~5. Straight, C. L., M.E. Bates, D.L, Buben-hcim and M,T. Flynn, “The CELSS Antarc-tic Analog Project: An Advanced Life Sup-port Testbed at the Admundsen-Scott SouthPole Sttition,” Antarctica.” This article has

been accepted for publication in Journal ofLife Support and Biosphere Science.

236. Sun-Mar Corp., Burlington, Canada, “Sun-Mar Cottage Toilets.” undated.

237. Tench, Brian, Pacific Basin Marketing Di-rector, SeaLand Technology Inc., Big Prai-rie, Ohio, personal communication, Nov. 12,1993.

238. Thomas. Willie, Vice Mayor, City of Buck-land, AK, information provided to Office ofTechnology Assessment staff during a visitto the Village of Buckland, Aug. 1.1993.

239. Thornton, W. E., H. Whitmore, and W.W.Lofland, Jr., “An Impro\ed Waste Collec-tion System for Space Flight,” SAE Techni-cal Puper Series, No. 861014, 1986.

240. Tumeo, Mark A., Environmental Technolo-gy Laboratory, University of Alaska Fair-banks, Report on the PeI~~~rmance of theAlusCan Grey\\ater Treatment Systems Un-der Warm Weather Conditi{~ns, October1991.

241. Tumeo, Mark A., Environmental Technolo-gy Laboratory, University of Alaska Fair-banks , Final Reporl: A[asCan Grey\~aterTreatment System Fi~~l{l-M{j\~it{)}-i/l,q Pro-gram at 14cD014gull L.oc{<qe, February 1993.

242. Tumeo, Mark A., Environmental Technolo-gy Laboratory, University of Alaska Fair-banks. Fi~lal Report: Alu.~Can Grey\\aterT1-eatment System Field Monitoring Pro-gram in Fuirbanks, February 1993.

243. Turner, Rodney J., The Han[ibook of Proj-ect-lla,sed Management.. Impro\ing theProcess fc)r Achie\ing Strategic Objecti\e.v(New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Com-pany, 1993).

244. Twiss, Brian C.. Managing T~~(}~}l~~lc),qii[ilInno]afion (London, Great Britain: Long-man Group Ltd., 1974).

245. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Dioxin Treatment Technologies,OTA-BP-O-93 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office. November 1991 ).

246. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, .-Workshop on Waste Sanitation


Technologies in Native Communities of Ru-ral Alaska, Aug. 4, 1993,” unpublishedworkshop notes.

247. U.S. Department of the Army, Army Corpsof Engineers, Civil Works Budget Requesffor the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers-FiscalYear 1994, April 1993.

248. U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-vices, Sanitation Facilities Deficiencies forIndian Homes and Communities: AnnualReport Presented to the President of theUnited States of America and to the Con-gress of the United States (Washington, DC:Department of Health and Human Services,February 1992).

249. U.S. Department of the Interior, MineralsManagement Service, OCS (Outer Conti-nental Shelf Study.” Village Economics inRural Alaska, Social and Economic Studies,(La Jolla, CA: Impact Assessment, 1988).

250. U.S. Department of the Interior, MineralsManagement Service, Alaska Outer Conti-nental Shelf Region, Anchorage, AK, Re-gional and Village Corporation Employ-ment Pr-ojlle, Special Report No. 7, 1988.

251. U.S. Department of the Interior, MineralsManagement Service, Alaska Outer Conti-nental Shelf Region, Anchorage, AK, Vil-lage Economics in Rural Alaska, TechnicalReport No. 132, 1988.

252. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, De-sign illanual: Onsite Waste \+’ater Treatmentand Disposal Systems, EPA 62511-80-012(Washington, DC: U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1980).

253. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Of-fice of Water, Rural Alaska Sanitation Ini-tiative, Federal Field Work Group: InterimReport, Jan. 6, 1994.

254. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Of-fice of Water, Office of Wastewater Enforce-ment and Compliance, /990 Needs SurveyReport to Congress: Assessment of NeededPublicly O\~ned Wastetiater Treatment Fa-cilities in the United States, Including Fed-erally Recognized Indian Tribes and AlaskaNative Villages, EPA 430/09-9 1-024 (Wash-

ington, DC: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, November 1991 ).

255. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7,Anchorage, AK, Togiak National WildlfeRefuge Final Comprehensive Plan, Wilder-ness Revie~’ and Environmental ImpactStatement, 1986.

256. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7,Anchorage, AK, Yukon Delta NationalWildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conserva-tion Plan, Environmental Impact Statement,Wilderness Reviewy and Wild River Plan,1988.

257. U.S. House of Representatives, Committeeon Energy and Commerce, Compilation ofSelected Acts Within the Jurisdiction of theCommittee on Energy and Commerce, vol.1: Health Lawf as Amended Through De-cember .?I, 1987, 10Oth Cong., 2d sess.,Committee print 1OO-U (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, August1988).

258. U.S. House of Representatives, Committeeon Energy and Commerce, Report on theMajor Programs Within the Jurisdiction ofthe Subcommittee on Health and the Envi-ronment, 103d Cong., 1st sess., Commit{eeprint 103-G (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, May 1993).

259. U.S. Public Health Service, Alaska Area Na-tive Health Service, Community Environ-mental Health Projile and Priority Projec-tion, Noorvik, Alaska, January 1987.

260. U.S. Public Health Service, Alaska Area Na-tive Health Service, Office of Environmen-tal Health and Engineering, “Alaska Area:Estimated Rural Alaska Sanitation O&MCosts,” Apr. 6, 1993.

261. U.S. Public Health Service, Alaska Area Na-tive Health Service, Office of Environmen-tal Health and Engineering, Memorandumon “Meeting on Honey bucket (HB) HaulImprovements-August 3, 1993,” dated Aug.18, 1993.

262. U.S. Public Health Service, Alaska Area Na-tive Health Service, Office of Environmen-tal Health and Engineering, “Update on

References I 107

Honey Bucket Haul Equipment Improve-ments,” 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 HealthService, Final Report, Sanitation FacilitiesConstruction f~~r Toksook Bay, Alaska (An-chorage, AK: U.S. Public Health Service,

1 990).266. Public Health Service, Indian Health Ser-

vice, Project Summary, Sanitation FacilitiesConstruction, City ofAkiachak, Alaska (An-chorage, AK: U.S. Public Health Service,1981 ).

267. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Akiak, Alaska(Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health Ser-vice, 1981 ).

268. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Aniak, Alaska(Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health Ser-vice, 1989).

269. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Atmaut[uak,Ala~ka (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public HealthService, 1980).

270. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Che\’ak, Alaska(Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public Health Ser-vice, 1992).

271. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Chuathbaluk,Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public HealthService, 1987).

272. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Emmonak, Alaska

(Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service,1988).

273. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Goodnew’s Bay,Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Ser-vice, 1988).

274. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Hooper Bay,Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Ser-vice, 1982).

275. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Marshall, Alaska(Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service,1983).

276. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Moi4ntain Vil-lage, Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. PublicHealth Service, 1980).

277. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Nupuskiak, Ala.Y -ka (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service,1983).

278. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Ne}~tok, Alaska(Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Service,1987).

279. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Nunapitchuk,Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Ser-vice, 1989).

280. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, Village of Pitkas Point,Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public HealthService, 1989).

281. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Sheldon Point,


Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Ser-vice, 1992).

282. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, City of Toksook Bay,Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public Health Ser-vice, 1982).

283. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction for the Village of Kipnuk,Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public HealthService, 1989).

284. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction for the Village of Kongi -ganak, Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. PublicHealth Service, 1991).

285. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, Community of Kwigilin --,gok, Alaska (Anchorage: U.S. Public HealthService, 1989).

286. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction for the City of LowerKalskag, Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S.Public Health Service, 1990).

287. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction for the City of RussianMission, Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Pub-lic Health Service, 1991).

288. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction for the Village of Kasi-gluk, Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. PublicHealth Service, 1991).

289. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, Village of Sleetmute,Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public HealthService, 1989).

290. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, Village of Stony River,

Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public HealthService, 1988).

291. U.S. Public Health Service, Indian HealthService, Project Summary, Sanitation Facil-ities Construction, Village of Tuntutuliak,Alaska (Anchorage, AK: U.S. Public HealthService, 1981).

292. U.S. Public Health Service and State ofAlaska Department of’ Environmental Con-servation, Alaska Native Villages Wastewa -ter Needs, 1989.

z93. U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Nat-ural Resources, Hearing on the Report of theSecretary of the Interior to the Congress Re-garding Oil and Gas Leasing on the CoastalPlain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refi~ge,Alaska-July 22, 1987, S. Hrg. 100-188 Part2 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, 1987).

z94. U.S. Senate, Committee on Government Af-fairs, Hearings Before the Committee onGovernment A#airs on Reorganization PlanNo. 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 Af-fairs to Review Status of Water and SanitaryFacility Development in the Native Villagesof Alaska, May 5, 1993, S. Hrg. 103-124(U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993).

296. U.S. Senate, Committee on Interior and In-sular Affairs, Hearings Before the Commit-tee on Interior and Insular A#airs on S. 3530and Amdt. No. 1535 [Alaska Native Enroll-ment] (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1975).

297. University of Alaska Anchorage, “Evalua-tion of Residential Comporting Toilets inRemote Alaskan Communities, Project Nar-rative,” Alaska Science and TechnologyFoundation grant # 92-2-083, 1992.

298. University of Alaska Anchorage, ‘*CE 438Design of Engineering Systems: Piped Util-ity 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 villagesget chunk of $6.7 million on wastewatergrants,” Apr. 9, 1992.Walker, A. M., Executive Director, AlaskaNative Health Board, testimony before theSenate Committee on Indian Affairs, May 5,1993.Walker, A. M., Executive Director, AlaskaNative Health Board, information providedat the Office of Technology Assessmentworkshop on Waste Sanitation Problems ofRural Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, Aug. 4,1993.Wailer, D.H. and A.R. Townshend, Ap-propriate Wustewwter ManagementTechnologies for Rural Areas Under Ad-}’er.se Conditions (Halifax, Canada: TechPress, 1987)Weaver, Steve, Indian Health Service, Pub-lic Health Service, Rockville, MD, personalcommunication, Jan. 24, 1994.Williams, Orie, Executive Vice President,Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation,information provided at the OffIce ofTechnology Assessment workshop on“Waste Sanitation Problems of Rural Alas-ka,” Anchorage, Alaska, Aug. 4, 1993.Williams, Peter, Sr., Mayor, City of Napas-kiak, information provided to Office ofTechnology Assessment staff during a visitto the City of Napaskiak, Aug. 5, 1993.Wills, J. and S. Ma]hotra, Alaska Compre-hensi~’e Heulth Care Financing Study: De-scription of Policy Options, final report, vol.

1 and 2 (Seattle, WA: Battelle Human Af-fairs Research Centers, March 1982).Wilson, Robert L.. District Design Engineer,

308.

309.

310.

311.

312.

313.

314.

Alaska Area Native Health Service, Memo-randum on “Sanitation Facilities Design/Construction Activities—Public HealthService (PHS)/Indian Health Service (IHS)Western District,” May 19, 1993.Winkler, H. E., Chief, Life Support SystemsBranch, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center,Houston, Texas, personal communication,Dec. 29, 1993.Winkler, H. E., Chief, Life Support SystemsBranch, 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 Man-agement System Design Improvements andFlight Evaluation,” SAE Technical PaperSeries, No. 861003, 1986.Wisdom, A. S., Se\t’erage and Se\*wge Dis-posa] (London, Great Britain: Barry RosePublishers Ltd., 1979).Yarie, Sally, Alaska Symposium on the So-cial, Economic, and Cultural Impacts ofNatural Resources Development, Proceed-ings, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 1983.Young, O.R. and G. Osherenko, “Arctic Re-source Conflicts: Sources and Solutions”Westermeyer, W.E. and K.M. Shusterich,United States Arctic Interests: The 1980sand 1990s (New York, NY: Springer-Verlag,1984), pp. 199-218.Zimmerman, Dave, Sanitation FacilitiesOperator, City of Noor-vik, information pro-vided to Office of Technology Assessmentstaff during a visit to the City of Selawik,Aug. 1, 1993.

Appendix A:The Land Claims

and TribalMovements of

Alaska Natives ALAND CLAIMS MOVEMENTThe reduction of fur-bearing sea mammals in Alaska and the de-mands of the Crimean War were among the reasons the RussianGovernment agreed to sell Alaska to the United States. The gener-al American public believed Alaska to be a land of ice and snow,and quickly labeled the purchase ‘*Seward’s Icebox,” “Seward’sFolly,” and other things, after the Secretary of State who sup-ported its purchase.

Ever since then, Alaska has been a mystery to virtually all whohave not experienced conditions in the State on a first-hand basis.It is safe to say that virtually all of the preconceptions that onebrings to Alaska will be disproved, and opposite examples en-countered, even during a short visit. Alaska is vast and perhapsbest described as a land of contrast and contradiction. For exam-ple, in spite of its vastness, Alaska is a small community. After aninordinate] y short stay, one begins to realize that even a small net-work of acquaintances will produce recurring contacts of com-mon interest.

The transfer of Alaska from Russian rule to the United Statesoccurred at Sitka in southeast Alaska on October 18, 1867. The1867 Treaty of Cession guaranteed that the “uncivilized tribes,”which included those groups that had remained independent fromRussian domination, would have the same protection of the lawsand regulations that applied to other tribes within the UnitedStates. The most important of these protections to Native peoplewas a recognition of their right to possess land.

The Tlingit and Haida Indians of southeast Alaska were not al-lowed to even watch the ceremony in which their land was trans-ferred from one nation to another, an inauspicious beginning fromthe Native viewpoint. They immediately voiced their objections

I 111


to the sale and claimed that the land had been soldwithout their consent. They further claimed thatthe $7.2 million purchase price should have beenpaid to them, although their objections were to gounheeded until they brought suit in the courts ofthe United States.

Although the 1867 Treaty of Cession and the1884 Organic Act recognized the land rights ofAlaska Natives, little was done to restrict non-Native occupation of their lands. The gold rush,followed by the development of lucrative salmonfisheries, commercial whaling, trapping, and theinflux of the military, brought a large populationof whites to the new territory. Everywhere, Nativelands were encroached upon.

In 1935, the Jurisdictional Act was passed bythe U. S. Congress, allowing the Tlingit and HaidaIndians of southeast Alaska to sue the UnitedStates for loss of their lands. Creation of the Ton-gass National Forest, Glacier Bay National Monu-ment, and the Metlakatla Reservation for theTsimpsian Indians, who had moved to Alaskafrom Canada, eroded much of the land base of thesoutheast Alaska Indians.

The Hydaburg Reservation, which had beencreated for the Haida Indians, was invalidated by a1952 court decision. The judge ruled that the res-ervation had not been validly created. In contrastto earlier judicial decisions, in which Natives hadbeen deemed to be uncivilized, the judge in thiscase ruled that the Haida Indians had been assimi-lated (i.e., civilized through assimilation) into thewhite community surrounding them. It was fur-ther reasoned that the 101 ,000-acre reservationwould be created at the expense of white peoplewho had nothing to do with the exploitation of theIndians, further increasing discord.

Not until 1968 did the Indian Court of Claimsaward the Tlingit and Haida a $7.5-million judg-ment, far short of the $80-million value claimedby the Indians. The award did not provide for aland base, and the remainder of the Tlingit landin the northern region of their territory was to beincluded in the statewide Native claims.

The Statehood Act of 1958 granted the State ofAlaska the right to select 103 million acres. At thesame time it recognized the rights of Natives to

kinds they traditionally used and occupied. TheState’s proposed selection of land initiated a seriesof protests by Alaska Natives. Native people weremost concerned that their hunting, fishing, andtrapping grounds would be taken by the State. Vil-lage after village began to file protests with theFederal Government. In early 1963, nearly 1,000Natives from 24 villages petitioned the Secretaryof the Interior to impose a land freeze to halt alltransfer of land ownership until Native land rightshad been resolved. The Secretary did not respondto this petition.

The southeast Natives were the first group toorganize on a regional basis. The Alaska NativeBrotherhood (ANB) was organized as early as1912, and it claims to be the oldest organizationamong American Indians. The ANB had at-tempted to organize local chapters called “camps”in communities outside the southeast, but it metwith only partial success. Not until the 1960s wereother regional associations formed to advocate forland and political rights of Alaska Natives. In1963, several of the regional organizations dis-cussed the possibility of organizing a statewidegroup, but the deep-rooted mistrust that persistedamong different cultural groups hindered itsformation.

A growing awareness of the need to take con-certed action for the protection of Native landownership finally prompted formation of theAlaska Federation of Natives (AFN) in 1966. TheAFN adopted three recommendations relating toland protection: 1 ) a land freeze until Nativeclaims were resolved, 2) congressional legislationto settle the claims, and 3) congressional consulta-tion with Natives before the enactment of landclaims legislation. Before 1966 ended, the Secre-tary of the Interior had imposed a land freeze untilthe land claims issue could be resolved. Imaginethe leverage this provided when, in a few shortyears, the State would seek to build an 800-milepipeline from Prudhoe Bay on the Arctic Coast tothe City of Valdez on Prince Will i am Sound on theGulf of Alaska.

Because of the importance of the AFN as an ad-vocate of Native interests in Alaska, a discussionof 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 relation-ships. The AFN was formed in 1966 when morethan 400 Alaska Natives representing 17 organ-izations gathered for a three-day conference to ad-dress the need for a settlement of aboriginal landrights. Natives in different parts of Alaska hadworked independently on the land claims issue,but by the mid- 1960s, it had become clear that aunited, consolidated effort was needed.

Although different in culture and history, thevarious Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut groups sharedseveral important concerns. These included atraditional and fundamental reliance on the landand its resources, the welfare and integrity of thecommunity, and a growing concern about Westernencroachment on lands on which Natives had re-lied for millennia.

Between 1966 and 1971, the AFN worked to at-tain passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settle-ment Act (ANCSA), which was signed into lawon December 18, 1971. With ANCSA in place, theAFN provided technical assistance to Alaska Na-tives as they began to implement the Act. Duringthe 1970s, the AFN also managed statewide hu-man service programs. However, as Native re-gional nonprofit associations grew in strength andnumber, the AFN transferred these human serviceprograms to them.

Since the late 1970s, the AFN has concentratedon lobbying and advocacy efforts on statewide is-sues, with funding provided by membership fees.The activities of the AFN are oriented mostly to-ward for-profit corporations. Over the years, theAFN has evolved to meet the changing needs ofAlaska Natives and to respond to new challengesas they emerge.

At the State level, AFN plays an active role inthe legislative process by promoting laws, poli-cies, and programs benefiting Natives in the areasof health, education, resource development, labor,and government. in the late 1980s, the AFNturned its attention to social, tribal, and economicissues, including the problems surrounding com-munity sanitation.

With formation of the AFN, the legislative landclaims battle began in earnest. Native claims totheir ancestral lands were adamantly opposed by

the State. The Prudhoe Bay oil lease sales on theNorth Slope brought the State of Alaska some$900 million, and it brought support to the Na-tives for settlement of the land claims. It was clearthat no permit for a pipeline that would carry oilfrom the North Slope to a southern terminal couldbe granted until Native claims to their land weresettled. The assistance of the oil companies andother business interests ensured the passage of theland claims bill. When ANCSA was signed, Alas-ka Natives believed that a new and prosperous erawas about to begin.

The basic provisions of the Act concerned land,money, and the establishment of Native corpora-tions. Under the terms of the Act, Congress agreedthat Alaska Natives would be compensated$962.5 million for the extinguishment of aborigi-nal title to 330 million acres of land and that theywould retain ownership of 44 million acres of landunder fee-simple title. Congress also authorizedcorporations, rather than traditional Native groupsor clans, to hold title to the land and assets. Theland was to be divided among 12 regional and 200village corporations. The Act was later amendedto allow for the formation of a 13th regional cor-poration for those Alaska Natives living outsidethe State.

The regional corporations would hold title tosubsurface resources, and village corporationstitle to surface resources. ANCSA allowed indi-viduals who were alive on December 18, 1971,and who were one-fourth or more Alaskan Native,to enroll as shareholders. Unfortunate y, many eli-gible Natives did not enroll because of an absencein their culture of any concept of land ownership.Enrollment for ownership in lands they had al-ways used freely seemed pointless and resultedlater in resentment, hardship, and seemingly un-fair exclusion of title to ancestral lands.

ANCSA appeared to be a landmark legislativeact. Alaska Natives were to receive more land thanthat held in trust for all other American Indians.Compensation for lands surrendered was nearlyfour times the amount all Indian tribes had wonfrom the Indian Claims Commission over its25-year history. In the view of many, this was pos-


sible only because of the power of the petroleumindustry in the State.

The settlement was also a clear departure fromprevious Indian settlements. Under ANCSA,lands would be held by corporations under fee-simple title rather than as reservations held in trustby the Federal Government. Congress clearly in-tended that ANCSA would provide the means foreconomic development and assimilation of Alas-ka Native peoples.

Alaska Natives were initially elated over theprovisions of ANCSA. It did not take long, how-ever, for them to become aware of the complexi-ties and problems associated with the settlement.Corporations would have to wait up to 10 yearsbefore they received title to their land, and the costof implementing the settlement consumed most oftheir financial award. Natives also came to realizethat perpetual ownership of their lands could notbe ensured under the corporate structure and thatthe shareholder system did not allow for the en-rollment of those Alaska Natives born after 1971.

The corporations have met with varying de-grees of success. Several regional and village cor-porations have achieved great success, but for themost part, a large number have been less than suc-cessful. Several are on the verge of bankruptcy.Alaska Natives have proposed a series of amend-ments to ANCSA and are hopeful of resolvingmany of the corporate problems.

TRIBAL MOVEMENTThe tribal movement in Alaska began with Na-tives who feared that they could lose their ances-tral lands, which are held by ANCSA corpora-tions. The concern of tribal Natives is that withouttheir land they will lose their culture, They con-tend that cultural survival is based on the huntingand gathering of wildlife resources. They also fearthat with a growing non-Native population inAlaska, they will lose control over their communi-ties as well. They are concerned that the prolifera-tion of modem institutions in the villages, includ-ing the tribal council, city council, corporation,school. and other organizations, has become asource of conflict. They also express opposition to

jurisdiction exercised by a State Government andjudicial system in which they are not fully repre-sented. They maintain that State agencies enactoppressive laws and regulations, and render deci-sions that often conflict with their needs and donot always represent their best interest.

A former Canadian Supreme Court Justice,Thomas R. Berger, an internationally recognizedadvocate of Native rights, was invited by the InuitCircumpolar Conference (ICC) to head the AlaskaNative Review Commission. The ICC is an in-ternational organization composed of Alaskan,Canadian, and Greenlandic Inuit dedicated tomaintaining their culture. The ICC established thecommission to assess the impacts of ANCSA.Judge Berger traveled to more than 60 villages andreceived testimony from Alaska Natives onANCSA.

One conclusion was that villagers believedANCSA represented a cultural encounter betweentwo different societies. They reported that the con-cept of buying or selling land was alien to AlaskaNatives and that land was communally held by agroup rather than by individual stockholders.they expressed concern that the 10,000 to 12,000Alaskan Native children born after the passage ofANCSA were not given automatic membership inthe corporation, as they were in traditional socialgroups or clans by virtue of their birth. Theytalked about subsistence activities and how thesharing of resources under their traditional cus-toms established social obligations and reinforcedbonds among them.

Congress amended the Indian ReorganizationAct (IRA) in 1936 to allow Alaskan Native vil-lages to form tribal governments. Seventy v ill agesorganized themselves under the IRA council, andmany other villages are governed by traditionalcouncils. A common assumption in Alaska is thatANCSA extinguished tribal sovereignty. How-ever, an increasing number of villages, particular-ly in western Alaska and the interior regions, arebeginning to reassert their sovereign rights undertheir tribal government and judicial councils.Akiachak, which has been at the forefront of thetribal 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 underState laws, in favor of tribal government and to or-ganize its own judicial council.

In 1985, a number of tribal governments or-ganized themselves under the Alaska Native Co-al it ion (AN C). The ANC was not successful in ob-taining an amendment to ANCSA that would haveallowed corporations to transfer their lands to trib-al governments. A number of tribal governmentsin southwestern Alaska have united under the Yu-piit Nation to further strengthen tribal gover-nments and rights.

The tribal movement also grew in response toincreasing concerns over the social problems thatplague Native villages. Alcoholism and self-destructive behavior have been a problem in manyvillages. The suicide rate has been reported to bethe highest in the country, particularly amongyoung males. Alienation, loss of family, low in-come, and alcohol abuse are cited as major factorsrelated to suicide. In an effort to control alcoholabuse, many tribal governments have prohibitedthe importation of alcohol into their communities.

Cultural resurgence has also been associatedwith the movement toward self-determination.Communities in which traditional dancing andceremonies were prohibited by the local churcheshave reinstituted Native dance and many of thetraditional ceremonies. Native leaders and eldershave organized cultural camps in which youngchildren can be immersed in Native culture. Chil-dren spend a period of time in these camps lear-ning about traditional ways and beliefs. The eldershave reasserted their traditional authority in manyvillages, They participate in formal elder confer-ences to record traditional knowledge. Continu-

ing political efforts to protect their land bases andsubsistence hunting and fishing activities have be-come the rallying point to protect the survival ofNative cultures.

Whether the Inupiat, Yupik, Aleuts, and Atha-paskans and the Tlingit, Tsimpsian, or Haida willsurvive as distinct cultural groups remains to beseen. It is well accepted that Native cultures havechanged dramatically y since their first contact withWesterners. However, it is also recognized thatthey retain elements and values of their traditionalcultures that distinguish them from one anotherand set them apart from non-Natives.

Alaska Natives are on a collision course withnon-Natives who oppose the tribal sovereigntymovement and their subsistence rights. The ever-increasing numbers of non-Natives, with their ex-pansion into rural communities, create competinguses for wildlife resources. Alaska Natives havebecome accustomed to, and dependent on, goodsand services that can be obtained only from thecapital economy, but the prospects for economicdevelopment in rural regions of Alaska are uncer-tain at best and absent at worst. The lack of eco-nomic opportunities in rural communities may ac-celerate the migration to urban centers

Native corporations continue to hold all Nativeland except two villages that turned over theirlands to the tribal government. It is unlikely thatthe corporations will reconvey their lands to thetribal governments, but Alaska Natives are con-tinuing to pursue amendments to ANCSA thatthey believe will ensure the continued ownershipof Native land. The record is clear that the Nativepeoples have made a firm commitment to ensurethe survival of their cultures.

Appendix B:Hepatitis AOutbreaks inAlaskan Native

B Villages, 1988

cases Percentage ofVillage Population reported population Level of servicel

Akiachak

Alakanuk

Atmautluak

Buckland

ChefornakChevakEek

EmmonakGalenaGolovin

Holy Cross

Hooper Bay

Kasigluk

KipnukKongiganakKotlik

Koyuk

Kwigillingok

Lower Kalskag

Marshall

Mt Village

Naknek

Napakiak

Napaskiak

Nenana

Nunapitchuk

483544258318320598261642833127277845425470294461231278291273674711318328393378

11

3555181

451091

4452

13191176311

10

2,02,00.30.30,35.91.90.80.16.30.45.30,50.62.09.52.20.74,50,41,30.2032.11,50.8

b

a

abb

abec

d

e

b

a

bb

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 ofVillage Population reported population Level of service1

OscarvillePilot Point

Pilot Station

Pitkas Point

Quinhagak

Saint Marys

Saint Michael

Sand Point

Scammon Bay

StebbinsTananaTetlinTog iak

Tok

Tuntutuliak

Tununak

Upper Kalskag

57

53463

135

501

441

295

878

343

40034587

6131,256

300316172

117

9

3

15

11

1

1

1

71

1

2

1.8

1,9

2.2

0.7

0 2

1 6

3.00.3442.80.31,10.21.0030.31,2

a

d

d

b

b

e

b

e

e

b

aaed

a

aa

1 Level a represents the most rudimentary service and consists principally of the use of pit toilets, privvies, and honey buckets Level b sanitary wastedisposal service provides for the hauling of honey bucket wastes by a community employee Level c encompasses systems with flush toilets, holdingtanks for collecting waste, and hauling of wastes loa disposal area by a truck service. Level d systems have flush toilets that discharge to septic tanksand leach fields Level e--flush toilets and piped sewerage-represents the highest technical and safety level of wastewater disposal service pro-vided to Native communities of AlaskaSOURCE U S Public Health Service and State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska Native Villages Wastewater Needs,1989

Appendix C:Current Distributionof Sanitation TechnologiesAmong Rural Alaskan Villages

c and Native Population Served

Regional Existing potableCommunity Population corporation water system Existing sewer system

ChitinaMentasta Lake

ChistochinaGakona

Tazlina

Cantwell

Copper CenterGuikana

AkutanAtkaFalse Pass

King Cove

Saint George

Saint Paul

Sand Point

Unalaska

Nelson Lagoon

NikolskiBarrow

Anaktuvuk Pass

Atkasook

Kaktovik

Nuiqsut

Point Hope

Point Lay

Wainwright

Diomede

Gambell

GolovinKoyuk

Brevig Mission

49

96

60

25

247

45

449

1035899868

451138763878

3,0898335

2,763259216224354639139492178525127231198

AthnaAthna

Athna

Athna

Athna

Athna

Athna

Athna

AleutianAleutianAleutianAleutian

Aleutian

Aleutian

Aleutian

Aleutian

Aleutian

AleutianNorth Slope

North SlopeNorth Slope

North Slope

North Slope

North Slope

North Slope

North Slope

Bering StraitsBering StraitsBering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Individual wellsIndividual wells

None

Watering point

Watering point

Individual wells

Individual wells

Circulation pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipeConventional pipeConventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipeCirculatlon pipeWasheteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Individual privyIndividual privyIndividual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual septic

Individual septic

Community septicPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Individual septic

Individual septic

Piped gravityTruck 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


Saint Michael

Savoonga

Shishmaref

Stebbins

Wales

Elim

Nome

Unalakleet

White Mountain

CouncilShaktoolikTellerPortage Creek

KoliganekManokotak

New Stuyahok

Nondalton

Togiak

Twin HiIIs

ChignikClarks PointEgegik

South NaknekNaknekI g l u g i g

Ekwok

EkukKokhonak

Ivanoff Bay

PerryvilleAleknaqik

Chignik LagoonIliamnaLevelock

Pedro Bay

Pilot Point

Port Helden

Ugashik

Chignik Lake

Newhalen

Alakanuk

Atmautluak

Kwigillingok

Tuluksak

Tuntutuliak

Tununak

Meroryuk

Newtok

Oscarville

Platinum

295519456

400161264

3,500714180

8178151

5181385

391178

61366

188

60122

136575

3377

3

15235

108185

53

94

1054253

1197

1331605442582783583003161772075764

Bering StraitsBering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering Straits

Bering StraitsBering Straits

Bristol BayBristol Bay


Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay




Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol BayBristol BayBristol BayBristol Bay


Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Bristol Bay

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-KuskokwimYukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Kuskokwim

WasheteriaWasheteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Washeteria

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipeWatering point

Circulating pipeWasheteriaWatering point

Circulation pipeCirculation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Conventional pipeConventional pipeConventional pipe

Conventional pipeIndividual wells

WasheteriaIndividual wells

Individual wellsWatering point

Conventional pipeConventional pipeIndividual wellsIndividual wellsIndividual wellsIndividual 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 haulHoney bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haulPiped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Individual privvy

Community septic systemTruck haul

Honey bucket bunkerPiped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravityPiped gravity

Piped gravity


Piped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravity


Piped Sewer

Individual privvy

Individual privvy

Individual septicIndividual septicIndividual septicIndividual septic

Individual septicIndividual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Individual septic

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunkerHoney bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker


Regional Existing potableCommunity Population cormwation water system Existing sewer system

Upper Kalskag

Crooked CreekAkiachakChevakGoodnews BayHooper BayKasiglukKongiganakKotlikKwethlukNunapitchukPitkas PointQuinhagakSheldon PointChefornakChuathbalukKipnukNapakiakNapaskiakNightmuteBethelLower KalskagMarshallMt. VillagePilot StationRussian MissionSaint Mary’sScammon BayToksook BayAniakEmmonakRed DevilSleetmuteStony RiverLime VillageAkiakChenegaEnglish Bay

Port Graham

Tatitlek

Tyonek

Eklutna

ChickaloonNinilchick

Grayling

Holy Cross

Kaltag

Ninto

Nenana

Huslia

172106483598241845425294461558378135501109320

97470318328153

4,674291273674463246441343420540642

53106

5142

28594

158

166

119

154

381

147

425

208

277

240

218

393

207

Yukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimYukon-KuskokwimNorth 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 PointIndividual wellsWasheteriaWasheteriaWasheteriaWasheteriaWasheteriaWasheteriaWasheteriaWasheteriaWasheteriaWasheteriaWasheteriaWasheteriaWatering PointWatering PointWatering PointWatering PointWatering pointWatering pointCirculation pipeCirculation pipeCirculation pipeCirculation pipeCirculation pipeCirculation pipeCirculation pipeCirculation pipeCirculation pipeIndividual wellsCirculation pipeIndividual wellsIndividual wellsIndividual wellsWatering Pointindividual wellsConventional pipeConventional pipeConventional pipeConventional pipeConventional pipeConventional pipeIndividual wellsWatering pointCirculation pipeCirculation pipeCirculation pipeCirculation pipeCirculation pipeWasheteria

Honey bucket bunkerHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket haulHoney bucket bunkerPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped vacuumIndividual privyIndividual privyIndividual privyIndividual privyIndividual septicPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityIndividual septicIndividual septicIndividual septicPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravityPiped gravity

Appendix C: Current Distribution of Sanitation Technologies I 121


Nikolai

Anvik

Allakaket

Arctic VillageBeaver

Birch Creek

Circle

Eagle VillageHughes

Koyukuk

NulatoRampart

Ruby

ShagelukTakotna

TananaTetlin

Alatna

Chalkyitsik

Healy Lake

Manley Hot SpringsNorthway

Stevens VillageTel IdaVenetie

EvansvilleMcGrathTan across

Dot LakeFort Yukon

GalenaAkhiokKarluk

Larsen Bay

Old Harbor

DuzinkiePort Lions

Selawik

Kivalina

Buckland

Deering

Ambler

Klana

Kotzebue

Noatak

ShungnakNoorvik

Kobuk

Angoon

Annette

109

82

138

96103

42

73

35

54

126359

68

170139

38

34587

31

904796

113102

11182

752810653

580833

7771

147284209222596317318157311385

2,751333223531

69638

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 ChiefsTanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana ChiefsTanana ChiefsTanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs

Tanana Chiefs





Tanana Chiefs


Kodiak

KodiakKodiak

KodiakKodiakKodiak

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

WasheteriaWasheteria

WasheteriaWasheteriaWatering point

Watering point

Watering point

Watering pointWatering point

Watering pointWatering point

Watering point

None

Circulation pipeCirculation pipeWasheteria

Circulation pipeWasheteria

Conventional pipeConventional pipe

Conventional pipe

Conventional pipeConventional pipeConventional pipeWasheteria

Watering point

Washeteria

Washeteria

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulation pipe

Circulatlon pipeCirculation pipe

Circulatlon pipeWasheteria

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 privyIndividual privy


Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy

Individual privy


Individual septic

Community septicCommunity septic

Community septicVacuum truck haulVacuum truck haul


Piped gravity


Piped gravityHoney bucket bunker

Honey bucket bunker

Honey bucket haul

Honey bucket haul

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravity

Piped gravityPiped vacuum

Individual privy

Piped gravity

Piped gravity. .



Craig 1,260 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravityHoonah 795 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravityHydaburg 384 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravityKake 700 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravityKasaan 54 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravityKlawock 722 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravityKlukwan 195 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravityMetlakatla 1234 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravitySaxman 369 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravityYakutat 534 Southeast Conventional pipe Piped gravity

Index

AAANHS. See Alaska Area Native Health ScrviccADEC. See Alaska Department of Environmental

ConservationAdvanced waste processing technologies under

consideration at Ames Research Center, 84-85AlasCan organic waste and wastewater treatment

ceramic toilet, 76comporting tank, 74-76greywater treatment tank, 76kitchen waste disposal system, 76system characteristics, 74

Alaska Area Native Health Service, 55,58Alaska Department of Community and Regional

Affairs, 65coordination needs among training programs, 68O&M funding, 17-18Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservationcapital construction funding, 58certification of sanitation facility operators, 63coordination needs among training programs, 68institutional and regulatory framework relevant

to Alaskan village sanitation, 52-53Local Utility Matching Program, 67mission and accomplishments, 5-6O&M funding, 17-18project planning, design, and construction

considerations, 62Remote Worker Maintenance program, 64-65role and responsibilities, 51-52RUBA program funding, 65sanitation condition categories, 34

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971,28Alaska Native Health Board, 14Alaska Natives’ roles and responsibilities

capital construction concerns, 58-60conclusion, 50coordination of sanitation improvement efforts,

14economic health and culture of Native villages,

28-31,40-45Native peoples of Alaska, 26-28O&M funding concerns, 49-50

O&M of existing piped sanitation technologies,39-40

O&M of sanitation projects, 7-11, 45-49setting and sanitation prob]cms, 1-3, 23-28,

31-36Alaska Science and Technology Foundation, 13-14,

62Alternative sanitation technologies

AlasCan organic waste and wastewatcr treatment,74-76

conclusion, 93congressional options, 18-19Cowater small-vehicle haul systcm, 72-74Entech thermal oxidation systcm, 83-84INCINOLET electric toi]ct system. 80-81introduction, 71-72NASA Controlled Ecological Life Support

system, 84-86NASA Extended Duration Orbiter uastc

management system, 88-90NASA Space Shuttle Orbiter waste management

system, 86-88Phoenix comporting toilet, 76-78Self-Contained Home systcm, 90-91Storbum propane toilet system, 8 I -83Sun-Mar comporting toilet, 78-80technology issues and needs summary, 91-93

Ames Research Center, 84Antarctica Analog Project, 85-86Arctic region, 25Army Corps of Engineers, 52-55

BBering seacoast region, 25Bureau of Indian Affairs, 4, 55

cCapital construction funding

community concerns, 58-60factors affecting, 60-61Federal govemmcnt role, 55-58overview and find ings, 6-7State role, 58

I 123

124 I An Alaskan Challenge

Categories of sanitation conditionsbackground, 34level a, 35level b, 35level c, 35level d, 35-36level e, 36

CELSS. See Controlled Ecological Life SupportSystem

Certification and training of sanitation facilityoperators, 63-64

Children’s exposure to human waste, 33-34Clean Water Act, 15,53Clivus Multrum comporting toilet, 76Congressional oversight considerations or options

goals, 11-12interim option for improving sanitation among

Native villages, 12-14options for solving the waste sanitation problems

of Alaskan Natives, 14-21Controlled Ecological Life Support System

Antarctica Analog Project, 85-86background, 84-85life support research testbed, 85

Cost of living, role of subsistence practices in, 40-43Cowater small-vehicle haul system

dual-flush toilet, 72-73haul tank and haul vehicle, 73-74in-house water supply, 73

Cultural importance of subsistence practices amongAlaska’s Native villages, 30,44

DDCRA. See Alaska Department of Community and

Regional AffairsDiseases and sanitation problems, 1-2,31,33-34,

37-38,58-59Distribution of sanitation technologies among rural

Alaskan villages, 118-122

EEconomic health and culture of Native villages,

28-31,40-45Emmonak sanitation project, 61-63Entech thermal oxidation system, 83-84Environmental Protection Agency, 5, 19-20,52-55,

60,65EPA. See Environmental Protection AgencyEstimating Federal subsidy needs, 10-11Extended Duration Orbiter waste management

system, 88-90

FFacilities construction, 4,6-7,55-61Famlers Home Administration, 45,60Federal and State agencies’ roles and

responsibilities. See also specific agencies by namecapital construction funding, 6-7, 55-61conclusion, 69-70external subsidies for O&M maintenance

activities, 68-69institutional and regulatory framework relevant

to Alaskan village sanitation, 52-55introduction, 51-52mission and accomplishments of agencies

responsible for sanitation, 3-6permit types needed to constructor upgrade rural

waste sanitation facilities, 54-55project planning, design, and construction, 61-63technical assistance, 17-18,64-68training and certification of sanitation facility

operators, 63-64Federal Field-Alaska Rural Sanitation Work Group,

14,20-21,22,55Funding issues

capital construction funding, 6-7,55-61O&M funding, 10-11, 17-18,49-50,68-69subsidized goods and services and transfer

payments, 30-31,43-44,68-69

GGeographic setting of Alaska, 23-28

HHealth epidemics and sanitation services, 33-34. Seealso Diseases and sanitation problems

Hepatitis A in rural Alaska, 3,31,33-34, 116-117Honey bucket haul systems improvement program,

12-14, 16Honey bucket use statistics

general distribution of Alaska’s major indigenouscultures and of native villages operating honeybuckets, 31-32

rural Alaskan Native villages using honeybuckets as predominant sanitation technology,1-2

IIHS. See Indian Health ServiceINCINOLET electric toilet system

maintenance requirements, 81system 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 Servicecapital construction funding, 7, 55-61community commitment to projects, 45coordination needs among training programs, 68improvement of existing honey bucket systems,

12-13institutional and regulatory framework relevant

to Alaskan village sanitation, 52-55mission and accomplishments, 4-5O&M funding, 10-11, 17-18, 49-50,68-69project planning, design, and construction

considerations, 61-63role and responsibilities, 51-52, 69Sanitation Technology Demonstration Work

Group funding, 15training of sanitation facility operators, 63Utility Maintenance Specialist program, 64

Indian Sanitation Facilities Construction Act of1959,4-5,51,55

Institutional and regulatory framework relevant toAlaskan village sanitation, 52-55

Interior region, 25

KKuskokwim and Yukon communities compared,

46-47

LLand claims and tribal movements of Alaska

Natives, 28, 111-115Life support research testbed, 85Local Utility Matching Program, 67LUMP. See Local Utility Matching Program

MModern Alaska and emergence of Native

corporations, 28-31

NNana Regional Corp., 62NASA. See National Aeronautics and Space

AdministrationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

Controlled Ecological Life Support System,84-86

Extended Duration Orbiter waste managementsystem, 88-90

Space Shuttle Orbiter waste management system,86-88

National Arctic Research Laboratory, 85

National Scicncc F(mndtition, 85Native corporations, 14, 2S-3 INative peoples of Alaska, 26-28

0O&M. Scc Opcr:~tion and n]aintcnance issuesOperation and maintenance issues

congressional ok’cr-sight corlsidcrations, 15, 17factors contributing to inadequate O&M, 7-11,

48-49funding of O&M acti~itics, 10-11, 17-18,49-50,

68-69Native communities’ role in O&M, 7-11, 45-49piped sanitation techno]ogics O&M, 39-40technical assistance, 17-18,64-68training and certification of sanitation facility

operators, 63-64Oversight hearings option, 19-21Overview and findings

capital construction forsanitation facilities, 6-7conclusion, 21-22, 38congress ional oversight considerations or

options, 11-21factors contributing to inadequate O&M of

sanitation facilities, 7-11mission and accomplishments of agcnc ics

responsible for sanitation, 3-6modern Alaska an~i the emergence of Native

corporations. 28-31Native villages’ setting and sanitation problems,

1-3, 23-28, 31-36water availability and sanitation in rural Alaska,

4.36-38

PPhoenix uomposting toilet

comporting ttink, 78kitchen waste disposal inlet, 77-78maintenance rcquircmcnts, 78system characteristics, 76-77toilet systcm, 77

Piped sanitation technologiesoperation and maintcnancc, 39-40types considered for rural Native Alaskan

villages, 8types in rural Alaskan villages, 40-42

Project planning, design, and constructionconsiderations, 61-63

Rl?eglorral Native corporations, 14, 28-31Regulatory and institutional framework relevant to

Alaskan village sanitation, 52-55Rcrnotc Maintenance Worker program, 64-65

126 I An Alaskan Challenge

RMW program. See Rcmotc Maintenance Workerprogram

RUB A. See Rural Utility Business Advisor ProgramRural Utility Business Advisor Program, 65-67

sSafe Drinking Water Act, 15Sanitation facility operator certification and

training, 63-64Sanitation technologies. See also Altcmative

sanitation technologies: Piped sanitationtechnologies

existing technologies considered for Nativevillages in rural Alaska, 8-10

honey bucket haul systems improvementprogram, 12-14, 16

use statistics, 1-3, 31-32, 118-122Sanitation Technology Demonstration Work Group,

14-15Self-Contained Home systcm, 90-91Septic systems, 8Setting and sanitation problems of Native villages,

I -S, 23-28,31-36Sewage management. See Sanitation technologiesSnyder Act of 1921,4Southwestern Alaska, 23, 25Space Shuttle Orbiter waste management system

sewage collection/storage system, 88systcm characteristics, 86-87urine collection system, 87-88

State agencies’ roles and responsibilities. SeeFederal and State agencies’ roles andresponsib il i tics

Storbum propane toilet systcm, 81-83Subsidized goods and services and transfer

payments, 30-31,43-44.68-69Subsistcncc practices

cultural importance among Alaska’s Nativev illagcs, 44

modcm Alaska and emergence of Nativecorporations, 28-31

role in village cost of living, 40-43Sun-Mar comporting toilet

Centrex and Water Closet Multrum models, 80Compact and X-L (EXCEL) models, 80maintenance requirements, 80system characteristics, 78-80

TTechnical assistance programs, 17-18,64-68Technology issues and needs summary

actual costs of systems to Native villages, 92-93household size and design, 92

local village economy, 92Native community involvement in projects, 92pcmlafrost influcncc, 91technical training of Nati\rcs, 92water availability, 91-92

Training and cert ificat ion of sanitation facilityoperators, 63-64

Transfer payments tind subsidized goods andservices, 30-31,

43-44,68-69Tribal movements und land claims of Alaska

Natives, 111-115Truck haul systcm, 8, 3 I

uUniversity of Alaska Anchorage, 13, 62, 64, 76, ’79U.S. Am~y Corps of Engineers. See Army Corps of

EngineersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. See

Environmcnta] Protection AgencyUtility Maintcnancc Specialist program, 64

vVillage Safe Water Act, 58Village Safe Water program

capital construction funding, 7, 58-61community commitment to projects, 45institutional and rcgu]atory framework relevant

to Alaskan village sanitation, 52-53Local Utility Matching Program, 67mission and accomplishments, 5-6project planning, design, and construction

considerations, 61-63, 62-63role and responsibilities, 5 I -52, 69RUBA progran] funding, 65sanitation condition categories, 34-35training of sanitation facility operators, 63

VSW. See Village Safe Water program

wWaste sanitation technologies. See Sanitation

technologiesWater availability and sanitation, 2, 3,4,36-38Wcstcm Alaska, 25Wcstcm intlucncw and accessibility of Native

communities. 44-45

YYukon and Kuskokwim comn~uni(ics compared,

46-47Yukon -Kuskokwin~ Delta region, 34Yukon -Kuskokwim Health Corporation, 38

+ US. GOVE~W P RINTING OFFICE: 1994 - 301-804 -814/17408

An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village SanitationArea Native Health Service, personal communication,...

Documents

Transcript of An Alaskan Challenge: Native Village SanitationArea Native Health Service, personal communication,...