overview and findings - princeton university

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.

overview and findings - princeton university

Documents