Performance Details

Department of Environmental Conservation - Division of Environmental Health

• Return to Departments
• Division of Environmental Health website

Mission

Provide Alaskans with clear standards so that they can protect our environment and provide safe food and drinking water.

Core Services

• Achieve environmental protection by requiring appropriate management of Alaska's landfills and safe pesticide use.
• Protect public health with regulated food, seafood, and public facilities.
• Provide laboratory testing services, analytical and technical information for assessment of risks to public health, welfare, and the environment.
• Verify safe drinking water and compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.

Mission Results	Core Services
A: Achieve environmental protection by requiring appropriate management of Alaska's landfills and safe pesticide use.  Details >	A1: Achieve environmental protection by requiring appropriate management of Alaska's landfills and safe pesticide use.  Details > TARGET #1: All municipal solid waste facilities are authorized by the Department of Environmental Conservation. TARGET #2: Class III village landfills inspected have an average inspection score of 80% or greater using the Waste Index inspection form.
Mission Results	Core Services
B: Protect public health with regulated food, seafood, and public facilities.  Details >	B1: Protect public health with regulated food, seafood, and public facilities.  Details > TARGET #1: 50 percent of all food manufacturers are inspected at least once each fiscal year. TARGET #2: All permitted retail food establishments are inspected at least once each fiscal year. TARGET #3: All inspected permitted retail food establishments are found to have staff with required food safety training and certification. TARGET #4: Retail food establishment operators control all risk factors for foodborne illness.
Mission Results	Core Services
C: Provide laboratory testing services, analytical and technical information for assessment of risks to public health, welfare, and the environment.  Details >	C1: Provide laboratory testing services, analytical and technical information for assessment of risks to public health, welfare, and the environment.  Details > TARGET #1: All requested tests for chemical and biological animal diseases and environmental toxins are completed. TARGET #2: Environmental Health Lab completes sample requests on-time based on project parameters. TARGET #3: All livestock and poultry entering Alaska have current health permits.
Mission Results	Core Services
D: Verify safe drinking water and compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.  Details >	D1: Verify safe drinking water and compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.  Details > TARGET #1: All Alaskans served by a public water system are served by systems in compliance with health-based standards. TARGET #2: All public water systems submit required sanitary surveys according to their designated schedule. TARGET #3: All drinking water is safe for human consumption.

Performance Detail

Target #1: All municipal solid waste facilities are authorized by the Department of Environmental Conservation. Methodology: The measure is calculated by dividing the number of authorized landfills in each classification by the total number of landfills in each classification. The data for this measure is pulled from the Solid Waste Program database. Analysis of results and challenges: Municipal landfills are classified based on the average daily intake of solid waste. Class I landfills receive greater than 20 tons/day, Class II landfills receive five to 20 tons/day, and Class III landfills receive less than five tons/day. In FY2018 the total number of municipal landfills included nine Class I landfills, 13 Class II landfills, and 183 Class III community landfills. All municipal landfills are required to have a permit or authorization issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation. The permitting process ensures that the landfill design and the operational practices used comply with regulatory standards. During FY2018, 100% of Class I landfills, 92% of Class II landfills, and 86% of Class III landfills were operating under a State permit or authorization. Managing solid waste in small, rural communities is a huge challenge and Class III landfills continue to be the primary focus of Solid Waste program efforts. Those efforts have included building relationships with community members and providing technical and other assistance to rural landfill operators as well as tribal and municipal staff. In FY2018, under a USDA grant, program staff visited 14 communities to conduct targeted outreach designed to help those communities improve their solid waste management programs. Specific to permitting in FY2018, the program renewed 17 Class III landfill permits and issued 3 new Class III landfill permits. This resulted in a 2% increase in the number of authorized Class III landfills. Although this is a smaller increase than in prior years, it is not an unexpected result as we approach our goal of permitting all of our Class III landfills. The continuing upward trend is considered an indicator that our outreach and relationship building efforts are successfully motivating positive change in rural solid waste management.

Target #2: Class III village landfills inspected have an average inspection score of 80% or greater using the Waste Index inspection form. Methodology: The measure is calculated by dividing the total percentage score for inspections conducted in the given fiscal year by the number of inspections performed. Totals are queried from the Solid Waste Information Management System (SWIMS) database. Analysis of results and challenges: Class III community landfills accept less than five tons of solid waste per day. These landfills are typically located in small, remote communities and pose distinct regulatory and compliance challenges. The Solid Waste program has worked for the past decade to regulate these small landfills, and to provide the technical assistance necessary to allow each community to effectively overcome the specific challenges posed by its landfill. Inspections are the primary tool available for evaluating regulatory compliance, and the on-site time during the inspection is when technical assistance is most easily provided. Inspections are scored using the Waste Index Inspection Form which tracks 34 different categories and landfill operations, breaking each category into a series of incremental steps. The Waste Index provides a metric that allows the Solid Waste program to easily and consistently evaluate the operations and management of Class III landfills while providing the landfill operator with guidance for how to improve landfill operations and achieve increased compliance with the regulations. During FY2018, the Solid Waste program inspected 54 Class III landfills, including 4 first-time Waste Index inspections and 50 repeat Waste Index inspections. The Solid Waste program has now completed Waste Index inspections at 179 of the 183 Class III community landfills. In FY2018, the average Waste Index inspection score was 68%. Of the 50 repeat inspections in FY2018, 46 inspection scores increased by an average of 10.7 percentage points, 22 inspection scores decreased by an average of 6.1 percentage points, and two inspections scores did not change. Although the average score is below the target value, the 2 percent increase over FY2017 continues the upward trend towards the goal. The fact that the average score for repeat inspections in FY2018 was 3.5 percentage points higher than the average of the previous scores for those landfills validates the upward trend. This trend in inspection scores continues to document the positive impact the Waste Index inspection process has had on solid waste management in rural Alaska.

Target #1: 50 percent of all food manufacturers are inspected at least once each fiscal year. Methodology: Sum of permitted food manufacturers and the sum of permitted food manufacturers inspected as reported in the Food Safety and Sanitation Program's "Digital Health Department" database. Analysis of results and challenges: In FY2018, the State of Alaska had 1066 food manufacturing facilities, which included 733 seafood, 295 general food, and 38 shellfish manufacturers. Shellfish operations are required to be inspected each year to maintain compliance with the International Shellfish Sanitation Conference and the FDA to continue to allow interstate and international sales and shipments. Food Safety and Sanitation staff inspected 100% of Alaska’s shellfish processors in FY2018. Other manufactured food facilities are not held to the same federal and international requirements for the frequency of inspection. For non-shellfish food manufacturers, the Food Safety and Sanitation program focuses its resources on facilities that are a part of the FDA contract inspection list and facilities that have been categorized by the program as high risk. In FY2018, program staff inspected 36% of seafood processors, and 22% of general manufactured food processors in Alaska. Due to declining staff, turnover, and rigorous training requirements for new inspectors, it is not feasible to expect 100% of low and medium risk non-shellfish food processors to be inspected each year. The 14 currently qualified Food Safety & Sanitation inspectors complete non-shellfish manufactured food inspections in addition to retail food and public facility inspections statewide.

Target #2: All permitted retail food establishments are inspected at least once each fiscal year. Methodology: Sum of permitted food establishments and sum of permitted food establishments inspected as reported in the Food Safety and Sanitation Program's "Digital Health Department" database. Note - does not include an approximate 800 temporary food establishments. Analysis of results and challenges: The Food Safety and Sanitation program assigns each food establishment to a risk category in order to efficiently use resources associated with inspection site visits. Factors used to assign risk include consideration of characteristics of the foods served, the establishment’s preparation processes, and whether the facility specifically serves a population that is at a higher risk of contracting a foodborne illness. Examples of facilities assigned to a high risk category include full service restaurants, nursing homes, and food processors that smoke, cure, or reduce-oxygen package products for extended shelf-life. Medium risk facilities include quick service operations, schools not serving a highly-susceptible population, and retail food store operations that prepare food for immediate service. Low risk facilities include coffee stands, hot dog carts, convenience store operations, and bars and taverns that serve and sell commercially processed foods that require minimal preparation. In addition to considering the assigned facility-specific risk categorization, the program determines inspection frequency priorities by taking into account facility-specific factors such as complaint and inspection history as well as community size, number of permitted facilities, and location. Although the Department’s goal is to inspect 100% of permitted food establishments each year, because of the remote nature of many of the program’s total facility inventory, the extensive training needed by new staff to ensure fair and uniform application of program activities, and the depth and breadth of the program’s responsibilities, high and medium risk facilities are prioritized in accordance with inspection frequency protocols. In FY2018, there were 4,818 permitted permanent food establishments, of which 31% were inspected by department staff. 136 of these required follow-up inspections to ensure corrective actions were taken. Of permitted food establishments, department staff inspected 46% of high risk retail food facilities and 40% of medium risk retail food facilities. Low risk facilities are generally only inspected when complaints are received, if the facility has never been inspected, if the opportunity arises when an inspector is in a community, or if it is affiliated with a higher risk facility.

Target #3: All inspected permitted retail food establishments are found to have staff with required food safety training and certification. Methodology: The total number of inspected establishments without items 1 - Certified Food Protection Manager (CFPM) for facilities required to have them, 2 - Person in Charge or, 3 - Food Worker Cards for all workers marked out as reported in Food Safety and Sanitation Program's "Digital Health Department" database. Calculated by dividing the number of establishments with safety training and certification by the number of inspected permitted establishments, as reported in the Food Safety and Sanitation Program's DHD database. Analysis of results and challenges: Food safety education and training are critical in preventing foodborne illness. Approximately 50% of American food dollars are spent at food establishments. Over 50% of reported foodborne illness outbreaks originate in food service establishments, and are often attributable to food workers’ improper food handling practices. As of December 28, 2006, all food handlers are required to have basic food worker training and hold an Alaska Food Worker Card issued by the Food Safety and Sanitation program. The Department provides online test preparation and testing, and aggressively works to increase industry education statewide. In addition, all establishments classified as high to medium risk (based on the complexity of menu and preparation processes) must employ at least one Certified Food Protection Manager (CFPM), a person who is knowledgeable about food safety management practices and systems, and has passed a nationally-accepted examination. When the CFPM is not present at a food establishment, the operation must have a designated Person in Charge (PIC) who ensures that food workers are handling food safely. This measure reflects the percentage of inspected facilities that had food worker cards for all employees, and those that had either a PIC or CFPM present, as applicable. During FY2018, 91% of facilities were found to have staff with proper training and certification, a 9% decrease from FY2017, and 76% of facilities had Food Worker Cards for all employees, an 11% decrease from FY2017. Although the responsibility for food safety lies with the food establishment’s workers who are procuring, storing, preparing, and serving food on a daily basis, it is important that Department staff have face-to-face discussions with food professionals to reinforce and verify compliance with requirements. These on-site visits are critical to changing behaviors that lead to foodborne illness and serve as a critical tool to educate workers about food safety.

Target #4: Retail food establishment operators control all risk factors for foodborne illness. Methodology: Sum of observations of foodborne illness risk factors (IN and OUT) observed during inspections divided by the sum of foodborne illness risk factors observed in compliance (IN) as reported in the Food Safety and Sanitation Program's "Digital Health Department" database. Analysis of results and challenges: The occurrence of foodborne illness is grossly underreported which makes it unreliable as a measure of effectiveness of the State’s efforts to protect public health. As an alternative, the Food Safety and Sanitation program looks at the number of risk factors for foodborne illness as an indicator of the impact of its work with Alaska’s retail food operators. Risk factor categories reported in this measure include: food held at unsafe temperatures, inadequate or incomplete cooking, contaminated food and equipment, and poor personal hygiene. These categories represent the food preparation practices and food employee behaviors that are most often responsible for foodborne illness outbreaks and that can be reasonably measured during inspections. During on-site, risk-focused assessments of the facility’s operations, department staff evaluate a food establishment operator’s abilities to control the risk factors in their food establishment, provide education and technical assistance, and ensure compliance with food safety rules. In addition to prioritizing use of its resources to plan its work, Food Safety and Sanitation conducts considerable outreach and technical assistance through other means, such as its comprehensive website, educational materials that accompany operation permits, and participation in industry events and conferences. Although the risk factor categories of food cooked to safe temperatures and protection of food and equipment from cross-contamination have remained relatively stable since FY2010, there has been a 3% increase in the compliance rate in the personal hygiene category. This category is most often responsible for foodborne outbreaks, and reflects elements such as hand washing, not working when ill, and avoiding bare hand contact with food that will not be further cooked.

Target #1: All requested tests for chemical and biological animal diseases and environmental toxins are completed. Methodology: Tests completed by the Environmental Health Laboratory in response to requests from customers. Analysis of results and challenges: The Environmental Health Laboratory's target is to provide accurate, timely, and reliable results for 100% of the acceptable requests received. In FY2018, the Laboratory successfully completed analysis on nearly all of the work submitted in FY2018 as well as several tests that had been carried forward as in-progress from FY2017, yielding the overall completion figure of 102%. An additional 15% of requests were prepared and managed for subcontract laboratories, and less than one percent of the submissions were either rejected or are currently in-process. In FY2018 fewer analyses were requested of the Laboratory due to various factors including budget cuts, which resulted in discontinuation of non-regulatory dairy testing, and a shift of more animal health tests to outside contract labs. The Laboratory also benefited from less turnover than prior years and fully trained laboratory staff, which contributed to the increase in the on-time completion rate. Subcontract tests are mostly in the animal health category. More of these tests are subcontracted out due to reduced staffing. The Laboratory conducts few animal health tests in-house and no longer performs non-regulatory dairy testing. The amount of rejections has been markedly reduced in each of the past five years. It is believed that many factors have contributed to this success, including more consistent referencing to the Laboratory Submission Manual, expanded educational outreach at industry meetings such as Alaska Shellfish Growers Association and the Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response, and better communications with regards to sample tracking. Additionally, increased cooperation from the regulatory programs in assisting with educational outreach and enforcement of the technical sample submission requirements has helped to project a more unified and consistent message across State agencies. The Laboratory continuously works to update forms and processes in order to assist and educate clients while still adhering to a quality system compliant with multiple oversight programs. To assist customers in meeting the sample submission requirements, the Laboratory maintains a “Sample Submission Manual” that provides guidance on proper sample collection, handling, and shipping. This manual can also be accessed on the Department's website at https://dec.alaska.gov/eh/lab.aspx. Related links:    • http://dec.alaska.gov/eh/docs/lab/Lab%20Sample%20Submission%20Manual.pdf

Target #2: Environmental Health Lab completes sample requests on-time based on project parameters. Methodology: All tests performed by the lab are logged and tracked from sample receipt through final testing and reporting. Analysis of results and challenges: The Environmental Health Laboratory (EHL) utilizes a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) to more efficiently further the Department’s mission by providing laboratory testing services, analysis, and technical information for assessment of risks to public health, welfare, and the environment. All sample submissions to the EHL are entered into the LIMS, labeled with unique identification numbers, and distributed to staff for processing and analysis. Submission turnaround time (TAT) varies based on customer need, project parameters, and workload balancing. The on-time completion of work orders represents the timeliness of final result delivery. This data is depicted above for preceding fiscal years. The marked increase in on-time delivery spanning FY2016 to FY2018 is the result of two factors. First, the number of processes in-house has decreased, improving the EHL ability to complete sampling requests. Target #1 (All requested tests for chemical and biological animal diseases and environmental toxins are completed) reflects positive momentum, showing more of the work submitted each year is completed with less carry forward. Secondly, the Department identified an information technology learning curve relating to accurately capturing performance data. When the LIMS was implemented in FY2012, TAT work order processing data was used for trending, however, accuracy of the data fell out of focus due to operational demands. In anticipation of LIMS data availability for future budget years the EHL instituted process controls ensuring the accuracy of data for targeted RDU performance metrics. Implementation of this performance measure in FY2020 reflects the department’s ability to better identify, target, and track EHL throughput annually.

Target #3: All livestock and poultry entering Alaska have current health permits. Methodology: The Office of the State Veterinarian tracks permits issued in a log book. These numbers were compared to the total number of livestock and poultry presented for entry at the Canadian Border without Alaska permit numbers according to USDA’s records. Analysis of results and challenges: Domestic pets (dog, cats, pet birds, pocket pets) and livestock (cattle, bison, yaks, horses, pigs, sheep and goats) entering the State of Alaska must have a current Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) or Health Certificate. In addition, all livestock and poultry imports are required to be accompanied by an importation permit that is issued by the Alaska Office of the State Veterinarian. In FY2018, the total number of domestic pet imports was 12,736, and the total number of livestock and poultry import permits issued was 1,232 which represented 84,140 animals. For livestock there were 223 imports containing 3,554 individual animals. There were 1,232 import shipments of poultry that contained 80,586 individual birds. A person importing the animals to Alaska must have them examined by an accredited veterinarian. The Department issues the importation permit to the veterinarian after reviewing the animals’ health status to ensure the disease testing requirements have been met. The permit process gives the State Veterinarian early notice of imports and minimizes the risk of importing animals with infectious/contagious diseases or parasites of concern, thus protecting both domestic animals and the state’s wildlife resources. The high rate of compliance reflects the efforts to coordinate with federal agencies (USDA, CDC, and Customs and Border Patrol) and other states, as well as the outreach efforts taken to inform animal importers, brokers, and animal owners of Alaska’s importation requirements. Health certificates for poultry and livestock entering the state are required to be sent to the State Veterinarian within seven days for review and to validate the information on the import permit that all animals have met regulatory requirements. Animals enter the state through various land, air, and sea ports along the border, monitored by federal authorities, but the federal officials do not enforce State entry requirements, which are often more restrictive. The State coordinates with federal agencies and is notified when imports cross the ports, obtaining any federal movement permit information. If animals enter Alaska without meeting State import requirements, an investigation is initiated and the owner of the animal(s) is contacted, as well as the veterinarian who issued the health certificate. Appropriate action is taken to resolve the issue which may involve imposing a quarantine, performing an examination, and collecting samples for diagnostic testing. If an animal is diagnosed with an infectious or contagious disease, the State Veterinarian will perform an epidemiologic investigation, track the animal’s point of origin, and inform counterparts in other states or countries in order to control and mitigate the spread of the disease. The electronic permit system can be invaluable during these investigations as this data must be accessible in a rapid and efficient manner. The Department also participates in trace exercises with the USDA, other state and Canadian animal health officials on a regular basis to validate that animal shipments can be effectively tracked.

Target #1: All Alaskans served by a public water system are served by systems in compliance with health-based standards. Methodology: The information reflected in this table is provided on an annual basis by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the end each federal fiscal year (typically October). The numbers being reported are the number of Community Water Systems that are in compliance with the EPA defined health-based standards (Treatment Technique, Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level, and Maximum Contaminant Level requirements). Analysis of results and challenges: In 1978, the State of Alaska was delegated primacy for implementation of the Public Water System Supervision Program and began the adoption and implementation of Safe Drinking Water Act requirements to address the threat of waterborne disease and provide for the protection of public health. Community water systems (CWS) are a subset of federally regulated public water systems (PWS), and are required to be in compliance with the various health-based standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act. These standards are designed to protect people from consuming unsafe drinking water and establish limits for many chemical and radiological contaminants, as well as microbiological (bacteria, viruses, and protozoa) contaminants. During FY2017, Alaska saw an increase in the percentage of CWS in compliance with the health based standards. The State’s Drinking Water program offers a two-pronged approach of compliance assistance and enforcement for Alaska’s PWS, allowing staff to have appropriate oversight with the intent of serving safe drinking water on a consistent basis to as many people as possible. The increasing number of complex federal drinking water rules, such as the Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rules, the Ground Water Rule, and the Revised Total Coliform Rules, all continue to challenge the resources of both the Drinking Water program and PWS owners and operators.

Target #2: All public water systems submit required sanitary surveys according to their designated schedule. Methodology: Number of active public water systems that do not have an overdue sanitary survey. Analysis of results and challenges: The Drinking Water program provides oversight of the Sanitary Survey program which provides onsite reviews of the source water, treatment facilities and equipment, and the operations and maintenance procedures of public water systems (PWS). This information is used to evaluate the adequacy of a system and helps determine if the water system is producing and distributing safe drinking water. A thoroughly completed sanitary survey should identify any deficiencies in the system. The system operator is required to take appropriate corrective actions to fix deficiencies identified from the sanitary survey. The Drinking Water program is responsible for the training and approval of Sanitary Survey Inspectors, as well as enforcement actions on those PWS that have overdue sanitary surveys. Inspector training and approval is provided for both State and third party sanitary survey inspectors. Third party inspectors complete most sanitary surveys annually. Most waterborne disease outbreaks are caused by bacteria or other microorganisms, and routine testing for bacteriological contaminants is one of the best ways to make sure that drinking water is safe. An important part of the Total Coliform Rule and the subsequent Ground Water Rule are the requirements that all federally regulated PWS have a periodic sanitary survey completed for their entire water system. In FY2018, 93% of Alaska’s public water systems were in compliance with their sanitary survey requirement. This is a slight increase from last year, which may be partially attributed to Sanitary Surveys being completed at the same time as Level 2 Assessments that have been triggered under the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR). Some of the challenges the Drinking Water program faces in meeting this goal include: remote water system locations and the difficulty in getting to some of the public water systems, which can be costly to travel to; and the cost to the system for conducting the sanitary survey. The Drinking Water program continues to address these issues, as funding and staffing allows, and continues to update and implement the use of electronic sanitary surveys to achieve consistency in the quality of onsite inspections.

Target #3: All drinking water is safe for human consumption. Methodology: This chart reflects the number of actions that staff completes over the year to assist Alaska public water systems in achieving and maintaining compliance. Technical assistance actions include meetings, reminder letters, sampling schedules, phone calls, etc. Formal enforcement actions include Notices of Violation, Compliance Orders by Consent, and Administrative Penalties. Analysis of results and challenges: In FY2018, Drinking Water program staff completed 10,605 compliance assistance and informal enforcement actions, and six formal enforcement actions for Alaska’s 1,405 public water systems (PWS). Compliance and technical assistance actions are focused educational and information-oriented activities to increase PWS owners’ and operators’ abilities to more effectively operate their systems, thereby reducing the necessity for formal enforcement. However, if routine or special monitoring for contaminants, reporting, and sanitary surveys are not completed, the program is responsible for enforcement. By providing more proactive compliance and technical assistance, Drinking Water Program staff are able to reduce the number of formal enforcement actions because PWS owners and operators are better educated as to the importance of monitoring and reporting for the sake of protecting public health. By tracking and analyzing trends for Alaska’s PWS, the program is able to maximize resources and target specific water systems. There was an increase in compliance and technical assistance, and informal enforcement actions in FY2018 which can be attributed to a continued proactive approach to provide compliance and technical assistance to help prevent violations from occurring. When violations occur, staff take a staged approach to enforcement starting with informal enforcement actions and building to more formal actions as necessary.

Current as of September 3, 2019