EPA 910-B-99-003
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Office of Water
August 1999
Final Guidelines
Drinking Water infrastructure Grants
Tribal Set-Aside Program
EPA Region 10
-------
-------
'f. f t "
August 1999
Final
Final Guidelines
Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants, Tribal Set-Aside
Program, EPA Region 10
Geoff Keeler
Drinking Water Unit, Office of Water, Region 10
(206) 553-1089
EPA Region 10
EPA 910-B-99-003
None
This document contains the EPA Region 10 guidance for operating the Safe
Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) Tribal Set-Aside (TSA) grant program. The
TSA grant program is funded at a national level by 1.5% of the annual
appropriations for the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) established under the
1996 amendments to the SDWA. The RIO guidelines supplement the National
TSA guidelines that were published in October 1998, and establish the specific
procedures for the following in EPA Region 10: 1) reallocating the RIO
annual funds between the Tribes in Alaska and the Tribes in the Pacific
Northwest states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington; 2) specific water system,
project, and infrastructure item eligibility; 3) water system capacity
requirements; and 4) annual TSA project identification, ranking, and selection.
SDWA, Tribal grant program, Tribal set-aside, TSA,
drinking water, water infrastructure, EPA RIO
21
c:
NA
NSW 7540-01-2C.C-S50'
NA
NA
Unlimited
-------
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
GUIDELINES
DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS (DWIG)
TRIBAL SET-ASIDE (TSA) PROGRAM
EPA REGION 10
Table of Contents
Section Subject Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Allocation of TSA Funds within Region 10 2
III. TSA Project Recipients 4
IV. Types of TSA Projects 5
V. Public Water System TSA Eligibility 7
VI. Water System Capacity Requirements 8
VII. Eligible TSA Infrastructure Items 11
VIII. TSA Project Identification, Ranking, and Selection 12
IX. Other TSA Program Details 17
X. TSA Program Contacts 18
Appendices
A. Summary of TSA Statutory Requirements
B. Table 2, Subregional TSA Allotments
C. NPDWRs Compliance Factor Score Sheet
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
GUIDELINES
DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS (DWIG)
TRIBAL SET-ASIDE (TSA) PROGRAM
EPA REGION 10
I. INTRODUCTION
This document presents the guidelines that EPA Region 10 (R10) will utilize in the
implementation of its new Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants (DWIG) Tribal Set-Aside
(TSA) Program. This TSA program is a set-aside of funds from annual federal
appropriations made to fund the State Revolving Fund (SRF), a loan fund authorized under
the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA), Applicable statutory
requirements of the TSA are summarized in Appendix A of this document.
It is important to understand that while the SRF is a loan program, the DWIG TSA
program is strictly for grants to federally recognized Indian Tribes, which includes all the
Alaska Native Villages. There is no requirement for 'matching' funds to be contributed by a
Tribe or from other sources of supplemental project funds. Another important aspect to the
R10 TSA program is that no Tribal applications are necessary in order to be considered in
each year's TSA project selection process by EPA. This is explained in Section VIII of this
document.
The national guidelines for the DWIG TSA program were developed with the
assistance and advice of the EPA National Tribal Operating Committee, which included
representatives from several Tribes, the Indian Health Service (IHS), and members of
EPA's headquarters and regional offices. Between May 1997 and March 1998, three
successive draft versions of the proposed national guidelines were distributed for review
and comment to each Tribe in the United States. In October 1998, the National Guidelines
for the TSA program were finalized and distributed by EPA to all Tribes and other
interested parties. Two different formats of the national guidelines have also been made
available to public access on the EPA internet website at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/tribes. htm I
The EPA R10 TSA guidelines herein have been purposely written to minimize
repetition of the national guidelines. Therefore, it is highly recommended that before
this R10 guideline document is reviewed, the reader should first review and
understand the national guidelines. Proceeding further without being aware of the
national guidelines provisions, may contribute to misunderstandings. A copy of this
document, i.e. the R10 TSA final guidelines, is also available at:
http://www.epa.gov/r1 Oearth/
-------
Final RW TSA Guidelines. 8/99
II. ALLOCATION of TSA FUNDS within R10
A. Background on National TSA Funding: As described at length in the national
guidelines, EPA headquarters will annually advise the nine EPA regional offices
administering the TSA program (EPA Region 3 has no federally-recognized Indian Tribes),
of each region's share of the TSA funds. The regional allocations are calculated using a
2% baseline for each of the nine participating regions in order that at least an average
sized TSA project can be funded annually by each region. To this figure is then added an
amount proportional to each region's community water infrastructure needs for water
systems serving Tribal populations. An EPA region's proportional needs are calculated as
a % of the total national Tribal needs, giving equal weight to two separate needs surveys:
1. the Tribal portion of the EPA National Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey, which is done every four years; and
2. the IMS Sanitation Deficiency System survey (SDS), which is done annually.
Using this formula process, R10's current available TSA funds for FY 1997 -1999
have been calculated in the national guidelines. They are summarized as follows:
TABLE 1
TSA Funding Allocations to EPA R10
FY1997
FY 1998
FY1999
Total
Total National
TSA Funding
$19,125,000
$10,875,000
$11,625,000
$41 ,625,000
Region 10
Baseline Amt Proportional
$382,500
$217,500
$232,500
$7,01 1 ,800
$3,987,100
$4,326,500
Total
Region 10 TSA
$7,394,300
$4,204,600
$4,559,000
$16,157,900
As might be expected, development of the regional TSA allocation procedure was
not without differing input from the reviewers. An initial possibility was the use of a single
national EPA project priority list similar to that used by EPA's Clean Water Act Indian Set-
Aside program from its inception in 1989 until 1992, Obviously this was not adopted.
Instead, a regional fund allocation process was selected that does not require projects to
compete for selection amongst the different EPA regions. Subsequently, the regional TSA
fund allocation process was structured to guarantee a baseline amount to each region to
allow for at least one annual project, using an estimated average project cost; and only
then to calculate and add TSA fund amounts that are proportional of each EPA region's
needs.
B. TSA Funds Allocation within R10: In EPA R10, because of the great
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
geographic and climatic distinctions (and therefore cost and general economic conditions)
between Alaska and the three other states that comprise the Pacific Northwest (PNW), it is
felt very strongly that a further allotment of R10 funds is necessary for these two
subregions. The process proposed is similar to that of the national allocation procedure,
but it reflects what is believed to be a division based on more accurate relative needs and
updated costs of a baseline project.
Accordingly, for each of the R10 subregion baseline amounts the national guidelines
figure of 2% will be adjusted to 4% of the annual R10 amount since the R10 total allocation
is only roughly half of the national amount. The balance of annual DWIG TSA funds for
EPA R10 will then be divided between the Alaska and PNW subregions proportional to
their community water system needs. These needs will be taken from the most current
annual IHS SDS figures as tabulated by the Anchorage and Portland Area Offices of the
IMS.
The utilization of the SDS survey data for the subregional proportional allocation, in
lieu of the SDS and the EPA needs survey (as used in the national EPA TSA funds
allocations), is based on the following important distinctions between the two survey
methodologies:
1. The EPA needs survey is only done every four years, whereas the SDS is
updated annually. The last EPA survey was dated 1995, and it was used in the
current national allocation calculations for all of the FY 1997 -1999 TSA funds.
2. The EPA needs survey data used in the allocations of TSA funds among the
EPA regions represents needs for the next 20 years. In contrast, the SDS survey
data reflects current needs only.
In addition, a previous limitation of the SDS has been addressed, and Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other government-financed homes on Indian
lands are now represented in the SDS project ranking criteria. Utilizing the revised
procedure, the R10 subregional allocations have been calculated and are presented in
Table 2 for the TSA funding for FY1997 -1999 (see Appendix B). As discussed later in
this document, provision is also made for limited emergency project funding in each
subregion by setting aside 2% of each of the total subregional amounts. This % will be
adjusted as necessary by EPA to either decrease unused reserved emergency funds or to
replenish a diminished emergency project account.
C. Allocation of Additional Non-Routine TSA Funds: The national guidelines
provide for possible periodic allocation of new and/or redistributed TSA funds amongst the
nine EPA regions with Tribes. These funds may come from two sources: individual states
implementing the original SRF loan program and other EPA regional offices implementing
the DWIG TSA programs, where certain project funds may not have been obligated within
prescribed periods of time. In either of these cases, TSA funds coming to R10 will be
divided according to the most current subregional allotment formula and resulting
percentages for regular annual TSA funds. If a subregion's accumulated emergency
project account is ever to be reduced or eliminated in the future due to being largely
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
unused, these funds will remain within their respective subregional accounts.
D. Reallocation of TSA Funds within EPA R10: Because of the time limitations
on obligating TSA project funds within two full federal fiscal years following the fiscal year
in which they were made available, it is possible that certain R10 TSA funds previously
reserved for specific projects may infrequently need to be reallocated in a timely fashion in
order to avoid losing the funds. Should this be necessary, the R10 TSA program will
attempt to reallocate the funds to the next highest ranked project within the same
subregion. If this is not possible for some reason, the funds will be then placed in the other
subregional account, in an effort to avoid losing the funds from R10.
111. TSA PROJECT RECIPIENTS
A. Grantees: Under the TSA statutory and national guidelines languages, the
possible grantees under the TSA program are all federally-recognized Tribes; and for
Alaska projects, the State of Alaska is allowed to accept a grant on behalf of an Alaska
Tribe. For this latter option, EPA R10 will only award a grant to the State of Alaska upon
the written request by an Alaska Tribe for which a TSA project has been tentatively
selected by EPA. (In various discussions concerning this possibility, it appears that the
State of Alaska becoming a grantee may not occur often, if at all.)
As stated in the National TSA Guidelines, if a direct grant is made, the grantee will
have to meet all standard EPA grant requirements, in addition to the TSA National
Guidelines and the R10 guidelines contained herein. These will include EPA general grant
regulations described in 40 CFR Part 31, adherence to cost principles in OMB Circular A-
87, adherence to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), meeting all applicable
federal 'cross-cutting' requirements (see Appendix B of the National Guidelines), etc.
When appropriate, EPA may apply the 'high risk' provisions of 40 CFR 31.12, and
determine that instead of the 'grant' type of assistance agreement, the 'cooperative
agreement' will be used, providing for increased EPA involvement and oversight in the
project.
B. The IHS as a Funding Recipient: With a Tribe's written request and EPA's
approval, TSA funds can also be directly transferred by EPA to the IHS which would then
administer the project on behalf of a Tribe. In this case, EPA would make a 'grant of
services' to the Tribe, and the TSA funds would be transferred to the IHS using a federal
Interagency Agreement (IAG), signed by EPA and the IHS. The process involving the IHS
has been used successfully in EPA's Clean Water Act Indian Set-Aside Program for the
past 10 years to construct wastewater facilities for numerous Tribes throughout the PNW
and Alaska.
C. P.L. 93-638 Considerations: Under this law, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the IHS have been given authority to transfer their agency funds directly to Tribes for a
specific purpose such as a construction contract or project (Title I), or to entirely assume
an entire program (Title III compact). In Alaska, another '638' entity now exists--the
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), which in 1997 under P.L. 105-83
(Sections 325 and 326), was created and is authorized to assume much of the IHS's
program in Alaska, including that of IHS's sanitation facilities construction program.
While EPA does not have direct P.L. 93-638 authority, it appears that the EPA is
permitted to transfer TSA funds to the IHS, with the understanding IHS will use its P.L. 93-
638 authority to transfer the funds to the ANTHC, or individual Tribes in the PNW, in
accordance with the intent of P.L. 105-83. Should this be allowed, EPA will only approve
its use by IHS given adequate conditions that will assure TSA funds are properly utilized
and accounted for through an IAG.
D. Other Funding Recipients: If a direct grant to a Tribe is done, the TSA funds
can also be transferred by a grantee Tribe to another organization such as a municipality,
or a public water system in order to administer the project on behalf of the Tribe. Again,
this can only be done with prior agreement between the Tribe and the EPA; but it should
be noted that as the grantee, the Tribe is still responsible for correct expenditure of the
TSA funds, and following all other EPA grant requirements.
IV. TYPES of TSA PROJECTS
Almost all phases of a water infrastructure project will be allowed. These would
typically be as follows:
A. Feasibility Study &/or Facility Plan: This work would look at a specific problem
(e.g. insufficient source water, replacement of deteriorating storage tanks), identify different
solutions, estimate the costs and compare the benefits, and recommend the best
alternative solution that remains feasible. Frequently this kind of project also requires
some preliminary engineering work.
B. Design: When a project is well defined as the best plan to solve a specific
infrastructure problem, a detailed engineering design must be produced. This usually
involves such work as soils investigations, surveying, engineering calculations, preparation
of plans and specifications, and securing needed rights-of-way and permits. Appropriate
contract and/or procurement documents are also needed.
Because of the significant need for prompt water infrastructure projects throughout
Indian communities, EPA R10 will limit the number of projects approved for strictly
engineering studies and/or design to a maximum 10% of the available subregional funds.
Also, utility or water system master plans will not be eligible for TSA funding.
C. Construction & Construction Management: This phase can include several
options, such as contracts for all or part of the work, purchase orders for direct materials
procurement, on-site supervision, and force account work by a sponsoring agency.
During construction, professional engineering services are also required to represent
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
the owner's interests in the work. Besides periodic inspections, this work will usually
include payment processing, preparing change orders, dispute resolution, and small re-
engineering tasks.
This final phase of a project will also include important start-up operations of the
new water system facilities.
D. Emergency Projects: While the TSA program is generally intended to offer
water supply infrastructure funding assistance in an orderly and project competitive
process, EPA R10 does wish to offer assistance in limited situations, but excluding quick
disaster relief. For this purpose, EPA will then set-aside 2% of each annual subregional
allotment in order to allow some EPA participation with other agencies that typically have
significant expertise, a direct mission, and much greater funds available to construct the
needed water supply facilities following an emergency. The requirements for EPA
participation in any emergency project are as follows:
1. The project scope must be limited to a permanent repair &/or replacement of
public water system facilities in order to prevent or minimize imminent, acute, and
significant public health hazards. Upgrading of lost or damaged facilities using TSA
emergency funds is not intended, but will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
2, The public health hazard must be a result of an "act of God," (e.g. flooding,
earthquakes, lightning, wind storms, wildfires, extreme drops of ground water
tables), major industrial accidents, or terrorist acts. The damage cannot result from
situations reasonably under normal control of the community or public water system,
such as vandalism, arson, or poor operation or maintenance of the facilities.
3. EPA participation will be based strictly on a Tribe's support and identification of
another federal agency (e.g. FEMA, BIA, IMS, Army Corps of Engineers) or the
State of Alaska that would assume lead agency status; willingness of that federal
agency to accept an EPA Interagency Agreement for project funds transfer (or a
direct grant in the case of the State of Alaska); and that agency's ability to quickly
and efficiently conduct the emergency project work.
4. The maximum EPA per project participation will be respectively $150,000 for
Alaska and $15,000 for PNW TSA emergency projects (subject to funds availability and
EPA R10 grant administration resources). Projects requested for very minimal amounts of
TSA emergency funds (i.e. less than $5,000) will not be considered.
It should be noted that if a project is needed to rebuild or replace vital PWS
infrastructure after an emergency, but if insufficient EPA emergency funds are available or
if other temporary facilities can be utilized for awhile, the proposed project can be easily
added and ranked in the next IMS SDS list and considered for selection by EPA in the next
annual round of regular TSA projects. This would then allow appropriate upgrading to be
included in the proposed project scope.
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
V. PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ELIGIBILITY
A. For-Profit Non-Community Water Systems: EPA R10 wishes to note that a
portion of the TSA national guidelines declares that for-profit transient non-community
water systems (TNCWS) or such systems primarily serving for-profit enterprises, such as a
water system serving a store, casino, or bingo hall; and for-profit non-transient non-
community water systems (NTNCWS) such as a system serving a private school or private
office complex) are ineligible for TSA assistance. However, for-profit community water
systems remain eligible for TSA assistance.
B. Non-Tribal Populations: For water systems that also serve non-tribal
residences (dwelling units), TSA funds can be used for facilities that are largely shared by
the entire community, as long as the portion of non-tribal residences is less than 50% of
the total. If the number of non-tribal residences is over 50%, a pro-rata cost contribution
from the non-tribal community (or another non-TSA source) will be required to fund the
entire project.
Similarly, portions of a project that would solely benefit a non-Tribal population (e.g.
a new or replacement water main serving essentially a non-Tribal neighborhood), will not
be eligible for TSA funds. EPA will define a Tribal residence,' as a housing structure
inhabited on a relatively permanent basis by at least one member of a Tribe that is eligible
as a TSA grantee. This person may be either an owner, lessee, or someone with a
legitimate right to use the housing on a continuing basis for a minimum three more years
as of the time of project consideration. If there are questions regarding such
determinations relating to a project, the Tribe's views will be sought.
C. For-Profit Water Services: Water system facilities needed to serve
commercial customers will be treated as non-Tribal populations, except that their
aggregate average daily water usage must not be greater than 25% of the water system's
average daily water production. Should that figure be exceeded, shared community water
system costs would not be eligible for TSA funds. In addition, water system facilities that
solely or largely support these establishments would not be TSA eligible costs. And under
no circumstances will water system facilities that benefit industrial or agricultural water ,
service customers be eligible for TSA assistance.
D. Other Non-Profit, Non-Residential Water Services: Costs to serve other
non-profit water system customers, such as public schools, churches, government offices,
community centers, clinics, etc. are TSA eligible expenses.
E. Watering Point Systems: As long as a watering point system is considered a
public water system according to the SDWA definitions, it will be fully eligible for TSA
funding assistance. This would also include a washeteria system, common in Alaska
Native villages.
F. On-Going Public Water System Projects: TSA funds cannot be contributed
to on-going projects, unless a subsequent phase is competitively selected on its own
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
merits.
G. Communities with Serious Wastewater Disposal Problems: If the
proposed water system project will increase the volume of water provided to such a
community, the project will not be eligible for TSA funds (i.e TSA funds cannot be used if
their use would make the wastewater problem worse). The only exception to this would be
if the deficient sanitary conditions will be adequately addressed by others prior to the TSA
project being completed. In the infrequent case that a new water system is considered for
TSA funding, it will also not be approved without a concurrent adequate wastewater system
being provided.
H. Public Water Systems (PWS) Not in Compliance with the SDWA: EPA R10
wishes to emphasize, as stated in the national guidelines, that systems not in compliance
with the SDWA will not be eligible for TSA assistance, except as described in Section VI
below. It is therefore important for TSA project eligibility, that a system adhere to
necessary drinking water monitoring requirements and take all other appropriate action
(e.g. resampling, necessary public notifications, effective operation and maintenance, etc.)
per the SDWA and/or National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs).
I. Creation of New PWSs: EPA recently published a final policy revision (Federal
register Vol. 63, No. 21, Nov. 3, 1998. pp. 59299-59300) that now allows for creation of
new PWSs, but only under very limited circumstances. In short, creation of a new system
under the Drinking Water SRF program (which includes the DWIG TSA program) will be
allowed to consolidate individual or small water systems as the best cost-effective solution
to seriously contaminated wells or surface water sources, or to address other serious
technical, financial, or managerial capacity problems.
VI. WATER SYSTEM CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS
A. General: "Capacity" relative to this program is defined as the technical,
financial, and managerial capability of a water system to consistently deliver sufficient
quantity and quality of water to dependably meet the water demands of the system's
customers. As such, capacity has many different aspects but it is usually broken down into
three main categories: technical, financial, and managerial.
Per the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA. TSA National Guidelines have made it
clear that PWSs without necessary capacity are not eligible for TSA assistance, with the
following two exceptions:
1. TSA assistance can be provided if the assistance will enable a PWS to
come into full compliance with the NPDWRs (e.g. necessary filtration
treatment facilities); or
2. if the PWS agrees to make the necessary improvements to raise its
capacity to assure future compliance; and if EPA has well-founded
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
expectations that the changes will be accomplished as agreed upon and on
schedule.
B. Managerial Capacity Requirements: The PWS must meet at a minimum the
managerial capacity requirements for TSA assistance, as shown in bold below. For any
requirement not met at the time of the grant award, the EPA will set an appropriate
schedule for their implementation by the PWS during the project. Additional goals are
listed which the PWS should strive to achieve.
1. Documentation exists that identifies the PWS's ownership, mission,
organization, authority to charge fees (if user fees are necessary), and
positions (e.g. board of directors, manager, supervisors, staff). This
could be in the form of Tribal resolutions; articles of incorporation;
Tribal, state, or federal charters, etc.
2. Documentation exists that adequately describes the system's
management procedures, authority to hire and fire employees, and clear
lines of supervision and direction.
3. The PWS must not be in violation of the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations (NPDWRs), including all sampling and reporting
requirements. (See exceptions in VI. A. above.)
4. Written safety plans for repair and operational work, and an emergency
plan to address the more likely emergency scenarios.
5. Knowledge of all applicable PWS requirements, such as the NPDWRs
(including appropriate state delegated program requirements), OSHA, public
utility laws (if applicable) etc.
6. Periods of inadequate or no water being supplied be kept to absolute
minimums reflecting only unforeseen emergencies, and unavoidable and
scheduled down times for flushing or routine repairs.
C. Financial Capacity Requirements: The PWS must meet at a minimum the
financial capacity requirements for TSA assistance, as shown in bold below. For any
requirement not met at the time of the grant award, the EPA will set an appropriate
schedule for their implementation by the PWS during the project. Additional goals are
listed which the PWS should strive to achieve.
1. The system and the grantee Tribe must be financially current with
the Internal Revenue Service or any other governmental agency in order
to avoid any direct levies on any TSA grant funds, such as those
eventually placed in a project force-account fund.
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
2. Documentation showing clear identification of authorized revenue
sources (e.g. service fees, general Tribal or municipal budget, municipal
subsidies, etc.).
3. Written procedures for charging and collecting user fees (if
applicable) or other sources of revenue, and procedures for
disconnection due to non-payment.
4. Written procedures for ordering, receiving, and paying for parts,
supplies, power, repairs, etc.
5. An annual operating budget showing projected revenue and
expenses.
6. Evidence that all accounts receivable and accounts payable are
continuously maintained, and the annual budget is updated with current
adjustments as necessary. Also that all accounts are not more than 45 days
in arrears.
7. Adequate liability insurance.
D. Technical Capacity Requirements: The PWS must meet at a minimum the
technical capacity requirements shown in bold below. For any requirements not met at the
time of the grant award, the EPA will set an appropriate schedule for their implementation
by the PWS during the project. Additional goals are listed which the PWS should strive to
achieve.
1. As-built plans and equipment data sheets on file.
2. Sufficient supplies, tools, and spare parts on hand to maintain and
operate vital system components (e.g. fuel/heating oil; disinfection
chemicals; hand and specialized tools for minor repairs; spare parts
such as repair clamps, commonly used seals or gaskets, etc.).
3. Written plan of operations with a preventative maintenance
schedule.
4. Operators:
a. At least one system operator being available on a 24-hour
basis, and at least one backup operator identified for emergency
assistance.
b. All system operators should be adequately trained for system
operation and maintenance, and otherwise able to perform all routine
operator tasks.
10
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
c. For systems over 100 service connections, the lead operator
position should be a paid position, whether full- or part-time.
d. Per the National TSA guidelines, when the EPA has finalized its
operator certification program for Tribes, operators of any Tribal PWS
should be in compliance with this standard.
e. For those PWSs that may be under state drinking water program
jurisdiction, operators should meet applicable state operator training
&/or certification requirements (in lieu of d. above).
VII. ELIGIBLE TSA INFRASTRUCTURE ITEMS
A. Specific Infrastructure Items: The EPA TSA national guidelines describe the
overall approach to eligibility for broadly described categories of water system facilities; but
it is felt that more specifics are needed at this point in the development of a working TSA
program. Accordingly, the following are presented for item-specific TSA eligibility:
1. Water Sources: e.g. wells, surface water intakes, rain/snow catchment systems
(e.g. 'tundra ponds')
2. Treatment Facilities: e.g. disinfection, filtration, fluoridation, nitrate removal,
necessary softening and pH adjustment
3. Transmission Lines
4. Storage Facilities: ground based, elevated, and pressurized
5. Pumping Systems: raw water, treatment-related, boosters
6. Distribution Facilities: piping, including valving, & mainline metering units;
boilers/heat exchange units and circulating pumps for arctic water systems; also
appropriate water hauling equipment
7. Water Service Connections: e.g. water main connections, pit-orifices, water
meters, curb stops
8. Control Systems: e.g. common time or pressure based units, telemetry
systems, and appropriate SCADA systems
9. Hydrants: when also used for distribution system flushing
10. General Facility Related Improvements: e.g. access roads, fencing, power
line extensions, soil/slope stabilization, structures (pump houses, treatment
buildings, washeterias), utilidors, and boardwalks
11
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
B. System Start-Up Equipment and Services: Assuring proper initial start-up of
the new facilities is considered vital for long-term viability of the system, protection of the
public health, and compliance with the SDWA. Accordingly, reasonable project expenses
necessary to provide appropriate tools and equipment for operation and maintenance of
the facilities, limited chemical supplies for start-up, and appropriate on-site training of the
operators and certain other utility staff will be considered eligible cost items inherent to a
successful TSA project.
C. Prorated Facilities Costs: It's expected that TSA eligible items frequently will
also serve other purposes, e.g. utilidors, boardwalks, washeteria structures, power line
extensions. The TSA eligibility in such circumstances will then have be reduced to a level
proportional to the value of the specific item to the PWS relative to the item's total value for
all other uses in the community.
Examples: 1) An Alaskan utilidor is planned for a new water distribution line and
also a vacuum sewer main. The TSA portion of the cost should be 50%.
2) For a washeteria structure with a total of 4,000 square feet ('SF') that includes
1,200 SF of community meeting rooms, and the sanitation services (i.e. toilets,
sinks, showers, laundry) occupy 1,000 SF, then the TSA eligible cost for the
structure would only be 57% (i.e. 4,000 SF less 1,200 SF, less Vz of the 1,000 SF
attributable to the to the wastewater functions = 2,300 SF, then divided by 4,000 SF
= .57). 3) For an Alaskan village using both a water and wastewater haul system,
the necessary boardwalk would be 50% TSA eligible, as would be the common haul
vehicle.
D. Water Service Lines and Interior Water Plumbing: These kinds of facilities will
be TSA eligible items if, and only if, they are owned by the public water system and the
system is entirely responsible for their operation and maintenance. The provision of
interior water plumbing (excluding pumphouse, pumping station, or water treatment piping,
etc.) with TSA funds is expected to only apply to washeteria piping and appropriate
fixtures.
E. Purchase of Heavy Construction Equipment: The cost of any heavy
construction equipment purchased to support any project construction efforts, or as
operation and/or maintenance equipment, will not be TSA eligible.
VIII. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, RANKING, AND SELECTION
A. Identification of Standard TSA Infrastructure Projects: As previously
described, the IHS's SDS is updated annually nationwide by IHS's environmental health
staff, with input and participation by the Tribes and the regional non-profit corporations
providing health care under P.L. 93-638. Results of the annual SDS lists by each IHS
administrative area (i.e. the Alaska Area Native Health Service [AANHS], and the Portland
Area IHS, [PAIHS]) have been used since 1990 to select sanitation projects for IHS funding
12
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
and construction; and the EPA Clean Water Act Indian Set-Aside grant program has also
used the SDS priority lists exclusively since 1995 to select its annual projects.
In February 1998, EPA R10 was a signator to a final report entitled Rural Sanitation
2005 Action Plan, a planning study sponsored by the Governor of Alaska's Council on
Rural Sanitation. Amongst many recommendations in the plan's final document for
improved sanitary services to rural Alaskan communities, was the recommendation that all
participating government agencies should "...combine/coordinate the priority list
processes..." for Alaskan sanitation projects, which would include the DWIG TSA program.
Other participants in the Council's study and resulting recommendations were
representatives of the Rural Alaska Sanitation Coalition, the Tanana Chiefs Council, the
Alaska Native Health Board, representatives from the federal U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's
Rural Development program, and numerous State of Alaska agencies involved with rural
Alaskan community development issues.
For these reasons, the EPA R10 TSA program will utilize the most recent SDS lists
of the AANHS and the PAIHS for identifying projects for annual ranking of projects in
Alaska and the PNW states, respectively. Therefore, no Tribal applications for proposed
projects are needed in order to compete in each year's TSA selection process.
B. EPA Project Compliance Factor: Because of a clear mandate imposed by
statute to also use the DWIG TSA funds to "...facilitate compliance with the national
primary drinking water regulations..." in addition to promoting public health protection,
recognition of PWSs compliance problems will also be employed in the project ranking
process. For projects in Alaska, the AANHS has committed to customizing their SDS
scoring system to reflect EPA's compliance concerns, starting in FY2000; therefore in the
FY 1999 EPA TSA project selection, the current AANHS SDS process will be used.
Starting with the FY2000 TSA selection process, the EPA will research and furnish the
AANHS a list of known compliance problems prior to their annual SDS process.
For PNW projects where the PAIHS SDS ranking process is not expected to be
altered, compliance problems will be addressed using a separate compliance factor that is
computed by EPA R10 and added to the overall SDS scores to arrive at a final TSA project
priority list. (For any reason a proposed SDS project's scope does not address the
compliance issue(s) identified in the EPA compliance factor, EPA reserves the right to
increase the proposed project cost in order to provide the needed compliance
infrastructure.)
For the EPA compliance factor to be used in the PNW, a scoring sheet is presented
in Appendix C, and is explained as follows:
1. EPA will annually review and evaluate available data bases reflecting compliance
with the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations ('NPDWRs') for PWSs
eligible for TSA assistance.
2. Up to two maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceedences &/or other violations
of the SDWA's NPDWRs can be rated for any PWS. (Continuing or repeated
13
-------
Final RW TSA Guidelines. 8/99
violations of the same MCL or another NPDWRs standard are not addressed as
separate items, but are scored appropriately in the 'exposure' portion of the matrix.)
3, prinking water quality scenarios with concentrations clearly trending towards
MCLs exceedence (or other violations beyond control of the PWS) within a year, can
also be scored.
4. No score will be given if violations are the result of PWS's acts of omission or
commission, such as a system's failure to promptly and correctly perform necessary
sampling, failure to properly use and maintain water treatment equipment, etc.
Historical compliance data will also be carefully considered to evaluate validity of
any recent sudden increases in MCL violations, etc.
5. Scoring will be commensurate with severity of health risk present or imminent,
and available evidence of the duration and degree of violations.
C. Selection Process for Standard TSA Infrastructure Projects: When annual
TSA funds allotments are announced, EPA will obtain the latest SDS lists from the AANHS
and PAIHS offices. At this point, IMS SDS projects on each SDS list that clearly do not
qualify for TSA funds (i.e. wastewater and solid waste projects, and some water projects
that are for primarily individual water facilities such as wells or service lines) would be
removed from further TSA consideration.
After EPA TSA compliance factor scores are assigned for identified projects, those
points will be added to the SDS numerical rankings for proposed PNW projects. The
project list will then be re-ranked and a working TSA project priority list will be created for
PNW projects based on total scores. The PNW list will start at the highest numerically
ranked project and will proceed in order of descending scores.
The working TSA project priority list for Alaska projects will be almost identical to the
AANHS SDS list, less those projects that clearly do not qualify for TSA assistance. This
EPA list will similarly start at the highest ranked SDS project and would extend down
numericafly. For both lists, if any projects have equal final scores, EPA project listing
precedence will be determined by the lowest unit price per residence using the IHS total
project community water cost, the lowest unit price per residence using the IHS total
project community water and wastewater cost, and highest IHS health impact SDS score,
in that order if necessary.
EPA TSA staff will then confer with the two IHS area offices to determine IHS's
planned project funding, including other agencies that contribute to projects through IHS.
From this coordination process, tentative TSA project selections for each subregion can be
made. (It's expected that selection of the annual EPA wastewater Indian Set-Aside
projects for RIO may also be concurrent and involved in this process.)
The TSA project selection process is expected to be dynamic and should be able to
derive considerable benefit from the more flexible overall IHS program which allows
funding of water service lines and interior house plumbing, which are not TSA eligible
14
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines, 8/99
items. This coordinated project selection process will also promote a much better
approach to a Tribal community's overall sanitation needs, and will be in accordance with
recommendations of the Rural Sanitation 2005 Action Plan for Alaska projects.
After preliminary identification of new projects is made by the IMS and EPA, annual
TSA project priority lists for Alaska and the PNW will be finalized for each subregion.
These lists wilf extend down below the last new TSA project, to a level represented
approximately by a cumulative 50% of the current available TSA funding. These lists will
then be used to reserve any new TSA funds that might become available towards new TSA
projects, before the next annual selection process.
When EPA R10 informs a Tribe of its tentative selection for TSA assistance, EPA
will require the Tribe's cooperation in EPA's evaluation of the PWS's financial, technical,
and managerial capacity (see Section VI) and other relevant criteria, such as acceptable
wastewater facilities (see Section V, G.), absence of large system leaks or other
preventable large water losses (see Section IX, F.), confirmation of water quality problems,
etc. The evaluation may be made directly by EPA or via some other organization
satisfactory to EPA R10, such as the IMS. Should the PWS lack the minimum necessary
capacity for a TSA project, the Tribe and the subject PWS will also be notified of the
identified shortcomings and necessary improvements will be scheduled by EPA. As
previously stated, the minimum PWS capacity must be either present, or guaranteed by the
Tribe to be in-place within an EPA designated time, with EPA having well-founded
expectation that the PWS capacity improvements will be met on schedule.
If investigations do not confirm suspected water quality problems, any non-
compliance consideration in the ranking may be readjusted as appropriate and the project
re-ranked.
In the event that only partial TSA funding can be offered to a Tribe because the
project includes vital, but non-TSA eligible items, EPA will reserve the funds, but will
withhold obligating TSA funds until firm commitments are made for funding the balance of
the project costs. Unless these required non-TSA funds are obtained and the TSA funds
can be obligated within 12 months to complete the entire project's funding, the previous
reservation of TSA funds will be canceled and the funds will be added to the new year's
TSA funds for new project selection. At the end of a year's TSA project selection process,
if insufficient funds remain to fully fund the entire TSA eligible amount of the last project's
cost, the remaining funds may be reserved as above, at EPA's discretion.
During the TSA selection process, EPA reserves he right to pass over highly ranked
projects that are clearly not ready to proceed (e.g. significant known rights-of-way or water
rights problems), although the requested TSA funds can be reserved for up to 12 months
at EPA's discretion should a timely resolution be possible. EPA may also increase or
decrease the anticipated TSA project costs prior to award based on updated estimates or
changes in previously anticipated project contributions from other sources. However, no
funding changes will be made due to significant changes in project scope prior to award,
unless due to NPDWR compliance previously unforseen in the IHS's SDS process. And
for all TSA projects, no further TSA funding will be allowed once funds have been awarded.
15
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
D. Alaska Selection Considerations for FY 1999: Because of timing
considerations, and the large amount of TSA funds made available from three funding
cycles, the first TSA selection process for Alaska (FY 1999) will only include FY 1997-1998
funds (total $10,515,900), The FY 1999 funds will be added to the FY 2000 funds, and
projects selected for Alaska will be done in the FY 2000 cycle when the AANHS SDS
process is expected to include compliance considerations,
E. Emergency TSA Projects: EPA will consider at any time a direct application
from individual Tribes to help fund emergency assistance through the TSA program. (See
Section IV, D. for emergency project eligibility criteria.) To apply, a written request must
be sent to the EPA TSA program. It must be signed by the Tribal chairperson, and in
addition it must contain a written report on the situation, with the minimum following
information:
1. cause and nature of the emergency;
2. discussion of remedial options considered & cost estimates;
3. tentative plans for the recommended option with appropriate maps, photos, and
drawings;
4. list of involved emergency response contacts and phone numbers (e.g. FEMA,
National Guard, IHS);
5. contacts and phone numbers of the public water system affected and a
designated Tribal lead person; and
6. identification of the proposed lead federal agency, or the State of Alaska for the
work.
Upon receipt of all necessary information from the Tribe, EPA TSA staff will review
the request, make inquiries as needed, and determine if the proposed emergency project
meets TSA emergency project eligibility. The Tribe will be promptly notified by EPA
whether or not the proposed work appears fundable, and further arrangements will be
commenced as appropriate. As described previously, TSA funds for an emergency project
will only be awarded via an IAG document to another federal agency (or a grant to the state
of Alaska) taking the lead role in the emergency response, although a grant of services
document will still be required for each Tribe.
For these projects, applicants are cautioned that EPA approval is also contingent
upon availability of TSA funds set-aside for possible emergency projects in their respective
subregion, i.e. Alaska or the PNW. In addition, applicants should be aware that use of
eventually approved emergency TSA grant funds to pay for costs incurred prior to the IAG
award, will not be allowed.
For approved TSA emergency projects, requirements for meeting EPA standards of
technical, financial, and managerial water system capacity (see Section VI) will not be
16
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
mandatory, but are strongly encouraged and will be actively promoted during the project.
F. Annual TSA Project Selection Notice: After each round of tentative TSA
project selections are made and funds are reserved, a TSA status report will be prepared,
and a copy of this report will be sent to each Tribe in EPA Region 10 for informational
purposes.
IX. OTHER TSA PROGRAM DETAILS
A. Allowable Duration for Project Funds Obligation: Because the TSA National
Guidelines have set very specific deadlines for obligation of project funds, EPA R10 needs
to carefully monitor a potential project's development and set deadlines with Tribes for
finalizing funding documents and their supporting documentation in order to avoid losing
TSA funds to other EPA regions. To do this, EPA will allow a maximum 12 months for
obligation of the TSA grant funds, beginning from the date a Tribe is tentatively by selected
by EPA for a TSA project. This deadline should provide sufficient time to reallocate and
successfully obligate funds to the next highest ranked TSA project in the same R10
subregion, if necessary.
For funds in subregional emergency project accounts, EPA R10 will as necessary,
periodically reallocate any unobligated funds that may be in danger of being lost. In such
cases, they will be offered to the next highest ranked project in the same subregion's most
current TSA priority list. The emergency fund account will be replenished as soon as
possible thereafter.
B. Total Project Duration: EPA will allow a maximum of five years for the project
to be constructed and put into use. This period will commence upon obligation of the TSA
project funds. Tribes with projects clearly in danger of stalling, will be notified as
necessary by EPA of needed progress prior to any adverse grant actions, such as
cancellation.
C. Construction Rights-of-Way: Obtaining rights-of-way, easements, etc. for
water infrastructure projects can vary considerably in complexity and cost. In an effort to
provide for the most cost-effective use of limited RIO TSA funds, project rights-of-way
must be provided at no cost to EPA TSA project funding. However, surveying and
document preparation costs will be considered as eligible TSA items.
D. Alaska Construction by Force Account: The process of using local Tribal
labor in the Tribe's employment for construction of sanitation projects in rural Alaskan
Tribal villages has been well-established; and it has been found to be very cost-efficient,
important in building community involvement in the new facilities, and helping to augment a
community's income. Because of this, force account approaches for Alaska projects will
be considered by EPA as the standard procurement method for moderate- to low-skilled,
but labor-intensive construction work. As with other sanitation projects using force account
labor, direct technical supervision and other portions of the work requiring highly
17
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
specialized equipment and skills would typically not use force account labor. The standard
for these arrangements will be what the Alaska Area Native Health Service (IHS) has
utilized for many years in their village projects, with the exception that heavy construction
equipment purchases are not eligible with TSA funds (also see Section VII. E.).
E. Project Design Criteria: The TSA program is predicated on current needs,
and therefore care must be taken to keep engineering design capacities due to growth
anticipation, in proper perspective. EPA does not wish to make any hard rules at this time
about this matter, but to alert those designing the facilities that any extra capacity to
support growth must be reasonable and supportable. For facilities in general, a 20-year
design life is anticipated. Any incremental increase in facilities capacity needed to meet
required fire-flows (e.g. storage tank size) will not be TSA cost-eligible.
F. Water Conservation: Proposed TSA projects primarily needed to increase
water delivery (volume) will be carefully evaluated to ensure that the need isn't based on
unusually large system leaks or other losses that proper water utility practices should be
able to prevent. If investigation confirms that the need for increased system capacities is
caused by these kinds of losses, the project will not be eligible for TSA funds.
G. TSA Program Changes: As with most new programs, some adjustments will
be necessary over time. EPA R10 will implement minor changes as needed; however, if
substantial change in such things as subregional funds allocation, eligibility, or the
selection process is proposed, informational letters will be sent to all R10 Tribes requesting
their review and comments in advance. Resulting changes to the TSA program will be
promptly communicated to each Tribe in the region.
X. TSA PROGRAM CONTACTS
A. Project Officer for Alaska TSA Projects:
Dennis Wagner
EPA Alaska Operations Office
222 W. 7th Avenue, Room 537
Anchorage, AK 99513-7588
Phone: (907)271-3651 or toll-free: (800) 781-0983 (in Alaska only)
email: waqner.dennisx@epa.gov
B. TSA Program Manager & Project Officer for Pacific Northwest TSA Projects:
Geoff Keeler
EPA, Drinking Water Unit (OW-136)
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone:(206)553-1089 or toll-free: (800) 424-4372
email: keeler.geoff @ epa.gov
18
-------
Final RIO TSA Guidelines, 8/99
APPENDIX A
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS
& Section 1452 - REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS
SUBSECTIONS ADDRESSING INDIAN TRIBES & ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES:
Section 1452(i) Indian Tribes.--
(1) In general.--"! & 1/2 percent (1.5%) of the amounts appropriated annually to carry out this
section may be used by the Administrator to make grants to Indian Tribes and Alaska Native
villages that have not otherwise received either grants from the Administrator under this section or
assistance from State loan funds established under this section. The grants may only be used for
expenditures by tribes and villages for public water system expenditures referred to in
subsection (a)(2). (emphasis added - see section (a)(2) below)
(2) Use of funds.-Funds reserved pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be used to address the most
significant threats to public health associated with public water systems that serve Indian Tribes, as
determined by the Administrator in consultation with the Director of the Indian Health Service and
Indian Tribes.
(3) Alaska native villages.-ln the case of a grant for a project under this subsection in an Alaska
Native village, the Administrator is also authorized to make grants to the State of Alaska for the
benefit of Native villages. An amount not to exceed 4 percent of the grant amount may be used by
the State of Alaska for project management.
(4) Needs assessment.-The Administrator, in consultation with the Director of the Indian Health
Service and Indian Tribes, shall, in accordance with a schedule that is consistent with the needs
surveys conducted pursuant to subsection (h), prepare surveys and assess the needs of drinking
water treatment facilities to serve Indian Tribes, including an evaluation of the public water systems
that pose the most significant threats to public health.
The highlighted sections of section (a)(2) apply to Tribal projects:
Section 1452(a)(2) Use of funds -- Except as otherwise authorized by this title, amounts
deposited in a State loan fund, including loan repayments and interest earned on such amounts,
shall be used only for providing loans or loan guarantees, or as a source of reserve and security for
leveraged loans, the proceeds of which are deposited in a State loan fund established under
paragraph (1), or other financial assistance authorized under this section to community water
systems and nonprofit noncommunity water systems, other than systems owned by Federal
agencies. Financial assistance under this section may be used by a public water system only
for expenditures (not including monitoring, operation, and maintenance expenditures) of a
type or category which the Administrator has determined, through guidance, will facilitate
compliance with national primary drinking water regulations applicable to the system under
section 1412 or otherwise significantly further the health protection objectives of this title.
The funds may also be used to provide loans to a system referred to in section 1401(4)(B)
for the purpose of providing the treatment described in section 1401(4MB)(il(IM). The funds
shall not be used for the acquisition of real property or interests therein, unless the
acquisition is integral to a project authorized by this paragraph and the purchase is from a
willing seller. Of the amount credited to any State loan fund established under this section in any
fiscal year, 15 percent shall be available solely for providing loan assistance to public water
systems which regularly serve fewer than 10,000 persons to the extent such funds can be
obligated for eligible projects of public water systems.
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
APPENDIX B
TABLE 2
R10 Subregional Allotments (FY 1997 - 1999)
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G)
Emergency
Reserved Current SDS Proportional Project Total Available
310 TSA Base* Needs Funding Total Funding Reserve** Subregional funds
(& % of Total
Annual Funds (Ax 4%) Needs) [(A-2B)xC%] (B + D) (Ex 2%) (E-F)
FY1997: $7,394,300
Alaska
PNW
FY1998: $4,204,600
Alaska
PNW
FY1999: $4,559,000
Alaska
PNW
TOTAL (FY 1997-99)
$16,157,900
Notes:
$295,800
$295,800
$168,200
$168,200
$182,400
$182,400
$286,800,000 (94,2%)
$17,585,400 (5.8%)
$286,800,000 (94.2%)
$17,585,400 (5.8%)
$286,800,000 (94.2%)
$17,585,400 (5.8%)
$6,408,100
$394,600
$3,643,800
$224,400
$3,950,900
$243,300
7
$6,703,900
$690,400
$3,812,000
$392,600
$4,133,300
$425,700
Subtotals:
Alaska
PNW
Subtotals:
TOTAL
$134,100
$13,800
$76,200
$7,900
$82,700
$8,500
$293,000
$30,200
$323,200
$6,569,800
$676,600
$3,735,800
$384,700
$4,050,600
$417,200
$14,356,200
$1,478,500
$15,834,700
$16,157,900
all amounts rounded to the nearest$100
** 2% figure may be changed by EPA as needed
-------
Final R10 TSA Guidelines. 8/99
APPENDIX C
NPDWRs Compliance Factor Score Sheet
R10 TSA Project Ranking Process
Year of TSA Project Consideration: FY -
PWS Name:
Location:
!D#:
Summary of NPDWRs Non-Compliance Items (MCL exceedences. etc.)
item #1:
Item #2:
NPDW Regulations Non-Compliance Scores
Health Risk
Exposure
> 3 years
A.
1 year <
Concentration
> SxMCL
at MCL
Score
Range :
3 pts.
I
1 pts.
3 pts.
T
1 pts.
Subtotal (6 pts. max.)
TOTAL(12pts. max.)
Violation #1
Violation #2
Applicable
NPDWRegulations
Microbiological
Surface Water Treatment
Rule
Inorganics (includes nitrate)
Lead and Copper Rule
VOCs/SOCs
Radiological
------- |