x^ed sta^
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	13-P-0308

i	\ Office of Inspector General	July 2 2013
s
"V—'—J"
% V|// "
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency provided
American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009
funds for tribal drinking water
infrastructure projects. The
EPA provided the funds to the
U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services-Indian Health
Service through a 2009
interagency agreement.
In response to a hotline
complaint, we sought to
determine whether the EPA
followed applicable criteria in
awarding and monitoring of
funds provided to the Fort
Belknap Indian Community
Drinking Water Treatment Plant
in Montana, and whether the
EPA met its responsibility
under the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
This report addresses the
following EPA Goals or
Cross-Cutting Strategies:
•	Protecting America's
waters.
•	Strengthening state, tribal
and international
partnerships.
Limitations on the EPA's Authority Under the
Safe Drinking Water Act Resulted in Unaddressed
Concerns at a Tribal Drinking Water Plant
What We Found
In 2007, prior to providing funding to the FBIC DWTP project, the EPA contracted
with Rural and Tribal Environmental Solutions to provide plan and specification
reviews for public water system construction in Indian Country. The contractor
reviewed the FBIC DWTP and provided numerous comments to Region 8,
including concerns about the plant design. Region 8 provided the comments to
the FBIC and discussed key concerns with the tribe on two occasions.
Despite the plan and specification review comments, the EPA contributed
$572,700 toward the project. EPA Region 8 staff said that, due to a limitation
under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, they did not have the
authority to require the tribe to address the plan and specification review
comments outlining the EPA's concerns. The FBIC's DWTP went operational in
March 2010 but continues to not be in compliance with the SDWA, specifically
the Disinfection Byproduct Rule.
Although the EPA followed applicable criteria in awarding and monitoring funds
provided for the FBIC DWTP, we found that the EPA believed—based on an
incorrect interpretation of its authority under the SDWA—that it could not require
tribes to address plan and specification review comments prior to awarding
funds.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommended that the Office of Water reexamine its interpretation of the
drinking water regulations that purportedly prevented the agency from requiring
tribes to address plan and specification review comments. If the determination
was still that this limitation exists, we recommended that the Office of Water
pursue a regulatory or guidance change to address it. The agency concurred with
the recommendation and provided its intended corrective action and estimated
completion date. The agency determined that it can require tribes to address plan
and specification review comments prior to grant awards and plans to include
language to reinforce this in guidelines currently under revision.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2013/
20130702-13-P-0308.pdf

-------