[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20184-20186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10857]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6002-1]


Request for Proposals for Small Public Water Systems Technology 
Assistance Centers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is soliciting proposals 
from institutions of higher learning interested in establishing a Small 
Public Water Systems Technology Assistance Center (SPWSTAC). Section 
1420(f) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as amended authorizes the 
Agency to make grants to institutions of higher learning to establish 
and operate such centers. The responsibilities of the centers will 
include the conduct of training and technical assistance relating to 
the information, performance, and technical needs of small public water 
systems or public water systems that serve Indian Tribes. The 
Environmental Protection Agency's fiscal year 1998 appropriation 
provides $2 million for establishment of five SPWSTAC's. This document

[[Page 20185]]

explains what information an interested institution of higher learning 
must submit as part of its proposal to be considered for funding. The 
document also explains the criteria that the Agency will use to 
evaluate proposals and award funding.

DATES: Proposals must be received by June 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send proposals to Peter E. Shanaghan, Small Systems 
Coordinator, Mail Code 4606, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter E. Shanaghan, 202-260-5813 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 
focus attention on enhancing the technical, financial, and managerial 
capacity of public water systems to consistently comply with national 
primary drinking water regulations. Section 1420 of the Act as amended 
requires states to develop and implement a program to ensure that new 
systems demonstrate adequate capacity prior to start-up and to develop 
and implement a strategy to assist existing systems in acquiring and 
maintaining capacity. The Act provides for a variety of assistance for 
states and public water systems, especially small systems, in meeting 
capacity development objectives.
    Section 1420(f) of the SDWA as amended authorizes EPA to make 
grants to institutions of higher learning to establish and operate 
small public water system technology assistance centers. The 
responsibilities of these centers would include the conduct of training 
and technical assistance relating to the information, performance, and 
technical needs of small public water systems or public water systems 
that serve Indian Tribes.
    Section 1420(f)(4) directs EPA to select recipients of grants on 
the basis of the following criteria:
    (A) The small public water system technology assistance center 
shall be located in a state that is representative of the needs of the 
region in which the state is located for addressing the drinking water 
needs of small and rural public water systems.
    (B) The grant recipient shall be located in a region that has 
experienced problems, or may reasonably be foreseen to experience 
problems, with small and rural public water systems.
    (C) The grant recipient shall have access to expertise in small 
public water system technology management.
    (D) The grant recipient shall have the capability to disseminate 
the results of small public water system technology and training 
programs.
    (E) The projects that the grant recipient proposes to carry out 
under the grant are necessary and appropriate.
    (F) The grant recipient has regional support beyond the host 
institution.
    Additionally, section 1420(f)(5) requires that at least two of the 
grants be made to consortia of states with low population densities.
    As part of its fiscal year 1998 appropriation, Congress provided 
EPA with $2 million to fund five SPWSTAC's. The Agency recognizes that, 
based on the merits of the proposals received, equal funding of all 
five centers may not be appropriate, but we expect no single assistance 
offer to exceed about $500,000.

Ongoing Related Initiatives

    EPA is concerned about the potential for wasteful duplication of 
effort between these new SPWSTAC's and the extensive existing network 
of initiatives designed to assist small public water systems. To avoid 
such potentially wasteful duplication of effort, EPA urges applicants 
to carefully review the following summary of ongoing related 
initiatives. The Agency encourages applicants to propose projects, 
which would be complementary to and not duplicative of these existing 
initiatives.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

    The Small Drinking Water System Package Plant Pilot project under 
the ETV program is being managed by the National Sanitation Foundation 
(NSF). The objective of this pilot project is to establish a self-
supporting program for the performance verification testing of package 
drinking water treatment equipment. This pilot project includes 
development of detailed protocols for the performance verification 
testing of various types of package plant technologies; procedures to 
qualify field testing organizations to conduct testing using the 
protocols; and actual performance verification testing of package plant 
technologies.

Rural Community Assistance Program, Inc. (RCAP)

    RCAP, a network of six regional organizations with multi-state 
service areas, provides technical assistance and community-specific 
training to rural areas with populations of 10,000 or fewer to help 
them access safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water supplies. In 
this program, most of RCAP's activities are carried out in rural areas 
with population of 2,000 or less, and in minority communities, under-
served rural areas or rural areas with a high percentage of low-income 
individuals. They provide free services to meet the water supply needs 
of community leaders, system owners, system operators, and local 
residents. RCAP also works with rural residents currently not served by 
a drinking water system or those whose drinking water system is 
inadequate or in need of capital improvements to identify options and 
find financing to solve these problems.

National Rural Water Association (NRWA)

    NRWA, comprised of 45 state rural water associations conducts a 
rural and small drinking water system training and on-site assistance 
program that provides direct training and on-site problem solving 
assistance to rural and small water system personnel in the 48 
contiguous states. Regulatory training, water system operations 
training, water system maintenance training, conservation training, and 
public health training is provided through seminars and formal training 
courses. NRWA's on-site problem solving includes non-compliance 
problems, complex operating and maintenance problems, operator 
certification problems, and source protection problems. Each state 
rural water association performs at least 300 scheduled hours of 
assistance/training per year under the program.

The National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWCH)

    West Virginia University operates the NDWCH. The clearinghouse 
offers a wide array of information services for small public water 
systems. They operate a toll-free information and assistance hotline, 
publish technical assistance oriented newsletters, and provide access 
to publications.

Existing University Centers

    Congress has earmarked funding for specific university small water 
system centers, in addition to the $2 million earmarked for the five 
SPWSTAC's. Montana State University (MSU) has operated a small water 
system assistance center since 1995. MSU has focused on documenting 
technology performance and developing innovative Internet based 
distance learning tools. Western Kentucky University and the University 
of Missouri at Columbia are establishing centers, which will commence 
operation in mid to late 1998. Both of these institutions are 
developing detailed work plans at this time.
    EPA will encourage the three existing centers and the five centers 
for which

[[Page 20186]]

proposals are being solicited to cooperate to the maximum extent 
feasible. The Agency expects that each center will use its unique 
regional emphasis to address problems of national importance, as 
manifested in specific regional conditions.

Content of Proposals

    Proposals should be succinct and directly to the point. In general 
they should not exceed 20 pages in length. Applicants whose proposals 
are selected for funding will be required to complete the Application 
for Federal Assistance (SF 424).
    Proposals must address each of the following questions:
    (1) How is the state in which the proposed center is located 
representative of the drinking water needs of small and rural 
communities or Indian Tribes in the surrounding region?
    (2) Within this region, what problems have been experienced or are 
foreseen to be experienced with small and rural public water systems?
    (3) To what experience in small public water system technology 
management does the applicant have access?
    (4) What capability does the applicant have to disseminate the 
results of small public water system technology and training programs?
    (5) For each proposed project:
    (i) What is the objective of the work?
    (ii) What specifically does the applicant propose to do?
    (iii) Why does the applicant believe this project is necessary and 
how would it contribute to enhancing the technical capacity of small 
public water systems?
    (iv) Does the applicant have documented support for this project 
beyond their own institution (from, for example, state drinking water 
programs, technical assistance providers, local government, small 
systems, etc.)?
    (v) What are the proposed deliverables?
    (vi) What is the proposed schedule and major milestones?
    (vii) Approximately how much of your total requested grant amount 
would you devote to this project? What other resources (from any 
source), if any do you propose to devote to this project?
    (viii) How will this project complement, and not duplicate, ongoing 
related initiatives described earlier?
    (6) What regional support (from, for example, other institutions of 
higher learning and/or neighboring state drinking water programs) does 
the applicant have for the proposed center?
    (7) What is the total amount of assistance sought by the applicant? 
What is the total amount of funding, in addition to the requested 
assistance that the applicant plans to devote to the proposed center?
    (8) If the applicant wishes to be considered as representing a 
consortia of states with low population density, then the applicant 
must provide a detailed justification specifically identifying the 
states which are members of the consortia, the population density of 
each state, and the specific working agreement among consortia members.

Criteria for Evaluation of Proposals

    A panel of EPA staff and state drinking water program 
administrators will evaluate proposals for overall technical merit 
based upon the selection criteria contained in section 1420(f)(4). To 
implement the requirements of section 1420(f)(5), the Agency will 
assign extra credit to otherwise good quality proposals from applicants 
representing consortia of states.
    The following criteria will be used to assess the answers to each 
of the questions posed under the previous section on Content of 
Proposals. Each of these questions will be given equal weight, and 
together they will account for a total of 30% of the applicants raw 
score.
    (A1) Specificity of answer. Specific answers, which directly 
respond to the question, will be rated higher than vague or general 
answers.
    (B1) Detail of answer. Detailed but concise answers will be rated 
higher than vague or general answers.
    (C1) Factual basis of answer. Answers for which supporting 
objective data or other facts are provided will be rated higher than 
answers relying on generalizations or unsubstantiated statements.
    In addition to being evaluated on the quality of the responses to 
individual questions, each proposal will be evaluated in its entirety 
based upon the criteria contained in section 1420(f)(4). For purposes 
of this solicitation, the criteria contained in section 1420(f)(4) are 
being designated as (A2), (B2), (C2), (D2), (E2), and (F2). Criteria 
(A2), (B2), (C2), (D2), and (F2) will each be weighted by a factor of 
1, criterion (E2) will be weighted by a factor of 2. Collectively these 
criteria will account for 70% of an applicants raw score. The criteria 
are:
    (A2) Representativeness of host state. Proposals from states that 
are most representative of the drinking water needs of small and rural 
communities or Indian Tribes in the surrounding region will be rated 
higher than proposals from less representative states.
    (B2) Nature of problems experienced by water systems. Proposals 
from regions where the problems experienced or foreseen to be 
experienced by small and rural public water systems are more serious or 
fundamental will be rated higher than proposals from regions where the 
problems are less serious.
    (C2) Experience. Proposals from institutions having access to 
greater experience in small water system technology management will be 
rated higher than those from institutions having access to less 
experience.
    (D2) Dissemination capability. Proposals documenting greater 
capability to disseminate the results of small public water system 
technology and training programs will be rated higher than proposals 
documenting less capability.
    (E2) Necessity and appropriateness of proposed projects. Higher 
ratings will be given to proposals whose projects clearly address well-
documented needs, do not duplicate ongoing initiatives, enjoy broad 
support beyond the host institution, and most effectively leverage 
federal resources.
    (F2) Regional support. Proposals, which have substantial clearly 
documented support beyond the host institution, will be rated more 
highly than those proposals having less documented support.
    Finally, the Agency will consider one additional factor.
    (A3) The Agency will assign extra-credit to otherwise good quality 
applicants who represent consortia of states with low population 
densities. Extra credit will take the form of a 25% increase in the 
applicants raw score, with the threshold rating for ``good quality'' to 
be recommended by the review panel after the consideration of the 
quantitative merits of all applications.

Timing of Awards

    Grant awards will be made on or before September 30, 1998. EPA will 
move as expeditiously as possible to complete review of applications 
following June 8, 1998.

    Dated: April 17, 1998.
Elizabeth Fellows,
Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 98-10857 Filed 4-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P