Grantee Research Project Results
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Center for Environmental Research
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program
CLOSED - FOR REFERENCES PURPOSES ONLY
Integrated Design, Modeling, and Monitoring of Geologic Sequestration of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide to Safeguard Sources of Drinking Water
This is the initial announcement of this funding opportunity.
Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-G2008-STAR-H1
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.509
Solicitation Opening Date: October 3, 2008
Solicitation Closing Date: January 6, 2009, 4:00 pm Eastern Time
Eligibility Contact: William Stelz (stelz.william@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9802
Electronic Submissions: Ron Josephson (Josephson.Ron@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9643
Technical Contact: Barbara Klieforth (klieforth.barbara@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9266
Access Standard STAR Forms (https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms)
View research awarded under previous solicitations (https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/recipients.archive/RFATypeList/G,C)
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Synopsis of Program:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of its Science To Achieve Results (STAR) program, is seeking applications to conduct research to support the development of sound risk management strategies for the underground injection of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) in candidate subsurface geologic formations. To further the scientific understanding of this practice, research is needed to investigate how integrating approaches in design, siting, modeling and monitoring of CO2 in the subsurface can provide safe and effective storage, mitigate potential risks, and prevent endangerment of existing and potential sources of drinking water.
Award Information:
Anticipated Type of Assistance Agreement: Grant or Cooperative Agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: Approximately 4 awards
Anticipated Funding Amount: Approximately $3.6 million total for all awards
Potential Funding per Award: Up to a total of $900,000, including direct and indirect costs, with a maximum duration of 3 years. Cost-sharing is not required. Proposals with budgets exceeding the total award limits will not be considered.
Eligibility Information:
Public nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes public institutions of higher education and hospitals) and private nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes private institutions of higher education and hospitals) located in the U.S., state and local governments, Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments, and U.S. territories or possessions are eligible to apply. See full announcement for more details.
Application Materials:
You may submit either a paper application or an electronic application (but not both) for this announcement. The necessary forms for submitting a STAR application will be found on the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) web site, https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms. To apply electronically, you must use the application package available at Grants.gov (see “Submission Instructions for Electronic Applications” in Section IV). If your organization is not currently registered with Grants.gov, you need to allow approximately one week to complete the registration process to apply electronically. This registration, and electronic submission of your application, must be performed by an authorized representative of your organization.
Agency Contacts:
Eligibility Contact: William Stelz (stelz.william@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9802
Electronic Submissions: Ron Josephson (Josephson.Ron@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9643
Technical Contact: Barbara Klieforth (klieforth.barbara@epa.gov); phone: 202-343-9266
I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
A. Introduction
In its 2007 scientific assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Continued greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at or above current rates will lead to further warming and very likely to global impacts (IPCC, 2007). The IPCC examined various scenarios to reduce GHG emissions. Most studies find that multiple methods will need to be employed to limit future climate change. In its Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS), the IPCC identified CO2 capture and storage as one of several approaches with the potential to address climate change (IPCC, 2005). CCS is intended to mitigate climate change effects by stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by decreasing emissions from stationary sources such as power plants (IPCC, 2005). Although several CCS technologies have been proposed, including ocean storage and mineral carbonation, geologic sequestration (GS) has been identified as the most technically viable approach (IPCC, 2005). GS involves injecting captured CO2 into deep, subsurface rock formations for long-term storage. It has been estimated that available capacity for GS in the United States ranges from 1,300 to 3,900 gigatons of CO2, with most of it in deep saline formations (NETL, 2007). For reference, the total energy-related (coal-fired power plants, ethanol and petroleum refineries, natural gas processing plants) CO2 emissions in the United States in 2005 was 5.9 gigatons, with fossil fuel combustion accounting for most of it (5.8 gigatons, U.S. EPA, 2007). Other stationary sources of CO2 are cement and chemical plants, and agricultural processing facilities. The potential magnitude of geologic sequestration needed to meet future greenhouse gas mitigation goals necessitates a comprehensive effort that incorporates adequate safeguards to prevent unintended consequences.
Protection of sources of drinking water is a priority research area for EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) in support of the Agency’s mission to protect public health and safeguard the environment. ORD’s Research Programs (https://www.epa.gov/research/) are designed to address critical environmental research needs and the STAR grants program is integral to this effort. Research funded through this solicitation is expected to complement on-going intramural research in ORD. Details of current STAR research activities can be found on ORD’s National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) homepage.
B. Background
For GS CO2 to reach the estimated scale needed to significantly contribute as a greenhouse gas mitigation measure, it is critical that GS projects incorporate robust safeguards. Effective and secure practices for subsurface storage of CO2 require integrated design, operating, modeling, monitoring, and remediation efforts that can prevent release of injected or displaced fluids to other formations, water sources, or to the atmosphere, although it is recognized that leakage out of the injection interval might be increasingly contained by a sequence of permeable layers and confining layers. The timescales (hundreds to thousands of years) of effective storage are unprecedented and impose novel science and engineering challenges to ensure that aquifers are protected from potential endangerment. Subsurface geology, mineralogy, and hydrology influence the fate, transport, and reactive processes triggered by CO2 injection. Target formations with the greatest potential storage capability include deep saline formations, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, and unmineable coal seams.
Design strategies for GS projects have built upon decades of oil and gas industry experience in enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Approximately 30 million metric tons of CO2 are injected annually into formation pore spaces from which comparable volumes of oil, gas, and water are extracted. However, GS differs from EOR in that injections will be done with no concomitant removal of fluid (in most cases). In addition, EOR systems are designed to recover the injected CO2, while GS systems are intended to trap and store the injected fluids.
Typically, for GS applications, CO2 is compressed and injected as a liquid or supercritical fluid in order to reduce the required storage volume and the costs associated with transport and pumping. When injected in an appropriate receiving geologic formation, CO2 is immobilized by a combination of physical and geochemical trapping mechanisms. Physical trapping occurs when the relatively buoyant CO2 rises in the formation until it reaches a stratigraphic zone with low fluid permeability (i.e., caprock) that inhibits further upward migration. Physical trapping can also occur through capillary forces holding disconnected droplets or bubbles at the trailing edge of the plume. Additional CO2 may dissolve into native formation fluids, including brines and hydrocarbons, or geochemically react with minerals in the formation and precipitate as solid carbon-bearing minerals.
Some of the known considerations involved in CO2 sequestration are: increased pressures induced by injection; reactions of the injectate with ambient fluids and minerals; and potential lateral or vertical migration of injection streams, displaced brines, and/or other formation fluids through natural conduits or pre-existing artificial penetrations (such as abandoned well bores). Research is needed to clarify their potential effects, reduce uncertainties, and promote integrated design, operation, monitoring, modeling, and management approaches for safe and effective CO2 sequestration for the scientific community, state and tribal co-regulators, and regulated industries.
Design Approaches to Reduce Risk to Sources of Drinking Water
Because of the unique attributes of GS systems, it important that design and operating strategies incorporate adequate safeguards to prevent endangerment of sources of drinking water, protect public health, and control environmental risks. The potential risks associated with GS depend on the role of site-specific geology, geochemistry, and regional-scale hydrology in the transport and reactive processes that influence the fate of CO2 in the subsurface. While the dominant mechanisms for storing CO2 in the subsurface are well understood, there is a need for more data on the relative rates of these mechanisms and how engineering approaches can capitalize on site characteristics to optimize storage and reduce risks. Limited information is available on the characteristics of deep saline formations (water quality, geochemistry, microbiology) and how GS may induce geological, chemical, or microbiological perturbations either directly from injected fluids or indirectly through mobilization of minerals, metals, organics, displaced brines or other formation fluids. Research is needed to elucidate how these factors will contribute to advances in methodologies in order for project planners to optimize designs, ensure long-term project viability, and to best determine the surface footprint representing the three dimensional subsurface space that will be impacted by the injection (the Area of Review, AoR).
To optimize the rate of CO2 trapping, design approaches are needed that can take full advantage of site-specific conditions. Evaluation of how subsurface geology, mineralogy, and hydrology affect the net capacity of target formations is needed. Optimized designs tailored to site characteristics should minimize risks and maximize storage capacity. For example, there may be situations where the use of horizontal wells or alternating injection of CO2 with brines or other fluids may accelerate pore space trapping. Development of enhanced injection well design strategies may lead to improvements in monitoring data quality, decreases in the extent of the AoR, reduced risks to sources of drinking water, and improved safeguards for protection of public health and the environment.
Integrated Site Characterization, Modeling and Monitoring
The extent and duration of projected GS projects requires a strong foundation of modeling and monitoring tools to optimize siting, design, construction, operation, monitoring, and closure of injection wells. Integrated approaches are needed to effectively predict and track the fate, transport, and reactions associated with the injected fluids, and in monitoring the influence of injection on leakage through faults, fractures, and artificial penetrations such as abandoned wells. State regulators and practitioners need reliable computational models that can be used for evaluating the implications of alternative design and operating scenarios, designing monitoring programs, and in optimizing mitigation and remediation strategies.
The starting point for predicting the fate of injected CO2 and any mobilized constituents involves relating the characteristics of the injected fluids to the geology, hydrology, and geochemical properties of the receiving formations. Computational modeling tools, whether analytical, semi-analytic, or numerical, rely on baseline site characterization data to predict fate and transport. Modeling outputs can be valuable for siting observational wells and developing geophysical monitoring strategies to delineate CO2 plumes, along with areas of elevated pressure. However, modeling efforts should be coordinated with field observations. Feedback from effectively developed monitoring programs can yield input for validating, calibrating, and advancing computational models with an ultimate goal of improving the accuracy of model simulations. The results of these efforts will advance current knowledge about the AoR and provide a more robust foundation for assessing and managing risks associated with GS. In addition, integration of field monitoring data with modeling efforts can provide a basis for conducting sensitivity analyses and reducing uncertainty.
The potential options for monitoring of GS projects range from using in situ and remote sensors, to employing direct and indirect measures of pressure, water quality, and surface or subsurface responses. While these techniques have been employed to varying degrees in industry, experience is needed in applying monitoring tools in the context of GS applications to identify migrating plumes or displaced fluids, detect leaks, and locate brine intrusion or contamination of fresh water formations. Improved techniques include dynamic monitoring networks that can enable the frequency and intensity of data collection to adapt to changing conditions identified by integrated data management and model predictions during and following injection operations. In addition to detecting leaks to/from subsurface formations, such as provided by abandoned wells, direct or remote monitoring of atmospheric leakage should be coupled with other monitoring and modeling efforts to identify ecological impacts and other indicators of potential subsurface vulnerabilities.
Research Needs
While the current injection approaches that are derived from EOR have provided a strong basis for the injection infrastructure (well materials, etc.), there is a need for targeted research on GS to optimize design strategies and develop integrated monitoring and modeling tools to ensure effective storage of CO2 and protect water resources by preventing and detecting negative consequences. The goals of this research solicitation are (1) to develop scientific support for design strategies that maximize the efficiency and decrease the risk of GS projects; (2) improve monitoring and modeling techniques that can be used to advance risk assessment; and (3) design risk management approaches for GS to prevent potential impacts to sources of drinking water, public health, and the environment.
The ultimate success of GS depends on the effectiveness of design and injection well siting, construction, operation, monitoring, management, and closure practices. The potential changes in groundwater quality that may be induced by injection are related to site-specific geochemical and hydrological conditions that influence the mobilization of heavy metals, organics, and brine. To optimize site design, improved characterization of deep saline formations is needed. Optimized injection project design strategies are also needed to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to protect water resources and mitigate public health and environmental risks. These strategies should be designed to minimize leakage, accelerate and optimize CO2 trapping mechanisms, maximize pore space trapping, and reduce the AoR. Approaches are needed to quantify and evaluate the implications of specific injection design strategies on project risk, long-term monitoring needs, and total project lifetime.
Research is needed to model pressure response and leakage, multiphase flow, reactive transport, and geomechanical processes associated with CO2 injection. Key research needs include efficient and accurate analytical or semi-analytical solutions and publically available multiphase numerical simulators of the above processes. Research is needed to test models with field monitoring data, including identification of model parameters with large sensitivities and uncertainties that can be reduced using monitoring results. Parallel research on monitoring techniques is also needed including near well-bore methodologies (i.e., to verify well integrity) and monitoring in storage formations to properly inform model development, calibration, testing, and application. As monitoring technologies evolve, there is a need to optimize and evaluate geophysical methods and continuous monitoring strategies for surface and subsurface detection of CO2 and mobilized constituents. Field testing is needed to develop and adapt geophysical monitoring techniques for verifying well integrity. Experience is needed in evaluating the reliability and accuracy of in situ or remote monitoring techniques for evaluating elevated pressure, CO2, mobilized constituents, displaced brines or other fluids in the storage formation and USDWs.
Familiarization with current GS activities
All applicants should make themselves familiar with on-going GS research activities to ensure that the projects developed for this solicitation complement existing research efforts and leverage existing activities and in-place infrastructure. Depending on the specific research focus, applicants are encouraged to coordinate with existing research activities as appropriate and practicable. The EPA is initiating research at its National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) and National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) targeted at site characterization, modeling and monitoring efforts in support of the UIC program. After award decisions have been made, if EPA awards a cooperative agreement, EPA may work with grantees to identify EPA scientists, engineers, and specialists to interact or collaborate on projects, as appropriate. EPA may also be able to arrange access for research at National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) research sites through coordination with the Department of Energy (DOE).
To date, there have been few field-scale tests of GS in the U.S. One of these tests, the Frio Brine pilot, located in Dayton, Texas, involved the injection of a small amount of CO2 (1,600 metric tons) into a saline formation at a depth of 1,500 m (Doughty et al., 2007). There are also several international GS efforts and projects underway in the North Sea, Algeria, and Canada. The Sleipner Project, located off the Norwegian coast in the North Sea, is the first commercial scale GS project into a saline formation (IPCC, 2005). The In Salah Gas Project, in the central Saharan region of Algeria, is the world's first large-scale CO2 storage project in a gas reservoir. Weyburn is an EOR project where the CO2 produced at a coal gasification plant in Beulah, North Dakota is piped to Weyburn in southeastern Saskatchewan for EOR and GS.
The DOE has initiated Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) to conduct research on the technology and infrastructure necessary to implement CO2 sequestration in different regions of the U.S. The partnerships involve government agencies, industry, and academia. The RCSPs are designed to gather data on the effectiveness and safety of CO2 GS in various geologic settings including depleted gas fields, unmineable coal seams, saline formations, shale, and basalt formations. The Validation Phase (2005-2009), will focus on validating GS technologies, evaluating regional CO2 repositories, and identifying best management practices for future deployment. The DOE is also conducting research at its National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) sites.
Additional information about DOE’s Office of Science, Geoscience Research Program can be found at http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/geo/geohome.html and the recent evaluation of research needs related to carbon sequestration at http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/GEO_rpt.pdf (284 pp, 13.48 MB). More information about Office of Fossil Energy activities can be found at http://www.fossil.energy.gov/sequestration/partnerships/index.html.
This solicitation is in support of Goal 2 of EPA’s Strategic Plan: Clean and Safe Water, Objective 2.3: Enhance Science and Research. The EPA’s Strategic Plan can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf (PDF) (184 pp, 11.56 MB)
C. Authority and Regulations
The authority for this RFA and resulting awards is contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1442, 42 U.S.C. 300j-1, and the Clean Water Act, Section 104, 33 U.S.C. 1254. For research with an international aspect, the above statutes are supplemented, as appropriate, by the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 102 (2)(F).
Applicable regulations include: 40 CFR Part 30 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations), 40 CFR Part 31 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments) and 40 CFR Part 40 (Research and Demonstration Grants). Applicable OMB Circulars include: OMB Circular A-21 (Cost Principles for Educational Institutions) relocated to 2 CFR Part 220, OMB Circular A-87 (Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments) relocated to 2 CFR Part 225, OMB Circular A-102 (Grants and Cooperative Agreements With State and Local Governments), OMB Circular A-110 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations) relocated to 2 CFR Part 215, and OMB Circular A-122, (Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations) relocated to 2 CFR Part 230.
D. Specific Research Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes
Note to applicant: The term “output” means an environmental activity or effort, and associated work products, related to a specific environmental goal (e.g., testing a new methodology), that will be produced or developed over a period of time under the agreement. The term “outcome” means the result, effect, or consequence that will occur from the above activities that is related to an environmental, behavioral, or health-related objective.
The purpose of this solicitation is to support applied research that can identify and minimize any potential risks associated with geologic sequestration of CO2.
All applications must include information on each item listed below:
- The approach that will be used to evaluate the success of the project.
- Identification of specific benefits to the public that are likely to be realized from successful completion of the project.
- Delineation of how project results can be used to advance risk assessment and risk management methodologies specific for GS.
Applications must propose research that does one or more of the following:
- Analyze interrelationships between injection project design and siting strategies and potential impacts on the quality and availability of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) with a focus on regional-scale tools for protecting public health and safeguarding the environment.
- Develop integrated site characterization, monitoring and modeling techniques important for tracking the location of the CO2 plume, mobilized constituents, and associated areas of elevated pressure.
- Advance methodologies for assessing and managing potential risks associated with GS with an emphasis on preventing endangerment of USDWs.
The following outputs and outcomes are expected:
- Effective integrated design, siting, operation, and management of CO2 injection and storage systems that can safeguard water quality and quantity and reduce potential health risks.
- Reliable detection, prevention, and control of any potential environmental and public health impacts, effects, or any unintended consequences that may occur over time.
- Information to educate Drinking Water suppliers in protecting USDWs and tools for practitioners to successfully meet the proposed requirements of the EPA's Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program's proposed rule "Minimum Federal Requirements for Class VI Injection Wells for the Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide".
E. References
Benson S and Cook P. Underground geological storage. IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide. Capture and Storage; 5:196-276.
Brennan ST and Burruss RC. Specific Storage Volumes: A Useful Tool for carbon dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment. Natural Resources Research 2006;15:165-182.
Doughty et al., Site characterization for CO2 geologic storage and vice versa: The Frio brine pilot, Texas, USA as a case study. Environ Geol 2007.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007, Synthesis Report. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2005. Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/srccs.htm
Kharaka YK, Cole DR, Hovorka SD, Gunter WD, Knauss KG and Freifeld BM. Gas-water-rock interactions in Frio Formation following carbon dioxide injection: Implications for the storage of greenhouse gases in sedimentary basins. Geology 2006;34:577-580.
Knauss KG, Johnson JW and Steefel CI. Evaluation of the impact of carbon dioxide, co-contaminant gas, aqueous fluid and reservoir rock interactions on the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. Chemical Geology 2005;217:339-350.
Lewicki JL, Birkholzer J and Tsang CF. Natural and industrial analogues for leakage of CO2 from storage reservoirs: Identification of features, events, and processes and lessons learned. Environ Geol 2006.
The Power to Reduce CO2 Emissions, The Full Portfolio. The EPRI Energy Technology Assessment Center 2007.
Tsang CF, Birkholzer J and Rutqvist J. A comparative review of hydrologic issues involved in geologic storage of CO2 and injection disposal of liquid waste. Environ Geol 2008;54:1723-1737.
U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL), 2007b, Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada. Available from: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/atlas/ATLAS.pdf (90 pp, 22.83 MB).
U.S. Department of Energy, Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (DOE RCSP), Available from: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/sequestration/partnerships/index.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Underground Injection Control Program, Geologic Sequestration of Carbon dioxide (EPA UIC geologic sequestration), Available from: https://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_sequestration.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Using the Class V Experimental Technology Well Classification for Pilot Geologic Sequestration Projects – UIC Program Guidance (UICPG#83), 2007. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/guide_uic_carbonsequestration_final-03-07.pdf (23 pp, 450 K).
Wang S and Jaff PR. Dissolution of a mineral phase in potable aquifers due to carbon dioxide releases from deep formations: Effect of dissolution kinetics. Journal of Energy Conversion and Management 2004;45,2833-2848.
Xu T, Apps JA and Pruess K. Numerical simulation of carbon dioxide disposal by mineral trapping in deep aquifers. Applied Geochemistry, 2004;19,917-936.
F. Special Requirements
Agency policy prevents EPA technical staff and managers from providing individual applicants with information that may create an unfair competitive advantage. Consequently, EPA employees will not review, comment, advise, and/or provide technical assistance to applicants preparing applications in response to EPA RFAs, nor will they endorse an application or discuss in any manner how the Agency will apply the published evaluation criteria for this competition. After award decisions have been made, EPA will work with grantees to identify EPA scientists, engineers, and specialists to interact or collaborate on projects, as appropriate.
Multiple Investigator applications may be submitted as: (1) a single Lead Principal Investigator (PI) application with Co-PI(s) or (2) a Multiple PI application (with a single Contact PI). If you choose to submit a Multiple PI application, you must follow the specific instructions provided in Sections IV. and V. of this RFA. For further information, please see the EPA Implementation Plan for Policy on Multiple Principal Investigators (http://rbm.nih.gov/toolkit.htm).
The development of multidisciplinary teams that will result in interdisciplinary research approaches is strongly encouraged. Groups of two or more eligible applicants may choose to form a consortium and submit a single application for this assistance agreement. The application must identify which organization will be the recipient of the assistance agreement and which organizations(s) will be sub-awardees of the recipient. Innovative contributions are expected in the integration of scientific knowledge and the application to decision-making. The most competitive proposals will involve existing GS projects.
These awards may involve the collection of “Geospatial Information,” which includes information that identifies the geographic location and characteristics of natural or constructed features or boundaries on the Earth or applications, tools, and hardware associated with the generation, maintenance, or distribution of such information. This information may be derived from, among other things, a Geographic Positioning System (GPS), remote sensing, mapping, charting, and surveying technologies, or statistical data.
The application must include a plan (see “Data Plan” in section IV.B.5.c.) to make available to the public all data generated from observations, analyses, or model development (primary data) and any secondary (or existing) data used under an agreement awarded from this RFA. The data must be available in a format and with documentation such that they may be used by others in the scientific community.
It is anticipated that a total of approximately $3.6 million will be awarded under this announcement, depending on the availability of funds and quality of applications received. The EPA anticipates funding approximately 4 awards under this RFA. Requests for amounts in excess of a total of $900,000, including direct and indirect costs, will not be considered. The total project period requested in an application submitted for this RFA may not exceed 3 years. The EPA reserves the right to reject all applications and make no awards, or make fewer awards than anticipated, under this RFA. The EPA reserves the right to make additional awards under this announcement, consistent with Agency policy, if additional funding becomes available after the original selections are made. Any additional selections for awards will be made no later than six months after the original selection decisions.
EPA may award both grants and cooperative agreements under this announcement.
Under a grant, EPA scientists and engineers are not permitted to be substantially involved in the execution of the research. However, EPA encourages interaction between its own laboratory scientists and grant Principal Investigators after the award of an EPA grant for the sole purpose of exchanging information in research areas of common interest that may add value to their respective research activities. This interaction must be incidental to achieving the goals of the research under a grant. Interaction that is “incidental” does not involve resource commitments.
Where appropriate, based on consideration of the nature of the proposed project relative to the EPA’s intramural research program and available resources, the EPA may award cooperative agreements under this announcement. When addressing a research question/problem of common interest, collaborations between scientists and the institution’s principal investigators are permitted under a cooperative agreement. These collaborations may include data and information exchange, providing technical input to experimental design and theoretical development, coordinating extramural research with in-house activities, the refinement of valuation endpoints, and joint authorship of journal articles on these activities. Proposals may not identify EPA cooperators or interactions; specific interactions between EPA’s investigators and those of the prospective recipient for cooperative agreements will be negotiated at the time of award.
A. Eligible Applicants
Public nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes public institutions of higher education and hospitals) and private nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes private institutions of higher education and hospitals) located in the U.S., state and local governments, Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments, and U.S. territories or possessions are eligible to apply. Profit-making firms are not eligible to receive assistance agreements from the EPA under this program.
Eligible nonprofit organizations include any organizations that meet the definition of nonprofit in OMB Circular A-122, located at 2 CFR Part 230. However, nonprofit organizations described in Section 501(c) (4) of the Internal Revenue Code that lobby are not eligible to apply.
National laboratories funded by Federal Agencies (Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers, “FFRDCs”) may not apply. FFRDC employees may cooperate or collaborate with eligible applicants within the limits imposed by applicable legislation and regulations. They may participate in planning, conducting, and analyzing the research directed by the applicant, but may not direct projects on behalf of the applicant organization. The institution, organization, or governance receiving the award may provide funds through its assistance agreement from the EPA to an FFRDC for research personnel, supplies, equipment, and other expenses directly related to the research. However, salaries for permanent FFRDC employees may not be provided through this mechanism.
Federal Agencies may not apply. Federal employees are not eligible to serve in a principal leadership role on an assistance agreement, and may not receive salaries or augment their Agency’s appropriations in other ways through awards made under this program.
The applicant institution may enter into an agreement with a Federal Agency to purchase or utilize unique supplies or services unavailable in the private sector. Examples are purchase of satellite data, census data tapes, chemical reference standards, analyses, or use of instrumentation or other facilities not available elsewhere. A written justification for federal involvement must be included in the application. In addition, an appropriate form of assurance that documents the commitment, such as a letter of intent from the Federal Agency involved, should be included.
Potential applicants who are uncertain of their eligibility should contact William Stelz (stelz.william@epa.gov) in NCER, phone (202) 343-9802.
B. Cost-Sharing
Institutional cost-sharing is not required.
C. Other
Applications must substantially comply with the application submission instructions and requirements set forth in Section IV of this announcement or they will be rejected. In addition, where a page limitation is expressed in Section IV with respect to parts of the application, pages in excess of the page limit will not be reviewed. Applications must be received by the EPA, or Grants.gov, on or before the solicitation closing date and time in Section IV of this announcement or they will be returned to the sender without further consideration. Also, applications exceeding the funding limits or project period term described herein will be returned without review. Further, applications that fail to demonstrate a public purpose of support or stimulation (e.g., by proposing research which primarily benefits a Federal program or provides a service for a Federal agency) will not be funded.
All proposals must include information on each item listed below or they will not be funded:
- The approach that will be used to evaluate the success of the project.
- Identification of specific benefits to the public that are likely to be realized from successful completion of the project.
- Delineation of how project results can be used to advance risk assessment and risk management methodologies specific for GS.
Applications must propose research that does one or more of the following:
- Analyze interrelationships between injection project design and siting strategies and potential impacts on the quality and availability of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) with a focus on regional-scale tools for protecting public health and safeguarding the environment.
- Develop integrated site characterization, monitoring and modeling techniques important for tracking the location of the CO2 plume, mobilized constituents, and associated areas of elevated pressure.
- Advance methodologies for assessing and managing potential risks associated with GS with an emphasis on preventing endangerment of USDWs.
In addition, to be eligible for funding consideration, a project’s focus must consist of activities within the statutory terms of EPA’s financial assistance authorities; specifically, the statute(s) listed in I.C. above. Generally, a project must address the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of air pollution, water pollution, solid/hazardous waste pollution, toxic substances control, or pesticide control depending on which statute(s) is listed in I.C. above. These activities should relate to the gathering or transferring of information or advancing the state of knowledge. Proposals should emphasize this “learning” concept, as opposed to “fixing” an environmental problem via a well-established method. Proposals relating to other topics which are sometimes included within the term “environment” such as recreation, conservation, restoration, protection of wildlife habitats, etc., must describe the relationship of these topics to the statutorily required purpose of pollution prevention and/or control.
Applications deemed ineligible for funding consideration will be notified within fifteen calendar days of the ineligibility determination.
IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
You may submit either a paper application or an electronic application (but not both) for this announcement. Instructions for both types of submission follow in Section E. If not otherwise marked, instructions apply to both types of submissions.
A. Internet Address to Request Application Package
For paper applications, forms and instructions can be found on the NCER web site: https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms.
For electronic applications, use the application package available at Grants.gov (see “Submission Instructions for Electronic Applications” in Section E). Note: With the exception of the budget form and the current and pending support form (available at https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms), all necessary forms are included in the electronic application package.
For both paper and electronic applications, an email will be sent by NCER to the Lead/Contact PI and the Administrative Contact (see below) to acknowledge receipt of the application and transmit other important information. The email will be sent from receipt.application@epa.gov; emails to this address will not be accepted. If you do not receive an email acknowledgment within 30 days of the submission closing date, immediately inform the Eligibility Contact shown in this solicitation. Failure to do so may result in your application not being reviewed. See “Submission Instructions for Electronic Applications” for additional information regarding acknowledgment of receipt of electronically submitted applications. Please note: Due to often-lengthy delays in delivery, it is especially important that you monitor NCER’s confirmation of receipt of your application when using regular mail.
B. Content and Form of Application Submission
The application is made by submitting the materials described below. Applications must contain all information requested and be submitted in the formats described.
- Standard Form 424
The applicant must complete Standard Form 424. This form will be the first page(s) of the application. Instructions for completion of the SF424 are included with the form. (However, note that EPA requires that the entire requested dollar amount appear on the 424, not simply the proposed first year expenses.) The form must contain the original (or electronic) signature of an authorized representative of the applying institution.Applicants are required to provide a “Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System” (DUNS) number when applying for federal grants or cooperative agreements. Organizations may receive a DUNS number by calling 1-866-705-5711 or by visiting the web site at http://www.dnb.com.
Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” does not apply to the Office of Research and Development's research and training programs unless EPA has determined that the activities that will be carried out under the applicants' proposal (a) require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or (b) do not require an EIS but will be newly initiated at a particular site and require unusual measures to limit the possibility of adverse exposure or hazard to the general public, or (c) have a unique geographic focus and are directly relevant to the governmental responsibilities of a State or local government within that geographic area.
If EPA determines that Executive Order 12372 applies to an applicant's proposal, the applicant must follow the procedures in 40 CFR Part 29. The applicant must notify their state's single point of contact (SPOC). To determine whether their state participates in this process, and how to comply, applicants should consult http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html. If an applicant is in a State that does not have a SPOC, or the State has not selected research and development grants for intergovernmental review, the applicant must notify directly affected State, area wide, regional and local entities of its proposal.
EPA will notify the successful applicant(s) if Executive Order 12372 applies to its proposal prior to award.
- Key Contacts
The applicant must complete the “Key Contacts” form as the second page of the application. An “Additional Key Contacts” form is also available at https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms. The Key Contacts form should also be completed for major sub-agreements (i.e., primary investigators). Please make certain that all contact information is accurate.For Multiple PI applications: The Additional Key Contacts form must be completed (see Section I.F. for further information). Note: The Contact PI must be affiliated with the institution submitting the application. EPA will direct all communications related to scientific, technical, and budgetary aspects of the project to the Contact PI; however, any information regarding an application will be shared with any PI upon request. The Contact PI is to be listed on the Key Contact Form as the Project Manager/Principal Investigator (the term Project Manager is used on the Grants.gov form, the term Principal Investigator is used on the form located on NCER’s web site). For additional PIs, complete the Major Co-Investigator fields and identify PI status next to the name (e.g., “Name: John Smith, Principal Investigator”).
- Table of Contents
Provide a list of the major subdivisions of the application indicating the page number on which each section begins. - Abstract (1 page)
The abstract is a very important document in the review process. Therefore, it is critical that the abstract accurately describes the research being proposed and conveys all the essential elements of the research. Also, the abstracts of applications that receive funding will be posted on the NCER web site.The abstract should include the information described below (a-h). Examples of abstracts for current grants may be found on the NCER web site.
- Funding Opportunity Title and Number for this proposal.
- Project Title: Use the exact title of your project as it appears in the application. The title must be brief yet represent the major thrust of the project. Because the title will be used by those not familiar with the project, strike a balance between highly technical words and phrases and more commonly understood terminology. Do not use general phrases such as “research on.”
- Investigators: For applications with multiple investigators, state whether this is a single Lead PI (with co-PIs) or Multiple PI application (see Section I.F.). For Lead PI applications, list the Lead PI, then the name(s) of each co-PI who will significantly contribute to the project. For Multiple PI applications, list the Contact PI, then the name(s) of each additional PI. Provide a web site URL or an email contact address for additional information.
- Institution: In the same order as the list of investigators, list the name, city and state of each participating university or other applicant institution. The institution applying for assistance must be clearly identified.
- Project Period and Location: Show the proposed project beginning and ending dates and the geographical location(s) where the work will be conducted.
- Project Cost: Show the total dollars requested from the EPA (include direct and indirect costs for all years).
- Project Summary: Provide three subsections addressing: (1) the objectives of the study (including any hypotheses that will be tested), (2) the experimental approach to be used (a description of the proposed project), and (3) the expected results of the project and how it addresses the research needs identified in the solicitation, including the estimated improvement in risk assessment or risk management that will result from successful completion of the proposed work.
- Supplemental Keywords: Without duplicating terms already used in the text of the abstract, list keywords to assist database searchers in finding your research. A list of suggested keywords may be found at: https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/funding-opportunities-how-apply-and-required-forms.
- Research Plan, Quality Assurance Statement, Data Plan and References
- Research Plan (15 pages)
Applications should focus on a limited number of research objectives that adequately and clearly demonstrate that they meet the RFA requirements. Explicitly state the main hypotheses that you will investigate, the data you will create or use, the analytical tools you will use to investigate these hypotheses or analyze these data, and the results you expect to achieve. Research methods must be clearly stated so that reviewers can evaluate the appropriateness of your approach and the tools you intend to use. A statement such as: “we will evaluate the data using the usual statistical methods” is not specific enough for peer reviewers.This description must not exceed fifteen (15) consecutively numbered (bottom center), 8.5x11-inch pages of single-spaced, standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins. While these guidelines establish the minimum type size requirements, applicants are advised that readability is of paramount importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate font for use in the proposal.
The description must provide the following information:
- Objectives: List the objectives of the proposed research and the hypotheses being tested during the project, and briefly state why the intended research is important and how it fulfills the requirements of the solicitation. This section should also include any background or introductory information that would help explain the objectives of the study. If this application is to expand upon research supported by an existing or former assistance agreement awarded under the STAR program, indicate the number of the agreement and provide a brief report of progress and results achieved under it.
- Approach/Activities: Outline the research design, methods, and techniques that you intend to use in meeting the objectives stated above.
- Expected Results, Benefits, Outputs, and Outcomes: Describe the results you expect to achieve during the project (outputs) and the potential benefits of the results (outcomes). This section should also discuss how the research results will lead to solutions to environmental problems and improve the public’s ability to protect the environment and human health. A clear, concise description will help NCER and peer reviewers understand the merits of the research.
- General Project Information: Discuss other information relevant to the potential success of the project. This should include facilities, personnel expertise/experience, project schedules, proposed management, interactions with other institutions, etc. Applications for multi-investigator projects must identify project management and the functions of each investigator in each team and describe plans to communicate and share data.
- Appendices may be included but must remain within the 15-page limit.
- Quality Assurance Statement (3 pages)
For projects involving environmental data collection or processing, conducting surveys, modeling, method development, or the development of environmental technology (whether hardware-based or via new techniques), provide a Quality Assurance Statement (QAS) regarding the plans for processes that will be used to ensure that the products of the research satisfy the intended project objectives. Follow the guidelines provided below to ensure that the QAS describes a system that complies with ANSI/ASQC E4, Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs. Do not exceed three consecutively numbered, 8.5x11-inch pages of single-spaced, standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins.NOTE: If selected for award, applicants will be expected to provide additional quality assurance documentation.
Address each applicable section below by including the required information, referencing the specific location of the information in the Research Plan, or explaining why the section does not apply to the proposed research. (Not all will apply.)
- Identify the individual who will be responsible for the quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) aspects of the research along with a brief description of this person’s functions, experience, and authority within the research organization. Describe the organization’s general approach for conducting quality research. (QA is a system of management activities to ensure that a process or item is of the type and quality needed for the project. QC is a system of activities that measures the attributes and performance of a process or item against the standards defined in the project documentation to verify that they meet those stated requirements.)
- Discuss project objectives, including quality objectives, any hypotheses to be tested, and the quantitative and/or qualitative procedures that will be used to evaluate the success of the project. Include any plans for peer or other reviews of the study design or analytical methods.
- Address each of the following project elements as applicable:
- Collection of new/primary data:
(Note: In this case the word “sample” is intended to mean any finite part of a statistical population whose properties are studied to gain information about the whole. If certain attributes listed below do not apply to the type of samples to be used in your research, simply explain why those attributes are not applicable.)- Discuss the plan for sample collection and analysis. As applicable, include sample type(s), frequency, locations, sample sizes, sampling procedures, and the criteria for determining acceptable data quality (e.g., precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, comparability, or data quality objectives).
- Describe the procedures for the handling and custody of samples including sample collection, identification, preservation, transportation, and storage, and how the accuracy of test measurements will be verified.
- Describe or reference each analytical method to be used, any QA or QC checks or procedures with the associated acceptance criteria, and any procedures that will be used in the calibration and performance evaluation of the analytical instrumentation.
- Discuss the procedures for overall data reduction, analysis, and reporting. Include a description of all statistical methods to make inferences and conclusions, acceptable error rates and/or power, and any statistical software to be used.
- Use of existing/secondary data (i.e., data previously collected for other purposes or from other sources):
- Identify the types of secondary data needed to satisfy the project objectives. Specify requirements relating to the type of data, the age of data, geographical representation, temporal representation, and technological representation, as applicable.
- Specify the source(s) of the secondary data and discuss the rationale for selection.
- Establish a plan to identify the sources of the secondary data in all deliverables/products.
- Specify quality requirements and discuss the appropriateness for their intended use. Accuracy, precision, representativeness, completeness, and comparability need to be addressed, if applicable.
- Describe the procedures for determining the quality of the secondary data.
- Describe the plan for data management/integrity.
- Method development:
(Note: The data collected for use in method development or evaluation should be described in the QAS as per the guidance in section 3A and/or 3B above.)Describe the scope and application of the method, any tests (and measurements) to be conducted to support the method development, the type of instrumentation that will be used and any required instrument conditions (e.g., calibration frequency), planned QC checks and associated criteria (e.g., spikes, replicates, blanks), and tests to verify the method’s performance.
- Development or refinement of models:
(Note: The data collected for use in the development or refinement of models should be described in the QAS as per the guidance in section 3A and/or 3B above.)
- Collection of new/primary data:
- Research Plan (15 pages)
The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.