Grantee Research Project Results

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Center for Environmental Research

National Priorities: Transdisciplinary Research into Detecting and Controlling Lead in Drinking Water

CLOSED - FOR REFERENCES PURPOSES ONLY

Recipients List

This is the initial announcement of this funding opportunity.

Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-G2017-ORD-F1

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.511

Solicitation Opening Date: June 27, 2017
Solicitation Closing Date: August 15, 2017, 11:59:59 pm Eastern Time

Technical Contact: Michael Hiscock (hiscock.michael@epa.gov); phone: 202-564-4453
Eligibility Contact: Ron Josephson (josephson.ron@epa.gov); phone: 202-564-7823
Electronic Submissions: Debra M. Jones (jones.debram@epa.gov); phone: 202-564-7839

Table of Contents:
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
	Synopsis of Program
	Award Information
	Eligibility Information
	Application Materials
	Agency Contacts
I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
	A. Introduction
	B. Background
	C. Authority and Regulations
	D. Specific Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes
	E. References
	F. Special Requirements
II. AWARD INFORMATION
III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
	A. Eligible Applicants
	B. Cost Sharing
	C. Other
IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
	A. Grants.gov Submittal Requirements and Limited Exception Procedures
	B. Application Package Information
	C. Content and Form of Application Submission
	D. Submission Dates and Times
	E. Funding Restrictions
	F. Submission Instructions and Other Submission Requirements
V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION
	A. Peer Review
	B. Programmatic Review
	C. Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS) Review
	D. Funding Decisions
	E. Additional Provisions for Applicants Incorporated into the Solicitation
VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
	A. Award Notices
	B. Disputes
	C. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
VII. AGENCY CONTACTS

Access Standard Forms (How to Apply and Required Forms)
View research awarded under previous solicitations (Research Grant Areas)

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Synopsis of Program:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking applications proposing to (1) identify communities that are at a high risk of experiencing the adverse health effects of lead in drinking water; (2) identify opportunities to mitigate these risks; and (3) conduct educational and outreach efforts so that water system managers and the general public are aware of these risks and opportunities.

This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research. Human subjects research supported by the EPA is governed by EPA Regulation 40 CFR Part 26 (Protection of Human Subjects). This includes the Common Rule at subpart A and prohibitions and additional protections for pregnant women and fetuses, nursing women, and children at subparts B, C, and D. Research meeting the regulatory definition of intentional exposure research found in subpart B is prohibited by that subpart in pregnant women, nursing women, and children. Research meeting the regulatory definition of observational research found in subparts C and D is subject to the additional protections found in those subparts for pregnant women and fetuses (subpart C) and children (subpart D). All applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS, as described in Section IV.C.5.c of this solicitation), and if the project involves human subjects research, it will be subject to an additional level of review prior to funding decisions being made as described in Sections V.C and V.D of this solicitation.

Guidance and training for investigators conducting EPA-funded research involving human subjects may be obtained here:
Basic Information about Human Subjects Research
Basic EPA Policy for Protection of Subjects in Human Research Conducted or Supported by EPA

Award Information:
Anticipated Type of Award: Grant or Cooperative Agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: Approximately 2 awards
Anticipated Funding Amount: Approximately $3,963,000 total in federal funds for all awards
Potential Funding per Grant: Up to a total of $1,981,500 in federal funds, including direct and indirect costs, with a maximum duration of 3 years. Each applicant must contribute a minimum 25 percent match that may include in-kind contributions (see Section III.B. for more detail).

Cost-sharing is required. Proposals with budgets including a federal contribution exceeding the total maximum federal award limit of $1,981,500 will not be considered. Each applicant must contribute a minimum 25% non-federal match. The maximum award, based on a 25% non-federal match, is $1,981,500 EPA funds + $495,375 for a total of $2,476,875. Including matching, projects can exceed $2,476,875 (if the applicant proposes more than the minimum required non-federal match), however the federally funded portion of the budget must not exceed $1,981,500. In order to be eligible for funding consideration, applicants must demonstrate in their application how they will meet the required minimum 25% match in accordance with 2 CFR §200.306.

Eligibility Information:
Nonprofit organizations and public and private universities and colleges located in the United States are eligible. Foreign entities, States, including the District of Columbia and State and local government departments, territories, possessions, and Tribal nations of the U.S., are not eligible to apply under this RFA. Profit-making firms are not eligible to receive assistance agreements from EPA under this program. See full announcement for more details.

Application Materials:
To apply under this solicitation, use the application package available at Grants.gov (for further submission information see Section IV.F. “Submission Instructions and other Submission Requirements”). Note: With the exception of the current and pending support form (available at Research Funding Opportunities: How to Apply and Required Forms), all necessary forms are included in the electronic application package. Make sure to include the current and pending support form in your Grants.gov submission.

If your organization is not currently registered with Grants.gov, you need to allow approximately one month to complete the registration process. Please note that the registration process also requires that your organization have a unique entity identifier (formerly ‘DUNS number’) and a current registration with the System for Award Management (SAM) and the process of obtaining both could take a month or more. Applicants must ensure that all registration requirements are met in order to apply for this opportunity through Grants.gov and should ensure that all such requirements have been met well in advance of the submission deadline. This registration, and electronic submission of your application, must be performed by an authorized representative of your organization.

If you do not have the technical capability to utilize the Grants.gov application submission process for this solicitation, see Section IV.A below for additional guidance and instructions.

Agency Contacts:
Technical Contact: Michael Hiscock (hiscock.michael@epa.gov); phone: 202-564-4453
Eligibility Contact: Ron Josephson (josephson.ron@epa.gov); phone: 202-564-7823
Electronic Submissions: Debra M. Jones (jones.debram@epa.gov); phone: 202-564-7839

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Introduction
One of the high-priority research areas identified by the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) is drinking water. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the responsibility for making sure public water systems provide safe drinking water is divided among the EPA, states, tribal nations, and water systems. EPA is issuing this call for research to foster projects to (1) identify communities that are at a high risk of experiencing the adverse health effects of lead in drinking water; (2) identify opportunities to mitigate these risks; and (3) conduct educational and outreach efforts so that water system managers and the general public are aware of these risks and opportunities.

The EPA currently supports a number of drinking water-related research grants resulting from previous solicitations. Information regarding current research can be found on EPA’s Research Grants website.

EPA recognizes that it is important to engage all available minds to address the environmental challenges the nation faces. At the same time, EPA seeks to expand the environmental conversation by including members of communities which may have not previously participated in such dialogues to participate in EPA programs. For this reason, EPA strongly encourages all eligible applicants identified in Section III, including minority serving institutions (MSIs), to apply under this opportunity.

For purposes of this solicitation, the following are considered MSIs:

1. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1061). A list of these schools can be found at White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities;
2. Tribal Colleges and Universities, as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1059(c)). A list of these schools can be found at American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities;
3. Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1101a(a)(5)). There is no list of HSIs. HSIs are institutions of higher education that, at the time of application submittal, have an enrollment of undergraduate full-time equivalent students that is at least 25% Hispanic students at the end of the award year immediately preceding the date of application for this grant; and
4. Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions; (AANAPISIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1059g(a)(2)). There is no list of AANAPISIs. AANAPISIs are institutions of higher education that, at the time of application submittal, have an enrollment of undergraduate students that is not less than 10 % students who are Asian American or Native American Pacific Islander.

B. Background
The events leading to elevated blood lead levels (BLL) among children in Flint, Michigan are well established. In 2014, the city government switched from Detroit’s water source to the Flint River. At the time of the switch in sources, the city discontinued corrosion control and allowed changes in other key water quality parameters to occur that aggravated corrosion within the many lead pipes in the city’s distribution system, triggering increases in water lead levels (WLL) (1).

The events in the Flint, MI area are unique, but there are many other communities across the U.S. facing challenges in effectively managing lead and copper in their drinking water systems. Analysis of data in EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System indicates that in the past four years, 2,000 water systems across all 50 states exceeded regulatory action levels of 15 parts per billion (2). Collectively, these systems supply water to 6 million people; 350 of them provide water to schools or day care centers. The greatest number of water systems exceeding regulatory action levels has been observed in California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire (2).

To better understand lead exposure issues and address lead problems, EPA is issuing this Request for Applications (RFA) to spur innovative research into detecting and controlling lead (Pb) in drinking water. This RFA calls for transdisciplinary research across an entire continuum: from lead’s occurrence in a community’s water supply, treatment and distribution, through the effect of lead on public health.

The following schematic is intended to help interested applicants navigate their way through the various components of this continuum. However, applicants should view these components as an integrated whole, rather than distinct topics to be considered in a linear manner. Anticipating and avoiding Pb’s adverse health effects is challenging because Pb’s transport and fate—when flowing through a community’s water system and when consumed by that community—can proceed along multiple pathways, depending on numerous factors.

Health effects

To appreciate the importance of this research, consider Pb’s health effects, which have been widely studied for many years. Pb exposure has been linked to anemia, renal dysfunction, impaired hearing and post-natal growth, and neurotoxic effects. Pooled cohort studies have linked intellectual deficit among young children to BLL, with no apparent threshold (3). The most common risk of harm among children is impairment of neurodevelopment, with measurable effects on cognitive and behavioral outcomes. The best-established measure of neurologic deficit associated with early lead exposure is reduced cognitive performance as measured on standardized tests of general intellectual ability, or IQ. Differences in IQ associated with low to-moderate levels of lead exposure are generally small and difficult to detect. However, when aggregated across millions of individuals, even small differences in IQ have a major impact.

Cognitive ability affects school performance, educational attainment, and success in the labor market. It is therefore positively associated with earnings. In a widely cited paper, Grosse et al. estimated that the discounted earnings of a two-year old impaired by elevated blood levels was $723,300 in 2000 dollars (4). Based on this work, another researcher estimated that this amounted to $19 billion to $21.5 billion in lost earnings nationally (5).

Exposure and vulnerability

BLL is the primary biomarker used to monitor exposure to Pb (6). Since the ban on leaded gasoline, residential sources—such as dust, paint and Pb from tap water—have been the biggest source of BLL for children in developed countries (7). Pb in drinking water has been estimated to account for 20% or more of total lead exposure nationally (7). Isolated cases reported in North Carolina, Maine, and DC, have demonstrated that lead in drinking water can be a major contributor to BLL (8).

However, exposure from drinking water is only one contributor to health risk from lead exposure. A community may be exposed to Pb in drinking water, but overall health effects from Pb will also depend on Pb exposure from other sources such as soil and lead-based paint. This wide variability in people’s exposure and vulnerability to Pb is a major obstacle (1) to researchers’ understanding of the relationship among WLL, BLL and public health; and (2) to society’s ability to anticipate threats from WLL.

Variability in exposure and vulnerability to actual Pb

Infrastructure differences and water consumption patterns significantly influence WLL across different water systems and even across different households within the same system. Throughout the entire distribution system, WLL vary with chemical and biological changes caused by differences in water line conditions, in water use patterns, and in treatment methods (9).

Socio-demographic factors also seem to influence exposure to elevated WLL. In Flint, for example, higher BLL were observed in children who suffered poor nutrition and who lived in older housing stock in neighborhoods with high poverty and vacancy rates (1). Moreover, studies have indicated that Pb concentration in tap-water varies with water temperature. Ngueta et al. have observed marked differences between summer and winter WLL, suggesting that WLL is subject to weather variability (10). The influence of temperature on WLL becomes more pronounced in the presence of natural organic matter (11).

In addition to the different ways in which they are exposed to Pb, people respond variously to the chemical depending on their age (children absorb 40-50% of an oral dose of water-soluble lead, versus 3-10% for adults (12)), diet, and genetic predisposition (8).

A cohort that appears to be at greatest risk are infants who rely on reconstituted formula because they are the most vulnerable to Pb in drinking water. Among infants drinking formula made from tap water at 10 ppb Pb, about 25% show a BLL above the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reference level of 5 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL) (1). A known abortifacient, lead has also been implicated in increased fetal deaths and reduced birth weights (1).

Observation error in measuring Pb

Given the numerous factors driving WLL variability, obtaining representative water samples to characterize cumulative Pb exposure is a challenge. Several researchers suggest that existing sampling and analytical protocols can miss a high percentage of total Pb in a household’s tap water. It has been shown that a single sample during an environmental assessment can show that water is below the lead action level when other samples collected from the same tap at other times can indicate concentrations far above the lead action level (9).

One sampling artifact that can affect Pb measurement is flow rate. Some studies suggest that higher flow rates can detach lead or copper particles from premise plumbing; other studies suggest that this detachment of particles occurs randomly. This is significant because even as corrosion control has focused on reducing soluble Pb, studies indicate that Pb in many distribution systems exists in particulate form. These particles have been shown to dissolve in gastric acid, thereby making them bioavailable. Therefore, sampling protocols that miss lead particles that have been released in the distribution system may lead to an underestimation of actual health risks posed by WLL (9).

Sources of lead in drinking water

Unlike most drinking water contaminants, lead is rarely found in the source water used for public water supplies. Instead, lead enters tap water as a result of the corrosion that takes place over time when materials containing lead in the water distribution system or household plumbing come into contact with water. For example, lead can leach out of service lines, pipes, brass and bronze fixtures, solders, or other lead materials, and contaminate drinking water.

This is especially true for older plumbing systems that were installed before lead free plumbing was required in 1986 (17). To glean the potential scale of the risk of Pb in drinking water, consider that an estimated 22% of the pipes in the United States are more than 50 years old; the average age of pipe at failure is 47 years, and only 43% of pipes are considered to be in good or excellent condition (13).

For water systems using groundwater (e.g. springs and wells), the source water can significantly affect the presence of Pb in drinking water. The chemical quality of drinking water sourced from groundwater is known to vary spatially as a result of: variations in aquifer geology and chemistry; treatment works method(s); and reaction between the water and distribution and/or plumbing systems. Spatial differences in groundwater chemistry vary over a scale determined by factors including the aquifer extent and heterogeneity, groundwater flow paths and residence times, and the intensity of external inputs, such as anthropogenic contaminants (14). Source water quality can also be an issue for private wells using groundwater. Approximately 15% of U.S. households, serving more than 47 million residents, rely on private wells (15). A recent survey of over 2000 private wells in Virginia indicated that only 5% of systems had installed acid neutralizers that adjusted water chemistry to control lead release and 3% had reserve osmosis units that removed lead through membranes, despite the fact that source water (e.g., groundwater) can be extremely corrosive toward metals (15).

Whether a water system is public or private, water treatment and disinfection practices can undermine Pb corrosion control. For example, to rid its waters of coliform bacteria, the District of Columbia (DC) in the 1990s applied high levels of chlorine, altering the structure of Pb minerals coating its water lines. This altered structure increased the solubility of Pb at the pH levels of DC’s drinking water (16). Moreover, in DC during the 2000s and in North Carolina, using chloramines for disinfection was correlated with higher WLL and BLL (16).

The specific Strategic Goal and Objective from the EPA’s Strategic Plan that relate to this solicitation are:

Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters, Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health

The EPA’s FY 2014-18 Strategic Plan can be found at: EPA Strategic Plan

C. Authority and Regulations
The authority for this RFA and resulting awards is contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j-1, Section 1442 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, P.L. 115-31.

For research with an international aspect, the above statutes are supplemented, as appropriate, by the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 102(2)(F).

Note that a project’s focus is to consist of activities within the statutory terms of EPA’s financial assistance authorities; specifically, the statute(s) listed 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 above. Further note applications dealing with any aspect of or related to hydraulic fracking will not be funded by EPA through this program.

Additional applicable regulations include: 2 CFR Part 200, 2 CFR Part 1500, and 40 CFR Part 40 (Research and Demonstration Grants).

D. Specific Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes
Note to applicant: The term “output” means an environmental activity, effort, and/or associated work products related to an environmental goal or objective, that will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. The term “outcome” means the result, effect or consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or objective.

EPA is interested in proposals that incorporate all of the following research needs. Note that the research should be national in scope; it should also focus on water quality (by looking at the impact of lead in drinking water) and water quantity (to the extent that improving water quality increases the amount of safe drinking water available to the public).

• Develop sampling protocols, collect data and develop computational models to identify communities that are at a high risk of experiencing the adverse health effects of lead in drinking water.
  • Projects should generate, collect, and manage data to help identify all U.S. communities that are at a high risk of experiencing the adverse health effects of lead in drinking water. These data should be national in scope and gathered from monitors and publicly available data.
  • Data should be based on sampling protocols that are adequate to capture the variability affecting the exposure and vulnerability of communities to lead in drinking water. The sampling protocols should consider, but do not need to be restricted to, EPA’s prescribed procedures as to sample site location, collection method and as otherwise codified in 40 CFR Part 141. If the grantee recommends a different set of protocols because it will provide a better estimate of lead levels in drinking water, the grantee should explain his or her basis for recommending a different set of protocols. Also, attention should be paid to the fact that different forms of lead may require different sampling procedures (e.g. particulate versus dissolved forms of lead). Sampling should provide an improved understanding of real exposure to Pb from a variety of water qualities (e.g. pH, alkalinities, systems with treatment already in place) and settings (e.g. single family residences, apartment buildings, etc.)
  • These data should be used to develop models that allow any community to identify areas in the distribution system and premise plumbing with high Pb concentrations, test scenarios that might lead to Pb release (e.g. change in disinfection methods), and identify high priority areas for mitigating lead release through pipe replacement. The model(s) should incorporate and account for community-specific variability in factors influencing the exposure and vulnerability of communities to lead in drinking water conveyed through distribution systems and premise plumbing. This research should account for variety in household water use and for attributes of at-risk populations (e.g. infants, pregnant women) and should account for water consumption outside homes (e.g. schools, food service establishments, workplaces). The research should also include national-scale data and analysis of current and state-of-the-art corrosion control strategies utilized by drinking water treatment plants in the U.S.
  • Data should be maintained in open, machine-readable format such as XML. They should be described by metadata so that any secondary user will understand the data sources, consistent with the best practices articulated by EPA’s data quality guidelines (see Guidance for Data Quality Assessment (PDF) (219 pp, 1.22 MB)). These data should be as comprehensive as possible including data from community water systems, non-transient non-community water systems (e.g. schools, factories, hospitals), transient non-community water systems (e.g. gas stations, campgrounds), and private wells/systems.
  • Models should be non-proprietary, open-source, and accessible in a programming language, such as Python, C++, or R. Adaptation of existing models may also be included.
  • Because projects should be national in scope, analytical techniques should be used so that data and models can be scaled up to the national level and scaled down to local levels.
• Identify opportunities to mitigate risks. Projects should identify opportunities to intervene in communities that are at a high risk of experiencing the adverse effects of lead in drinking water. When identifying these intervention opportunities, the research should describe the economic feasibility of interventions, including the cost of intervention as well as communities’ willingness to pay for such interventions. The research should also evaluate the costs versus the benefits of interventions, including the benefits associated with risks avoided. As part of the cost/benefit analyses, the research should also include an evaluation of how costs/benefits of remediation of drinking water sources compare against mitigation of risks during treatment and post-treatment. Interventions can include (but are not limited to): infrastructure replacement (including both lead or galvanized service line replacement and replacement of leaded or galvanized premise plumbing materials), improved corrosion control, and point-of-use/point-of-entry (POU/POE) treatment.
• Conduct educational and outreach efforts on risk factors and opportunities to mitigate those risks.
  • The project should foster interaction among researchers, technology developers, end-users, and other stakeholders. It should provide education, training and technical assistance to the general public and should encourage collaboration with local, regional (multi-state), and national organizations that are seeking to improve water infrastructure and to enhance public health.
  • These outreach and educational efforts should be mediated by social media tools in order to maximize access from and engagement with the general public.

The research performed under this RFA should be conducted across multiple disciplines, investigating the engineering aspects that generate lead in drinking water (e.g. the contributions of water supplies, treatment, distribution systems, and household plumbing). The research should also investigate socio-economic factors, to the extent that they influence the exposure and vulnerability to lead in drinking water. The research should integrate multiple disciplines, investigating how engineering and technological choices might be influenced by socio-economic factors, thereby leading to variability across communities, in terms of exposure and vulnerability to lead in drinking water. The research should also investigate how these factors influence public health, with a focus on identifying vulnerable cohorts and communities.

Proposals which do not address all of the research needs above and are not national in scope may not be rated as highly under the evaluation process described in Section V.

In addition to the research areas listed above, EPA encourages:

• research to estimate the risks of lead in drinking water from private water systems and wells;
• research to estimate risks from lead in drinking water in consecutive systems (i.e. buildings or systems that re-treat municipal drinking water on-site);
• and, research establishing partnerships and collaborations with communities that are most vulnerable and most exposed to lead in drinking water.

Expected outputs of the awards under this RFA include collections of data and analytical models that help communities predict, identify, and remediate the risks associated with lead in drinking water. Expected outcomes include improved understanding of data sampling protocols and of the factors influencing how different communities are exposed to and are vulnerable to lead in drinking water.

To the extent practicable, research proposals must embody innovation and sustainability. Innovation for the purposes of this RFA is defined as the process of making changes; a new method, custom or device. Innovative research can take the form of wholly new applications or applications that build on existing knowledge and approaches for new uses. Research proposals must include a discussion on how the proposed research is innovative (see Section IV.C.5.a). The goal of sustainability, derived from the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), is to, “create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.” Research proposals must include a discussion on how the proposed research will seek sustainable solutions that protect the environment and strengthen our communities (see Section IV.C.5.a). ORD will draw from all of the above-mentioned innovation and sustainability definitions in the review/evaluation process of recommending research proposals (see Section V.A).

E. References
[Journals]

1. M. Hanna-Attisha, J. LaChance, R. C. Sadler, A. Champney Schnepp, Elevated blood lead levels in children associated with the Flint drinking water crisis: a spatial analysis of risk and public health response. American journal of public health, e1-e8 (2016).
2. EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System Federal Reporting Services.
3. G. Ngueta, B. Abdous, R. Tardif, J. St-Laurent, P. Levallois, Use of a cumulative exposure index to estimate the impact of tap-water lead concentration on blood lead levels in 1-to 5-year-old children (Montreal, Canada). Environ Health Perspect, (2015).
4. S. D. Grosse, T. D. Matte, J. Schwartz, R. J. Jackson, Economic gains resulting from the reduction in children's exposure to lead in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives 110, 563 (2002).
5. E. Gould, Children’s lead poisoning and asthma. Econ Policy Inst Working Paper 9, (2005).
6. L. M. Pfadenhauer, J. Burns, A. Rohwer, E. A. Rehfuess, Effectiveness of interventions to reduce exposure to lead through consumer products and drinking water: A systematic review. Environmental Research 147, 525-536 (2016).
7. A. Etchevers et al., Environmental determinants of different blood lead levels in children: A quantile analysis from a nationwide survey. Environment international 74, 152-159 (2015).
8. S. Triantafyllidou, M. Edwards, Lead (Pb) in tap water and in blood: implications for lead exposure in the United States. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 42, 1297-1352 (2012).
9. S. Masters, J. Parks, A. Atassi, M. A. Edwards, Inherent variability in lead and copper collected during standardized sampling. Environmental monitoring and assessment 188, 1-15 (2016).
10. Ngueta et al (2015).
11. S. Masters, G. J. Welter, M. A. Edwards, Seasonal Variations in Lead Release to Potable Water. Environmental Science & Technology, (2016).
12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, August 2007. Toxicological Profile for Lead.
13. F. Rosario-Ortiz, J. Rose, V. Speight, U. Von Gunten, J. Schnoor, How do you like your tap water? Science 351, 912-914 (2016).
14. E. Ander et al., Variability in the chemistry of private drinking water supplies and the impact of domestic treatment systems on water quality. Environmental geochemistry and health, 1-20 (2016).
15. K. J. Pieper, L.-A. Krometis, D. Gallagher, B. Benham, M. Edwards, Profiling Private Water Systems to Identify Patterns of Waterborne Lead Exposure. Environmental science & technology 49, 12697-12704 (2015).
16. M. J. Brown, S. Margolis, Lead in drinking water and human blood lead levels in the United States. (US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012).
17. 42 U.S.C. sec. 300g-6, Prohibition on use of lead pipes, solder, and flux.

F. Special Requirements

Agency policy and ethical considerations prevent EPA technical staff and managers from providing 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. EPA employees cannot endorse any particular application.

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 (RBM Toolkit - Research Business Models Working Group).

This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research. All applications must include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS; described in Section IV.C.5.c of this solicitation). If the project involves human subjects research, it will be subject to an additional level of review prior to funding decisions being made as described in Sections V.C and V.D of this solicitation.

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 subawardees of the recipient.

The application should include a plan (see “Data Plan” in section IV.C.5.d) to make available to the NCER project officer all data generated (produced under the award) from observations, analyses, or model development 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.

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.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

It is anticipated that a total of approximately $3,963,000 in federal funds will be awarded under this announcement, depending on the availability of funds, quality of applications received, and other applicable considerations. The EPA anticipates funding approximately 2 awards under this RFA. Requests for amounts in excess of a total of $1,981,500 in federal funds, including direct and indirect costs, will not be considered. In addition, a minimum 25% non-federal match, which may include in-kind contributions (see Section III.B. for more details) equal to a minimum of $495,375 (assuming the applicant requests $1,981,500 in EPA funds) must be included. Applications which do not demonstrate how the minimum 25% non-federal match will be met 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.

In appropriate circumstances, EPA reserves the right to partially fund proposals/applications by funding discrete portions or phases of proposed projects. If EPA decides to partially fund a proposal/application, it will do so in a manner that does not prejudice any applicants or affect the basis upon which the proposal/application, or portion thereof, was evaluated and selected for award, and therefore maintains the integrity of the competition and selection process.

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 EPA 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.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Applicants
This solicitation is available to nonprofit organizations and public and private universities and colleges located in the United States. Foreign entities, States, including the District of Columbia and State and local government departments, territories, possessions, and Tribal nations of the U.S., are not eligible to apply under this RFA. Profit-making firms are not eligible to receive assistance agreements from the EPA under this program.

Non-profit organization, as defined by 2 CFR Part 200, means any corporation, trust, association, cooperative or other organization that: (1) is operated primarily for scientific, educational, service, charitable or similar purposes in the public interest; (2) is not organized primarily for profit; and (3) uses its net proceeds to maintain, improve and/or expand its operations. While not considered to be a “non-profit organization(s)” as defined by 2 CFR Part 200, Institutions of Higher Education are, nevertheless, eligible to submit applications under this RFA. Hospitals that meet the definition of nonprofit at 2 CFR 200.70 are also eligible to apply. For-profit colleges, universities, trade schools, and hospitals are ineligible. 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 to the extent authorized by law. Examples are purchase of satellite data, 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 Ron Josephson (josephson.ron@epa.gov) in NCER, phone: 202-564-7823.

B. Cost sharing
Each applicant must contribute a minimum 25% non-federal cost share/match which may include in-kind contributions. In order to be eligible for funding consideration, applicants must demonstrate in their application how they will meet the required minimum 25% match in accordance with 2 CFR §200.306.

The cost share/match may be provided in cash or can come from in-kind contributions, such as the use of volunteers and/or donated time, equipment, etc., subject to the regulations governing matching fund requirements at 2 CFR §200.306. Cost share/matching funds are considered grant funds and are included in the total award amount.

All contributions, including cash and third party in-kind, shall be accepted as cost sharing or matching when such contributions meet all of the following criteria: (1) Are verifiable from the non-Federal entity's records; (2) Are not included as contributions for any other Federal award; (3) Are necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of project or program objectives; (4) Are allowable under Subpart E—Cost Principles of 2 CFR Part 200; (5) Are not paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award, except where the Federal statute authorizing a program specifically provides that Federal funds made available for such program can be applied to matching or cost sharing requirements of other Federal programs; (6) Are provided for in the approved budget when required by the Federal awarding agency; and (7) Conform to other provisions of 2 CFR Part 200, as applicable.

Any restrictions on the use of grant funds (examples of funding restrictions are described in Section IV.E of this announcement) also apply to the use of cost share/matching funds.

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. In addition, applications must be submitted through Grants.gov as stated in Section IV of this announcement (except in the limited circumstances where another mode of submission is specifically allowed for as explained in Section IV) on or before the application submission deadline published in Section IV of this announcement. Applicants are responsible for following the submission instructions in Section IV of this announcement (see Section IV.F. “Submission Instructions and Other Submission Requirements” for further information) to ensure that their application is timely submitted. Applications submitted after the submission deadline will be considered late and deemed ineligible without further consideration unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate that it was late due to EPA mishandling or because of technical problems associated with Grants.gov or relevant SAM.gov system issues. An applicant’s failure to timely submit their application through Grants.gov because they did not timely or properly register in SAM.gov or Grants.gov will not be considered an acceptable reason to consider a late submission.

Also, applications exceeding the funding limits or project period term described herein will be rejected without review. Applications which do not provide the required non-federal cost share/match will be deemed ineligible. 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.

Applications deemed ineligible for funding consideration will be notified within fifteen calendar days of the ineligibility determination.

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Additional provisions that apply to this solicitation and/or awards made under this solicitation, including but not limited to those related to confidential business information, contracts and sub-awards under grants, and proposal assistance and communications, can be found at EPA Solicitation Clauses.

These, and the other provisions that can be found at the website link, are important, and applicants must review them when preparing applications for this solicitation.  If you are unable to access these provisions electronically at the website above, please communicate with the EPA contact listed in this solicitation to obtain the provisions.

Formal instructions for submission through Grants.gov are in Section F.

A. Grants.gov Submittal Requirements and Limited Exception Procedures
Applicants, except as noted below, must apply electronically through Grants.gov under this funding opportunity based on the Grants.gov instructions in this announcement. If an applicant does not have the technical capability to apply electronically through Grants.gov because of limited or no internet access which prevents them from being able to upload the required application materials to Grants.gov, the applicant must contact OGDWaivers@epa.gov or the address listed below in writing (e.g., by hard copy, email) at least 15 calendar days prior to the submission deadline under this announcement to request approval to submit their application materials through an alternate method.

Mailing Address:
OGD Waivers
c/o Barbara Perkins
USEPA Headquarters
William Jefferson Clinton Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W.
Mail Code: 3903R
Washington, DC 20460

Courier Address:
OGD Waivers
c/o Barbara Perkins
Ronald Reagan Building
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Rm # 51267
Washington, DC 20004

In the request, the applicant must include the following information:
Funding Opportunity Number (FON)
Organization Name and DUNS
Organization’s Contact Information (email address and phone number)
Explanation of how they lack the technical capability to apply electronically through Grants.gov because of: 1) limited internet access or 2) no internet access which prevents them from being able to upload the required application materials through Grants.gov.

EPA will only consider alternate submission exception requests based on the two reasons stated above and will timely respond to the request -- all other requests will be denied. If an alternate submission method is approved, the applicant will receive documentation of this approval and further instructions on how to apply under this announcement. Applicants will be required to submit the documentation of approval with any initial application submitted under the alternative method. In addition, any submittal through an alternative method must comply with all applicable requirements and deadlines in the announcement including the submission deadline and requirements regarding proposal content and page limits (although the documentation of approval of an alternate submission method will not count against any page limits).

If an exception is granted, it is valid for submissions to EPA for the remainder of the entire calendar year in which the exception was approved and can be used to justify alternative submission methods for application submissions made through December 31 of the calendar year in which the exception was approved (e.g., if the exception was approved on March 1, 2016, it is valid for any competitive or non-competitive application submission to EPA through December 31, 2016). Applicants need only request an exception once in a calendar year and all exceptions will expire on December 31 of that calendar year. Applicants must request a new exception from required electronic submission through Grants.gov for submissions for any succeeding calendar year. For example, if there is a competitive opportunity issued on December 1, 2016 with a submission deadline of January 15, 2017, the applicant would need a new exception to submit through alternative methods beginning January 1, 2017.

Please note that the process described in this section is only for requesting alternate submission methods. All other inquiries about this announcement must be directed to the Agency Contact listed in Section VII of the announcement. Queries or requests submitted to the email address identified above for any reason other than to request an alternate submission method will not be acknowledged or answered.

B. Application Package Information
Use the application package available at Grants.gov (see Section IV.F. “Submission Instructions and Other Submission Requirements”). Note: With the exception of the current and pending support form (available at How to Apply and Required Forms), all necessary forms are included in the electronic application package. Make sure to include the current and pending support form in your Grants.gov submission.

An email will be sent by NCER to the Lead/Contact PIand 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 acknowledgement within 10 calendar days of the submission closing date, immediately inform the Electronic Submissions Contact shown in this solicitation. Failure to do so may result in your application not being reviewed. See Section IV.F. “Submission Instructions and Other Submission Requirements” for additional information regarding the application receipt acknowledgment.

C. 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Standard Form 424

   The applicant must complete Standard Form 424. 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 SF424, not simply the proposed first year expenses.) Note that a minimum 25% non-federal cost share/match must be included. The form must contain the signature of an authorized representative of the applying organization.

   Applicants are required to provide a unique entity identifier (formerly ‘DUNS number’) when applying for federal grants or cooperative agreements. Organizations may receive a unique entity identifier, at no cost, by calling the dedicated toll-free request line at 1-866-705-5711, or visiting the website at: Dun & Bradstreet Exit.

   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 Intergovernmental Review (SPOC List).  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.

2. Key Contacts

   The applicant must complete the “Key Contacts” form found in the Grants.gov application package. An “Additional Key Contacts” form is also available at How to Apply and Required Forms. The Key Contacts form should also be completed for major sub-agreements (i.e., primary investigators). Do not include information for consultants or other contractors. 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 at How to Apply and Required Forms). For additional PIs, complete the Major Co-Investigator fields and identify PI status next to the name (e.g., “Name: John Smith, Principal Investigator”).

3. Table of Contents

   Provide a list of the major subdivisions of the application indicating the page number on which each section begins.

4. 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 EPA’s Research Grants website.

   The abstract should include the information described below (a-h). Examples of abstracts for current grants may be found on EPA’s Research Grants website.

   1. Funding Opportunity Title and Number for this proposal.
   2. 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, use more commonly understood terminology. Do not use general phrases such as “research on.”
   3. 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 appli