EPA-G2024-ORD-E1 - FINAL.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science Advisor, Policy and Engagement Office of Research and Development

National Priorities: Occurrence and Implications of De Facto Water Reuse on Drinking Water Supplies

This is the initial announcement of this funding opportunity.

Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-G2024-ORD-E1

Assistance Listing Number: 66.511

Solicitation Opening Date: June 27, 2024 Solicitation Closing Date: August 21, 2024: 11:59:59 pm Eastern Time

Table of Contents

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Introduction

B. Background, Goals, and Objectives C. Authority and Regulations D. EPA Strategic Plan Linkage/Expected Outputs and Outcomes E. Specific Research Areas of Interest F. References G. Special Requirements H. Additional Provisions for Applicants Incorporated into the Solicitation

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. Relevancy Review

C. Past Performance History Review D. Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS) Review E. Scientific Data Management Plan (SDMP) Review F. Quality Assurance Statement (QAS) Review G. Funding Decisions

VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Award Notices B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

VII. AGENCY CONTACTS

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

For Updates and Additional Information see EPA Research Funding Opportunities.

View research awarded under previous solicitations at EPA Research Grant Areas.

A. Introduction

Throughout the nation, drinking water supplies of many communities are directly influenced by the presence of treated municipal wastewater through the process of “de facto water reuse.” De facto water reuse occurs when a drinking water supply contains a significant fraction of wastewater effluent, typically from upstream wastewater discharges [1]. This contrasts with planned potable reuse where highly treated wastewater is purposefully used to supplement drinking water supplies. Understanding the risks from this form of unplanned water reuse is important to ensure clean and safe drinking water. De facto reuse is a common occurrence across the U.S. and other countries, but there is relatively little known about the impacts and potential risks. Additional research is needed to better understand the impact of de facto reuse nationwide, including potential human health risks and the interventions needed to mitigate those risks. This National Priorities funding opportunity solicits innovative research to address the knowledge gaps on the impact, risk, and mitigation of de facto reuse in drinking water sources across the United States.

The Office of Research and Development’s (ORD) Consolidated Research/Training/Fellowships program supports research and development to: (1) determine the environmental effects of air quality, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides; (2) identify, develop, and demonstrate effective pollution control techniques; (3) perform risk assessments to characterize the potential adverse health effects of human exposures to environmental hazards; and (4) facilitate training and program participant support in these areas.

Awards made under this program further EPA’s priorities supporting robust science for air quality, safe and sustainable water resources, sustainable and healthy communities, chemical safety, and human health risk assessment. The national priorities competition under this program supports high-priority water quality and availability research.

The EPA anticipates funding approximately 4 awards under this funding opportunity up to $2,375,000 in federal funds per award. A minimum 25% non-federal cost share/match of the https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-funding-opportunities https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-grant-areas federal funds awarded, which may include in-kind contributions is required. See Section III.B.

for more details.

EPA recognizes that it is important to engage all available minds to address the environmental challenges facing the Nation. 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(2)). A list of these schools can be found at Historically Black Colleges and Universities;

2. Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1059c(b)(3) and (d)(1)). A list of these schools can be found at Tribal College or University;

3. Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1101a(a)(5)). A list of these schools can be found at Hispanic-Serving Institutions;

4. Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions; (AANAPISIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1059g(b)(2)). A list of these schools can be found at Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions;

5. Predominately Black Institutions (PBIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C.

1059e(b)(6)). A list of these schools can be found at Predominately Black Institutions;

6. Native American-Serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C § 1059f(b)(2)). A list of these schools can be found at Native American-Serving Non-Tribal Institutions; and

7. Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (AANHs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C § 1059d(b)(2) and (b)(4)). A list of these schools can be found at Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions.

B. Background, Goals, and Objectives

The unplanned contribution of treated municipal wastewater to downstream water supplies is a common occurrence across the country. In some instances, wastewater can represent a significant portion of the total flow in receiving waters, with population growth, urbanization, and drought further increasing the contribution of wastewater to receiving waters. The National Academy of https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/institutions?qp%5B0%5D=categories__name&qo%5B0%5D=is&qv%5B0%5D=Historically%20Black%20Colleges%20and%20Universities https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/institutions?qp%5B0%5D=categories__name&qo%5B0%5D=is&qv%5B0%5D=Historically%20Black%20Colleges%20and%20Universities https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/institutions?qp%5B0%5D=categories__name&qo%5B0%5D=is&qv%5B0%5D=Tribal%20College%20or%20University https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/institutions?qp%5B0%5D=categories__name&qo%5B0%5D=is&qv%5B0%5D=Hispanic-Serving%20Institution https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/institutions?qp%5B0%5D=categories__name&qo%5B0%5D=is&qv%5B0%5D=Asian%20American%20and%20Native%20American%20Pacific%20Islander%20Serving%20Institutions https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/institutions?qp%5B0%5D=categories__name&qo%5B0%5D=is&qv%5B0%5D=Predominantly%20Black%20Institutions https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/institutions?qp%5B0%5D=categories__name&qo%5B0%5D=is&qv%5B0%5D=Native%20American-Serving%20Non-Tribal%20Institutions https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/institutions?qp%5B0%5D=categories__name&qo%5B0%5D=is&qv%5B0%5D=Native%20American-Serving%20Non-Tribal%20Institutions https://msiexchange.nasa.gov/institutions?qp%5B0%5D=categories__name&qo%5B0%5D=is&qv%5B0%5D=Alaska%20Native%20and%20Native%20Hawaiian

Engineering identified the quantification of de facto reuse as a priority research need for water reuse [1]. Efforts to quantify the occurrence and potential health impacts have recently been made as water utilities have increasingly adopted a One Water framework. This framework is an integrated, holistic approach to managing all water—drinking water, wastewater and stormwater—as a single resource.

In 1980, the U.S. EPA published a study “Wastewater in Receiving Waters at Water Supply Abstraction Points”, which is one of the earliest research efforts on the occurrence of de facto reuse [2]. The study calculated the percentage of cumulated upstream wastewater discharge flow to supply flow for 1,246 municipal water supply utilities that serve populations greater than 25,000. Utilities with the highest levels of de facto reuse were found to source their drinking water supplies from small- to medium-sized streams and rivers. Since 1980, social and environmental factors, such as population growth and streamflow conditions, have increased the level of de facto reuse. More recent research has explored the spatial and temporal variations of de facto reuse across the country using the GIS (Geographic Information System Mapping) DRINCS (De facto Reuse Incidence in our Nations Consumable Supply) model [3, 4]. This model was further validated with source water data on 247 chemicals and microbial analytes from 26 drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) across the U.S [5]. The study found that de facto reuse frequently occurs across the country, as shown through hydrologic modeling for DWTPs serving greater than 10,000 people [4]. Rice and Westerhoff (2015) concluded that 114 DWTPs are drawing from source waters that contain at least 5% wastewater at mean flow, 16 of which are drawing from source waters containing at least 20% wastewater at mean flow.

Impacts from climate change have the potential to increase the contribution of wastewater discharges to drinking water. Drought conditions can reduce natural streamflow and water supply sources have the potential to become effluent-dominated, especially in drought-prone regions and in smaller streams more susceptible to flow variations [4]. In addition, flooding can lead to increased microbial and chemical loading to surface waters and communities with combined sewer systems may face combined sewer overflows (CSOs) when the combined stormwater and wastewater flow overwhelm the system during wet weather [6]. Wastewater infrastructure is particularly at risk for coastal flooding and sea level rise [7].

There are many knowledge gaps regarding the impact of effluent on downstream DWTPs and the potential human health risk. The health risk of drinking water is defined by an unsafe level of contaminants—chemical or microbial—that may cause health effects, such as gastrointestinal illnesses, nervous system or reproductive effects, and chronic diseases such as cancer [8]. The microbial risk of de facto reuse has been evaluated when comparing the risks of planned reuse scenarios to a baseline condition. Several quantitative microbial risk assessments (QMRA) have predicted risks above 1 infection per 10,000 people per year due to de facto reuse [9, 10, 11, 12].

As little as 1% wastewater effluent in source water has the potential to substantially elevate drinking water risks [9].

In addition to microbial contaminants, de facto reuse has been shown to contribute to wastewater-derived chemicals in both drinking water sources and treated drinking water [13].

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), disinfection by-product (DBP) precursors, and pharmaceuticals have been detected in downstream drinking water uptakes, however the chemicals associated with wastewater discharge may extend beyond those mentioned here. PFAS are largely resistant to conventional wastewater treatment processes and are stable in the environment, with de facto reuse as a potentially widespread source of PFAS to downstream DWTPs [14]. The impact of DBP precursors on surface water quality and downstream DWTPs has increasingly been studied [15, 16]. Wastewater effluent, high in dissolved organic nitrogen, can act as a precursor for a range of DBPs [16, 17]. Further, wastewater effluent is a primary source of contaminants of emerging concern, including pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), in the environment [18, 19, 20]. Due to DBPs and anthropogenic contaminants, drinking water derived from surface water has been found to be more cytotoxic than groundwater or advanced treated water in potable reuse facilities [21].

Natural processes have the potential to reduce the contaminant load of wastewater effluent. For example, retention in the environment can improve water quality through pathogen inactivation, contaminant dilution and biodegradation [10, 11, 22]. Water utilities have augmented these processes by implementing constructed wetlands, such as the Las Vegas Wash and the Southern California Prado Wetlands, to improve water quality [23, 24]. As wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and DWTPs implement advanced treatment systems to mitigate regulated contaminant limits, such as nutrients, DBPs, and PFAS, these treatment steps may also reduce the levels of harmful pollutants in wastewater effluent. Extensive research to develop and regulate planned reuse projects has demonstrated the treatment processes and environmental buffers necessary to produce water suitable for non-potable and potable uses. Nitrification at WWTPs has also been studied to reduce the N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) formation at downstream DWTPs in high de facto reuse areas [25]. In addition, indirect use of surface water via induced bank filtration and aquifer recharge may further reduce the impact of de facto reuse during drinking water abstraction [26].

Although de facto reuse impacts many communities across the country, its occurrence and impact has not been fully examined. As described in this section, research in the past decade has made strides to better understand the temporal and spatial variation of de facto reuse, the potential implications to water quality, and treatment strategies needed to meet water quality standards. This solicitation seeks to address the knowledge gaps associated with the extent and variability of water quality impacted by wastewater effluent, the potential associations between the levels of de facto reuse and human health risks, and the interventions needed to mitigate the impacts of de facto reuse.

C. Authority and Regulations

The authorities for this funding opportunity and resulting awards are contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j-1, Section 1442, the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1254, Section 104(b)(3), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-42.

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

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.

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

D. EPA Strategic Plan Linkage/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.

The activities to be funded under this solicitation support EPA’s FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan.

Awards made under this solicitation will support Goal 5: Ensure Clean and Safe Water for All Communities, Objective 5.1: Ensure Safe Drinking Water and Reliable Water Infrastructure and Objective 5.2: Protect and Restore Waterbodies and Watersheds, of the Plan.

All applications should be for projects that support the goal(s) and objective(s) identified above.

Awards made under this announcement will further the goals of the Consolidated Research/Training/Fellowships program by furthering EPA’s priorities ensuring clean and safe water for safe and sustainable water resources by promoting high-priority water quality and availability research. The agency is seeking applications proposing innovative research to address knowledge gaps on the impact of de facto water reuse, the potential human health risk, and interventions to mitigate risk on impacted drinking water supplies.

EPA also requires that grant applicants adequately describe environmental outputs and outcomes to be achieved under assistance agreements (see EPA Order 5700.7A1, Environmental Results under Assistance Agreements). Applicants should include specific statements describing the environmental results of the proposed project in terms of well-defined outputs and, to the https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-order-57007a1-epas-policy-environmental-results-under-epa-assistance-agreements https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-order-57007a1-epas-policy-environmental-results-under-epa-assistance-agreements maximum extent practicable, well-defined outcomes that will demonstrate how the project will contribute to the goal(s) and objective(s) described above.

Outputs expected from the research funded under this funding opportunity may include, but are not limited to:

• Development of appropriate frameworks and methodologies for utilities, states, municipalities, and communities to quantify the extent and contribution of de facto reuse in drinking water sources.

• Decision support tools to assess risks associated with de facto reuse for utilities to manage water supply and protect human health.

• Risk assessments along with development of risk models and quantification of wastewater effluent contribution to water supply.

• Cost analysis for mitigation methods to reduce de facto reuse risk from pathogens and chemicals.

• Research, testing reports, and peer reviewed publications pertaining to the research areas.

• Support for small and large utilities for a better understanding of the potential impacts of de facto reuse on drinking water.

• Resources designed to assist states, municipalities, treatment facilities, and other stakeholders to identify when they experience levels of de facto reuse high enough to be of concern and tools to respond accordingly.

Any methods, approaches, and models developed from this research should be scientifically robust and transparently convey uncertainties in the analyses. Models should be non-proprietary, open-source and based on open-access data.

Outcomes expected from the research funded under this funding opportunity may include, but are not limited to:

• Better understanding of the impact, risk, and strategies to manage de facto reuse across the country with the goal of protection of human health from drinking water consumption.

• Increased collaboration between communities and water agencies to implement a united watershed approach.

• Improved holistic approaches that consider a variety of water sources, utility size, and regions of the country.

• Changes in public perception to planned water reuse with further research on the commonality of de facto reuse and better understanding of the extent of its risk.

E. Specific Research Areas of Interest

The Agency is soliciting research to address the knowledge gaps associated with the extent and variability of water quality impacted by wastewater effluent, the potential associations between levels of de facto reuse and human health risk, and the interventions needed to mitigate the impacts of de facto reuse.

EPA is interested in applications that address at least one of three research areas (see Research Areas 1, 2, and 3 below). In addition, the proposed research should be national in scope and address environmental problems associated with both water quality (by looking at pathogen and chemical contaminants that lead to increased human health risk at downstream drinking water sources) and availability (to the extent that implementing interventions increases the amount of safe drinking water to the public). If applicable, proposed research under this funding opportunity should take into account current studies, experience with existing projects, and engagement with key stakeholders and wastewater and drinking water utilities. Applications are encouraged to consider both pathogenic and chemical contaminant risks when evaluating the impacts of de facto reuse. The proposed research may consider any relevant drinking water sources impacted by de facto reuse. The research may also consider underserved communities1, Tribes, utilities serving small populations, and utilities with less advanced treatment technologies.

There are three research areas covered by this solicitation. At a minimum, applicants should address at least one research area. Applications that are not national in scope may not be rated as highly as those that are national in scope. Bulleted questions are listed under each research area for applicants to consider in shaping their research project. Applicants are not required, but are encouraged, to respond to as many of the bulleted questions described below and do not need to limit their research scope to these questions.

Research Areas:

Research Area 1: Develop a holistic understanding of the national impact of de facto reuse

The main objective of this research area is to build-upon the current science of de facto reuse related to its prevalence across the country. Specific areas of interest include the development of broadly applicable tools and models that a variety of water utilities could implement to better understand their source water quality as it relates to de facto reuse impact. Applicants should

1 For purposes of this competition, “underserved communities” refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate equitably in aspects of economic, social, and civic life.

‘Equity’ means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including those who belong to underserved communities. Underserved communities may include people/communities of color, the elderly, children, and those who have pre-existing medical conditions.

consider temporal and spatial factors that may influence the contribution and composition of wastewater effluent.

The following research questions are suggested for consideration. Applicants are encouraged to consider other significant questions as needed to meet the objectives of this research area:

• What surrogates, methods, tools, or models can be developed to estimate de facto reuse levels at any given time?

o Are there action levels that can be defined for when interventions may be needed (e.g., WWTPs with significant compliance violations for wastewater effluent)?

o How do current and future climate change impacts from sea level rise, flooding, and droughts affect levels of de facto reuse?

o What contribution do different wastewater sources (e.g., municipal versus industrial, and differences among different types of industries) have on levels of de facto reuse?

• What is the relationship between proximity of wastewater outflow locations to downstream water intakes for percentage of de facto reuse?

• What role do other geographic features play in influencing wastewater presence downstream?

• To what extent do seasonal and temporal effects have on de facto reuse levels?

Research Area 2: Evaluate the potential human health risk associated with de facto reuse

The main objective of this research area is to evaluate the human health risks associated with de facto reuse in drinking water sources. This research should seek to compare de facto reuse to an “unimpacted” source of water, for example headwater supplies that have lesser amounts of wastewater contribution or potable reuse water. Applicants may assess risk from both pathogens and chemical contaminants. Applicants are encouraged to explore a wide range of chemical contaminants and may include non-targeted analysis techniques, if appropriate. Applicants should develop a framework for evaluating risk associated with the degree of wastewater contribution. The proposed research may utilize data collected at wastewater and/or drinking water treatment plants to inform risk assessments.

The following research questions are suggested for consideration. Applicants are encouraged to consider other significant questions as needed to meet the objectives of this research area:

• Are there potential associations between percent of effluent contribution and water quality in drinking water supply, including occurrence of pathogenic microorganism and regulated/unregulated DBPs in treated water?

• What level of risk and degree of confidence associated with such risk for chemical contaminants (e.g., contaminants of emerging concern [CECs], PFAS, DBPs, microplastics, nutrients, salt) are a result of de facto reuse?

• What impact do different wastewater sources (municipal versus industrial, and differences among different types of industries) have on risk?

• What influence does treatment or other interventions have on pathogen concentrations in waters impacted by de facto reuse? How could this lead to potential reductions in public health risk?

• How does the water supply source impact the de facto reuse risk?

Research Area 3: Explore interventions to mitigate risk from de facto reuse impacted drinking water

The main objective of this research area is to explore actions that could be implemented to address de facto reuse, improve water quality of drinking water sources, and reduce potential risks. Applicants should consider unit processes and treatment trains that are broadly representative of U.S. WWTPs and DWTPs, including both small and large systems.

Interventions explored under this research area should consider the ‘One Health’ framework, which is an integrated and unifying approach to optimizing the health of people, animals, and the environment [27], and Integrated Water Resources Management, which promotes the coordinated management of water to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems [28].

Applicants are encouraged to perform a cost-benefit analysis to support cost-effective solutions.

A full economic analysis, as described in “Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses” [29], is not expected by applicants. Applicants are encouraged to estimate costs, such as installation, operation, and maintenance, as well as consider the environmental, social, and public health benefits of the intervention. Potential frameworks for cost-benefit analysis include, but are not limited to, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Economic Analysis [30] and Green Infrastructure Cost-Benefit Resources [31].

The following research questions are suggested for consideration. Applicants are encouraged to consider other significant questions as needed to meet the objectives of this research area:

• What strategies (e.g., treatment, operation, infrastructure, interagency cooperation) can water utilities implement to reduce risk from de facto reuse through both treatment and pollution prevention?

o Do operational strategies such as retention time in an environmental buffer and source water blending lower risk and to what extent?

• Are improvements to the quality of wastewater effluent more or less effective than increased treatment at the downstream DWTP?

o Are improvements to wastewater and stormwater collection and management systems to prevent sewer overflows effective at reducing risk?

https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses-2016 https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/sdwa-economic-analysis https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/green-infrastructure-cost-benefit-resources https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/green-infrastructure-cost-benefit-resources

• What treatment technologies, either at the WWTP or DWTP, are effective at mitigating the risk of de facto reuse? How can utilities optimize their existing treatment technologies?

• How can nature-based solutions such as constructed wetlands mitigate the impact of de facto reuse?

• What are the costs to implement treatment technologies to address de facto reuse? Are there achievable cost-savings for treatment plants to optimize existing treatment, upgrade their systems or address other water quality concerns?

o Treatment cost analysis may adapt the U.S. EPA Drinking Water Treatment Technology Unit Cost Models [32] and model for variables relevant to de facto reuse.

• How does effective intervention vary for large and small water utilities?

F. References

1. National Academy of Sciences. “Current State of Water Reuse” In Water Reuse:

Potential for Expanding the Nation’s Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater, by the National Academies, Washington, D.C.: 2012, 21-54. Available at:

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13303/water-reuse-potential-for-expanding-the-nations-water-supply-through

2. Swayne, M. D., Boone, G. H., Bauer, D., and Lee, J. S. Wastewater in Receiving Waters at Water Supply Abstraction Points, EPA-600/2-80-044. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Available at:

https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?Lab=ORD&dirEntryID=47239

3. Rice, J., Wutich, A., and Westerhoff, P. Assessment of De Facto Wastewater Reuse across the U.S.: Trends between 1980 and 2008. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47: 11099-11105 (2013). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1021/es402792s

4. Rice, J., and Westerhoff, P. Spatial and Temporal Variation in De Facto Wastewater Reuse in Drinking Water Systems across the U.S.A. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49: 982-989 (2015). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1021/es5048057

5. Nguyen, T., Westerhoff, P., Furlong, E. T., Kolpin, D. W., Batt, A. L., Mash, H. E., Schenck, K. M., Boone, J. S., Rice, J., and Glassmeyer, S. T. Modeled De Facto Reuse and Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Drinking Water Source Waters. AWWA 110 (4): E2-E18 (2018). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1052

6. Yard, E. E., Murphy, M. W., Schneeberger, C., Narayanan, J., Hoo, E., Freiman, A., Lewis, L. S., and Hill, V. R. Microbial and chemical contamination during and after flooding in the Ohio River – Kentucky, 2011. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 49 (11): 1236-1243 (2014). Available at:

https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2014.910036 https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-treatment-technology-unit-cost-models https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-treatment-technology-unit-cost-models https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13303/water-reuse-potential-for-expanding-the-nations-water-supply-through https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13303/water-reuse-potential-for-expanding-the-nations-water-supply-through https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?Lab=ORD&dirEntryID=47239 https://doi.org/10.1021/es402792s https://doi.org/10.1021/es5048057 https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1052 https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2014.910036

7. Hummel, M. A., Berry, M. S., and Stacey, M. T. Sea Level Rise Impacts on Wastewater Treatment Systems Along the U.S. Coasts. Earth’s Future 6: 622-633 (2018). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000805

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report on the Environment: Drinking Water.

(2023). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/drinking-water

9. Chaudhry, R. M., Hamilton, K. A., Haas, C. N., and Nelson, K. L. Drivers of Microbial Risk for Direct Potable Reuse and de Facto Reuse Treatment Schemes: The Impacts of Source Water Quality and Blending. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, 635 (2017).

Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060635

10. Lim, K., Wu, Y., and Jiang, S. C. Assessment of Cryptosporidium and norovirus risk associated with de facto wastewater reuse in Trinity River, Texas. Microbial Risk Analysis 5: 15-24 (2017). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mran.2016.11.002

11. Amoueyan, E., Ahmad, S., Eisenberg, J. N. S., and Gerrity, D. Equivalency of indirect and direct potable reuse paradigms based on a quantitative microbial risk assessment framework. Microbial Risk Analysis 12: 60-75 (2019). Available at:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mran.2019.06.003

12. Soller, J. A., Eftim, S. E., and Nappier, S. P. Comparison of Predicted Microbiological Human Health Risks Associated with de Facto, Indirect, and Direct Potable Water Reuse.

Environ. Sci. Technol. 53: 13382-13389 (2019). Available at:

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02002

13. Glassmeyer, S. T. “Occurrence of Contaminants of Emerging Concern During De Facto Reuse.” Presented at Emerging Contaminants Short Course, Milwaukee, WI, October 22- 23, 2019. Available at:

https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=CESER&dirEntryId=347298

14. Islam, M., Thompson, K., Dickenson, E., Quiñones, O., Steinle-Darling, E., and Westerhoff, P. Sucralose and Predicted De Facto Wastewater Reuse Levels Correlate with PFAS Levels in Surface Waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 10: 431-438 (2023).

Available at: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00185

15. Rice, J., Via, S. H., and Westerhoff, P. Extent and Impacts of Unplanned Wastewater Reuse in US Rivers. AWWA 107 (11): E571-E581 (2015). Available at:

https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0178

16. Weisman, R. J., Barber, L. B., Rapp, J. L., and Ferreira, C. M. De facto reuse and disinfection by-products in drinking water systems in the Shenandoah River watershed.

Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 5: 1699-1708 (2019). Available at:

https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ew00326f

17. Schreiber, I. M., and Mitch, W. A. Occurrence and Fate of Nitrosamines and Nitrosamine Precursors in Wastewater-Impacted Surface Waters Using Boron as a Conservative Tracer. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (10): 3203-3210 (2006). Available at:

https://doi.org/10.1021/es052078r

18. Medlock Kakaley, E. K., Blackwell, B. R., Cardon, M. C., Conley, J. M., Evans, N., Feifarek, D. J., Furlong, E. T., Glassmeyer, S. T., Gray Jr., L. E., Hartig, P. C., Kolpin, D.

W., Mills, M. A., Rosenblum, L., Villeneuve, D. L., and Wilson, V. S. De Facto Water Reuse: Bioassay Suite Approach Delivers Depth and Breadth in Endocrine Active https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000805 https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/drinking-water https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060635 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mran.2016.11.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mran.2019.06.003 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02002 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=CESER&dirEntryId=347298 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00185 https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0178 https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ew00326f https://doi.org/10.1021/es052078r

Compound Detection. Science of the Total Environment 699 (2020). Available at:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134297

19. Fono, L. J., Kolodziej, E. P, and Sedlak, D. L. Attenuation of Wastewater-Derived Contaminants in an Effluent-Dominated River. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (23): 7257-7262 (2006). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1021/es061308e

20. Glassmeyer, S. T., Furlong, E. T., Kolpin, D. W., Cahill, J. D., Zaugg, S. D., Werner, S.

L., Meyer, M. T., and Kryak, D. D. Transport of Chemical and Microbial Compounds from Known Wastewater Discharges: Potential for Use as Indicators of Human Fecal Contamination. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (14): 5157-5169 (2005). Available at:

https://doi.org/10.1021/es048120k

21. Lau, S. S., Bokenkamp, K., Tecza, A., Wagner, E. D., Plewa, M. J., and Mitch, W. A.

Toxicological assessment of potable reuse and conventional drinking waters. Nature Sustainability 6: 39-46 (2023). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00985-7

22. Chen, B., Nam, S., Westerhoff, P. K., Krasner, S. W., and Amy, G. Fate of effluent organic matter and DBP precursors in an effluent-dominated river: A case study of wastewater impact on downstream water quality. Water Research 43 (6): 1755-1765 (2009). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.01.020

23. Luthy, R. G., Sedlak, D. L., Plumlee, M. H., Austin, D., and Resh, V. H. Wastewater-effluent-dominated streams as ecosystem-management tools in a drier climate. Front Ecol Environ 13 (9): 477-485 (2015). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1890/150038

24. Southern Nevada Water Authority. Las Vegas Wash (2024). Available at:

https://www.snwa.com/environment/las-vegas-wash/index.html

25. Cadwallader, A., Rice-Boayue, J., and VanBriesen, J. M. Impact of Nitrogen Removal in Wastewater Treatment on NDMA Formation at Downstream Drinking-Water Treatment Plants. J. Environ. Eng. 147 (12) (2021). Available at:

https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001927

26. Karakurt, S., Schmid, L., Hübner, U., and Drewes, J. E. Dynamics of Wastewater Effluent Contributions in Streams and Impacts on Drinking Water Supply via Riverbank Filtration in Germany—A National Reconnaissance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (11):

6154-6161 (2019). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b07216

27. World Health Organization. One Health (2017). Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/one-health

28. International Water Association. Integrated Water Resources Management: Basic Concepts (2024). Available at: https://www.iwapublishing.com/news/integrated-water-resources-management-basic-concepts

29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, National Center for Environmental Economics, 2014. Available at:

https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses-

30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SDWA Economic Analysis (2024). Available at:

https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/sdwa-economic-analysis https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134297 https://doi.org/10.1021/es061308e https://doi.org/10.1021/es048120k https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00985-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.01.020 https://doi.org/10.1890/150038 https://www.snwa.com/environment/las-vegas-wash/index.html https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001927 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b07216 https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/one-health https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/one-health https://www.iwapublishing.com/news/integrated-water-resources-management-basic-concepts https://www.iwapublishing.com/news/integrated-water-resources-management-basic-concepts https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses-2016 https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses-2016 https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/sdwa-economic-analysis

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Green Infrastructure Cost-Benefit Resources (2024). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/green-infrastructure-cost-benefit-resources

32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Treatment Technology Unit Cost Models (2023). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-treatment-technology-unit-cost-models

G. Special Requirements

It is EPA Policy to ensure that the results of EPA-funded extramural scientific research are accessible to the public to the greatest extent feasible consistent with applicable law; policies and Orders; the Agency’s mission; resource constraints; and U.S. national, homeland and economic security. This entails maximizing, at no charge, access by the public to peer-reviewed, scientific research journal publications or associated author manuscripts, and their underlying digital research data, created in whole or in part with EPA funds, while protecting personal privacy;

recognizing proprietary interests, confidential business information, and intellectual property rights; and avoiding significant negative impact on intellectual property rights, innovation, and U.S. competitiveness.

Applications submitted under this announcement should include a Scientific Data Management Plan (SDMP) that addresses public access to EPA-funded scientific research data. See the SDMP clause in Section IV for details on the content of an SDMP. Applicants will also be asked to provide past performance information on whether journal publications or associated author manuscripts, and the associated underlying scientific research data and metadata, under prior assistance agreements were made publicly accessible. These items will be evaluated prior to award.

Reasonable, necessary, and allocable costs for data management and public access may be included in extramural research applications and detailed in the budget justification described in Section IV.

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 funding opportunities. EPA employees cannot endorse any specific 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 funding opportunity. For further information, please see the EPA Implementation Plan for Policy on Multiple Principal Investigators (Research Grants Guidance and Policies).

https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/green-infrastructure-cost-benefit-resources https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/green-infrastructure-cost-benefit-resources https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-treatment-technology-unit-cost-models https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-treatment-technology-unit-cost-models https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-grants-guidance-and-policies https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-grants-guidance-and-policies

This solicitation provides the opportunity for the submission of applications for projects that may involve human subjects research. All applications should include a Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS; described in Section IV.C.5.iii.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.D and V.G of this solicitation.

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.

H. Additional Provisions for Applicants Incorporated into the Solicitation

Additional provisions that apply to sections III, IV, V, and VI of this solicitation and/or awards made under this solicitation, can be found at EPA Solicitation Clauses. These provisions are important for applying to this solicitation 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 contact the EPA point of contact listed in this solicitation (usually in Section VII) to obtain the provisions.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

It is anticipated that a total of approximately $9,500,000 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 4 awards under this funding opportunity. Requests for amounts in excess of a total of $2,375,000 in federal funds per award, including direct and indirect costs, will not be considered. In addition, a minimum 25% non-federal cost share/match of the federal funds awarded, which may include in-kind contributions (see Section III.B. for more details), is required. For example, if an applicant requests $2,375,000 in EPA funds, a minimum of $593,750 must be included. Including matching, total project costs can exceed $2,968,750 (if the applicant proposes more than the minimum required non-federal cost share/match), however, the federally-funded portion of the budget must not exceed $2,375,000. Applications which do not include the minimum 25% non-federal cost share/match will not be considered. The total project period requested in an application submitted for this funding opportunity 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 funding opportunity. The EPA reserves the right to make additional awards under this announcement, consistent with Agency policy, if additional funding becomes https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-solicitation-clauses 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 applications by funding discrete portions or phases of proposed projects. If EPA decides to partially fund an application, it will do so in a manner that does not prejudice any applicants or affect the basis upon which the application, or portion thereof, was evaluated and selected for award, and therefore maintains the integrity of the competition and selection process. Awards may be fully or incrementally funded, as appropriate, based on funding availability, satisfactory performance, and other applicable considerations.

EPA intends to award only grants under this announcement.

Under a grant, EPA scientists and engineers will not 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 rather than substantial to achieving the goals of the research under a grant. Interaction that is “incidental” does not involve resource commitments by

EPA.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

Note: Additional provisions that apply to this section can be found at EPA Solicitation Clauses.

A. Eligible Applicants

This solicitation is available to public and private nonprofit institutions and public and private universities and colleges located in the United States and its territories or possessions. Foreign universities/organizations, U.S. States, territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, State and local government departments, and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments of the U.S., are not eligible to apply under this funding opportunity. Profit-making firms and individuals are not eligible to receive assistance agreements from the EPA under this program.

Consistent with the definition of Nonprofit organization at 2 CFR § 200.1, the term nonprofit organization means any corporation, trust, association, cooperative, or other organization that is operated mainly for scientific, educational, service, charitable, or similar purpose in the public interest and is not organized primarily for profit; and uses net proceeds to maintain, improve, or expand the operation of the organization. Note that 2 CFR § 200.1 specifically excludes Institutions of Higher Education from the definition of non-profit organization because they are separately defined in the regulation. While not considered to be a nonprofit organization(s) as defined by 2 CFR § 200.1, public or nonprofit Institutions of Higher Education are, nevertheless, eligible to submit applications under this funding opportunity. Hospitals that meet the definition of nonprofit at 2 CFR § 200.1 are also eligible to apply as nonprofits. Hospitals operated by state, https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-solicitation-clauses tribal, or local governments or that are instrumentalities of the unit of government depending on the applicable law are not eligible to apply. For-profit colleges, universities, trade schools, and hospitals are ineligible.

Nonprofit organizations that are not exempt from taxation under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code must submit other forms of documentation of nonprofit status; such as certificates of incorporation as nonprofit under state or tribal law. Nonprofit organizations exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that lobby are not eligible for EPA funding as provided in the Lobbying Disclosure Act, 2 U.S.C. 1611.

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. An award recipient 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.

Federal Agencies may not apply. Federal employees are not eligible to serve in a principal leadership role on an assistance agreement.