Extramural Research
Funding Opportunities
Research Project Search
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Center for Environmental Research
CLOSED - FOR REFERENCES PURPOSES ONLY
1998 Small Grants in Hexavalent Chromium Risk Reduction
EPA/AESF PARTNERSHIP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Joint Announcement of Availability
OPENING DATE: March 2, 1998
CLOSING DATE: May 29, 1998
Common Sense Initiative - Characterizing Risk at Metal Finishing Facilities | PDF | HTML
I. INTRODUCTION
The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD), and the American
Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society (AESF), Research Board
(RB), invite research and development (R&D) grant applications
in the following area of special interest to their respective missions:
Common Sense Initiative
Metal Finishing Sector
Hexavalent Chromium
Risk Reduction
This invitation provides relevant background information,
summarizes EPA's and AESF's interest in the topic areas, and describes
the application and review process.
II. Background for This Joint Solicitation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Common Sense
Initiative (CSI) is a reinvention activity that focuses on developing
and implementing new types of environmental management in six industrial
sectors--auto manufacturing, iron and steel, electronics and computers,
petroleum refining, printing, and metal finishing. EPA created a
CSI Council under the Federal Advisory Committee Act with a subcommittee
for each sector. The EPA Administrator appoints the members of the
Council and the Subcommittees, each of which must have balanced
membership from all relevant stakeholder groups--including industry
and industry associations, national and local environmental groups,
environmental justice and community health groups, labor, publicly-owned
treatment works, and other Federal, State and local agencies. Each
sectoral subcommittee reaches consensus on what environmental management
problems in the sector should be addressed, how they should be addressed,
the conduct of pilot and demonstration projects to test out new
approaches, and what recommendations to propose that the CSI Council
make to the EPA Administrator on changes in policies, programs,
and procedures.
The CSI Metal Finishing Subcommittee created a number of work groups
to carry out its work. These include: Regulatory and Reporting,
Research and Technology, Risk Characterization, Promoting Improved
Performance, Environmentally Responsible Transition, Compliance
and Enforcement, Access to Capital, and Strategic Goals. The Subcommittee,
with the support of the CSI Council, has developed and is beginning
to implement a Strategic Goals Program. The goals involve commitments
by the metal finishing industry to achieve levels of compliance
and beyond compliance environmental performance, as well as economic,
energy efficiency, and other benefits, by 2002. All of the stakeholders,
including EPA, have committed to take specific types of actions
that will help industry to meet these goals.
The Subcommittee's Research and Technology Work Group, which is
co-chaired by ORD and AESF, developed a National Metal Finishing
Environmental R&D Plan (Plan). The Subcommittee endorsed
and the Council supports the Plan. The purpose of the Plan is to
help provide timely and reliable information to industry and other
stakeholders on technologies that will help to achieve the national
goals. This Request for Applications (RFA) is being issued as an
activity under a Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and AESF
to implement the recommendations of the Plan.
A. EPA Mission and R&D Strategy
The mission of EPA is to protect both environmental quality
and human health through effective regulations and other policy
implementation. Achievement of this mission requires the application
of sound science and technology to the assessment of environmental
problems and to the evaluation of possible solutions. A significant
challenge is to support both long-term R&D that anticipates
future environmental problems and short-term R&D that fills
gaps in knowledge relevant to current Agency goals. This RFA is
an important step toward promoting a sound scientific and technical
foundation for environmental protection.
EPA's R&D programs focus on the reduction of uncertainty associated
with risk assessment and reduction of risks to human health and
ecosystems. Through its laboratories and through grants to academic
and other not-for-profit and profit-making institutions, EPA promotes
R&D in both domains.
In the area of risk characterization EPA is increasingly interested
in being able to determine the risks posed by particular industrial
operations. Highest priority is accorded to the development and
proving out of new methods and models for determining the risks
from these operations and facilities to workers, the surrounding
communities, and the environment. The development of simpler-to-use,
more easily understandable, and cheaper methods is stressed.
EPA also fosters the development and evaluation of new risk reduction
technologies across a spectrum--according highest priority to pollution
prevention technologies but still supporting recycling, treatment,
responsible disposal, and remediation, in that order, as warranted.
Both for characterizing emissions and risk and for determining reduction
of emissions and risk from the utilization of specific reduction
technologies, EPA is very interested in the development and demonstration
of effective, easy-to-use, and inexpensive monitoring and analytical
technologies. In all areas, EPA is interested in R&D that recognizes
issues relating to environmental justice, the concept of achieving
equal protection from environmental and health hazards for all people
without regard to race, economic status, or culture.
EPA's extramural R&D grants programs are administered by ORD's
National Center for Environmental Research (NCER).
B. AESF Mission and R&D Strategy
The mission of the AESF is:
"to advance the science and technology of surface finishing
and to disseminate knowledge thereof, and to develop a cooperative
spirit of friendship and mutual assistance among its members. In
furtherance of its objectives, the Society shall conduct all such
activities and do all such acts as may be reasonably related to
its objectives."
The AESF has an extensive program of short courses, conferences,
work shops, exhibitions, publications, as well as an accreditation
program to meet its objectives at the local, regional, and national
levels. Committees, Sections, and Boards are responsible for providing
the content and scope of these activities and providing recommendations
for implementation to the Board of Directors.
As part of the operations of the AESF, there is a formal Research
Program managed by the Research Board. The mission of this Research
Program, which has been active for 70 years, is "to arrange
for, and encourage, the development of information in harmony with
the objectives of the Society, and to disseminate this knowledge."
Because of the importance of the Common Sense Initiative, and the
topics being addressed under the Metal Finishing Sector Subcommittee,
the Chairman of the Research Board has been participating in the
Research and Technology Work Group of this Subcommittee and has
helped to draft the National Metal Finishing Environmental R&D
Plan.
III. R&D Topics Addressed in This RFA
EPA and AESF are seeking grant applications to conduct environmental
R&D based on the following National Metal Finishing Environmental
R&D Plan recommendation:
In terms of R&D on particular materials of concern, highest
priority should be given to continuing and expanding R&D on
various aspects of reducing and eliminating multimedia emissions
from hard chrome plating operations.
The objective of this research is to help bring multi-media emissions
from hard chrome plating (not decorative chrome plating
or anodizing) operations as close to zero as possible- without
transfer of the emissions from one medium to another.
To implement this research objective the Plan recommended that R&D
projects should focus on one of the following risk reduction topic
areas:
1. How do the best existing closed-loop and no- or low- emissions
hard chrome plating processes achieve their emission reductions
compared to the same or similar systems without the closed-loop
and other pollution prevention technologies, and what are the reductions
in risks to workers and nearby residents?
2. Develop and demonstrate innovative, preferably simple and low-cost,
approaches to achieving emissions reductions and risk reduction.
The target plating operations are those in typical job shops, so
that the results will be as widely applicable to the industry as
possible. A high priority is the testing of innovative low-cost,
simple-to-use, reliable technologies, which is what job shops need.
Pollution prevention technologies should be used to achieve this
objective. Pollution prevention ("source reduction") is
defined as the design of a manufacturing process, use of inputs
(including energy), and methods of operation and maintenance of
that process that reduce the quantity and/or toxicity of the materials
of production and of the operation's emissions and wastes in one
or more media. Pollution prevention also includes the in process
recycling of materials--i.e., recycling into the same specific operation,
not recycling into other operations in the same facility
or into operations in off-site facilities.
It appears that there is no single technology that can achieve this
multi-media emissions reduction. Usually, in the past, single technologies
have been tried that may achieve part of the result in one medium.
Rarely have multiple technologies been tested together to achieve
multi media pollution prevention. Documenting or demonstrating
such multi-technology usage, however, is what is desired here.
Through this research, it is hoped that a better understanding
will be obtained of the overall state-of-the-art of multi-media
pollution prevention in hard chrome plating and that individual--or,
preferably, groups of--innovative technologies will be tested and
evaluated to help achieve no-or low-(multimedia) emissions from
those operations. These new technologies need not be commercially
available at the time of testing. They should already have been
proven at the pilot or bench scale, however, so that this research
can be conducted in operating hard chrome plating job shops.
A critical literature review of the current state-of-the-art related
to the type of risk reduction technologies that a researcher proposes
to study must be carried out. The researcher must then explain how
the proposed research project will advance the state-of-the-art
in that area. AESF and EPA will fund the group of highly qualified
projects that will, taken together, best advance the overall state-of-the-art
of multimedia risk reduction from hard chrome plating job shops.
More specifically, perhaps for the first time, researchers will
be required in all projects funded under this solicitation to determine
not just emissions reductions but reductions in risks to
workers and nearby residents to demonstrate the efficacy of the
tested technologies. Teaming or sub-contracting between, for example,
metal finishing firms and qualified consulting firms and analytical
laboratories may be necessary to determine the emissions and actual
or modeled exposures that are necessary to determine risk reductions.
The most appropriate and cost-effective OSHA- and EPA-approved and/or
modified methods must be used in the sample-taking and analyses
that are performed. At a minimum air sampling methods for determining
worker exposure to hexavalent chromium must have a detection limit
of 0.001 micrograms per cubic meter for qualitative analysis and
a quantitative detection limit of 0.003 micrograms per cubic meter
based on a 960 liter air sample.
Two types of proposals will be entertained. One type would study
one technology, several single technologies, or--most preferred--sets
of technologies that are already installed in operating hard chrome
plating job shops and are purported to achieve no- or low-emissions
through closed loop operations in at least one medium. The challenge
will be to develop a meaningful test plan, which could include studying
the performance of the same or similar technologies installed in
more than one plant or studying different technologies that seem
to achieve the same or similar results in the same or different
plants. The objective will be to evaluate and characterize the performance
of the system(s) as fully as possible, including identifying the
parameters and work practices that would be important for other
platers to understand if they wanted to install such a system or
systems in their own plants.
The second type of proposal would be to finish the development of
a technology or set of technologies--preferably by merely optimizing
it in situ in one or more hard chrome plating job shops--and
evaluating and characterizing its performance, as described above.
These technologies need not be commercially available, but the closer
they are to final proof-of-performance testing, the more likely
it will be that useful results will be available within the resource
and time limitations of these grants. These projects are likely
to provide a clearer basis for before and after installation measurements
of performance than are those in the first type of study proposal.
These proposals must include an analysis of the needs and plans
for commercialization of the technology(ies) if they prove out.
In summary, to achieve the purposes of this small grants R&D
program, proposers are strongly encouraged to address the following
topics and issues when preparing their proposals:
* including in the proposal an initial critical literature review
and an explanation of how the proposed research will advance the
state-of-the-art;
* committing in the proposal to conduct a thorough critical literature
review, before performing the proposed field research, that will
enable the proposer to write up after the R&D is performed what
the contribution of the research has been to advancing the state-of
the-art of multi-media risk reduction from hard chrome plating;
* the objective of the proposed research and the hypotheses that
will be tested in the research are clearly laid out and explained
in the proposal;
* the extent to which multi-media, rather than single medium, risk
reduction will be achieved;
* the extent to which effective combinations of simple, low-cost,
easy to install, and easy to operate and maintain pollution prevention
technologies (rather than single technologies) will be studied or
tested and evaluated;
* the extent to which the most appropriate and cost-effective OSHA-approved
and/or modified methods will be used to measure worker exposure
and calculate reduction in risks to workers and EPA-approved and/or
modified methods will be used to determine community exposure and
calculate reduction in risks to neighbors of the chrome plating
facility as a result of using the tested technologies;
* the extent to which the parameters and work practices that are
important for platers to understand in utilizing the researched
technologies will be characterized in the report on the research
results;
* including in the proposals that involve field testing of technologies
a convincing commercialization plan; and
* the extent to which the project has cost-sharing (direct funding
and/or in-kind services).
IV. Criteria for Evaluating Proposals
An R&D project proposed in response to this RFA must be
a discrete, independent activity that can be accomplished within
the time and funding constraints described in this RFA. The proposed
R&D project must fall within the guidelines of the topic for
this RFA--i.e., reducing the multi-media risks to workers and neighbors
from hard chrome plating job shop operations--and meet the mission
of EPA and/or of AESF. The benefits of carrying out the proposed
R&D must be clearly delineated.
The technical peer review of proposals is designed to evaluate each
proposal according to its scientific merit. The reviewers use the
following criteria to help them in their reviews:
1. The originality and creativity of the proposed research, the
appropriateness and adequacy of the research methods proposed, and
the appropriateness and adequacy of the Quality Assurance Narrative
Statement. Is the research approach practical and technically defensible,
and can the project be performed within the proposed time period?
Will the research contribute to scientific knowledge in the topic
area of the solicitation? Is the proposal well-prepared with supportive
information that is self-explanatory and understandable?
2. The qualifications of the principal investigator(s) and other
key personnel, including research training, demonstrated knowledge
of pertinent literature, experience, and publication records. Will
all key personnel contribute a significant time commitment to the
project?
3. The availability and/or adequacy of the facilities and equipment
proposed for the project. Are there any deficiencies that may interfere
with the successful completion of the research?
4. The responsiveness of the proposal to the research needs identified
for the topic area. Does the proposal adequately address all of
the objectives specified for this topic area?
5. Although budget information is not used by the reviewers as the
basis for their evaluation of scientific merit, the reviewers are
asked to provide their view on the appropriateness and/or adequacy
of the proposed budget and its implications for the potential success
of the proposed research. Input on requested equipment is of particular
interest.
V. Funding and Awards
About $600,000 is expected to be available in FY98 for awards
in this program--$500,000 from EPA and $100,000 from AESF. Only
proposals for Small Grants of $50,000 or less will be accepted.
Only proposals of $25,000 or less will be considered for AESF funding.
Co-funding from other sources is strongly encouraged. All
funded projects must be completed within eighteen (18) months of
award. Awards are subject to the availability of funds.
Although each award will be made to one entity, EPA (and AESF) encourage
teaming where the awardee creates separate arrangements with other
parties. For instance, a job shop and an engineering consulting
firm may determine that by working together they will obtain the
most successful results for the proposed research, and one of these
submits a proposal anticipating placing a subcontract with its partner.
Applicants are also encouraged to have adequate expertise within
their organization or team/subcontractors to carry out all aspects
of their research.
In general, awards will be made as grants. However, EPA may chose
to make certain awards in the form of cooperative agreements, which
implies a significant amount of interaction between EPA and the
assistance recipient. EPA may award cooperative agreements (in lieu
of grants) if EPA determines that the proposal would benefit from
participation by EPA. EPA will make this decision at the time of
award. AESF is normally involved at various levels on a case-by
case basis in the projects they fund via grants. The type of instrument
used for award will not influence either the proposal evaluation
or the amount of funding available. An award will be totally funded
by one of the funding entities at the discretion of EPA and AESF.
VI. Eligibility
Academic, not-for-profit, and profit-making institutions and
organizations located in the U.S., as well as State and local governments,
are eligible to submit proposals under this RFA. Federal agencies
are not eligible to receive assistance from EPA under this program.
Federal employees may cooperate or collaborate with eligible applicants
within the limits imposed by applicable legislation and regulations.
However, Federal agencies and Federal employees are not eligible
to receive funding through this program and may not serve in a principal
leadership role. An exception may occur when the principal investigator's
institution subcontracts to a Federal agency to purchase unique
supplies or services unavailable in the private sector. Examples
are purchase of satellite data, census data tapes, chemical reference
standards, unique analyses not available elsewhere, etc. A written
justification for such Federal involvement must be included in the
application, along with an assurance from the Federal agency which
commits it to supply the specified service.
VII. How to Submit an Application
This section contains a set of instructions related to how applicants
should apply under this solicitation.
A. Sorting Code
In order to facilitate proper assignment and review of applications,
each applicant is asked to identify the topic area in which their
application is to be considered. It is the responsibility of
the applicant to correctly identify the proper sorting code.
Failure to do so will result in an improper review assignment. At
various places within the application, applicants will be asked
to identify the topic area by using the appropriate Sorting Code.
The Sorting Code for this solicitation is shown below:
98-NCERQA-Q1 = Studies of Existing Systems
98-NCERQA-Q2 = Evaluations of New Technologies
The Sorting Code must be placed at the top of the abstract (as
shown in the abstract format), in Box 10 of Standard Form 424 (as
described in the section on SF424), and should also be included
in the address on the package that is sent to EPA (see Section C.
How and When to Apply).
B. What You Need to Submit
The initial application is made through the submission of
the materials described below. It is essential that the application
contain all the information requested and be submitted in the formats
described. If it is not, the application may be rejected on
administrative grounds. If an application is considered for award,
(i.e., after peer and programmatic review) additional forms and
other information will be requested by the Project Officer. The
application should not be bound or stapled in any way. The Application
should contain the following:
1. Standard Form 424: The applicant must complete Standard Form
424 (see attached form and instructions). This form will act
as a cover sheet for the application and should be its first
page. Instructions for completion of the SF424 are included
with the form. The form must contain the original signature of an
authorized representative of the applying institution. Please note
that both the Principal Investigator and an administrative contact
should be identified in Section 5 of the SF424.
2. Key Contacts: The applicant must complete the Key Contacts Form
(attached) as the second page of the submitted application.
3. Abstract: The abstract is a very important document. It
should not exceed one (1) 8.5x11-inch page of single-spaced standard
12 point type with 1 inch margins. Prior to attending the peer review
panel meetings, some of the panelists may read only the abstract.
Therefore it is critical that the abstract accurately describe the
R&D being proposed and convey all the essential elements of
the R&D. Also, in the event of an award, the abstracts will
form the basis for an Annual Report of awards made under this program.
Therefore, it is worth spending the time required to make sure that
the abstract accurately describes the R&D being proposed. The
abstract should include the following information (see sample attachment):
a. EPA Sorting Code: Use the correct code that corresponds
to the appropriate RFA topic.
b. Title: Use the exact title as it appears in the rest of
the application.
c. Investigators: List the names and affiliations of each
investigator who will significantly contribute to the project. Start
with the Principal Investigator.
d. Project Summary: This should summarize: (a) the objectives
of the study (including any hypotheses that will be tested),
(b) the approach to be used (which should give an accurate
description of the project as described in the proposal), (c) the
expected results of the project and how they address the
research needs identified in the solicitation and the estimated
improvement in risk assessment or risk management that will
be realized from successful completion of the work proposed.
4. Project Description: This description must not exceed fifteen
(15) consecutively numbered (center bottom), 8.5x11-inch pages of
single-spaced standard 12 point type with 1 inch margins. The description
must provide the following information:
a. Objectives: List the objective of the proposed R&D
and the hypotheses being tested during the project and briefly state
why the intended R&D is important. This section can also include
any background or introductory information that would help explain
the objectives of the study (one to two pages recommended).
b. Approach: Within the context of a critical literature
review, outline the methods, approaches, and techniques that you
intend to employ in meeting the objective stated above (five to
10 pages recommended).
c. Expected Results or Benefits: Describe the results you
expect to achieve during the project and the benefits of success
as they relate to the topic under which the proposal was submitted.
This section should also discuss the utility of the R&D project
proposed for addressing the environmental problems described in
the solicitation (one to two pages recommended).
d. General Project Information: Discuss other information
relevant to the potential success of the project. This should include
facilities, personnel, project schedules, proposed management, interactions
with other institutions, etc. (one to two pages recommended).
e. Important Attachments: Appendices and/or other information
may be included, but must remain within the 15-page limit. References
Citres are in addition to the 15 pages.
5. Resumes: The resumes of all principal investigators and important
co workers should be presented. Resumes must not exceed two consecutively
numbered (bottom center), 8.5 x 11-inch pages of single-spaced standard
12 point type with 1-inch margins for each individual.
6. Current and Pending Support: The applicant must identify any
current and pending financial resources that are intended to support
R&D related to that included in the proposal. This should be
done by completing the appropriate form (see attachment) for each
investigator and other senior personnel involved in the proposal.
Failure to provide this information may delay consideration of your
proposal.
7. Budget: The applicant must present a detailed, itemized budget
for the entire project. This budget must be in the format provided
(see sample attachment) and not exceed two consecutively-numbered
(bottom center), 8.5 x 11-inch pages with 1 inch margins. Please
note that, while cost-sharing is not required, it is strongly encouraged.
While it, therefore, will not be included in the budget table if
there is no cost-sharing, it does have to be included in the budget
table if there is cost sharing. If desired, a statement concerning
cost-sharing can be added to the budget justification.
8. Budget Justification: This section should describe the basis
for calculating the personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment,
supplies, contractual support, and other costs identified
in the itemized budget and explain the basis for their calculation
(special attention should be given to explaining the travel,
equipment, and other categories). This should also include an
explanation of how the indirect costs were calculated. If your proposed
indirect cost rates have not recently been accepted by a contracting
agency of the government, you should provide detailed supporting
computations in your justification. EPA does not permit profit on
grants and cooperative agreements. This justification should not
exceed two consecutively- numbered (bottom center), 8.5 x 11-inch
pages of single-spaced standard 12 point type with 1-inch margins.
(Note: Grants that are funded with AESF funds have
limitations on certain overhead costs; these will require negotiation
with AESF.)
9. Quality Assurance Narrative Statement: For awards that involve
environmentally-related measurements or data generation, a quality
system that complies with the requirements of ANSI/ASQC E4, "Specifications
and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection
and Environmental Technology Programs," must be in place. This
statement should not exceed two consecutively-numbered (bottom center),
8.5 x 11-inch pages of single-spaced standard 12 point type with
1-inch margins. This is in addition to the 15 pages permitted for
the Project Description. The Quality Assurance Narrative Statement
should, for each item listed below, either present the required
information or provide a justification as to why the item does not
apply to the proposed research.
a. The data collection activities to be performed or hypotheses
to be tested (reference may be made to the specific page and paragraph
number in the application where this information may be found) and
the acceptance criteria for data quality (precision, accuracy, representativeness,
completeness, and comparability).
b. The survey design, including sample type and location
requirements, and any statistical analyses that were used to estimate
the types and numbers of samples required.
c. The procedures for the handling and custody of samples,
including sample identification, preservation, transportation, and
storage.
d. The methods that will be used to analyze samples collected,
including a description of the sampling and/or analytical instruments
required.
e. The procedures that will be used in the calibration and
performance evaluation of the sampling and analytical methods used
during the project.
f. The procedures for data reduction and reporting, including
description of statistical analyses to be used.
g. The intended use of the data as they relate to the study
objectives or hypotheses.
h. The quantitative and or qualitative procedures that will
be used to evaluate the success of the project.
i. Any plans for peer or other reviews of the survey design
or analytical methods prior to data collection.
ANSI/ASQC E4, "Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems
for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs"
is available for purchase from the American Society for Quality
Control, phone 1-800-248-1946, item T55. Only in exceptional circumstances
should it be necessary to consult this document.
J. Postcard: The Applicant must include with the application a self-addressed,
stamped 3 x 5-inch post card. This will be used to acknowledge receipt
of the application and to transmit other important information to
the Applicant.
C. How and When to Apply
The original and ten (10) copies of the fully developed
application and five (5) additional copies of the abstract (15 in
all), must be received by NCER no later than 4:00 P.M. EST on May
29, 1998. Applications received after this date and time will not
be considered for funding.
The application and abstract must be prepared in accordance with
these instructions. Informal, incomplete, or unsigned proposals
will not be considered. The application should not be bound or stapled
in any way. The original and copies of the application should be
secured with paper or binder clips. Completed applications should
be sent via regular mail to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Peer Review Division (8703R)
Sorting Code: 98-NCERQA-Q{1 or 2}
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
For express mail or courier applications, the following address
must be used:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Peer Review Division (8703R)
Sorting Code: 98-NCERQA-Q{1 or 2}
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Room B-10105
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 564-6939 (for express mail applications)
The sorting code must be identified in the address (as shown above).
D. Guidelines, Limitations, and Additional Requirements
Proposals must be submitted to only one topic area, using
a single sorting code. Proposals submitted to more than one RFA
topic will be assigned to the topic designated on the first version
received or to the first sorting code designated on the application.
If you wish to submit more than one application, you must ensure
that the R&D proposed is significantly different from that in
any other that has been submitted to this solicitation or from any
other assistance you are currently receiving from EPA or any other
Federal government agency or from AESF.
Projects which contain subcontracts constituting more than 40% of
the total direct cost of the award for each year in which the subcontract
is awarded will be subject to special review and may require additional
justification.
Principal Investigators will be expected to budget for and participate
in an annual All Investigators Meeting with EPA scientists and engineers,
AESF members, and other grantees to report on their R&D results
and to discuss issues of mutual interest. If it is possible, this
meeting will be held in conjunction with an AESF annual meeting.
Applications selected for funding will require additional certifications,
possibly a revised budget, and responses to any comments or suggestions
offered by the peer reviewers. Project officers will contact principal
investigators to obtain these materials.
VIII. Review and Selection
All grant applications will initially be reviewed by EPA to
determine their legal and administrative acceptability. Acceptable
applications will then be reviewed by a technical peer review group
jointly set up by EPA and AESF. This review is designed to evaluate
each proposal according to its technical and scientific merit. The
technical peer review group will be composed of engineers and scientists
from industry, academia, and other Federal agencies who are experts
in their respective disciplines. These reviewers will be expert
in areas appropriate to review the specific proposals being evaluated.
Applications that receive scores of excellent and very good by the
peer reviewers will be subjected to a joint programmatic review
by representatives from EPA and AESF, the object being to assure
a balanced portfolio to support the CSI metal finishing sector R&D
needs. Funding decisions are the responsibility of EPA and AESF,
which shall coordinate the awards to maximize the benefits from
available R&D funds to the metal finishing sector.
A summary statement of the technical panel peer review will be provided
to each applicant. Funding decisions are the sole responsibility
of EPA and AESF for the projects funded by their respective organizations.
Awards will be made on the basis of technical merit, relevancy to
the R&D priorities outlined, program balance, cost, and budget
availability.
IX. Proprietary Information
By submitting an application in response to this solicitation,
the applicant grants EPA and AESF permission to share the application
with technical reviewers both within and outside of the respective
organizations. Applications containing proprietary or other types
of confidential information will be returned to the applicant without
review.
X. Funding Mechanism
The funding mechanism for all awards issued under this solicitation
will consist of grants or cooperative agreements from EPA and grants
from AESF. In accordance with Public Law 95-224, assistance agreements
(grants and cooperative agreements) are used to accomplish a public
purpose of support or stimulation authorized by Federal statute
rather than to acquire goods or services for the direct benefit
of the Agency.
XI. Contacts
Copies of this RFA may be viewed and obtained from the following
Web sites: http://www.epa.gov/ncer/
and http://www.nmfrc.org
A contact person has been identified within EPA and AESF for
this joint RFA. They will respond to inquiries regarding this solicitation
and can respond to any technical questions related to your application.
Paul Shapiro
CSI Coordinator
EPA/ORD
202-564-6833
shapiro.paul@epamail.epa.gov
Gary Loar
Chairman
AESF/RB
216-441-4900, x5552
garyloar@ix.netcom.com
To submit and application for this grant you need to obtain and complete the required forms. The grant forms are available in Adobe Acrobat's Portable Document Format (PDF) and can be downloaded and then read on screen and printed provided that you have Adobe Acrobat Reader software 2.1 or higher. The same form can also be obtained via our hotline-automated fax server. (1-800-490-9194)
I need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software....take me to the Adobe Download site.
I have the reader software and I have printed the HTML version of the grant application above...I just want the necessary FORMS
Actually, I have the reader software and ......I want both the FORMS and the APPLICATION