Grantee Research Project Results
Closed - for reference purposes only
EPA/AESF PARTNERSHIP FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
1998 Small Grants in Hexavalent Chromium
Risk Reduction
Joint Announcement of Availability
OPENING DATE: March 2, 1998 CLOSING DATE: May
29, 1998
Common Sense Initiative
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: https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/
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
The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.