DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY For more information about the Office of Science, go to Office of Science |
To DOE National Laboratories LAB 03-12
Environmental Management
SUMMARY: The Office of Biological and Environmental Research (OBER) of the Office of
Science (SC), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), hereby announce its interest in receiving
research proposals to support the performance of innovative, fundamental research on the
characterization of transuranic (TRU) and mixed wastes (MW) that are currently stored at DOE
sites, or will be produced as part of DOE's environmental cleanup efforts.
DATES: The deadline for receipt of formal proposals is 4:30 P.M., E.S.T., Tuesday, March 4,
2003, in order to be accepted for merit review and to permit timely consideration for award in
Fiscal Year 2003.
ADDRESSES: Formal proposals in response to this solicitation are to be submitted as PDF files
on CDs. Three CDs should be submitted for each proposal. Color images should be submitted as
a separate file in PDF format and identified as such. These images should be kept to a minimum
due to the limitations of reproducing them. They should be numbered and referred to in the body
of the technical scientific proposal as Color image 1, Color image 2, etc.
The CDs, referencing Program Announcement LAB 03-12, should be sent to: Environmental
Remediation Sciences Division, SC-75/Germantown Building, Office of Biological and
Environmental Research, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-1290, ATTN: Program Announcement LAB 03-14.
When submitting by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail, any commercial mail delivery service, or
when hand carried by the researcher, the following address must be used: Environmental
Remediation Sciences Division, SC-75, Office of Biological and Environmental Research,
Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD
20874-1290, ATTN: Program Announcement LAB 03-12.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Or
Mr. Mark Gilbertson
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Environmental Management Science Program: Over the past 60 years, the United States
created an industrial complex to develop, test, manufacture, and maintain nuclear weapons for
national security purposes. The production and testing of nuclear weapons created a legacy of
significant environmental contamination, ranging from uranium mining and milling, waste
disposal, and radionuclide migration in ground water and soil. In 1995, the 104th Congress
authorized creation of the Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP) to develop a
long term, basic science infrastructure that would focus on scientific and technical challenges
facing DOE's environmental cleanup effort. Since its inception in 1996, the Program has held
seven competitions and has awarded over $320 million in funding to nearly 400 research
projects. To address the largest environmental cleanup program in the world, from a cost
perspective, EMSP has the following objectives:
Basic research proposed under this Notice should contribute to DOE's environmental
management activities by decreasing risk for the public and workers, providing opportunities for
major cost reductions, reducing the time required to achieve DOE's mission goals, and, in
general, should address problems that are considered intractable without new knowledge.
TRU and Mixed Waste Challenge: DOE's inventory of transuranic and mixed wastes (TM
wastes) includes about 155,000 cubic meters of waste stored on some 30 DOE sites and another
450,000 cubic meters of buried waste-at least some of which is likely to require retrieval in the
course of DOE's site cleanup program. Most of the stored inventory is in 55-gallon drums or
other containers. Although some of the buried waste is similarly packaged, knowledge of the
condition of the containers and their contents is limited.
Information on DOE's waste inventory has been summarized in a recent report (USDOE, 2001),
and is also available via the World Wide Web at DOE's Central Internet Database
(http://cid.em.doe.gov). A short summary of the nature
of DOE's TM wastes, including definitions of TRU and MW, is given in the "Background Information"
section of this Notice.
While DOE is making a concerted effort to accelerate the removal of TM wastes from its sites,
the size of the inventory translates to a multi-decade effort that will require handling,
characterizing, shipping, and disposing of hundreds of thousands of waste drums and other
containers at a total cost of billions of dollars.
Overall, it is the intent of this Notice to solicit and encourage research that will provide the
scientific basis for the new technologies and approaches that will be necessary to characterize
DOE's MW and TRU wastes over the next decades, and to enhance the quantity and quality of
scientific information available for decision-making.
Research Needs: This research Notice has been developed for Fiscal Year 2003, with the
primary objective of developing scientific knowledge that will enable major advances in
technologies available for characterizing TRU and MW waste. This section provides a summary
of research needs in this area, and is based on a National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council (NRC) report published in 2002 entitled "Research Opportunities for
Managing the Department of Energy's Transuranic and Mixed Wastes (National Research
Council, 2002"). That report identified significant knowledge gaps and research opportunities in
a number of areas; however, due to the limited funds expected to be available to support new
EMSP projects in Fiscal Year 2003, this Notice focuses on research needs for waste
characterization, including characterization and detection of buried wastes.
Research is needed to improve the efficiency of characterizing DOE's TRU and mixed waste
inventory. This includes research toward developing faster and more sensitive characterization
and analysis tools to reduce costs and accelerate throughput, particularly for waste that produces
sufficient penetrating radiation that it requires remote handling. It also includes research to
develop a fuller understanding of how waste characteristics may change with time (chemical,
biological, radiological, and physical processes) to aid in decision making about disposition
paths and to simplify the demonstration of regulatory compliance.
Determining the physical, chemical, and radiological properties of TM wastes pertinent to
handling, processing, transportation, and storage is costly and time-consuming. The problem is
amplified by the wide variety of the wastes and their heterogeneity. Improving and simplifying
waste characterization can reduce costs and increase the rate of shipping wastes to disposal
facilities.
There is a need for faster and more sensitive characterization technologies, for making automated
sampling more reliable, and for improving statistical sampling methods. There is a lack in basic
knowledge of how waste characteristics may change with time, including both short-term
changes that affect storage and shipment and long-term changes that may occur in a disposal
facility. This lack of knowledge drives conservatism in characterization, transportation, and
disposal requirements. Possible microbial effects in waste have generally been ignored.
The greatest challenges for the next generation of characterization technologies will be to
provide the following:
Research toward new, noninvasive, remote imaging and image recognition methods and in-drum
sensors to provide faster and more sensitive technologies for characterization could lead to
significant savings in time, cost, and risk of worker exposure. Although noninvasive diagnostics
are highly preferred, the use of minimally invasive sensors also has promise.
Research is needed to evaluate the microbiology of MW and TRU wastes. This research should
focus on identifying the microorganisms that exist in the waste, and evaluating their relationship
to waste materials (i.e., whether these microbes affect the hazardous or radioactive components
of the waste in ways that make it more or less toxic, or more or less suitable for disposal in
hazardous waste, low-level waste, or other landfills or repositories. Additional research is needed
to develop tools for rapidly diagnosing microbial activity or identifying specific microbes.
One of the most beneficial cost-saving tools would be the formulation of more reliable predictive
models, validated by experimental data, of how waste characteristics may change with time due
to chemical, biological, radiological, and physical processes. This would be most useful in
predicting deleterious processes that might occur in the waste, such as gas generation or matrix
degradation.
PROGRAM FUNDING: It is anticipated that up to a total of $2,000,000 of Fiscal Year 2003
funds will be available for new EMSP awards resulting from this Notice. Multiple-year funding
of awards is anticipated, contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. Award sizes are
expected to be on the order of $100,000-$300,000 per year for total project costs for a typical
three-year award. Collaborative projects involving several research groups or more than one
institution may receive larger awards if merited. The program will be competitive and offered to
investigators in universities or other institutions of higher education, other non-profit or for-
profit organizations, non-Federal agencies or entities, or unaffiliated individuals. DOE reserves
the right to fund in whole or part any or none of the proposals received in response to this
Announcement. All projects will be evaluated using the same criteria, regardless of the
submitting institution. DOE is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the
preparation or submission of proposals if an award is made.
COLLABORATION AND TRAINING: Researchers to the EMSP are encouraged to
collaborate with researchers in other institutions, such as universities, industry, non-profit
organizations, federal laboratories and FFRDCs, including the DOE National Laboratories,
where appropriate. Researchers are also encouraged to provide training opportunities, including
student involvement, in proposals submitted to EMSP.
PROPOSAL FORMAT: Researchers are expected to use the following format in addition to
following instructions given below in the Office of Science Guide for Preparation of
Scientific/Technical Proposals to be Submitted by National Laboratories. Proposals must be
written in English, with all budgets in U.S. dollars. In the case of proposals involving multiple
institutions, only one proposal that encompasses the entire scope of the proposed research should
be submitted; however, the proposal should include separate budgets and budget explanations for
each participating institution.
PROPOSAL CATEGORIES: In order to properly classify each proposal for evaluation and
review, the documents must indicate the researcher's preferred scientific research field, selected
from the following list.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION:
Relevance to Mission: In addition to the formal scientific merit review, proposals that are judged
to be scientifically meritorious will be evaluated by DOE for relevance to the objectives of
EMSP. DOE will also consider, as part of the evaluation, program policy factors such as an
appropriate balance among the program areas, including research already in progress. Additional
information about the general program can be found at:
http://emsp.em.doe.gov. Past research solicitations, abstracts, and research reports of
projects funded under EMSP can be found at:
http://emsp.em.doe.gov/researcher.htm.
Researchers are encouraged to demonstrate a linkage between their research projects and
significant problems related to MW and TRU waste at DOE sites. This linkage can be
established in a variety of ways; for example, by elucidating the scientific problems to be
addressed by the proposed research and explaining how the solution of these problems could lead
to improved capabilities that would reduce costs, accelerate throughput, or reduce the risk of
worker exposure. It is understood that given the nature of basic research, there will not always be
a clear pathway between research results and application to site remediation.
A listing of points of contact and site web pages is provided for researchers who may have site-
specific questions related to TRU and MW problems:
Idaho (http://www.id.doe.gov): William Owca, (208) 526-1983, owcawa@id.doe.gov.
Oak Ridge (http://www.oro.doe.gov): for TRU - Gary Riner, (805) 241-3498,
rinerg@oro.doe.gov; for MW - Brian Westich, (805) 241-2198, westichb@oro.doe.gov.
Savannah River (http://sro.srs.gov): for TRU - Bert Crapse, (803) 725-9866,
Herbert.Crapse@srs.gov or Ann Gibbs, (803) 952-2265, Ann.Gibbs@srs.gov; for MW -
Mike Simmons, (803) 725-1627, Jonathan.Simmons@srs.gov or Bernie Mayancsik,
(803) 952-2271, Bernadette.Mayancsik@srs.gov.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (http://www.wipp.carlsbad.nm.us):
George Basabilvazo, (505) 234-7488, George.Basabilvazo@wipp.ws
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Information on DOE's waste inventory has been
summarized in a recent report (USDOE, 2001), and is also available via the World Wide Web at
DOE's Central Internet Database (http://cid.em.doe.gov). The two categories
of waste listed in these sources that are pertinent to this Notice are transuranic (TRU) and mixed low-level waste
(MLLW). Transuranic waste is defined by DOE Order 435.1 as waste that contains more than
100 nanocuries per gram arising from alpha-emitting radionuclides having atomic numbers
greater than that of uranium (92) and half-lives greater than 20 years. Low-level waste (LLW) is
defined in the Low-Level Radioactive Policy Amendments Act of 1985 by what it is not, and
consequently is a very broad category of waste. LLW is defined as waste that is not spent nuclear
fuel, not high-level waste resulting from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and not byproduct
material as defined in section 11e.2 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. LLW encompasses
materials that are slightly above natural radiation background levels to highly radioactive
materials that require extreme caution when handling. Hazardous waste is defined by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts
260 and 261, as a subset of solid wastes that pose substantial or potential threats to public health
or the environment and that meet any of the following three criteria: (1) waste that is specifically
listed as a hazardous waste by EPA; (2) waste that exhibits one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosiveness, reactivity, and/or toxicity); or (3) waste that is
generated by the treatment of hazardous waste, or is contained in a hazardous waste. Mixed low-
level waste (MLLW) is waste that meets the above definitions of both LLW and hazardous
waste. It contains low levels of radioactive contamination as well as materials that are chemically
hazardous. Mixed transuranic waste (MTRU) is waste that meets the definitions of both TRU
and hazardous wastes. The EPA estimates that over half of DOE's TRU inventory is MTRU
(EPA 2002); however, because all of DOE's retrievably stored, defense TRU wastes are slated
for disposal in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), DOE no longer distinguishes MTRU as a
special category in its inventory (USDOE, 2001).
Since 1970, DOE sites have stored most TRU waste and MW in retrievable 55-gallon drums or
larger containers for future treatment (if needed) and disposal. Prior to 1970, DOE sites buried
materials that meet the current definition of TRU waste and MW in shallow land facilities,
within about 30 meters of the surface. A much smaller fraction of these wastes were buried at
depths between 30 and 300 meters. Most of this waste was buried in 55-gallon drums; however,
some was buried in other types of containers, and some had no form of durable containment. At
the time, DOE considered buried wastes to be permanently disposed, but some of the buried
wastes may require retrieval and treatment.
The previous practice of discharging low-level liquid wastes to retention basins has resulted in
the generation of contaminated soils and sediments. DOE recognizes that some of these materials
are sufficiently contaminated to warrant retrieval. Such materials are termed "ex-situ
contaminated media" in the inventory summary (USDOE 2001). If they are retrieved, both the
pre-1970 buried wastes and the ex-situ media will be considered newly generated waste. In
addition to these historical wastes, activities at DOE sites, including environmental cleanup
activities, will continue to generate new MLLW and TRU wastes over the next several decades.
The materials making up DOE's inventory of MW and TRU wastes are extremely diverse. This
diversity was described in a report (USDOE, 1995) based on data compiled by the various DOE
sites in order to develop site remediation plans. The inventory was divided into five groups, each
with various subcategories:
2. Inorganic homogenous solids and soils
3. Organics
4. Unique wastes
5. Wastewaters
The 1995 inventory also characterized DOE's level of confidence as to how well the wastes were
characterized. In general terms, DOE has high or medium confidence that the physical nature
(i.e., soil or sludge) of most wastes is correctly identified, but it lacks confidence in the existing
quantitative data on the wastes' chemical and radioactive constituents.
The volume and diversity of DOE's MW and TRU wastes pose significant challenges for
disposing of this waste. Currently, DOE's TRU waste disposal efforts are focused on
maximizing the utility of the WIPP. Several hundred thousand drums of TRU waste will need to
be shipped to WIPP, and the characterization required for shipping and acceptance at the WIPP
currently requires many hours and costs thousands of dollars for each drum of waste generated
prior to 1999. Methods to improve characterization are therefore likely to result in significant
savings of time and money.
Some components in TRU waste are problematic for shipping to or disposal in the WIPP. About
two percent (approximately 14,200 drum equivalents) of DOE's TRU waste contains organic
materials that continue to pose shipping problems due to potential gas generation, especially of
hydrogen. Drums containing reactive and corrosive chemicals, as well as drums containing
liquids, sealed containers, and gas cylinders (including paint cans) may not be accepted by the
WIPP, and they are currently removed by manually sorting through the waste. Waste that is
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) constitutes about one percent of the
inventory, and currently cannot be accepted by the WIPP. Approximately two to four percent of
the TRU waste inventory produces sufficient penetrating radiation from fission products that it
requires remote handling, rather than hands-on operator contact. The requirement for remote
handling greatly increases the cost and difficulty of characterizing, treating, and packaging or
repackaging of this waste. Meeting the per-drum limits on heat generation and fissile material
content can necessitate repackaging of the waste. In addition to increasing the waste volume,
repackaging to meet these limits is expensive, time-consuming, and creates the potential for
worker exposure.
DOE currently relies primarily on private contractors and commercial facilities for treating and
disposing of its MLLW. (MLLW cannot be disposed in the WIPP because under current law,
only TRU waste can be disposed there). The characterization and treatment of MLLW that will
be necessary to meet the disposal requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) have received relatively little attention compared to TRU waste. Despite the general
lack of quantitative chemical characterization, it is known that much of DOE's MLLW inventory
contains hazardous chemicals that can be difficult to treat (e.g., heavy metals, solvents and other
organics, and mercury). Furthermore, there is considerable commingling of these materials,
which complicates the selection of disposition options. MLLW that contains certain specified
materials is prohibited from near-surface disposal under current EPA and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) regulations. These include the following:
In order to be disposed, these wastes will require treatment that may be difficult and expensive.
Characterization of the wastes is a necessary first step in the selection of disposition options.
REFERENCES:
National Research Council, 2002, Research Opportunities for Managing the Department of
Energy's Transuranic and Mixed Wastes. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 118pp.
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084717/html/
USEPA, 2002, Mixed Waste Glossary. EPA Radiation Protection Program Waste Management
Team. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/mixed-waste/mw_pg5.htm
USDOE, 1995, The DOE National 1995 Mixed Waste Inventory Report. U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington D.C.
USDOE, 2001, Summary Data on the Radioactive Waste, Spent Nuclear Fuel, and Contaminated
Media Managed by the U.S. Department of Energy. April 2001, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington D.C. http://cid.em.doe.gov/
The instructions and format described below should be followed. Reference Program
Announcement LAB 03-12 on all submissions and inquiries about this program.
GUIDE FOR PREPARATION OF SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL PROPOSALS TO BE SUBMITTED BY NATIONAL LABORATORIES Proposals from National Laboratories submitted to the Office of Science (SC) as a result of this program announcement will follow the Department of Energy Field Work Proposal process with additional information requested to allow for scientific/technical merit review. The following guidelines for content and format are intended to facilitate an understanding of the requirements necessary for SC to conduct a merit review of a proposal. Please follow the guidelines carefully, as deviations could be cause for declination of a proposal without merit review. 1. Evaluation Criteria Proposals will be subjected to formal merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following criteria, which are listed in descending order of importance: Scientific and/or technical merit of the projectThe evaluation will include program policy factors such as the relevance of the proposed research to the terms of the announcement, the uniqueness of the proposer's capabilities, and demonstrated usefulness of the research for proposals in other DOE Program Offices as evidenced by a history of programmatic support directly related to the proposed work. 2. Summary of Proposal Contents
Field Work Proposal (FWP) Format (Reference DOE Order 5700.7C) (DOE ONLY)2.1 Number of Copies to Submit An original and seven copies of the formal proposal/FWP must be submitted. (Unless otherwise instructed in this Program Announcement.) 3. Detailed Contents of the Proposal Proposals must be readily legible, when photocopied, and must conform to the following three requirements: the height of the letters must be no smaller than 10 point with at least 2 points of spacing between lines (leading); the type density must average no more than 17 characters per inch; the margins must be at least one-half inch on all sides. Figures, charts, tables, figure legends, etc., may include type smaller than these requirements so long as they are still fully legible.
3.1 Field Work Proposal Format (Reference DOE Order 5700.7C) The Field Work Proposal (FWP) is to be prepared and submitted consistent with policies of the investigator's laboratory and the local DOE Operations Office. Additional information is also requested to allow for scientific/technical merit review. Laboratories may submit proposals directly to the SC Program office listed above. A copy should also be provided to the appropriate DOE operations office. 3.2 Proposal Cover Page The following proposal cover page information may be placed on plain paper. No form is required. Title of proposed project3.3 Table of Contents Provide the initial page number for each of the sections of the proposal. Number pages consecutively at the bottom of each page throughout the proposal. Start each major section at the top of a new page. Do not use unnumbered pages and do not use suffices, such as 5a, 5b. 3.4 Abstract Provide an abstract of no more than 250 words. Give the broad, long-term objectives and what the specific research proposed is intended to accomplish. State the hypotheses to be tested. Indicate how the proposed research addresses the SC scientific/technical area specifically described in this announcement. 3.5 Budget and Budget Explanation A detailed budget is required for the entire project period, which normally will be three years, and for each fiscal year. It is preferred that DOE's budget page, Form 4620.1 be used for providing budget information*. Modifications of categories are permissible to comply with institutional practices, for example with regard to overhead costs. A written justification of each budget item is to follow the budget pages. For personnel this should take the form of a one-sentence statement of the role of the person in the project. Provide a detailed justification of the need for each item of permanent equipment. Explain each of the other direct costs in sufficient detail for reviewers to be able to judge the appropriateness of the amount requested. Further instructions regarding the budget are given in section 4 of this guide. * Form 4620.1 is available at web site: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/forms.html 3.6 Narrative The narrative comprises the research plan for the project and is limited to 25 pages. It should contain the following subsections (plus any others specific to this Notice): Background and Significance: Briefly sketch the background leading to the present proposal, critically evaluate existing knowledge, and specifically identify the gaps which the project is intended to fill. State concisely the importance of the research described in the proposal. Explain the relevance of the project to the research needs identified by the Office of Science. Include references to relevant published literature, both to work of the investigators and to work done by other researchers. Preliminary Studies: Use this section to provide an account of any preliminary studies that may be pertinent to the proposal. Include any other information that will help to establish the experience and competence of the investigators to pursue the proposed project. References to appropriate publications and manuscripts submitted or accepted for publication may be included. Research Design and Methods: Describe the research design and the procedures to be used to accomplish the specific aims of the project. Describe new techniques and methodologies and explain the advantages over existing techniques and methodologies. As part of this section, provide a tentative sequence or timetable for the project. Subcontract or Consortium Arrangements: If any portion of the project described under "Research Design and Methods" is to be done in collaboration with another institution, provide information on the institution and why it is to do the specific component of the project. The name of the institution and lead investigator, and total requested budget for each such institution should be listed on the title page Further information on any such arrangements is to be given in the sections "Budget and Budget Explanation", "Biographical Sketches", and "Description of Facilities and Resources". 3.7 Literature Cited List all references cited in the narrative. Limit citations to current literature relevant to the proposed research. Information about each reference should be sufficient for it to be located by a reviewer of the proposal. 3.8 Other Support of Investigators Other support is defined as all financial resources, whether Federal, non-Federal, commercial or institutional, available in direct support of an individual's research endeavors. Information on active and pending other support is required for all senior personnel, including investigators at collaborating institutions to be funded by a subcontract. For each item of other support, give the organization or agency, inclusive dates of the project or proposed project, annual funding, and level of effort devoted to the project. 3.9 Biographical Sketches This information is required for senior personnel at the laboratory submitting the proposal and at all subcontracting institutions. The biographical sketch is limited to a maximum of two pages for each investigator. 3.10 Description of Facilities and Resources Describe briefly the facilities to be used for the conduct of the proposed research. Indicate the performance sites and describe pertinent capabilities, including support facilities (such as machine shops) that will be used during the project. List the most important equipment items already available for the project and their pertinent capabilities. Include this information for each subcontracting institution, if any. 3.11 Appendix Include collated sets of all appendix materials with each copy of the proposal. Do not use the appendix to circumvent the page limitations of the proposal. Information should be included that may not be easily accessible to a reviewer. Reviewers are not required to consider information in the Appendix, only that in the body of the proposal. Reviewers may not have time to read extensive appendix materials with the same care as they will read the proposal proper. The appendix may contain the following items: up to five publications, manuscripts (accepted for publication), abstracts, patents, or other printed materials directly relevant to this project, but not generally available to the scientific community; and letters from investigators at other institutions stating their agreement to participate in the project (do not include letters of endorsement of the project).
4. Detailed Instructions for the Budget 4.1 Salaries and Wages List the names of the principal investigator and other key personnel and the estimated number of person-months for which DOE funding is requested. Proposers should list the number of postdoctoral associates and other professional positions included in the proposal and indicate the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) person-months and rate of pay (hourly, monthly or annually). For graduate and undergraduate students and all other personnel categories such as secretarial, clerical, technical, etc., show the total number of people needed in each job title and total salaries needed. Salaries requested must be consistent with the institution's regular practices. The budget explanation should define concisely the role of each position in the overall project. 4.2 Equipment DOE defines equipment as "an item of tangible personal property that has a useful life of more than two years and an acquisition cost of $25,000 or more." Special purpose equipment means equipment, which is used only for research, scientific, or other technical activities. Items of needed equipment should be individually listed by description and estimated cost, including tax, and adequately justified. Allowable items ordinarily will be limited to scientific equipment that is not already available for the conduct of the work. General-purpose office equipment normally will not be considered eligible for support. 4.3 Domestic Travel The type and extent of travel and its relation to the research should be specified. Funds may be requested for attendance at meetings and conferences, other travel associated with the work and subsistence. In order to qualify for support, attendance at meetings or conferences must enhance the investigator's capability to perform the research, plan extensions of it, or disseminate its results. Consultant's travel costs also may be requested. 4.4 Foreign Travel Foreign travel is any travel outside Canada and the United States and its territories and possessions. Foreign travel may be approved only if it is directly related to project objectives. 4.5 Other Direct Costs The budget should itemize other anticipated direct costs not included under the headings above, including materials and supplies, publication costs, computer services, and consultant services (which are discussed below). Other examples are: aircraft rental, space rental at research establishments away from the institution, minor building alterations, service charges, and fabrication of equipment or systems not available off-the-shelf. Reference books and periodicals may be charged to the project only if they are specifically related to the research. a. Materials and Supplies The budget should indicate in general terms the type of required expendable materials and supplies with their estimated costs. The breakdown should be more detailed when the cost is substantial. b. Publication Costs/Page Charges The budget may request funds for the costs of preparing and publishing the results of research, including costs of reports, reprints page charges, or other journal costs (except costs for prior or early publication), and necessary illustrations. c. Consultant Services Anticipated consultant services should be justified and information furnished on each individual's expertise, primary organizational affiliation, daily compensation rate and number of days expected service. Consultant's travel costs should be listed separately under travel in the budget. d. Computer Services The cost of computer services, including computer-based retrieval of scientific and technical information, may be requested. A justification based on the established computer service rates should be included. e. Subcontracts Subcontracts should be listed so that they can be properly evaluated. There should be an anticipated cost and an explanation of that cost for each subcontract. The total amount of each subcontract should also appear as a budget item. 4.6 Indirect Costs Explain the basis for each overhead and indirect cost. Include the current rates.
|