The Offices of Science (SC) and Environmental Management (EM), U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), hereby announce their interest in receiving proposals for
performance of innovative, fundamental research to support specifically innovative, fundamental
research to investigate DOE deactivation and decommissioning issues.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Environmental Management, in
partnership with the Office of Science, sponsors the Environmental Management Science
Program (EMSP) to fulfill DOE's continuing commitment to the clean-up of DOE's
environmental legacy.
The DOE Environmental Management program currently has ongoing applied research and
engineering efforts under its Technology Development Program. These efforts must be
supplemented with basic research to address long-term technical issues crucial to the EM
mission. Basic research can also provide EM with near-term fundamental data that may be
critical to the advancement of technologies that are under development but not yet at full scale
nor implemented. Proposed basic research under this Announcement should contribute to environmental
management activities that would decrease risk for the public and workers, provide opportunities
for major cost reductions, reduce time required to achieve EM's mission goals, and, in general,
should address problems that are considered intractable without new knowledge. This program
is designed to inspire breakthroughs in areas critical to the EM mission through basic research
and will be managed in partnership with SC. The Office of Science's well-established
procedures, as set forth in the Office of Science Merit Review System, available on the World
Wide Web at:
http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/merit.html will be used for
merit review of proposals submitted in response to this Announcement. Subsequent 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 the Environmental Management Science
Program. Additional information can be obtained at:
http://www.emsp.em.doe.gov/main.htm. Additional Announcements for the Environmental Management Science
Program may be issued during Fiscal Year 2001, covering other areas within the scope of the EM program.
Purpose
The purpose of the EMSP is to foster basic research that will contribute to successful completion
of DOE's mission to clean-up the environmental contamination across the DOE complex.
The objectives of the Environmental Management Science Program are to:
Representative Research Areas
Basic research is solicited in all areas of science with the potential for addressing problems in
deactivation and decommissioning. Relevant scientific disciplines include, but are not limited to:
chemical sciences (including fundamental interfacial chemistry, computational chemistry,
actinide chemistry, and analytical chemistry and instrumentation), engineering sciences
(including control systems and optimization, diagnostics, transport processes, fracture mechanics
and bioengineering), materials science (including other novel materials-related strategies), and
bioremediation (including microbial science related to ex situ treatment of organics, metals and
radionuclides and in situ treatment of organics).
Project Renewals
Lead Principal Investigators of record for Projects funded under Office of Science Notice 98-04,
Environmental Management Science Program: Research Related to Decontamination and
Decommissioning of Facilities, are eligible to submit renewal proposals under this solicitation.
It is recognized that many of the projects funded in FY 1998 of the program have already been
very successful. At the same time, we believe that many of these research groups have the
potential to make significant additional contributions toward addressing the science needs of the
Office of Environmental Management (EM).
DATES: The deadline for receipt of formal proposals is 4:30 P.M., E.S.T, March 20, 2001, in
order to be accepted for merit review and to permit timely consideration for award in Fiscal Year
2001.
ADDRESSES: Formal proposals referencing Program Announcement LAB 01-19 should be sent to: U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Science, Medical Sciences Division, SC-73, Office of Biological and
Environmental Research, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874-1290, ATTN: Program Announcement
LAB 01-19. This address must be used when submitting proposals by U.S. Postal Service Express, commercial mail
delivery service, or when hand carried by the proposer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Roland F. Hirsch, SC-73, Mail Stop
F-237, Medical Sciences Division, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Office of
Science, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874-1290,
telephone: (301) 903-9009, fax: (301) 903-0567, E-mail: roland.hirsch@science.doe.gov, or
Mr. Mark Gilbertson, EM-52, Office of Basic and Applied Research, Office of Science and
Technology, Office of Environmental Management, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20585, telephone: (202) 586-7150, E-mail: mark.gilbertson@em.doe.gov.
Program Funding
It is anticipated that up to a total of $4,000,000 of Fiscal Year 2001 Federal funds will be
available for new Environmental Management Science Program awards resulting from this
Announcement. 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 is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the
preparation or submission of proposals if an award is not made. 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.
Collaboration and Training
Proposers to the EMSP are strongly encouraged to collaborate with researchers in other
institutions, such as universities, industry, non-profit organizations, federal laboratories and
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), including the DOE National
Laboratories, where appropriate, and to incorporate cost sharing and/or consortia wherever
feasible. Refer to:
http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/Colab.html for details.
Proposers are also encouraged to provide training opportunities, including student involvement,
in proposals submitted to the program.
Proposal Format
Proposers are expected to use the following format in addition to following instructions listed
later in this announcement 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 order to properly classify each proposal for evaluation and review, the documents must
indicate the proposer's preferred scientific research field, selected from the following list.
Field of Scientific Research:
1. Actinide Chemistry
Proposal Evaluation and Selection
Scientific Merit
Relevance to Mission
Researchers are encouraged to demonstrate a linkage between their research projects and
significant contamination problems at DOE sites. Researchers could establish this linkage 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 improve D&D
capabilities. Subsequent to the formal scientific merit review, proposals which are judged to
be scientifically meritorious will be evaluated by DOE for relevance to the objectives of the
Environmental Management Science Program.
DOE shall also consider, as part of the evaluation, program policy factors such as an appropriate
balance among the program areas, including research already in progress. Research funded in
the Environmental Management Science Program in Fiscal Years 1996 through 2000, can be
viewed at:
http://emsp.em.doe.gov/portfolio/multisearch.asp.
Major Environmental Management Challenges
The safety for workers conducting D&D operations is a issue that will grow as DOE takes on the
more challenging D&D tasks. Workers deal with special hazards that are different from those in
other parts of DOEs Accelerating Clean-up Paths to Closure (DOE, 1998a), including the
following:
The recognized issues pose challenges in characterization, decontamination, and remote systems
where current technology is inadequate and where EMSP funded, research could make
significant contributions include:
Characterization
Characterization of contaminated materials is critical at several stages of D&D. Initially, the
nature and extent of contamination with both radionuclides and toxic materials must be
accurately assessed to ensure adequate protection of workers and the environment, as well as to
allow the selection of appropriate methods of decontamination. During decontamination and/or
demolition of contaminated equipment and structures, there must be some means of monitoring
progress and potential contaminant releases. Finally, after decontamination, the nature and
extent of residual contamination must be assessed to determine the final classification and
disposal of the item in question.
(1) The identification and development of means, preferably real-time, minimally
invasive, and field usable, to locate and quantify difficult to measure contaminants significant to
D&D. These means should be applicable to the major materials and configurations of interest,
such as concrete, stainless steel, and packaged wastes. The contaminants of interest, includes
tritium, technetium-99, plutonium-239 and other actinides, beryllium, mercury, asbestos, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Rationale: The varied nature of D&D facilities has led to a wide range of contaminant
types and site-specific characterization challenges, each generally requiring a detector tailored
specifically to the contaminant being measured and its matrix. Some 2,700 buildings,
constructed mostly of concrete and containing 180,000 metric tons of metals, are currently
within EM’s D&D task. Four areas where research can advance the state of art: (1) methods to
assess the distribution of contaminants within concrete; (2) sensors to measure contaminants on
the surface and within micro-cracks of metals; (3) remote sensing of contaminants; and (4)
biosensors.
The development of minimally- and non-invasive real-time in situ sensing technologies
to characterize the concentration of contaminants, as a function of depth within concrete, would
eliminate difficulties associated with core sample collection and subsequent analysis. Minimally
invasive schemes like laser ablation mass spectroscopy or non-intrusive techniques like neutron
activation and x-ray analysis appear to be attractive candidates for further research.
More sensitive detectors, for example for alpha particles (USDOE, 1999), as well as
simple-to-use techniques, such as chemical indicators are needed to quickly certify levels of
nuclides, hazardous metals, and other toxic substances on structural surfaces and equipment.
This will help ensure safety in the workplace and reduce costs—for example by allowing non-
hazardous waste to be disposed in landfills. Analysis of residual low-energy beta emitters like
tritium and Tc-99 is particularly challenging when these isotopes are inside equipment or mixed
in heterogeneous waste matrices, because the beta articles cannot penetrate through most
materials.
Remote sensing systems can provide both economic and safety benefits by distancing the
worker from hazardous work areas. Remote mapping of activity levels using gamma cameras
(USDOE, 1998b) is now being used to great advantage in D&D operations. Smaller, higher
sensitivity and resolution versions of these instruments would be desirable and may be
achievable through further research on detector materials and geometries. Fiber-optic sensing
for remote detection of some chemical species is feasible. Further research could lead to its use
in sensing chemical contaminants relevant to D&D. Fiber-optic radiation sensors are a more
recent development and opportunities exist for both improved performance and novel features
such as optical interrogation.
(2) The basic research that could lead to development of biotechnological sensors to
detect contaminants of interest may provide a completely new way to meet the needs for
characterization of contaminated materials. The field of biotechnology is rapidly expanding, and
the contaminants of interest and the materials and configurations in which they must be detected,
is noted in (1).
Rationale: There has been tremendous growth in development and commercialization of
a broad range of biosensor devices and applications. Modern devices can range from fiber-optic
and micro-cantilever-linked immuno assays to subcellular and cellular micro-electronic.
Analytes measurable by biosensors include a vast array of organic chemicals, biochemicals,
inorganics, and metals and more recently ionizing radiation. Research to integrate
microelectronics and nanotechnology with elements of gene array technology and cellular
engineering may lead to new sensor technology (see
http://www.nano.gov/press.htm for details). This technology could create new capacity
for continuous and remote monitoring in chemically and physically complex environmental
and structural systems characteristic of DOE’s site D&D needs.
Decontamination
The decontamination of equipment and facilities is necessary at several stages of the
D&D process. Initially, radiation and contamination levels may have to be reduced to allow
worker access or to limit their exposure to radiation and other hazards. Decontamination may be
required before dismantling or demolition work to prevent the spread of radioactive or toxic
materials. Unplanned releases can have off-site as well as on-site consequences.
Decontamination procedures are intended to result in a small volume of the most hazardous
waste, and much larger volumes of waste that has low or no hazard, thus reducing the cost and
long-term risk of disposal. Some decontaminated equipment or facilities might be recycled or
reused. The end state of any decontamination activity must be consistent with both site-specific
and overall DOE clean-up objectives.
(3) The basic research toward fundamental understanding of the interactions of important
contaminants with the primary materials of interest in D&D projects, including concrete,
stainless steel, paints, and “strippable” coatings is needed.
Rationale: Scientific understanding of the interactions among contaminants and
construction materials is fundamental to developing more effective D&D technologies. Both
radioactive and toxic contaminants can exist in a variety of chemical forms (for example, in
different valence states, complexes, or as colloids), which exhibit very different behaviors. While
a good deal of chemical data on the contaminants themselves exist as well as data on their
transport in the environment there is little information of direct relevance to D&D problems.
Such information includes how contaminants bind to steel and concrete surfaces, how they
penetrate into these materials, their migration into pores, fissures, and welds, and time-dependent
“aging” effects. Once sufficient thermodynamic and kinetic data on these interactions are
obtained to allow their modeling from first principles, the models would allow various
decontamination approaches to be evaluated and provide a better way to interpret data from
characterization.
(4) The basic research on biotechnological means to remove or remediate contaminants
of interest from surfaces and within porous materials.
Rationale: The capacity of microbiological processes to destroy, transform, mobilize,
and sequester toxins, pollutants, and contaminants is well-established. Through research to
extend well-known technology in mineral ore leaching and metal recovery, these biochemical
capacities may be exploitable for removal of metals and radionuclides from concrete and
building debris. An excellent example of which was recently described in an American Society
for Microbiology report (see ASM News. 66:133). In addition, microbial biocorrosion processes
for structural metals and concrete are well established and the opportunity exists to investigate
fundamental processes that could facilitate volumetric reduction of waste from D&D activities.
Biotechnical advances in surface treatments of contaminated structures and materials are
anticipated from continuing R&D activities, elucidation of biocatalytic properties of biological
systems and engineering chemicals, and biosurfactants with unique physical chemical properties.
A fundamental understanding of the biological processes would also help to ensure that waste
by-products from the decontamination could be safely treated and stabilized.
Remote Systems
For D&D work, remote systems provide a unique means to separate workers from
hazardous work areas, thus enhancing their safety and productivity. This technology crosscuts
all of the other D&D areas—characterization, decontamination, and dismantlement—and has the
potential for substantial performance enhancement and cost reduction. There are broad ranges
for potential applicability of fundamental advances in this area.
(5) The basic research toward creating intelligent remote systems that can adapt to a
variety of tasks and be readily assembled from standardized modules. Today’s remote systems
are one-of-a-kind devices of high cost and limited capability. Their inflexibility leads to rapid
obsolescence and is a barrier to their deployment. The recommended initial research focus
would be as follows:
The nature and extent of contamination with both radionuclides and toxic materials must be
accurately assessed to ensure adequate protection of workers and the environment, as well as to
allow the selection of appropriate methods of decontamination.
Background
DOE expects to spend some $30 billion for D&D of weapons complex facilities after 2006. For
example the Savannah River and Hanford sites present the biggest D&D challenges and will be
undertaken after 2006 with about half of the $30 billion being saved through use of innovative
technologies that it expects could be developed by that time.
The United States involvement in nuclear weapons development for the last 50 years has resulted
in the development of a vast research, production, and testing network known as the nuclear
weapons complex. The Department has the challenge of deactivating 7,000 contaminated
buildings and decommissioning 900 contaminated buildings that are currently on DOE's list of
surplus facilities. It is also responsible for decontaminating the metal and concrete within those
buildings and disposing of 180,000 metric tons of scrap metal. Deactivation refers to ceasing
facility operations and placing the facility in a safe and stable condition to prevent unacceptable
exposure of people or the environment to radioactive or other hazardous materials until the
facility can be decommissioned. Typically, deactivation involves removal of fuel and stored
radioactive and other hazardous materials and draining of systems. Decommissioning is the
process of decontaminating or removing contaminated equipment and structures to achieve the
desired end state for the facility. Desired end states include complete removal and remediation
of the facility, release of facility for unrestricted use, or release of facility for restricted use.
Decontamination is the removal of unwanted radioactive or hazardous contamination by a
chemical or mechanical process.
Details of the programs of the Office of Environmental Management and the technologies
currently under development or in use by Environmental Management Program can be found on
the World Wide Web at: http://www.em.doe.gov/index4.html
and at the extensive links contained therein. The programs and technologies should be used to obtain a better
understanding of the missions and challenges in environmental management in DOE when
considering areas of research to be proposed.
References
Note: World Wide Web locations of these documents are provided where possible. For those
without access to the World Wide Web, hard copies of these references may be obtained by
writing Mark A. Gilbertson at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
DOE. 1995. Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Environmental Legacy of
Nuclear Weapons Production in the United States and What the Department of Energy is Doing
About It. The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of
Strategic Planning and Analysis, Washington, D.C.,
http://www.em.doe.gov/circle/index.html
DOE. 1998a. Accelerating Clean-up: Paths to Closure - June 1998.
http://www.em.doe.gov/closure
DOE. 1998. Report to Congress on the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Management
Science Program - April 1998. http://emsp.em.doe.gov/
DOE. 2000. Environmental Management Advisory Board.
http://www.em.doe.gov/emab/
DOE. 2000 Environmental Management Science Program, Project Summaries.
http://emsp.em.doe.gov/
DOE. 2000. Office of Integration and Disposition.
http//:www.em.doe.gov/office.html
DOE. 2000 Office of Science and Technology (EM-50).
http://www.ost.em.doe.gov/
Environmental Management Advisory Board Science Committee. 1997. Resolution on the
Environmental Management Science Program dated May 2, 1997.
National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Clean-up? Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the
Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation’s Uranium Enrichment Facilities.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. 1998. A Review of Decontamination and Decommissioning
Technology Development Programs at the DOE. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. 1997. Building an Environmental Management Science Program:
Final Assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.,
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/envmanage/
National Research Council. 2000. Letter Report, Committee on Long-Term Research Needs for
Deactivation and Decommissioning at Department of Energy Sites December 5, 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/books/NI000321/html/1.html#pagetop
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National
Laboratories. February 1995. Task Force on alternative Futures for the Department of Energy
National Laboratories. Washington, D.C.,
http://www.hr.doe.gov/seab/galvin/tf-rpt.html
The instructions and format described below should be followed. Reference Program Announcement
LAB 01-19 on all submissions and inquiries about this program.
The focus of the EMSP is on basic research and the objective of this research Program is to
develop a long-range science plan for deactivation and decommissioning (D&D). The National
Research Council, Committee on Long-Term Research Needs for Deactivation and
Decommissioning at Department of Energy Sites, December 5, 2000 report provided technical
advise on the "recommended areas of research where the EM Science Program can make
significant contributions to solving (D&D) problems and adding to scientific knowledge
generally."
Proposal Categories
2. Analytical Chemistry and Instrumentation
3. Bioremediation
4. Engineering Sciences
5. Interfacial Chemistry
6. Materials Science
7. Other
Scientific Issues
a. Actuators
Rationale: The actuator is the power (muscle) of remote systems, and as such, it is the
key to performance, reliability, and cost. Except for better construction materials and improved
control electronics, most actuator technology has not changed for several decades. Today’s
actuators typically use only one sensor (for position) so that virtually no real time data (for
example, force and velocity) are available to make them “intelligent.” More complete sensory
input, coupled with decision-making software can produce intelligent actuators that are able to
adapt to a variety of tasks. Achieving a relatively inexpensive modular design to allow “plug
and play” deployment of these devices would be especially useful because equipment that fails
or becomes contaminated is usually discarded. Research to answer the question of granularity
(What is the minimum number of required standard modules?) to enable the assembly on
demand of the maximum number of remote systems would make the overall system substantially
more cost effective in deployment and maintenance.
b. Universal Operational Software to Provide Criteria-Based Decision Making
Rationale: Criteria-based decision making is the essence of intelligence in robotic
systems. What is the best use of the system’s resources to perform the task at hand? Today’s
control of robotic devices is derived from techniques developed during World War II in which
control is linear (based only on the difference between two measured parameters). A robot
capable of mimicking human adaptability, however, would require a non-linear control system
coupled to many parameters corresponding to the physical features that accurately represent
performance of the task. The criteria-based software could be universal in the same sense that
operating systems on personal computers are universal—one system supports many different
applications.
c. Virtual Presence of the Worker in Hazardous Environments
Rationale: In the initial planning and characterization phases of D&D work, workers
often must enter an area of high radiation and contamination that is also congested with left-in-
place equipment and materials for which removal inevitably involves physical stress (fatigue)
and the potential for personal injury. Virtual reality systems could allow workers to perform
essential survey and decision making functions from a remote location thus enhancing their
safety and productivity. Advances in the state of the art as now used in deep sea exploration
should be pursued to improve overall system performance by providing force feedback, remote
vision, collision avoidance, and radiation resistant sensor technology.
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:
Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach
Competency of the personnel and adequacy of the proposed resources
Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget
2. Summary of Proposal Contents
An original and seven copies of the formal proposal/FWP must be submitted.
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)
(DOE ONLY)
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.
*The signature certifies that personnel and facilities are available as stated in the proposal, if the project is funded.
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 Narrative
The narrative comprises the research plan for the project and is limited to 25 pages. It should contain the following subsections:
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. 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".
3.6 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.
3.7 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
3.8 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
(DOE Form 4620.1 "Budget Page" may be used)
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.