[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8234]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 6, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Invitation for Proposals for Projects Designed To Support Risk
Assessment and Risk Management Practices Associated With DOE's
Environmental Management Programs
AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of Program Interest; Amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice replaces and supersedes the Notice of Program
Interest (NOPI) published in the Federal Register on February 22, 1994
(59 FR 8462). The purpose of this announcement is to correct the
previous NOPI and clarify the program needs in risk assessment and risk
management for the Office of Environmental Management.
DATES: This notice is effective on April 6, 1994 and will remain
effective until September 30, 1994. This notice extends the due date
for receipt of proposals from April 8, 1994 to September 30, 1994. Due
to programmatic needs, proposals related to risk management support and
risk assessment at DOE facilities need to be received as early as
possible. Awards, if made, will not be available before October 1,
1994. Proposals that are received before June 30, 1994, will receive
priority consideration. Proposals received after June 30, 1994 will
receive consideration dependent upon funding availability after the
initial awards are made.
ADDRESSES AND FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for technical
information should be directed to Dr. Michael Heeb, Department of
Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC 20585,
Telephone (202) 586-2661. For procurement related information, contact
Dr. John Wengle, EM-53, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Environmental Management, Office of Technology Development, Washington,
DC 20585, (301) 903-8491. Proposals (original plus (5) copies), citing
this NOPI, should be directed to: Office of Procurement Assistance and
Program Management, Unsolicited Proposals Management Section, HR-522.2,
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose
II. Objective Merit Review
III. Proposal Format
IV. Evaluation Criteria
V. Awards
I. Purpose
The Office of Environmental Management (EM) is seeking to award
grants or cooperative agreements to applicants, to fund (in whole or in
part) projects, or cost share in projects, that will help EM implement
a program to develop credible risk assessment and risk management
practices to protect the public health and environment at DOE
facilities and sites.
For more information about EM's needs in risk assessment and risk
management, including information related to the integration of risk
assessment and risk management, interested applicants are referred to
the National Research Council's report ``Building Consensus Through
Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy's
Environmental Remediation Program,'' National Academy Press, 1994, and
the presentations contained therein by Assistant Secretary Thomas
Grumbly and concerned stakeholders. Copies of the National Research
Council's report may be obtained from the Department of Energy by
calling Ms. Mary Wilson, Telephone (202) 586-2661. It is strongly
recommended that interested applicants review this document prior to
submitting a proposal.
EM's program in integrated risk management faces two critical
activity areas: First, a statutory requirement to report to Congress on
the risks to the public health and safety posed by the conditions at
the Nation's nuclear weapons complex; and second, the need for long-
term assistance in risk assessment and risk management at DOE
facilities and sites. The first activity was mandated by Congress in
Public Law 103-126, enacted October 28, 1993. The DOE is addressing the
Congressional requirement through actions that are on a separate track
and not addressed by this announcement. It is the second activity that
this solicitation addresses, i.e., the long-term needs for assistance
in developing credible processes and methods for risk assessments and
risk management decisions that include meaningful involvement of
affected parties, future land and facilities use planning, cost of
proposed remediation activities, public and worker health and safety,
and environmental impacts.
As discussed in the National Research Council's report and in
specific remarks by Assistant Secretary Thomas Grumbly, DOE is seeking
to define the risks to human health and the environment on a site-by-
site basis. Further, DOE is seeking approaches and methods:
To systematically identify and characterize, on a site-by-
site basis, the risks to human health and the environment;
To systematically identify and characterize the data gaps
and uncertainties, and identify methods for filling gaps and reducing
uncertainties, in our present understanding of the above cited risks;
To systematically review and recommend the process by
which the above cited risks will be reduced;
To systematically review and recommend how public
participation should be involved in risk evaluation and how such risks
should be communicated to non-technical audiences; and
To systematically review and define the costs for risk
reduction.
In addition, the credibility of DOE and its site contractors is a
serious issue that must be appropriately addressed if valid and
persuasive risk assessments are to be conducted, i.e., serious
consideration must be extended to the question of who performs the risk
assessment, who performs the risk reduction assessment, who performs
the cost assessment, etc.
The National Research Council has identified several obstacles
associated with using a risk based approach at DOE sites. These
obstacles include the fact that:
The use of risk assessment to set priorities for
remediation is viewed with skepticism;
Risk assessment is viewed as a mechanical process, without
opportunity for public input, that often fails to give due
consideration to affected stakeholders;
Stakeholders have voiced concerns that risk assessments
may result in an inequitable distribution of resources both among and
within facilities and sites.
Notwithstanding these obstacles, the National Research Council has
concluded that a risk based approach to environmental cleanup is both
feasible and desirable. In order for such an approach to be effective
in influencing Remedial Action Decisions, it is necessary that risk
management and risk assessment theory and processes, robust public
participation programs, and public policy decision makers be brought
together and integrated into one coherent decision making process.
EM is interested in receiving proposals from applicants that
propose creative and innovative methods for providing credible risk
assessments and credible practices for implementation of risk-based
decisions. Proposals should address cost/risk policy and priority
setting at the DOE sites involving decontamination, decommissioning,
environmental restoration, facilities transition, technology
development, and site management.
Proposals that include an integrated-systems approach that includes
technology-based solutions for reducing, eliminating, or mitigating
risks at the weapons complex are most desirable. In addition, proposers
should demonstrate an organizational capability both to work with
diverse multi-disciplinary technical groups and to work with social and
cultural issues in the risk assessment arena. Additional factors to be
considered in decision-making and in establishing priorities include:
Federal Facilities Agreements;
State and local agreements;
Tribal agreements;
Public participation and outreach to affected citizen
groups;
Innovative approaches to development of credible risk
assessments and implementation of risk-based decision making;
Strategies and methods for identifying and filling data
gaps and reducing uncertainties;
Environmental justice, socioeconomic and sociopolitical
issues; and
Other environmental, worker, and public health and safety
issues.
II. Objective Merit Review
An objective merit review of each proposal will be accomplished in
accordance with EM's Merit Review System, as published in the Federal
Register on May 6, 1991 (56 FR 20602). Applicants are advised that EM
shall utilize the procedure detailed under subsection IV(E)(2) of its
Merit Review System (56 FR 20604), i.e., field readers shall be
utilized in lieu of standing review committees.
III. Proposal Format
The proposal shall contain two sections, technical and cost.
Technical proposals shall be no more than fifty (50) pages in length;
resumes of proposed key personnel should be submitted as an appendix to
the technical proposal and will not be counted against the page limit.
It is left to the proposer to determine how best to structure the
proposal. However, the following information shall be included:
a. Proposals shall include a detailed project description that
discusses the specific tasks to be performed under the proposed
project.
b. Proposals must also demonstrate that the offeror is perceived as
neutral and credible, and is capable of conducting scientifically valid
and responsible assessments. Assessments must include clear statements
of what is not known and what is uncertain, as well as statements of
what is known. Proposals must demonstrate how independent, external
peer-review will be conducted.
c. Proposals must demonstrate that the offeror has the experience
and capability to plan, organize, manage, and facilitate public
participation in communities. Proposals must also demonstrate that the
offeror has the experience and ability to effectively communicate
complicated scientific information on potential risks and
uncertainties, to local and national stakeholders, other affected and
concerned citizens, and decision makers at all levels.
d. Proposals must demonstrate that the offeror presently has or is
capable of obtaining staff with the training, expertise, and experience
needed to conduct scientifically complex risk assessments and cost
assessments. Proposals must identify the technical and scientific staff
that will actually conduct the studies and detail their professional
experience as well as their level of program involvement.
e. Proposals must demonstrate that the offeror has the ability to
integrate their work with the activities of other organizations
conducting risk assessments.
f. Proposals must demonstrate that the offeror has management
capability, for both financial and scientific management, and a
demonstrated skill in planning and scheduling projects of comparable
magnitude to that proposed under this NOPI.
Cost proposals shall have no page limit. The cost proposal shall
include a summary breakdown of all costs, and provide a detailed
breakdown of costs on a task-by-task basis for each task contained in
the project description. In addition, any expectation concerning cost
sharing shall be clearly stated. Cost sharing is encouraged, but it
shall not be considered in the selection process.
IV. Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation criteria are as specified in subsection IV(G) of
EM's Merit Review System (56 FR 20604).
V. Awards
Approximately $20 million may be available in FY 1995 for projects.
If sufficient acceptable applications are received, available funding
may determine the number of awards. Awards, if any, will be determined
through evaluation of applications received against the evaluation
criteria, and the availability of funds. Awards, either grants or
cooperative agreements, will be made only to technically acceptable
applicants. Budget and project periods may be negotiated to fit the
requirements of particular projects; awards will be on a schedule to be
agreed to by DOE and the awardee. DOE reserves the right to support or
not support any portion, all, or none of the proposals submitted.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 31, 1994.
Thomas P. Grumbly,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 94-8234 Filed 4-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P