United States
Environmental Protection
Agsncy
LJ
n
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA600/F-98/013
June 1998
www.epa.gov/ncerqa
V
Science To Achieve Results Program
1999 Grant* ^f Research
Opening Date: June 30, 1998
Closing Oats: September 30, 1998
-------
-------
Children's Vulnerability To
Toxic Substances In The
Environment
Science to Achieve Results Program:
1999 Research Grants
Opening Date: June 30,1998 Closing Date: Sept 30,1998
Contents
Background
.*«,,.;.-.iTn*%sw,.M;".s
Children's Susceptibility to
; fajrfc Chemicals ' * ' '
Funds Available
UBS?
^ubmWng an Application
Guidelines, Limitations, and
Introduction
In this announcement the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Office of Research and Devel-
opment (ORD), invites research grant
applications in the following area of
special interest to its mission:
Children's Vulnerability to Toxic
Substances in the Environment
This invitation provides relevant
background information, summarizes
EPA's interest in this topic area, and
describes the application and review
process. This Request for Applications
(RFA) describes a programmatic area
which is a part of the EPA 1999
solicitation. Additional program topic
areas and joint programs with the
National Science Foundation and other
agencies will be announced separately.
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 initiatives. Achievement
of this mission requires the application
of sound science to assessment of
environmental problems and to
evaluation of possible solutions. A
significant challenge is to support both
long-term research that anticipates
future environmental problems as well
as research that fills gaps in knowledge
relevant to meeting current Agency
goals. Requests for Applications issued
by the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) Program are an important
mechanism for promoting a sound
scientific foundation for environmental
protection.
EPA's research programs focus on
reduction of risks to human health and
ecosystems and on the reduction of
uncertainty associated with risk
assessment. Through its laboratories
and through grants to academic and
other not-for-profit institutions, EPA
promotes research in both domains,
according the highest priority to those
areas in which risk assessors are most
in need of new concepts, methods, and
data. EPA also fosters the development
and evaluation of new risk reduction
technologies across a spectrum, from
pollution prevention through end-of-
pipe controls to remediation and
monitoring. In all areas, EPA is
interested in research that recognizes
issues relating to environmental justice,
the concept of achieving equal protec-
tion from environmental and health
hazards for all people without regard to
race, economic status, or culture.
EPA's extramural research grant
programs are administered by ORD's
National Center for Environmental
Research and Quality Assurance
(NCERQA).
National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance
-------
RESEARCH TOPIC
CHILDREN'S VULNERABIL-
ITY TO TOXIC SUBSTANCES
IN THE ENVIRONMENT
Background
Over the past few years, public
attention has increasingly focused on
potential adverse health effects in
children from exposure to pesticides
and other toxic chemicals in their food,
water, or environment. Public health
officials and physicians are being asked
to assess the significance of a plethora
of possible risks for children. At the
Federal level, recent actions by the
President, the Congress, and the EPA
Administrator have focused attention
on environmental health threats to
children. In 1997, President Clinton
issued an Executive Order addressing
protection of children from environ-
mental health risks. The Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 and the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1996 both
require consideration of infants and
children in risk assessments used to
determine acceptable levels of environ-
mental contaminants in food and
drinking water. In 1996, Administrator
Browner issued a report entitled
Environmental Health Threats to
Children1 and set a Children's Agenda
for EPA, calling for consideration of
children's risks in all Agency actions
and a greater emphasis on research to
support children's risk assessments.
The health impacts of most
concern are respiratory diseases,
childhood cancer, immune system
effects, neurotoxicology, and develop-
mental effects. From 1982 to 1993, the
prevalence, morbidity, and age-adjusted
mortality rates for asthma increased
significantly despite improvements in
asthma diagnosis and management and
improved understanding of the biology
and immunology of the disease. There
are a limited number of studies that
suggest age-related differences in
cancer susceptibility. However, it is
still difficult to assess the potential
impact of these differences due to a
lack of research. The immune system
is of concern due to the known differ-
ences in immune structure and function
between children and adults2. Expo-
sure to some toxic chemicals such as
lead, are well known to cause neuro-
logical effects in children*. However,
the potential neurological effects of
other metals and chemicals such as
solvents, and pesticides3 are not as well
understood. Finally, exposure to a
variety of environmental toxicants can
affect initial growth and development.
In addition, exposure during crucial
periods of development may have
profound effects which may or may not
be reversible in later life. These,
among other concerns, support the need
for additional research on possible
environmental causes of childhood
diseases.
In exploring the factors that affect
health risk from exposure to toxic
chemicals, it must be remembered that
children are a unique sub-population.
Depending on the circumstances,
children may be more or less suscep-
tible to the toxic effects of these
chemicals than are adults. Risks to
children may differ qualitatively or
quantitatively from those to adults
because of differences in their imma-
ture physiology, metabolic processes,
respiratory rates, and differing levels of
exposure4. Nutritional status, disease,
and genetic variation can affect many
of these processes, increasing or
decreasing the risk from exposure to
toxic substances5. The Environmental
Protection Agency will sponsor
research to better understand how these
factors affect risk to children from
exposure to toxic chemicals in the
environment. Of particular interest are
pesticides such as organophosphates,
pyrethroids, and the triazine herbicides.
* Proposals focusing exclusively on lead
poisoning in children will be considered
non-responsive to this RFA.
More specifically, the EPA invites
proposals which explore the assessment
of intermittent and time-varied expo-
sures as well as the biological basis for
increased susceptibility among chil-
dren.
Intermittent Exposures in
Children
The exposure of children to
potentially toxic chemicals is generally
quite different from that of adults
because of differences in physical
environment, activities and diet. The
assessment of exposure in children and
adults depends on first being able to
consider all relevant exposure path-
ways, including dietary, drinking water,
respiratory, dermal, and non-dietary
oral ingestion. Exposures that occur
via some of these pathways can
sometimes be relatively high, but are
usually not persistent and often result
from human activities that are rela-
tively rare (intermittent). Many of the
differences in exposure between
children and adults are associated with
these types of exposure and are most
often linked with the unique behavior
of children.
Children's daily activities, proxim-
ity to floors, carpets, lawns, and soils,
the frequency and duration of hand to
mouth behaviors, and many other
factors combine to form a life environ-
ment that varies with age and from
child to child. Studies suggest, for
example, that children's normal
activities may expose them to higher
levels of pesticides applied in and
around the home*. Children also have
greater average daily food consumption
per unit body weight than do adults,
and children differ in the specific foods
eaten and in the relative proportions of
various foods7.
Proposals that are responsive to
this RFA will identify specific pollutant
chemicals, pollutant sources, environ-
mental media, and exposure pathways
and will attempt to develop novel
1999 Grants for Research
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Science To Achieve Results (STAR)
methodologies for quantifying or
assessing intermittent exposures. The
chemicals and pathways chosen should
represent problems or issues of
environmental relevance. These
proposals might utilize currently
employed techniques such as telephone
surveys, lab experiments, or field
studies. However, the development of
new and untested approaches is also
encouraged. Topics of interest include,
but are not limited to;
* Methods to quantify children's
exposures that occur through
dermal contact and/or via dietary
and/or non-dietary ingestion;
Approaches for quantifying the
frequency and duration of
children's activities in and around
the home which might lead to
significant intermittent exposures
and consider factors such as age,
sex, culture, geography, and
climate; and
Predictive models for estimating
total human exposure, which
incorporate child activity patterns
and account for intermittent and
time varied exposures.
It is especially important to be able
to identify and ultimately characterize
the nature and extent of behavioral
patterns with respect to age/stage of
development since infants, toddlers,
and young children may exhibit great
differences in exposure related to their
mobility and physical development.
Children's Susceptibility to
Toxic Chemicals
There are several interconnected
factors that may contribute to increased
vulnerability for children, depending on
the toxic substance under consideration
and the age of the child. Children's
tissues, organs, and biological systems
are still developing, with several stages
of rapid growth and development
occurring from infancy to adolescence.
This rapid development and immaturity
of body organs and systems predis-
poses children to potentially more
severe consequences within certain age
ranges and windows of vulnerability.
Differences in the absorption, metabo-
lism, distribution, storage, and elimina-
tion of toxic chemicals that enter the
body at different ages may also
contribute to increased vulnerability
and higher doses to target organs and
tissues.
Physiological differences influence
the amount of chemical that is absorbed
into the body. Children have a greater
surface area to body weight ratio than
adults which may lead to increased
dermal absorption. Comparisons of
absorption through the respiratory and
gastrointestinal tract between children
and adults are complex and could lead
to either increased or decreased risk
depending on the physicochemical
properties of the toxic chemical. The
rate at which a substance is distributed
to various organs in the body may be
influenced by developmental changes.
For example, a child's greater volume
of extracellular water may dilute
substances in this compartment. Also,
circulatory flow rates are generally
higher in children and may impact the
distribution of toxic chemicals, and
reduced plasma binding may increase a
child's susceptibility to toxic effects.
The metabolism and excretion of toxic
chemicals in a child's body may also
differ from that of adults. Develop-
mental changes occur in liver enzyme
systems that may increase or decrease
the toxicity of substances in children.
These developmental changes occur at
different rates in the various enzyme
systems with some not being completed
until puberty*. The effects of these
changes also depend on the chemical
and how it is metabolized'.
EPA will support research into
novel methods for studying the
susceptibility of children to environ-
mentally induced disease. Proposals
that are responsive to this RFA will
incorporate information on biological
and physiological characteristics of
different age groups, the variability
within particular age groups, and the
mechanistic basis for increased
susceptibility of children to the adverse
health effects of environmental
contaminants. Of particular interest are
approaches that will provide a better
understanding of these and other
factors that contribute to increased
susceptibility in children. This includes
but is not limited to:
The development of animal models
for studying the toxicity of
environmental contaminants which
help us to understand the unique
susceptibilities of children to the
adverse health effects that may
result from exposure to these
contaminants; and
* Research on approaches for
extrapolating from animal models
to children, including the develop-
ment of physiologically based
pharmacokinetic models for
animals and humans.
end notes
I. USEPA. Environmental Health
Threats to Children, EPA Report #
EPA-175-F-96-001.1996
2. International Life Science Institute
(1LSI) Research Needs on Age-Related
Differences in Susceptibility to
Chemical Toxicants. ILSI Press,
Washington, DC, 1996.
3. Chakraborti, T., et al. Comparative
Neurochemical and Neurobehavioral
Effects of Repeated Chlorpyrifos
Exposure in Young and Adult Rats.
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 46:219-
224, 1993.
4. Guzelian, P.S., et al. (Eds) Similari-
ties and Differences Between Children
and Adults: Implications for Risk
Assessment. ILSI Press, Washington
DC, 1992.
5. (a) World Health Organization.
Principles for Evaluating Health Risks
National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance
-------
from Chemicals During Infancy and
Childhood. Environmental Health
Criteria 59, Geneva: WHO, 1986. (b)
Hunt, V.R., et al. Banbury Report 11:
Environmental Factor in Growth and
Development. Cold Springs Harbor
Press, Plainview, NY, 1982. (c) Kacew,
S. (1992). General Principles in
Pharmacology and Toxicology
Applicable to Children. In: Similarities
and Differences Between Children and
Adults: Implications far Risk Assess-
ment. ILSI Press, Washington DC,
1992. (d) Spielberg, S.P. (1992)
Subpopulation Risk: Interaction of
Development and Genetics, In:
Similarities and Differences Between
Children and Adults: Implications for
Risk Assessment. ILSI Press, Washing-
ton DC, 1992.
6. Fenske, R. et al. Potential Exposure
and Health Effects of Infants Follow-
ing Residential Pesticide Applications.
Am. J. Public Health 80:689-693,
1990.
7. NAS (1993). Pesticides in the Diets
of Infants and cChildren. National
Academy Press, Washington DC.
8. Bearer, C.F. How are Children
Different from Adults? Env. Health
Perspectives. 103 (supplement 6):
7-12, 1995.
9. (a) Abel, S.R. et al. (1990).
Chloramphenicol. In: Kacew, S. (Ed.),
Drug Toxicity and Metabolism in
Pediatrics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl.
(b) Snodgrass, W.R. (1992) Physi-
ological and Biochemical Differences
Between Children and Adults as
Determinants of Toxic Response to
Environmental Pollutants, In:
Similarities and Differences Between
Children and Adults: Implications for
Risk Assessment. ILSI Press, Washing-
ton DC
Funds Available
Subject to the availability of funds,
approximately $5 million is expected to
be awarded in fiscal year 1999 in this
program area. The projected award
range is $150,000 to $250,000/year for
up to 3 years.
Eligibility
Academic and not-for-profit
institutions located in the U.S., and
state or local governments, are eligible
under all existing authorizations.
Profit-making firms are not eligible to
receive grants from EPA under this
program. Federal agencies, national
laboratories funded by federal agencies
(FFRDCs), and federal employees are
not eligible to submit applications to
this program and may not serve in a
principal leadership role on a grant.
FFRDC employees may cooperate
or collaborate with eligible applicants
within the limits imposed by applicable
legislation and regulations. They may
participate in planning, conducting, and
analyzing the research directed by the
principal investigator, but may not
direct projects on behalf of the appli-
cant organization or principal investiga-
tor. The principal investigator's
institution may provide funds through
its grant from EPA to a FFRDC for
research personnel, supplies, equip-
ment, and other expenses directly
related to the research. However,
salaries for permanent FFRDC employ-
ees may not be provided through this
mechanism.
Federal employees may not receive
salaries or in other ways augment their
agency's appropriations through grants
made by this program. However,
federal employees may interact with
grantees so long as their involvement is
not essential to achieving the basic
goals of the grant** The principal
investigator's institution may also
subcontract 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, analyses or instrumentation
not available elsewhere, etc. A written
justification for federal involvement by
subcontract must be included in the
application, along with an assurance
from the federal agency involved which
commits it to supply the specified
service.
**EPA encourages interaction between
its laboratory scientists and grant principal
investigators for the purpose of exchanging
information in research areas of common
interest that may add value to their
respective research activities. However, this
interaction must be incidental to achieving
the goals of the research under a grant. If
the involvement should become substantial,
i.e., essential to achieving these goals, then
the award would become a cooperative
agreement. Interaction that is "incidental"
is not reflected in a research proposal and
involves no resource commitments.
Potential applicants who are uncertain
of their eligibility should contact Dr.
Robert E. Menzer in NCERQA, phone
(202)564-6849, EMail:
menzer.robert@epamail.epa.gov
7999 Grants for Research
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Science To Achieve Results (STAR)
Standard Instructions for
Submitting an Application
This section contains a set of
special instructions on how applicants
should apply for an NCERQA grant.
Proposed projects must be for research
designed to advance the state of
knowledge in the research areas
described in this solicitation.
Sorting Codes
In order to facilitate proper
assignment and review of applications,
each applicant is asked to identify the
topic area in which the 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 inappropriate peer
review assignment. At various places
within the application, applicants will
be asked to identify this topic area by
using the appropriate Sorting Code.
The Sorting Code for the Children's
Vulnerability to Toxic Substances in the
Environment is 99-NCERQA-B1.
Applications are due by September 30,
1998.
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 the section on
How to Apply).
The Application
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 an application is considered for
award, (i.e., after external peer review
and internal review) additional forms
and other information will be requested
by the Project Officer. The applica-
tion should not be bound or stapled
in any way. The Application contains
the following:
A. Standard Form 424: The appli-
cant 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 repre-
sentative of the applying institu-
tion. Please note that both the
Principal Investigator and an
administrative contact should be
identified in Section 5 of the
SF424.
B. Key Contacts: The applicant
must complete the Key Contacts
Form (attached) as the second
page of the submitted application.
C. Abstract: The abstract is a very
important document. 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
research being proposed and
convey all the essential elements of
the research. Also, in the event of
an award, the abstracts will form
the basis for an Annual Report of
awards made under this program.
The abstract should include the
following information, as indicated
in the example format provided:
1. Sorting Code: Use 99-
NCERQA-B1.
2. Title: Use the exact title as it
appears in the rest of the applica-
tion.
3. Investigators: List the names
and affiliations of each investigator
who will significantly contribute to
the project. Start with the Princi-
pal Investigator.
4. Project Summary: This
should summarize: (a) the objec-
tives of the study (including any
hypotheses that will be tested), (b)
the experimental 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 it addresses the research
needs identified in the solicitation,
and (d) the estimated improve-
ment in risk assessment or risk
management that will result from
successful completion of the work
proposed.
5. Supplemental Keywords: A
list of suggested keywords is
provided for your use. Do not
duplicate terms already used in the
text of the abstract.
D. Project Description: This
description must not exceed fifteen
(15) consecutively numbered
(center bottom), 8.5x 11 -inch
pages of single-spaced standard
12-point type with 1-inch margins.
The description must provide the
following information:
1. Objectives: List the objec-
tives of the proposed research and
the hypotheses being tested during
the project and briefly state why
the intended research 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).
2. Approach: Outline the
methods, approaches, and tech-
niques that you intend to employ in
meeting the objective stated above
(five to 10 pages recommended).
3. Expected Results or Ben-
efits: Describe the results you
expect to achieve during the
project, the benefits of success as
they relate to the topic under which
the proposal was submitted, and
the potential recipients of these
National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance
-------
benefits. This section should also
discuss the utility of the research
project proposed for addressing the
environmental problems described
in the solicitation (one to two
|jtA£^Wi3 1 WV/llllllWltMVUy.
4. General Project Informa-
tion: Discuss othftr inform-;t;on
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 recom-
mended).
5. Important Attachments:
Appendices and/or other informa-
tion may be included but must
remain within the 15-page limit.
References cited are in addition to
the 15 pages.
E. Resumes: The resumes of all
principal investigators and
important co-workers should be
presented. Resumes must not
exceed two consecutively num-
bered (bottom center), 8.5x11-inch
pages of single-spaced standard
12-point type with 1-inch margins
for each individual.
F. Current and Pending Support:
The applicant must identify any
current and pending financial
resources that are intended to
support research related to that
included in the proposal or which
would consume the time of
principal investigators. 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 consider-
ation of your proposal.
C. Budget: The applicant must
present a detailed, itemized budget
for the entire project. This budget
must be in the format provided in
the example (see attachment) and
not exceed two consecutively
numbered (bottom center), 8.5x11-
inch pages with 1-inch margins.
Please note that institutional cost
sharing is not required and,
therefore, does not have to be
included in the budget table. If
desired, a brief statement concern-
ing cost sharing can be added to
the budget justification.
H. 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.
This justification should not
exceed two consecutively num-
bered (bottom center), 8.5x11-inch
pages of single-spaced standard
12-point type with 1-inch margins.
I. Quality Assurance Narrative
Statement: For any project
involving data collection or
processing, conducting surveys,
environmental measurements, and/
or modeling, provide a statement
on how quality processes or
products will be assured. This
statement should not exceed two
consecutively numbered, 8.5x11-
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 Assur-
ance 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. 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.
1. The activities to be performed
or hypothesis to be tested (refer-
ence may be made to the specific
page and paragraph number in the
application where this information
may be found); criteria for
determining the acceptability of
data quality in terms of precision,
accuracy, representativeness,
completeness, comparability.
2. The study design, including
sample type and location require-
ments and any statistical analyses
that were used to estimate the
types and numbers of samples
required for physical samples or
similar information for studies
using survey and interview
techniques.
3. The procedures for the
handling and custody of samples,
including sample identification,
preservation, transportation, and
storage.
4. The methods that will be used
to analyze samples or data col-
lected, including a description of
the sampling and/or analytical
instruments required.
5. The procedures that will be
used in the calibration and perfor-
mance evaluation of the sampling
and analytical methods used during
the project.
6. The procedures for data
reduction and reporting, including
a description of statistical analyses
to be used and of any computer
models to be designed or utilized
with associated verification and
validation techniques.
7999 Grants for Research
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Science To Achieve Results (STAR)
7. The intended use of the data as
they relate to the study objectives
or hypotheses.
8. The quantitative and or
qualitative procedures that will be
used to evaluate the success of the
project.
9. Any plans for peer or other
reviews of the study design or
analytical methods prior to data
collection.
ANSf/ASQC E4, "Specifications and Guide-
lines for Quality Systems for Environmental
Data Collection and Environmental Technol-
ogy 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 nec-
essary to consult this document.
J. Postcard: The Applicant must
include with the application a self-
addressed, stamped 3x5-inch post
card. This will be used to ac-
knowledge receipt of the applica-
tion and to transmit other impor-
tant information to the applicant.
How 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 NCERQA
no later than 4:00 P.M. EDT on
September 30,1998.
The application and abstract must
be prepared in accordance with these
instructions. Informal, incomplete, or
unsigned proposals will not be consid-
ered. 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: 99-NCERQA-B1
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
For express mail or courier-
delivered applications, the following
address must be used:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Peer Review Division (8703K)
Sorting Code: 99-NCERQA-B1
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).
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 applica-
tion. If you wish to submit more than
one application to the STAR Program,
you must ensure that the research
proposed in each is significantly
different from any that has been
submitted to this solicitation or from
any other grant you are currently
receiving from EPA or any other
federal government agency.
Projects which contain
subagreements or subcontracts consti-
tuting more than 40% of the total direct
cost of the grant for each year in which
the subcontract is awarded will be
subject to special review and may
require additional justification.
Researchers will be expected to
budget for and participate in an annual
All-Investigators Meeting with EPA
scientists and other grantees to report
on research activities and to discuss
issues of mutual interest.
Review and Selection
All grant applications are initially
reviewed by EPA to determine their
legal and administrative acceptability.
Acceptable applications are then
reviewed by an appropriate technical
peer review group. This review is
designed to evaluate each proposal
according to its scientific merit. In
general, each review group is com-
posed of non-EPA scientists, engineers,
social scientists, and/or economists
who are experts in their respective
disciplines and are proficient in the
technical areas they are reviewing. The
reviewers use the following criteria to
help them in their reviews:
National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance
-------
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 informa-
tion 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 signifi-
cant 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.
Applications that receive scores of
excellent and very good from the peer
reviewers are subjected to a program-
matic review within EPA, the object
being to assure a balanced research
portfolio for the Agency. Scientists
from the ORD Laboratories and EPA
Program and Regional Offices review
these applications in relation to
program priorities and their
complementarity to the ORD intramu-
ral program and recommend selections
to NCERQA.
Funding decisions are the sole
responsibility of EPA. Grants are
selected on the basis of technical merit,
relevancy to the research priorities
outlined, program balance, and budget.
A summary statement of the scientific
review by the peer panel will be
provided to each applicant. Normally,
applicants are notified about award
decisions within 6 months of the
application deadline.
Applications selected for funding
will require additional certifications,
possibly a revised budget, and re-
sponses to any comments or sugges-
tions offered by the peer reviewers.
Project officers will contact principal
investigators to obtain these materials.
Proprietary Information
By submitting an application in
response to this solicitation, the
applicant grants EPA permission to
share the application with technical
reviewers both within and outside of
the Agency. Applications containing
proprietary or other types of confiden-
tial information will be returned to the
applicant without review.
Funding Mechanism
The funding mechanism for all
awards issued under this solicitation
will consist of grants from EPA and
depends on the availability of funds. In
accordance with Public Law 95-224,
the primary purpose of a grant is to
accomplish a public purpose of support
or stimulation authorized by Federal
statute rather than acquisition for the
direct benefit of the Agency. In issuing
a grant agreement, EPA anticipates that
there will be no substantial EPA
involvement in the design, implementa-
tion, or conduct of the research funded
by the grant. However, EPA will
monitor research progress, based in part
on annual reports provided by
awardees.
Contacts
Additional general information on
the STAR Program, forms used for
applications, etc., may be obtained by
exploring our Web page at . EPA does not
intend to make mass-mailings of this
announcement. Information not
available on the Internet may be
obtained by contacting:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Center for Environmental
Research and Quality Assurance
(8703R)
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
Phone: 1-800-490-9194
In addition, a contact person has
been identified below for this topic. He
will respond to inquiries regarding the
solicitation and can respond to any
technical questions related to your
application.
Children's Vulnerability to Toxic
Substances in the Environment
Chris Saint 202-564-6909
saint.chris@epamail.epa.gov
1999 Grants for Research
-------
APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
2. DATE SUBMITTED
OMB Approval No. 0348-0043
Applicant Identifier
1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION
Application
D Construction
D Non-Construction
3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE
Preapplicatton
D Construction
O Non-Construction
State Applicant Identifier
4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY
Federal Identifier
5. APPLICANT INFORMATION IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY? DYES d NO IF YES, LIST ACRONYM(S)
Legal Name:
Organizational Unit:
Address (give city, county, state, and zip code):
Name and telephone and E-mail number of the person to be contacted on matters
involving this application (give area code)
PI:
ADMIN. CONTACT:
8. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN):
7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: (enter appropriate totter In box)
in
i n
8. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
o New c Continuation ° Revision
If Revision, enter appropriate letter(s) in box(es): | | I I
A. Increase Award B. Decrease Award C. Increase Duration
D. Decrease Duration Other (specify):
A. State
B. County
C. Municipal
D. Township
E. Interstate
F. Intermunicipal
G. Special District
H. Independent School Dist.
I. State Controlled Institution of Higher Learning
J. Private University
K. Indian Tribe
L. Individual
M. Profit Organization
N. Other (Specify)
9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - ORD - NCERQA
10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC
ASSISTANCE NUMBER:
TITLE: 99-NCERQA-
11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT:
12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT IcHles, counties, states, etc.);
13. PROPOSED PROJECT:
14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
Start Date
Ending Date
a. Applicant
b. Project
15. ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING:
a. Federal
b. Applicant
c. State
d. Local
e. Other
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS?
a. YES. THIS PREAPPLICATION/APPLICATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON:
DATE
b. NO D PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E.G. 12372
D OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW
f. Program Income
g. TOTAL
.00
.00
17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT?
D Yes If 'Yes,* attach an explanation. d' No
18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPUCATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY
a. Typed Name of Authorized Representative
b. Title
c. Telephone number
d. Signature of Authorized Representative
e. Date Signed
3revious Editions Not Usable
Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102
Standard For 424 (REV 4-68)
Authorized for Local Reproduction
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SF 424
This is a standard form used by applicants as a required facesheet for preapplications and applications submitted for Federal
Assistance. It will be used by Federal agencies to obtain applicant certification that States which have established a review
and comment procedure in response to Executive Order 12372 and have selected the program to be included in their process,
have been given an opportunity to review the applicant's submission.
Item:
Entry:
Item:
Entry:
1. Self-explanatory.
2. Date application submitted to Federal agency (or
State, if applicable) & applicant's control number
(if applicable).
3. State use only (if applicable).
4. If this application is to continue or revise an
existing award, enter present Federal identifier
number. If for a new project, leave blank.
5. Legal name of applicant, name of primary
organizational unit which will undertake the
assistance activity, complete address of the
applicant, and name and telephone number of the
person to contact on matters related to this
application.
6. Enter Employer Identification Number (BIN) as
assigned by the Internal Revenue Service.
7. Enter the appropriate letter in the space provided.
8. Check appropriate box and enter appropriate
letters) in the space(s) provided:
"New" means a new assistance award.
"Continuation" means an extension for an
additional funding/budget period for a project
with a projected completion date.
"Revision" means any change in the Federal
Government's financial obligation or contingent
liability from an existing obligation.
9. Name of Federal agency from which assistance is
being requested with this application.
10. Use the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
number and title of the program under which
assistance is required.
11. Enter a brief descriptive title of the project. If me
than one program is involved, you should append
an explanation on a separate sheet. If appropriate
(e.g., construction or real property projects), attach
a map showing project location. For
preapplications, use a separate sheet to provide a
summary description of this project.
12. List only the largest political entities affected (e.g.,
State, counties, cities.)
13. Self-explanatory.
14. List the applicant's Congressional Districts and
any Districts) affected by the program or project.
15. Amount requested or to be contributed during the
first funding/budget period by each contributor.
Value of in-kind contributions should be included
on appropriate lines as applicable. If the action
will result in a dollar change to an existing award,
include only the amount of the change. For
decreases, enclose the amounts in parentheses. If
both basic and supplemental amounts are included,
show breakdown on an attached sheet. For
multiple program funding, use totals and show
breakdown using same categories as item 15.
16. Applicants should contact the State Single Point of
Contact (SPOC) for Federal Executive Order 12372
to determine whether the application is subject to
the State intergovernmental review process.
17. This question applies to the applicant
organization, not the person who signs as the
authorized representative. Categories of debt
include delinquent audit allowances, loans and
taxes.
18. To be signed by the authorized represwrt
the applicant. A copy of the governing body's
authorization for you to sign this application as
official representative must be on file in the
applicant's office. (Certain Federal agencies may
require that this authorization be submitted as part
of the application.
SF424 (REV 4-88) Back
-------
KEY CONTACTS FORM
Authorized Representative: Original awards and amendments will be sent
to this individual for review and acceptance, unless otherwise indicated.
Name:
Title:
Complete Address:
Phone Number:
Payee: Individual authorized to accept payments.
Name:
Title:
Complete Address:
Phone Number:
Administrative Contact: Individual from Sponsored Programs Office to
contact concerning administrative matters (i.e., indirect cost rate computation,
rebudgeting requests etc.)
Name: _ . __ _^_ _ _^___ _ _
Title:
Complete Address:
Phone Number:
FAX Number:
E-Mail Number:
Principal Investigator: Individual responsible for the technical completion of
the proposed work.
Name: .
Title:
Complete Address:
Phone Number:
FAX Number:
E-Mail Number:
NCERQA Form 1 (9/96) For use with EPA STAR Grant Applications
-------
-------
EPA STAR Grant Abstract (Example Format)
Sorting Code: 99-NCERQA-XX (use the correct code that corresponds to the appropriate RFA topic)
Title: Use the exact title as it appears in the rest of the application.
Investigators: List the names and affiliations of each investigator who will significantly contribute to the
project. Start with the Principal Investigator.
Institution: Name of university or other applicant.
Project Period: October 1, 1999-September 30, 2001, for example.
Research Category: Enter your research topic name.
Project Summary:
Objectives/Hypothesis: include a short statement on the context of the proposed research in
relation to other environmental research in the particular area of work
Approach: outline the methods, approaches, and techniques you intend to employ in meeting the
objectives
Expected Results:
including a brief description of the
Improvements in Risk Assessment or Risk Management
that will be realized if the expected results are achieved
Supplemental Keywords: see attached suggestions. Do not duplicate terms used in the text of the abstract.
NCERQA Form 2 (7/97) For use with EPA STAR Gram Applications
-------
SUGGESTED KEYWORDS
Media: (media, air, ambient air, atmosphere, ozone, water, drinking water, watersheds, groundwater,
land, soil, sediments, acid deposition, global climate, indoor air, mobile sources, CASTNET, strato-
spheric ozone, tropospheric, marine, estuary, precipitation, leachate, adsorption, absorption, chemical
transport)
Risk Assessment: (exposure, risk, risk assessment, effects, health effects, ecological effects, human
health, bioavailability, metabolism, vulnerability, sensitive populations, dose-response, carcinogen,
teratogen, mutagen, animal, mammalian, organism, cellular, population, enzymes, infants, children,
elderly, stressor, age, race, diet, metabolism, genetic pre-disposition, genetic polymorphisms, sex, ethnic
groups, susceptibility, cumulative effects)
Chemicals, toxics, toxic substances: (chemicals, toxics, particulates, ODS, VOC, CFC, PAH, PNA,
PCB, dioxin, metals, heavy metals, solvents, oxidants, nitrogen oxides, sulfates, organics, DNAPL,
NAPL, pathogens, viruses, bacteria, acid rain, effluent, discharge, dissolved solids, intermediates)
Ecosystem Protection: (ecosystem, indicators, restoration, regionalization, scaling, terrestrial,
aquatic, habitat, integrated assessment)
Risk Management: pollution prevention (green chemistry, life-cycle analysis, alternatives, sustain-
able development, clean technologies, innovative technology, renewable, waste reduction, waste minimi-
zation, environmentally conscious manufacturing); treatment (remediation, bioremediation, cleanup,
incineration, disinfection, oxidation, restoration)
Public Policy: (public policy, decision making, community-based, cost-benefit, conjoint analysis,
observation, non-market valuation, contingent valuation, survey, psychological, preferences, public good,
Bayesian, socio-economic, willingness-to-pay, compensation, conservation, environmental assets, socio-
logical)
Scientific Disciplines: (environmental chemistry, marine science, biology, physics, engineering,
social science, ecology, hydrology, geology, histology, epidemiology, genetics, pathology, mathematics,
limnology, entomology, zoology)
Methods/Techniques: (EMAP, modeling, monitoring, analytical, surveys, measurement methods,
general circulation models, climate models, satellite, landsat, remote sensing)
Geographic Areas: (Northeast, central, Northwest, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Midwest, Mid-
Atlantic, states: {use both full name and two letter abbreviation}, EPA Regions 1 through 10)
Sectors: (agriculture, business, transportation, industry {petroleum, electronics, printing,
etc}:{identify 4 digit SIC codes}, service industry, food processing, etc)
NCERQA Form 3 (8/97) For use with EPA STAR Grant Applications
-------
Current and Pending Support
The following information should be provided for aacfi investigator and other senior personnel. Failure to provide tho nforrrialion may delay comideration of Ida proposal.
Investigator:
Other agencies (including NSF) to which this proposal has been/mil be submitted.
Support: D Current D Pending D Submission Planned in Near Future D Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Total Award Period Covered:
Cal:
Acad:
Sumr:
Support: D Current
Project/Proposal Title:
D Pending D Submission Planned in Near Future D Transfer of Support
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Total Award Period Covered:
Cal:
Acad:
Sumr:
Support: D Current
Project/Proposal Title:
D Pending D Submission Planned in Near Future D Transfer of Support
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Total Award Period Covered:
Cal:
Acad:
Sumr:
Support: D Current
Project/Proposal Title:
D Pending D Submission Planned in Near Future D Transfer of Support
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Total Award Period Covered:
Cal:
Acad:
Sumr:
Support: D Current D Pending D Submission Planned in Near Future D Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Total Award Period Covered:
Cal:
Acad:
Sumr:
*lf this project has previously been funded by another agency, please list and furnish information tor immediately preceding funding period.
NSF Form 1239 (7/95) For use with EPA STAR Grant Applications
USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NECESSARY
-------
-------
Itemized Budget for EPA STAR Grant Applications (Example Format)
CATEGORIES
a. Personnel
Principal Investigator
Co-Pi
Research Scientists
Postdoctoral Scientists
Other Personnel
TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS
b. Fringe Benefits
%of
c. Travel
Trip 1
Trip I
Trip 1
...etc.
TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS
d. Equipment
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
...etc.
TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS
e. Supplies
Item I
Item 2
Item 3
...etc.
j TOTAL SUPPLY COSTS
f. Contracts
l
2
3
...etc.
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL COSTS
g. Other
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
...etc.
TOTAL OTHER COSTS
h. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
I (sum of a-g)
I i. Indirect Costs/Charges
% of (base)
I j. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
1 (sum of h & i)
1 k. TOTAL REQUESTED
FROM EPA
YEAR ONE
YEAR TWO
YEAR THREE
TOTAL PROJECT
NCERQA Form 4 (4/97) For EPA STAR Gram Applications
DO NOT USE THIS FORM -- Example Only -
-------
-------
m
2
I
§
s
1
? o
o 3
3 ?
6) O
^£
o?
is-
=-s
c
------- |