[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