ACRP Project 02-61 identified and ranked research needs related to airport stormwater management. One of the conclusions of this review was that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit compliance requirements increasingly include pavement deicer constituents in stormwater discharges. As controls on aircraft deicing runoff have become more widespread and effective, focus on the relative contribution and influence of pavement deicing runoff has increased. Yet airports face significant challenges when attempting to parse out the relative contribution of airfield deicers, because the sources contributing to oxygen demand (i.e., biochemical oxygen demand [BOD] and chemical oxygen demand [COD]) cannot be easily measured. Airports therefore need a method to determine the contribution of pavement deicers and anti-icers to the total oxygen demand in stormwater.
The objective of this research is to develop a method to estimate the contributions of airfield pavement deicers and anti-icers to overall oxygen demand (BOD and COD) in stormwater discharges.
The method should:
Account for sources, fate and transport of airfield pavement deicers and anti-icers;
Identify and quantify airfield pavement deicers and anti-icers contained in discharged waters;
Account for contributions from other non-airfield pavement-related deicers and anti-icing activities;
Be adaptable to background water chemistry, various geographies, airport configurations, soils, topography, climate, weather, and hydrology;
Be scalable to levels of resource availability (e.g., data, time, money, personnel, expertise); and
Produce output expressed as a percentage of overall BOD and COD attributable to airfield pavement deicers and anti-icers with levels of confidence, and identify uncertainties.
The ACRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective. The work proposed must be divided into tasks, and proposers must describe the work proposed in each task in detail.
The research plan should include, at a minimum, an interim report that describes work done in early tasks, including a framework for a recommended method and rationale, a method verification plan, and a method usability assessment plan.
The research plan should also include, at a minimum, the following checkpoints with the ACRP project panel: (1) kick-off conference call to be held within 1 month of contract execution to discuss the amplified work plan, (2) interim meeting to review the results of the interim report, and (3) an additional conference call/web meeting to be scheduled at the project panel’s discretion.
Note: Following receipt of the interim report, there should be 2 months for ACRP review and comments and for the interim meeting.
The final deliverables will include the following:
1. Technical report that provides:
Method to estimate the contributions of airfield pavement deicers and anti-icers on overall oxygen demand (BOD and COD) discharged to receiving waters;
Documentation of all aspects of the research;
Primer that includes a literature review, a discussion of airfield deicing and anti-icing contributions to oxygen demand and the relationship between BOD and COD, related regulatory issues, and potential data sources for method inputs;
Dissemination plan and future research needs; and
User guide for method with examples.
2. Stand-alone technical memorandum titled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products,” as noted in Special Note E.
Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, there should be 3 months for ACRP review and comments and for contractor preparation of the final deliverables. For budgeting purposes, proposers should assume that ACRP will provide access to web-enabled teleconference services. ACRP will pay panel members’ travel costs for the face-to-face meeting. Proposers should assume that the meeting will be held in Washington, DC.
A. Proposals are evaluated by the ACRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively very knowledgeable in the problem area. Selection of an agency is made by the project panel considering the following factors: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application of results; (5) the proposer's plan for participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises--small firms owned and controlled by minorities or women; and (6) the adequacy of the facilities.
Note: The proposer's plan for participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises should be incorporated in Item 12 of the proposal.
B. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the brochure, "Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals" (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/crp/docs/ProposalPrep.pdf). Proposals also should include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task using Figures 5 and 6 in the brochure. Please note that TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards (selected proposers are considered subawards to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB) must comply with 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. These requirements include a provision that proposers without a “federally” Negotiated Indirect Costs Rate Agreement (NICRA) shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 10% of Modified Total Direct Costs. Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each lower-tier subaward and subcontract. Modified Total Direct Costs exclude equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each lower-tier subaward and subcontract in excess of $25,000.
C. If a proposer elects to include an electronic tool as a deliverable, it must be based on readily available commercial off-the-shelf software. A description of the tool’s development plan will need to be included in the interim report, and the method’s usability assessment plan must include a beta test of the electronic tool.
D. Item 4(c), "Anticipated Research Results," in each proposal must include an Implementation Plan that describes activities to promote application of the product of this research. It is expected that the implementation plan will evolve during the project; however, proposals must describe, as a minimum, the following: (a) the "product" expected from the research, (b) the audience or "market" for this product, (c) a realistic assessment of impediments to successful implementation, (d) the institutions and individuals who might take leadership in applying the research product, (e) the activities necessary for successful implementation, and (f) the criteria for judging the progress and consequences of implementation.
E. The required technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” should (a) provide recommendations on how to best put the research findings/products into practice; (b) identify possible institutions that might take leadership in applying the research findings/products; (c) identify issues affecting potential implementation of the findings/products and recommend possible actions to address these issues; and (d) recommend methods of identifying and measuring the impacts associated with implementation of the findings/products. Implementation of these recommendations is not part of the research project and, if warranted, details of these actions will be developed and implemented in future efforts.
F. Item 5 in the proposal, "Qualifications of the Research Team," must include a section labeled "Disclosure." Information relevant to the ACRP's need to ensure objectivity and to be aware of possible sources of significant financial or organizational conflict of interest in conducting the research must be presented in this section of the proposal. For example, under certain conditions, ownership of the proposing agency, other organizational relationships, or proprietary rights and interests could be perceived as jeopardizing an objective approach to the research effort, and proposers are asked to disclose any such circumstances and to explain how they will be accounted for in this study. If there are no issues related to objectivity, this should be stated.
G. A strategic priority for ACRP is to assure quality in its research projects. ACRP therefore encourages the principal investigator of the successful proposer to participate in a 1-day Symposium on ACRP Research in Progress that will be held during the Transportation Research Board’s 2019 Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. Proposers may include this cost in their proposed project budget.
H. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the contract and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The contractor and subcontractors will be able to publish this material for non-commercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academic research or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The contractor and subcontractors will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. By signing a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, contractors accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Contractors are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for use of copyrighted material in TRB’s Cooperative Research Programs publications. For guidance on TRB’s policies on using copyrighted material please consult Section 5.4, “Use of Copyrighted Material,” in the Procedural Manual for Contractors.
I. If the research approach includes human subjects testing, proposers should be aware that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has its own Institutional Review Board (IRB) that must review and approve the results of the proposing agency’s IRB process. It should be assumed that this step will require several weeks.