DOE Oak Ridge Operations

Questions and Answers

Section C: Description, Specifications, Work Statement

Question #/Section

Question

Answer

Date Posted
1. Section C Assuming that the HF product will contain impurities, will DOE indemnify the successful offeror from third party liability related to the sale/use of the HF? The only indemnity that will be available pursuant to this contract is that permitted by the Clause I.130 Nuclear Hazard Indemnity Agreement. Otherwise, third party liability is subject to the provisions of I.20, Allowable Cost and Payment, and I.132, Insurance, Litigation, and Claims. 12/08/00
2. Section C Part of the inventory is expected to contain technetium, plutonium, and neptunium (plutonium isotope?). Is this part of the inventory expected to contain 232U and daughters? Plutonium isotopes are 239Pu and 240Pu. 232U and daughter products are not expected. 12/13/00
3. Section C Is the bidder responsible for moving/dispositioning the concrete chocks and B-25 boxes stored in the yards? Yes, the Contractor is responsible for the final disposition of concrete chocks, as well as wooden chocks. If the B-25 boxes referenced are the waste storage containers adjacent to “F” Yard at the ETTP Site, they are not the responsibility of the Contractor. 12/20/00
4. Section C Is the Bidder responsible for any environmental remediation of the cylinder yards? The Contractor is not responsible for environmental restoration of the cylinder storage yards after the cylinders and chocks are removed. If as the result of a cylinder incident, breach, etc. the yard is contaminated, the Contractor would be responsible for such cleanup activities. 12/20/00
5. Section C Who is responsible for maintaining the cylinder handling equipment during the contract? The DUF6 Contractor. 12/20/00
6. Section C Does it make any sense to retain any of the converted DUF6 product for future use when approximately 7000 Metric Tons per year is currently being generated, plus (1) no reasonable large-scale application envisioned, and (2) there is about 25 years of backlog? The issue of the size of a strategic stockpile of DU is currently being examined within the Department of Energy and no conclusion has been reached. The RFP requires that the Contractor shall provide up to 6 months of on-site storage for empty cylinders and products/wastes generated from conversion. The intent of this provision is to provide reasonable storage in the event of transportation disruption due to inclement weather and/or unforeseen delays encountered by proposed products/wastes recipients. 01/08/01
7. Section C Given the limited options regarding beneficial reuse, what is the Department’s view of an end product that optimizes the capability for storage, retrieval and reuse at a later time? The Department is seeking a stable chemical form of the depleted uranium product that has an assured disposition path. The Department encourages beneficial use/reuse of the depleted uranium product, fluorine by-products, and potential waste materials (e.g., empty cylinders). If the DOE or the Contractor identifies no market for either the DUF6 conversion products, fluorine by-products, or the empty cylinders, these materials shall be processed, packaged, and certified to meet the WAC at the disposal facility selected by the contractor. 01/08/01
8. Section C Within the existing DOE cylinder storage areas, how much space (storage pads) is available for use by the Conversion Project? The areas available to the Conversion Contractor are identified in the RFP and on the site maps. (See Section C. References, Item B, Site Maps) 02/16/01
9. Section C What space will be assigned to the Contractor at Portsmouth and Paducah? The areas available to the Conversion Contractor are identified in the RFP and on the site maps. (See Section C. References, Item B, Site Maps) 02/16/01
10. Section C.1 (1) Must all operations be conducted on site at the two facilities? (2) Can off-site commercial facilities be leveraged for conversion, waste management, smoothing staffing and resources, and/or leveraging existing infrastructure? (3) End product can be proposed - should target minimum cost? Two conversion facilities must be designed, constructed, and operated on DOE property; one at Paducah, KY and one at Portsmouth, OH. This does not preclude some support services from being performed off-site. 01/08/01
11. Section C.II.B.(5). What was the nature of repair that was made to the 5 cylinders that were breached: temporary, patch, weldment? The RFP references ten breached cylinders from the entire cylinder inventory. Repairs consist of welded patches over holes in cylinder walls. Welded 14-ton cylinders can not be autoclaved because the weldment prevents them from fitting into an autoclave and it changes the pressure vessel integrity. A breach occurred in one 12-inch cylinder at Paducah because of corrosion of the end plug. Repairs to this consisted of placing a new plug in the fitting and back-welding the plug in place. 01/30/01
12. C.II.B.(6). In Section C Paragraph II.B.(6) refers to DUF6 accrued costs of USEC and ties them to PL 105-204. Does this refer to only a portion of the accrual monies during a specific period, or is this ongoing? PL 105-204 stated "The Secretary of Energy shall prepare, and the President shall include in the budget request for fiscal year 2000, a plan and proposed legislation to ensure that all amounts accrued on the books of the United States Enrichment Corporation for the disposition of depleted uranium hexafluoride will be used to commence construction of, not later than January 31, 2004, and to operate, an onsite facility at each of the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, to treat and recycle depleted uranium hexafluoride consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act." PL 105-204 only set aside funds but did not make them available to the Department. The Department must seek additional appropriated funds from Congress. 12/01/00
13. C.II.C.
Site Information		 If modifications to existing DOE leases and/or permissions related to those leases become necessary to perform the scope of work, will the DOE be responsible for arranging same? Yes; however, with respect to real estate, the conversion contractor is expected to identify property that may need lease modifications. The conversion contractor is expected to obtain services that reflect best value for the government; if those services are covered by the lease agreement, DOE may assist in obtaining those services. 01/11/01
14. C.II.C.(1). A. The Statement of Work (RFP, Section C.II.C.1) identifies a facility, C-340, at Paducah that was once used to convert DUF6 to DUF4 and uranium metal. Are C-340 facility drawings available? A. The C-340 facility was used in previous years as part of the total uranium cycle at the Paducah site. The facility is now in a degraded condition and scheduled for decontamination and demolition. There are several hundred drawings associated with the C-340 project. A limited number of these drawings are approved for public release and have been placed in the Public Reading Room at the Paducah Site. 12/01/00
15. C.II.C.(1).
Site Information and I.134 Preexisting conditions		 B. Is the contractor excluded from all potential liabilities for SWMU 194 pursuant to I.134, "Preexisiting Conditions?" B. To the extent SWMU 194 is a preexisting condition under the terms of clause I.134, the contractor will not be held responsible. If the contractor contributes to the liability after award of the contract, the contractor would be responsible to the extent of this and other applicable provisions of the contract. 12/08/00
16. C.II.C.1. Section C.II.C.1 states that the contractor can assume that the site is suitable for construction and operation at Paducah. No such instruction was given for Portsmouth. Can the contractor assume that the candidate site at Portsmouth is also suitable for construction and operation of a plant? A portion of the Portsmouth site is presently occupied by existing warehouses (lithium storage) and utilities. If the Contractor proposes demolition of such warehouses, the Contractor’s approach to characterization and demolition of those facilities controls the degree to which the site becomes suitable for construction and operations. 12/22/00
17. C.III.B.NEPA A. If NEPA activities extend beyond 16 months from contract award due to circumstances outside the control of the Contractor, will the Contracting Officer provide an extension of time and other appropriate equitable adjustments? A. Any extension of time or equitable adjustment for which the contractor is entitled will be subject to the applicable contract terms, e.g, I.111 Excusable Delays, I.96 Changes, F.1 Stop-Work, etc. 12/08/00
18. C.III.B.NEPA B. When does DOE anticipate the publication of the NOI (Notice of Intent) for the EIS relating to the Construction and Operation of the Conversion Facilities? B. The notice of intent for the site-specific EIS relating to the construction and operation of the DUF6 conversion facilities is scheduled for publication approximately one month prior to contract award. 12/08/00
19. C.III.B.NEPA C. Will the ROD (Record of Decision) for this procurement support construction and operation of the two DUF6 conversion facilities? C. The site-specific EIS relating to construction and operation of the DUF6 conversion facilities will consider all reasonable alternatives for implementing the decision made in the Record of Decision for Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride, which was issued in August 1999. Such alternatives will include the alternative of constructing and operating two DUF6 conversion facilities. DOE will decide among the various alternatives considered in the final site-specific EIS when a corresponding record of decision is issued. 12/08/00
20. C.III.B.NEPA D. Please clarify when in the NEPA process will an award be made and how the award relates in time to the update of information in the deliverable identified as Initial NEPA Data (Deliverable D-2). D. The NEPA process will formally begin with the publication of the notice of intent, about one month before the contract award date. As specified in Section C.XI of the RFP, the deliverable D-2, "Initial NEPA Data", is scheduled to occur 120 calendar days after the contract award date. The delivery date for the deliverable D-3, "Update NEPA Data", is due with the Preliminary Design Packages (D-14), and is left for the offeror to propose. This deliverable also coincides with the delivery of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Reports (D-16). Delivery of deliverable D-3 should occur soon after the publication of the draft site-specific EIS so that any necessary changes can be incorporated into the final EIS before its scheduled publication date. 12/08/00
21. C.III.B.NEPA E. It would be beneficial to the offeror in preparing our proposal if DOE would describe in as much detail as available the NEPA timeline as it relates to the procurement milestones. This will assist in the preparation of construction and operation schedules.

Please clarify the following statement found in C-Section B: "Unless DOE specifically decides otherwise, DOE will not issue the notice-to-proceed on final design until NEPA reviews (i.e., environmental impact statements) are completed and a Record of Decision has been issued. DOE anticipates a duration of NEPA activities of 16 months from award of this contract." It is unclear when the NEPA process will begin for this procurement. For example, will the NOI be issued at the time of a preliminary award under 10CFR1021.216 (i) or will it begin at some time prior to the award.		 E. The NEPA process will formally begin with the publication of the notice of intent, about one month before the contract award date. The draft and final site-specific EISs are scheduled for publication at 10 and 15 months after the contract award date, respectively. The record of decision ( ROD) is scheduled to be issued one month after the final EIS is published. Publication of the ROD must occur prior to the start of final design, unless DOE specifically decides otherwise. 12/08/00
22. C.III.B.NEPA F. Is there any published guidance relating to the level of detail required for the submitting of data specified in Attachment L3?

What is the format and content of DOE "critique and synopsis" required per 10 CFR 1021.216? Can DOE provide examples of these documents?

 F. The contents of the environmental critique and synopsis are summarized in 10 CFR 1021.216. Offerors have no responsibility for the critique and synopsis beyond the preparation and submittal, as stated in the RFP, of Attachment L3, which DOE will utilize as input into the critique and synopsis process. There is no published guidance, other than the RFP itself, relating to the level of detail required for data submitted as specified in Attachment L3. DOE does not intend to provide examples of these documents beyond what may be currently available in the public record. 12/08/00
23. C.III.B.NEPA Award of contract is scheduled for July, 2001. NEPA and other processes appear to start for the contractor at that date. Is there funding available to pay the contractor starting in July, 2001? Yes. NEPA will begin approximately one month prior to contract award and is separately funded. 12/13/00
24. C.III.B.NEPA Can DOE consider commencing NEPA project, at least for site selection, prior to award? This would avoid not having a site available at the end of the 16 month period. NEPA planning activities are underway within the Department of Energy. Due to the open ended conversion product form, some NEPA activities cannot get underway until the specific product form(s) and approach thereto are known. See related NEPA Q&As. 12/13/00
25. C.III.B.NEPA Since UF4 was not analyzed in detail in the PEIS, if we proposed to convert DUF6 to this product and DOE selects this offeror, how will this impact preparation and timing of the post-award NEPA documentation? Regardless of the successful proposer’s stable chemical form, the NEPA process is expected to be completed approximately 15 months after contract award. Product forms not evaluated in the PEIS will be appropriately reviewed in the site specific NEPA evaluations of the conversion facilities. 12/21/00
26. C.III.B.NEPA Why is UF4 considered an acceptable disposition form when is was not considered and analyzed in detail in the PEIS? The PEIS recognized correctly, based on qualitative arguments, that adverse environmental impacts from UF4 disposal would be greater than those from disposal of U3O8 or UO2 and elected not to analyze further to determine if these impacts were unacceptable. UF4 is disposable at NTS under current practice, and therefore cannot be ruled out as an unacceptable disposition form. 12/21/00
27. C.III.C.
 [Consolidated Question] Several questions have been submitted regarding the requirement in Section C.III.C for the successful offeror to become a party signatory to the consent orders with the states. The questions have addressed why the contractor must become a signatory, when (during the term of the contract) he must become a signatory, alleged inconsistency by DOE in enforcing the signatory requirement, and the extent of the contractor’s responsibility in becoming a signatory. DOE has been requested to reconsider this requirement. As a matter of policy, DOE wants its contractor to be a party signatory to the consent orders in order to promote contractor compliance with the requirements of the consent orders. Consistent with this policy, DOE’s former contractor, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, was a party-signatory to the Portsmouth DFF&O, and, when Bechtel Jacobs Company replaced Energy Systems as the contractor for cylinder management activities at Portsmouth, Bechtel Jacobs became a party-signatory to the DFF&O.

The contractor must become a party-signatory to the DFF&O (and upon request to the TDEC Consent Order and future consent orders) as a precondition to undertaking cylinder activities covered by the DFF&O (or by the TDEC Consent Order and future consent orders). The nature and extent of the Contractor's responsibility as a party signatory to the consent orders are subject to negotiation.

The DFF&Os provide an example of terms and conditions that acknowledge limits on the contractor’s responsibilities as a party signatory.

 01/19/01
28. C.III.G.
Integrated Safety Management		 The RFP states on page C-12 Item 4, "Prior to the development of this {ISMS} plan, the Contractor shall negotiate with the DOE the appropriate set of Work Smart Standards (WSS) and Standards/Requirements Identification Documents (S/RIDs)." Many of the sites in the DOE complex have reduced their emphasis on Work Smart Standards and S/RIDs because too often these documents do not include worker involvement, and because an approach that begins with S/RIDs is not consistent with the ISMS process. This is especially relevant given that S/RIDs and WSS do not currently exist at Paducah or Portsmouth. Is there latitude to negotiate with DOE the content of the ISMS plan, and if the contractor can demonstrate an adequate approach, provide an alternate means of meeting standards? Or does the DOE intend to use S/RIDs and WSS at these sites? DOE intends that the selected contractor use either WSS and/or SRIDs to establish the standards and requirements for the DUF6 facilities. DOE also intends that the standards system selected be an integral part of the contractor's ISMS, which will include worker involvement. 12/13/00
29. C.IV. Subparagraph 3 of Paragraph A of Clause IV, Facility Planning, provides three tables with maximum concentrations and total amounts of Transuranic Elements and Technetium. The values for Technetium are higher than would normally be expected in depleted Tails (Technetium normally goes up the cascade into product fraction). During the preproposal conference, could DOE please discuss how the Technetium levels were determined? Refer to ORNL/TM-2000/242, an electronic copy of which is available through the web site, for a complete discussion of the basis for these estimates. 12/21/00
30. C.IV.
Facility Planning		 What are the required seismic design specifications for construction at the Paducah and Portsmouth sites? All design, construction, and operation of conversion facilities as well as cylinder management shall be performed in conformance with local, state, and Federal codes and standards, as well as DOE Directives. Refer to the applicable seismic codes and directives. 12/22/00
31. C.IV.A. Section IV.A, “Design Bases,” sub item 1. Is it required that both conversion facilities produce one and only one product between them? Yes. Two conversion facilities shall be designed, constructed and operated on DOE property to produce the same depleted uranium product. 12/21/00
32. C.VI. (a) Can we get a list of site cylinder inventory, cylinder size, content?

(b) Can we get specs for non-standard cylinders, dimension, etc.?

 (a) Refer to CID on Web site.

 
(b) Refer to CID and cylinder fabrication drawings on Web site.

 12/15/00
33. C.VI. Schedule slide - indicated that contractor would take over cylinder management one year prior to conversion operations. Does this mean Bechtel Jacobs will continue to do cylinder surveillance and maintenance until approx. 2004-2005 time frame?: i.e. during the design & construction phases of the contract? Yes, Bechtel Jacobs or their successor will manage the cylinder program until it is transitioned to the conversion contractor. 12/20/00
34. C.VI. (With reference to Natural & Low Enriched Cylinders). Will DOE process these cylinders or is the contractor expected to disposition them?

The selected contractor will assume responsibility for cylinder management activities for DOE. According to the RFP, this includes cylinders containing DUF6, normal feed, and LEU, empty cylinders, and heeled cylinders. The RFP also indicates the selected contractor will be responsible for disposition of the cylinders containing LEU heel quantities?

 The inventory of LEU and Natural UF6 is of value to the Department and will remain in the DOE inventory pending disposition at the direction of the Department. The contractor will include these cylinders in the S&M program and implement DOE direction for any disposition. 12/20/00
35. C.VI. Are the anticipated 2000 cylinders generated by USEC in addition to the number of cylinders in the inventory presented? Are these cylinders also to be processed with the 25 year period? The total inventory in CID on the web site includes that portion of the approximately 2000 MOA cylinders that have already been transferred to DOE. All of the approximately 2000 MOA cylinders are included in the scope to be processed in the conversion facility. 12/20/00
36. C.VI. Does DOE expect the Offeror to propose disposition pathways for the <200 cylinders of LEU and natural UF6 cylinders or is the Offeror to implement DOE direction regarding these cylinders. Impression from the site tours is the former, preproposal briefing the latter, please clarify. LEU and Natural are of value to the Department. The intent of the RFP is for the contractor to implement DOE direction with regard to transactions including LEU/Natural. 12/20/00
37. C.VI. Are all cylinders, including non-DUF6 cylinders, to be moved to PORTS? As required by the Tennessee Order, DOE has agreed that all cylinders at the ETTP Site must be removed from the site by 12/31/2009. Cylinders removed from the Site will either be shipped to Portsmouth for conversion or dispositioned directly from ETTP, e.g. empties, by other means. 12/22/00
38. C.VI. What are the storage requirements for non-DUF6 cylinders? Storage requirements for UF6 are determined by the uranium assay, character of any impurities, condition of the cylinder, and the requirements of site cylinder management procedures, DOE orders and regulatory agreements. 01/05/01
39. C.VI. During the tour the guide stated that DOE cylinders are only stacked two high, is it possible to stack emptied cylinders three high to reduce or eliminate the required cylinder yard expansion? Current site cylinder management procedures for managing DOE cylinders do not permit stacking cylinders more than two high. 01/05/01
40. C.VI. What, if any, are the restrictions on times (daylight, M-F, ?) for cylinder movement at a yard or between yards in the same site? The Contractor will be expected to operate in compliance with all applicable procedures, in a safe/efficient manner, and cooperate with other Contractors on site. At present there are no specific restrictions formovement of cylinders. Current cylinder management procedures require inspection of any cylinder prior to and following any movement. Cylinder movements would require adequate lighting for the inspections. 01/08/01
41. C.VI. Are there any regulatory issues that must be addressed with the State of Ohio before the cylinders can be transported from ETTP to Portsmouth? For example, will the Director's Final Findings and Orders with the Ohio EPA have to be modified or amended? Also, any issues with the State of Tennessee? The State of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Consent Order and State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Director's Final Findings & Orders are included in the RFP for the Offerors consideration in the preparation of their proposal. Offerors should anticipate regulatory issues of these orders as they relate to their proposal. 01/08/01
42. C.VI.
 Mr. Boggs mentioned natural and LEU cylinders at ETTP - are these included in scope of work and how are contents to be converted? There are two major objectives of this contract (a) convert all DOE DUF6 cylinder contents to a more stable chemical form, and (b) perform cylinder management on all DOE UF6 cylinders. Therefore, natural and LEUF6 cylinder contents are not to be converted. Cylinder management activities on these cylinders is required by the contract scope as well as future disposition as directed by DOE. (Ref. SOW Section C. VI. C. 2.) 01/04/01
43. C.VI.
 Mr. Boggs mentioned some cylinders stored in a vault, isolated because of criticality issues. What is different (composition) and are these included in the scope? Cylinders located in vault at ETTP are located there because of the quantity and assay level of the material they contain. They are DOE cylinders and are included in the scope of work; i.e. cylinders management. The quantity and assay information is included in the CID. 01/04/01
44. C.VI.
 During the presentation it was noted that some of the yards are active and the number of cylinders will be changing due to Surveillance and Maintenance (S&M) activities. Is this true of all the yards. Will the number of cylinders be base lined? The number of cylinders in any of the cylinder yards can potentially change over time as a result of S&M activities. The CID, as provided in the RFP, is a typical snapshot in time of the number and types of cylinders in a given yard. 01/04/01
45. C.VI.
 (a) How many damaged cylinders are there on site?

(b) How many partially full cylinders are there by type?

(c) Is there environmental requirement to have the cylinders painted before they’re moved?

 (a) Refer to CID and explore cylinder defect codes.

(b) Refer to CID

(c) No. A key driver of cylinder management are the applicable state orders. Also, the Contractor shall ensure cylinder S&M activities necessary to fulfill the consent orders, the Contractors S&M Plan (Ref. D-19),as approved by DOE, and any other requirements necessary to meet the Implementation Plan on DNFSB Recommendation 95-1.

 01/04/01
46. C.VI.
 During the ETTP tour it was stated that the contractor could come up with an innovative approach to handling the heel cylinders. Does that mean, that if the heel is removed, the cylinders can be left and not disposed of? All DOE UF6 cylinders at ETTP must be removed from the ETTP site by 12/31/09. Therefore, even if a cylinder is emptied at ETTP, the empty cylinder must be properly dispositioned off the ETTP site. 01/04/01
47. C.VI.
 (a) How often are the non-standard cu-12.8 and cu-19 cylinders moved

(b) Is there a rigging setup in GFE equipment that has been used to move them?

 (a) There is no set schedule for movement of these cylinders. They are moved as necessary to comply with S & M requirements.

(b) No, equipment to be supplied by the government for this contract is included in the GFE list in the RFP.

01/04/01
48. C.VI.
 The information in the DOE UF6 Cylinder Information Database (CID) totals the number of cylinder defects but does not quantify defects by cylinder type and quantity for each location. This information is not accessible from the CID for Portsmouth or Paducah. Can you supply a table, similar to "Table 1", Long-term Storage Inventory Potential Deficiencies" in the DUF6 Cylinder Project System Requirements Document (K/TSO-001 Rev. 5) that describes defects by existing and potential deficiencies and in addition indicates the affected cylinders by type and quantity at each location? Could you also provide an additional column providing the total number of each type of cylinder affected by each deficiency? This information can be obtained by manipulation of the information in the CID. An example in PDF format shows how a user can access and manipulate this information through a combination of CID reports and any of several off-the-shelf spreadsheet packages. This itemized response will be based on using Microsoft Excel 2000®. All "reports" from the menu can be imported into a spreadsheet in this manner. 01/30/01
49. C.VI.A. Section VI.A, "Transport of Cylinders from ETTP to Portsmouth." Is there an existing, approved means of transporting the DUF6 cylinders from ETTP to Portsmouth? If so, will it handle all types of cylinders at ETTP? If not, is DOE requesting that the contractor include the cost of developing this in its proposal? There is no existing approved operating procedure for transporting cylinders from ETTP to Portsmouth that meet the requirements of the current DOT regulations. The Contractor is responsible for developing this procedure which may include design, procurement, and/or fabrication of DOT certified containers (e.g. overpacks) to handle and transport ALL cylinders, that are not removed from ETTP by other means. This procedure must accomplish the transport to Portsmouth, OH in a safe and environmentally sound manner. 01/08/01
50. C.VI.B. Does the example of CID posted on the web contain the conditions of the entire inventory, specifically with respect to cylinder defects? The example CID included in the RFP reflects the cylinders in the inventory at that point in time and contains the defect codes of those cylinders. 12/20/00
51. C.VI.B. What are the various cylinder sizes and dimensions to be shipped from ETTP, and how many non-conforming cylinders are there? (a) Cylinder type and condition are data fields contained in the Cylinder Information Database (CID). Cylinder type coupled with cylinder fabrication drawing details located elsewhere on the DUF6 web page will yield cylinder sizes and dimensions. (b) The CID contains cylinder status and characterization. There is no database attribute entitled “non-conforming”. However, through the online inquiry, one can determine cylinder defects under the “Current Cylinder Status” section which lists defect codes and review conformance parameters under the “Characterization” section which gives “Transport” and “Contents” compliance indicators. Each proposers approach to DUF6 conversion will govern whether specific “Cylinder Defects” are considered “non-conforming”. 12/22/00
52. C.VI.B. What analytical data is available for the contents of the cylinders to be shipped from ETTP? The data available for the contents of cylinders is included in the Cylinder Information Database (CID) in the RFP and in ORNL/TM-2000/242, Strategy for Characterizing Transuranics and Technetium Contamination in Depleted UF6 Cylinders, located on the website on the Information Only page, item no.13. 12/22/00
53. C.VI.B. What are the specifications of the cylinder type "Other" as described on page 1 of the Cylinder Information Database? These are an assortment of small sample tubes maintained in Nuclear Material Control and Accountability because of the presence of uranium. Refer to CID. 01/05/01
54. C.VI.B. The Cylinder Information Database does not indicate what types of cylinders containing LEU are full and partially full. What is the assay and net weight of each type of cylinder containing LEU? CID does provide inventory information on all cylinders. 01/05/01
55. C.VI.C.
 Is BJC responsible for disposition of wooden cradles at Paducah, like it is at Portsmouth? Yes, but activities not completed by BJC will be transitioned to the new Contractor. 01/04/01
56. C.VI.C.(2). Section C.VI.C(2) refers to newly generated cylinders from USEC, and references a MOA (Reference F). Will these cylinders be surveilled, maintained, and processed under this contract? Yes. 12/01/00
57. C.VI.C.2. (a) Section C.VI.C.2 Does the “transfer in or out” of other cylinders, not exceeding 200 per annum, include or exclude the disposition of LEU or natural assay cylinders? Is there a proposed number and schedule of transfer for these cylinders if they are excluded?

(b) Section C.VI.C.2 What date does “newly generated USEC DUF6 cylinders” begin?

(c) Does the transfer in or out of other cylinders estimated not to exceed 200 cylinders per annum, refer to (1) USEC cylinders; (2) LEU cylinders; (3) natural assay cylinders or a combination thereof?

 The June 30, 1998 MOA between DOE and USEC (Reference F) identifies a specific number and schedule for the transfer of post-privatization USEC DUF6 cylinders to DOE. DOE has already begun receiving post-privatization USEC DUF6 cylinders. The number proposed for transfer varies from year to year and in FY 2001 is expected to be approximately 400 cylinders. Additionally, other DUF6, LEU, or natural assay UF6 may be transferred in or out based on other specific agreements executed between DOE and USEC or other entities. These additional cylinder transfers, not related to the 1998 MOA with USEC, are stated in the RFP as not exceeding 200 per annum. 12/22/00
58. C.VII. Clause VII, Procurement of Long Lead Equipment, states that the Contractor shall identify and procure long lead equipment for cylinder overpacks. Does DOE anticipate a similar situation for process equipment? If so, should the cost of corresponding activities and equipment be included in the total estimated cost for design in Section B? All long-lead equipment should be captured in the Contractor’s “List of Major Equipment Items” and “Procurement Plan for Long-lead Items”. DOE will issue a notice-to-proceed on long-lead procurement items as such items require acquisition prior to the DOE issuance of the notice-to-proceed for construction. The cost of long lead items associated with construction shall be included under construction. The cost of long lead items associated with cylinder management shall be included under cylinder management. The cost of long lead items associated with operations shall be included under operations. 12/22/00
59. C.VIII. Are costs for upgrading infrastructure such as rail lines included in contract cost basis or will DOE fund this separately? All costs necessary to affect a completely designed, constructed, and operational conversion facilities are to be included in the cost proposal. All scope under this contract will be funded through Congressionally appropriated funds. 12/13/00
60. C.VIII. We assume that any site improvements outside of the cylinder yards and our facilities would be performed by other DOE contractors (outside the scope of work of this contract). Is this assumption correct? For example, we assume that necessary road improvements for transport of the cylinders onsite would not be our responsibility? All activities necessary to support design, construction, and operations of conversion facilities, including utility extensions, infrastructure, and ancillary services shall be included in the cost proposal and are the responsibility of the Contractor. In some instances, other DOE contractors or other site contractors have the responsibility for maintaining various infrastructure on the site. In these instances, the DUF6 Contractor would need to work with that entity to affect necessary site improvements and/or maintenance. 12/13/00
61. C.VIII. Section VIII, Paragraph 2.(a), when DOE refers to “disposition of existing facilities,” does DOE expect the contractor to decontaminate, decommission, and disperse the existing facility? Decontamination, decommissioning and/or demolition of “new” conversion facilities and/or ancillary facilities is not a part of the scope of work. However, existing facilities (e.g. Lithium Warehouses at Portsmouth, OH) and any existing utilities and infrastructure requiring removal or relocation to effect construction and operation of conversion facilities shall be decontaminated, decommissioned and/or demolished by the Contractor. 12/21/00
62. C.IX. Once the cylinders have been removed from the yards, who is responsible for the decommission of the yards and the disposal of incidental wastes such as wooden and concrete saddles? Disposition of wooden and/or concrete saddles is the responsibility of the Contractor. Decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition of the yards is not included in the scope of work. 12/13/00
63. C.IX. Subparagraph 5 of Clause IX, Conversion Operations, states that the Contractor shall provide up to six months of on-site storage for empty cylinder and products/wastes generated from conversion. Does this requirement include the storage of fluorine products? The intent of this provision is to provide reasonable storage capability in the event of transportation disruption due to inclement weather and/or unforeseen delays encountered by proposed products/wastes recipients. Safety considerations should govern the maximum storage period (up to six months) allowed for fluorine products. All storage must be in accordance with regulatory requirements. 12/22/00
64. C.IX. Subparagraph 2 of Clause IX, Conversion Operations, states that the Contractor shall safely process the DUF6 cylinders identified in the Cylinder Information Database (CID). In addition, there is USEC material listed in Reference F, which is the subject of an MOU dated June 30, 1998. Is the USEC material contained in the CID summary report? If not, how much material must be added to the inventory for each site in order to calculate the required throughput? All of the approximately 2026 USEC post-privatization MOA cylinders are included in the Statement of Work in this RFP. The CID located on the RFP web site is a snapshot of the cylinder inventory on August 2, 2000, and includes 499 post-privatization USEC MOA cylinders transferred to DOE by that time. 01/05/01
65. C.IX. An answer was given on 01/05/01 in response to a question regarding the USEC DUF6 material discussed in Section C.IX. Can the DOE give an estimate or declaration as to the distribution at each site of the remaining 1,527 USEC cylinders to be transferred to DOE from USEC after 08/02/00, the date of the C.I.D. RFP web site data? The CID as it exists on the RFP web site is a "slice in time" of the cylinder data. The distribution of cylinder transfers that will take place before the Contractor takes over is unknown. 02/16/01
66. C.IX(7). If the federal disposal facility is chosen..."is there a document other than the RFP that talks to availability of a federal facility for the waste or conversion product disposition? There is no single document that talks to the availability of a federal facility for the waste or conversion product disposition. The DUF6 Program conducted a study of preferred disposal forms issued in June 2000 (Refer to ORNL/TM-2000/161, Assessment of Preferred Depleted Uranium Disposal Forms, an electronic copy of which is available at http: //web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/pdf/ ORNLDisposalStudy.pdf ) which included a brief discussion of Department’s disposal sites. Whether using a federal or commercial disposal facility, disposition of all wastes and conversion products are the responsibility of the Contractor. Therefore, the Contractor should review the facility’s Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) to determine if the facility is capable of meeting the Contractor’s needs. All federal disposal facilities have WACs. For example, the Nevada Test Site WAC is posted on the DUF6 RFP website under "Information." 01/11/01
67. C.IX.9 and C.IX Section IX, Item 9, states "The contractor shall annually survey and report to DOE the type (identification of radionuclides) and the extent of contamination (pCi/cm2) deposited on the internal and external surfaces of buildings, major process equipment items, and interconnecting piping, and other points that may be determined to be prone to contamination accumulation (such as filter housing, effluent discharge points, material handling areas, etc..)" The survey indicated would be very extensive, costly and time consuming. As stated, the survey would require process shutdown, and opening of the process equipment to perform internal surveys. Opening equipment used to process UF6/uranium subjects personnel to exposures and there could easily be loss of contamination control. Why is there a requirement to survey internal surfaces? When processing UF6, we fully expect the internal surfaces of equipment to contain radioactive material throughout the processing of the material.

What is standard DOE methodology for surveying the internal surfaces of process equipment? This requirement appears to conflict with the ALARA principle increasing both worker and environmental exposure to hazards. What is intended use of the information to be gathered and can it be satisfied with material accountability best practices during D&D activities? If not, will DOE accept a sampling plan at an agreed upon frequency?

The information is needed to baseline the extent of contamination for follow-on contracts. Therefore, the Department must throughly understand the characteristics (quantity, spatial extent, and type) of facility contamination. The impact of transuranic contamination is a concern and would not be addressed adequately using material accountability best practices. The Conversion Facilities Operation and Maintenance Plan should include a section regarding the Contractor’s approach to sampling, sampling frequency, and sampling analysis. 01/08/01
68. C.X.b. What ‘enhanced facilities and capabilities’ are currently envisioned? None at this time. 12/20/00
69. C.XI.

 In Section C.XI., there is the requirement that the Updated NEPA Data be submitted with the Preliminary Design Packages (D-14). Can the Updated NEPA Data (D-3), required to support the preparation of the Final EIS, be submitted earlier than the Preliminary Design Packages (D-14)? Yes, after award of the contract. 02/16/01
70. C.XII.F.

 Are the cylinders being transferred from USEC part of the work scope? Are they listed on the CID? This assumes the question is referring to the transfers from X-745G (USEC) to X-745 C-expansion (DOE).

Refer to the Memorandum of Agreement in Section C. XII. F. Transfer of these cylinders from USEC to DOE should be completed by the end of this fiscal year and will become a part of this contract. All DOE UF6 cylinders shall be managed and included in CID.

 01/04/01

 

 

Return to Questions and Answers Page
This page was updated 02/16/01