Question
#/Section |
Question |
Answer |
Date
Posted |
| 1. |
We
would like to know the companies that will be responding to the subject RFQ .... |
DOE
does not maintain a bidder’s list for this RFP since it is issued via the Internet.
We cannot provide a list of companies who will respond to the RFP; however, we will post a
list of attendees for the pre-proposal conference on our website at www.oro.doe.gov/duf6disposition |
11/9/00 |
| 2. |
Is
the subject of the draft document entitled "Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Materials
Use Roadmap," dated September 1, 2000, and made available through the Web site
www.ne.doe.gov, related to the procurement announced in the Commerce Business Daily on
September 8, 2000, and at the Web site www.oro.doe.gov/duf6disposition,
or are there two separate procurement opportunities? |
The
document titled "Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Project" is related to
the procurement opportunity expressed in the Commerce Business Daily. At this time this is
the only procurement opportunity related to the disposition of depleted uranium
hexafluoride. |
11/9/00 |
| 3. |
Is
there an EIS underway on DUF6 by the DOE as a follow-on or independent of the
Technical Assessment completed by the ORNL recently (ORNL/TM-2000/161)? |
As
specified in the Department's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 1021.210(e)), the
Department has taken a tiered approach to fulfilling its NEPA responsibilities associated
with the long-term management of the depleted UF6 inventory. A programmatic EIS
and a ROD were issued in April 1999 and August 1999, respectively. The Department is
currently in the planning and scheduling stage for the next step in the tiered
approach,which includes a site-specific NEPA review for the construction and operation of
the conversion facilities at Paducah and Portsmouth. |
11/9/00 |
| 4. |
Where
would the 4,700 cylinders from Oak Ridge, TN (ETTP) be stored at Portsmouth, OH (DOE
Gaseous Diffusion Plant)? |
All
DOE UF6 cylinders presently located at ETTP (not only the 4,700 DUF6
cylinders) shall be removed from the ETTP site by 12/31/09. The Contractor shall determine
the approach taken to satisfy this requirement. |
12/13/00 |
| 5. |
If
the cylinders in the K-1066-K cylinder yard are the "worst of the worst," why is
BJC painting cylinders in other yards and not the ones in the K yard? |
DOE
and BJC execute the Uranium Program mission on an annually approved work plan basis. The
work plan is prepared based upon DOE Program guidance and optimizes the most effective and
efficient use of the annually appropriated funds. |
12/13/00 |
| 6. |
Can
you explain the basis for the change in the procurement from a fixed
"through-put" rate approach presented in the draft RFP to the current "cost
plus" approach? Relating why the change from a single contract and contractor from
design, construct, operate and decommissioning. |
The Commerce Business
Daily announcement published on September 8, 2000, and shown on the RFP Web site under
"Information" addresses the Department’s change to the current approach. |
12/13/00 |
| 7. |
Will
you publish a new (updated) listing of firms intending to submit a proposal? |
No.
Firms expressing to DOE an intent to propose is considered proprietary information and DOE
will not release this information to the public unless permission is given by the
individual firm. DOE has published a listing of individuals and firms who attended the
preproposal conference. This is shown under Information on the RFP web site. |
12/13/00 |
| 8. |
Are
the rail lines (both on-site and off-site) necessary to facilitate movement of these
cylinders in an operable and reliable condition? |
It
is the Contractors responsibility to ascertain the usability of the rail lines for on-site
and off-site transportation needs. |
12/22/00 |
| 9. |
Will
USEC supply utility lines to the battery limit of the sites at Portsmouth and Paducah?
[The question is interpreted to mean: Will USEC extend utilities to some common interface
point adjacent to the conversion facilities sites?] |
Prospective
contractors are fully responsible for the extension of utilities from the respective
tie-in points to the conversion facilities sites. |
12/22/00 |
10.
|
Is
continuing design labor cost performed while awaiting the NEPA ROD allowable cost? |
Yes,
if authorized by the Contracting Officer. |
01/04/01 |
11.
|
Can
the conversion facilities be sited in the existing centrifuge buildings at Ports? |
No. |
01/04/01 |
12.
|
(a)
Is it possible to "move the fence" at Paducah so the conversion facility would
have unrestricted access, at least for the site prep and construction? (b) It appears this is already the case at Portsmouth. Is this true? |
(a)
No. The fence at Paducah currently protects both DOE and USEC Cylinders and is necessary
to maintain the property protection area.. However, the Conversion Contractor can fence
the construction site. (b) The Portsmouth
preferred site is presently outside the site fence, but the contractor can fence the
construction site. |
01/04/01 |
13.
|
Will
the areas retained/ returned to DOE be available for construction staging/laydown? These
areas would be used for field office complex, worker parking, material/equipment laydown/
stockpiles. Areas would be in close proximity to DUF6 Conversion Facility site. |
At
the present time only the areas defined in the RFP are available for Conversion Contractor
use. |
01/04/01 |
14.
|
Are
the power lines running through the middle of the site abandoned? |
No,
they are active (live) lines. |
01/04/01 |
15.
|
Will
DOE provide for collection of storm water runoff from the cylinder yards and the
contractors’ areas, and its subsequent treatment? |
No,
storm water run off currently discharges through permitted outfalls. The contractor is
responsible for storm water discharge impacted by the design, construction, and operation
of the Conversion Facility and the Cylinder S&M program. |
01/05/01 |
16.
|
Does
DOE have maintenance facilities that would be available for use by the contractor or will
we have to supply such facilities? |
The
contractor is responsible for all maintenance activities associated with this contract.
Some services may be obtained from existing on site contractors/operators, if the
contractor so chooses. |
01/05/01 |
17.
|
Who
controls the railway on-site? (Paducah) Is it controlled by DOE or by USEC? |
The
Paducah site rail system is leased to USEC and the contractor is responsible for arranging
utilization of the system through USEC. |
01/05/01 |
18.
|
Could
DOE provide a survey map of each site in Paducah and Portsmouth showing meets and bounds? |
Survey
maps showing meets and bounds of the proposed sites are not available. The DUF6
Conversion Facility Site Characterization Reports for both Paducah and Portsmouth locate
the proposed sites relative to the site grid. |
01/08/01 |
19.
|
How
firm are budget commitments for this project? What is budget for next year? |
It
is anticipated that approximately $20-22M will be available for contract award. The FY
2002 Budget Request is currently being formulated and will be public knowledge after the
President submits the FY 2002 budget to Congress. Out year funding for the acquisition of
facilities and services for conversion of DUF6 is Congressionally appropriated and
contractually subject to Clause I.77, Limitation of Funds. The Department will submit out
year budget requests in consideration of the awarded contract's cost estimate and
schedule. The actual funding will be subject to Congressional appropriations. |
01/11/01 |
20.
|
Will
Building X-344 at Portsmouth be available for use to handle ETTP Cylinders? |
No.
This building is currently leased to USEC. |
01/18/01 |
21.
|
The
Engineering Analysis Report on pg. 16 under Disposal Method states: "Disposal of
depleted UF6, depleted uranium metal, and depleted UF4 were considered but analyzed in
less detail. Regulations restrict the chemical forms that can be used for disposal.
Reactive waste forms such as the fluorides and metal are specifically excluded by the
Nevada Test Site and Hanford by DOE Orders." What are the specific reference and
numbers for the applicable DOE Orders? [This document may be found at http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium
/docs/index.cfm] |
The applicable DOE Order for the disposal of the identified materials
is DOE O 435.1 Radioactive Waste Management, and is listed in the RFP Section J,
Attachment N. The specific requirements to be met are identified in the associated Manual
DOE M 435.1-1. Guidance for the implementation of the Order by DOE Elements is provided in
the implementation guide DOE G 435.1-1. The specific sections relevant to the question in
DOE M 435.1-1 are Section IV.P(6)(a), which prescribes disposal facility operations, and
Section IV.G(1)(d), which prescribes minimum waste acceptance requirements. The minimum
waste acceptance requirements include IV.G(1)(d)3., which states,
"Low-level waste must not be readily
capable of detonation or of explosive decomposition or reaction at anticipated pressures
and temperatures, or of explosive reaction with water. Pyrophoric materials contained in
waste shall be treated, prepared , and packaged to be nonflammable."
|
Relevant requirements associated with the
storage of waste materials prior to disposal are prescribed in Sect. IV.N.
Both Nevada Test Site and Hanford have Waste Acceptance
Criteria that are part of the Radioactive Waste Management Basis prescribed in DOE M
435.1-1 Sect. IV.D. These criteria are specific to the disposal facilities located at the
respective sites. These Waste Acceptance Criteria include additional requirements for
wastes to meet prior to acceptance for disposal. These additional requirements are largely
derived from the findings of the performance assessment for the disposal facility that is
required by DOE M 435.1-1 Sect. IV.P.(2), and site-specific disposal facility operational
considerations.
Additional analysis of the disposal of DUF6 conversion products has been performed
and is included in ORNL/TM-2000/161, Assessment of Perferred Depleted Uranium Disposal
Forms, by Croff, Hightower, Lee, Michaels, Ranek and Trabalka. This additional
analysis provides a more recent review of the disposal options for depleted uranium
conversion products. |
01/18/01 |
22.
|
Given
the recent DOE moratorium on metal recycling, what, if any, types of restrictions would be
placed by DOE on products coming from the conversion facility (e.g., HF, scrap metal)? |
The
Secretary of Energy issued two directives. The first (called the "Moratorium"),
issued in January 2000, prohibits free release of volumetrically contaminated metals. The
second (called the "Suspension"), issued in July 2000, prohibits release of
surface-contaminated metals until standards are reviewed, revised as appropriate, and
approved. If these directives remain in effect when the conversion facility begins to
operate, they would be applicable to metal products coming from the conversion facility.
Neither of these directives restricts the reuse and recycle of materials within the
Department or an NRC licensed commercial use or covers the release of non-metals such as
HF. However, other DOE Orders and or regulations prescribe criteria that may be applicable
to the release of products from the conversion facility. |
01/19/01 |
23.
|
Can
you provide insight regarding the overall time frame as related to the technical maturity
of the approach? The RFP states that "The Department is open to all technical
approaches and final product forms. Technologies will be evaluated for their effectiveness
and maturity." Does this place a limitation to technologies which have already been
evaluated for DUF6 conversion or are as yet untested alternatives still viable? Suppose
that a very promising, but untested, technology is proposed. Developing a pilot plant for
DUF6 testing would realistically take about two years. Would there be interest in such an
approach if the technology is extremely promising (as evaluated by the DOE)? Could such
time be added to the five year operation period? |
The
RFP does not limit the consideration of technologies that may be proposed, e.g., to those
upon which a study had been performed. The evaluation criteria does consider the maturity
of the technology proposed. DOE is not considering a change in the RFP terms with respect
to the date construction must begin (1/31/04) or the 5 year term of operation. |
01/30/01 |
24.
|
Will
the successful offeror be responsible for the sale/re-use of HF as an agent for DOE? Will
DOE retain title to the HF material until it is sold, and would it receive all proceeds
from the sale? |
This
will be clarified in an amendment to the RFP. |
01/30/01 |
| |
25.
|
This
amendment modifies the evaluation criteria and requires additional data in all three
volumes. Will DOE consider extending the proposal due date by 14 days to March 15, 2001 to
allow offerors adaquate time to respond to the additional requirements? |
Based
on Amendment A002 and the response which we received to Amendment A002, there does not
appear to be a significant need to warrant an extension to the proposal due date.
Therefore, the due date will remain March 1, 2001. However, we recognize in asking for
additional information that an increase in the page limitation for volume II would
facilitate this change within the remaining time. Therefore, we will change the Technical
Proposal page limitation from 300 to 310 pages, (excluding the L.3 Attachment NEPA data).
An amendment to the RFP will be issued to reflect this change in the page limitation. |
02/09/01 |
