JA_NAVSEA_PRINTED_Redacted.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD

AND INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE FACILITY

1400 FARRAGUT AVENUE STOP 2090

BREMERTON WASHINGTON 98314-2090

J&A Number: 18-0012

Ser 440/126 21 June 2018

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

JUSTIFICATION

1. Contracting Activity. The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PSNS & IMF), Nuclear Contracting Division Code 440.24A submits this Justification for other than full and open competition (J&A) in accordance with FAR 6.302-3-- Industrial Mobilization; Engineering, Developmental, or Research Capability; or Expert Services.

2. Description of the Action Being Approved. Award of a single Firm Fixed Price Indefinite Delivery type Service contract on a sole source basis to US Ecology Washington, Inc., Richland, WA 99354-4952 Cage Code 0YEC8 for the disposal services of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) Classes A, B, and C generated by PSNS & IMF and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PHNSY & IMF). Authority to act under this J&A expires 21 August 2023.

3. Description of Services. US Ecology Washington, Inc., shall receive, dispose, and maintain in perpetuity received LLRW Classes A, B, and C generated by PSNS & IMF and PHNSY & IMF at the Federal Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Richland, WA.

therwise processed under facility by the processing contractor. The contractor shall unload and dispose of the Waste Products in accordance with applicable law, regulations and licenses. Disposal services and associated fees (county and State) will include the list of items in Exhibit 1 (below).

Estimated combined PSNS & IMF and PHNSY & IMF dollar Value as follows:

POP Start Date End Date Cost Estimate* Fiscal Year Fund Type Base Year FY18 OM&N Option Year 1 FY19 OM&N Option Year 2 FY20 OM&N Option Year 3 FY21 OM&N Option Year 4 FY22 OM&N Total

*Escalation rate used is 2% for each Option Year; see enclosure (1) for Independent Government Estimate needs have been verified by the certifying technical and requirements personnel.

4. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition. The statutory authority is 10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(3) as implemented by FAR Part 6.302-3 -- Industrial Mobilization; Engineering, Developmental, or Research Capability; or Expert Services.

J&A Number: 18-00122

5. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Statutory Authority.

10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(3) states the head of an agency may use procedures other than competitive maintain a facility, producer, manufacturer, or other supplier available for furnishing property or services -3(b) provides that this make them

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 19851 - Amends the Low-Level

-level radioa congressional consent to the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management (Compact)2, which provides for cooperation among the States of Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, the most economical management of low-level radioactive wastes can be accomplished through cooperation of the states in minimizing the amount of handling and transportation required to dispose of such wastes and through the cooperation of the states in providing facilities that serve the region requirements related to its facility to assure that closure, perpetual care, and maintenance and contingency requireme Regulatory Practices mandates that

-level waste shipments originating within its borders and destined for a facility within another party state to conform to the applicable

-Level Radioactive Waste Forum, Inc. report to the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 23 April 2009 ensive to site, license, Richland facility.

The Richland facility is the designated LLRW disposal site for the Northwest Interstate Compact for which Washington State and Hawaii are party states. US Ecology Washington, Inc. is the sole operator of the Richland facility and is the only company authorized to operate at the facility.

The Richland facility has to receive continuous stream of revenue for it to remain viable which is the deposited to its Richland facility.

Services required by the resulting contract (the purpose of this J&A) ensure that PSNS & IMF and PHNSY & IMF maintain the ability to service nuclear vessels as part of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. These services are required for the foreseeable future and therefore rely on US Ecology to remain in service and available to provide them. These services directly support the mission of the Navy

1 Data retrieved on 13MAR2018 from https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/1083 2 Data retrieved on 13MAR2018 from http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.145&full=tru

J&A Number: 18-00123 by supporting maintenance and repair of Navy nuclear vessels. Contracting these services with US Ecology keeps this vital facility in business and available in the event of a national emergency.

6. Description of Efforts Made to Solicit Offers from as Many Offerors as Practicable.

No additional market research was conducted because it is not practicable, for the reasons discussed in paragraph 5 above, for any company other than US Ecology Washington, Inc.to provide the required supplies and services.

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Costs (FAR 6.303-2(b)(7).

The Contracting Officer has determined that the anticipated cost to the Government for the supplies/services covered by the J&A will be fair and reasonable because the pricing is set by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC).

8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Competition

For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 5, PSNS & IMF has no plans at this time to compete future contracts for the types of supplies/services covered by this document. If another potential source emerges, PSNS & IMF will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible.

J&A Number: 18-00124

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL

TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION (FAR 6.303-2(c))

I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance, which are included in this justification and its supporting acquisition planning data, including the MOPAS-S, except as noted herein, are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

TECHNICAL COGNIZANCE:

Date

REQUIREMENTS COGNIZANCE:

Date

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW (NMCARS 5206.303(90))

I have determined that this justification is legally sufficient.

Date

CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION (FAR 6.303-2(b) (12))

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date

APPROVAL BLOCK (FAR 6.304 for Approving Official)

Upon the basis of the above justification, I hereby approve, as Designee of the Head of the Contracting Activity SEA 02, the solicitation of the proposed procurement described herein using other than full and open competition, pursuant to the authority of 10 USC 2304(c) (3).

NAVSEA 02

Date

J&A Number: 18-00125

Exhibit 1 List of Services and Charges

Item Description 1 Disposal - Rates Per Cubic Feet

2 Disposal - Rates Per Manifested Shipment

3 Container Disposal Rates-Per Manifest

4 Exposure - Dose rate at container surface: Less than or equal to 200mr/h.

Exposure - Dose rate at container surface: Greater than 200 mr/h but less than or equal to 1000 mr/h. Charge per container.

Exposure - Dose rate at container surface: Greater than1000 mr/h but less than or equal to 10,000 mr/h. Charge per container.

Exposure - Dose rate at container surface: Greater than 10,000 mr/h but less than or equal to 100,000 mr/h. Charge per container.

Exposure - Dose rate at container surface: Greater than 100,000mr/h. Charge per container.

9 Engineered Concrete Barriers, 72" X 8' for burial

10 Engineered Concrete Barriers, 84" x 8' for burial

Site Availability Charge - Tariff rate on the basis of actual volume and dose rate delivered during each calendar year.

12 Surcharge For Heavy Objects - Over (17,500 LBS)

13 Perpetual Care And Maintenance Fee - For the maintenance and care of the waste.

14 Business & Occupation Tax - Percent of Disposal Site's Charges if applicable

15 Site Surveillance Fee - State Tax per cubic foot (volume) of waste.

16 County Surcharge - Benton County Surcharge

17 Commission Regulatory Fee - Percent (%) of Disposal Site's Charges

Cost Estimate

Base Year $4,178,464.45

Option Year 1 $4,262,033.74

Option Year 2 $4,347,274.41

Option Year 3 $4,434,219.90

Option Year 4 $4,522,904.30

Total $21,744,896.81

Note: Each Option Year Cost Estimate was increased 2% over the previous year

PUGET SOUND NAVAL

SHIPYARD

CLINS Description of Charge Estimated Quantity Unit Price APP TO B&O NOT APP TO B&O B&O/COM REG FEE

4002 Solid Material Volume (ft3) 5600 $198.30 1,110,480.00 Yes

4003 Disposal charge per manifested shipment 10 $18,810.00 188,100.00 No

4004 Disposal charge per container 60 $13,010.00 780,600.00 72" x 8'

4005AA 55 $49.00 2,695.00 84" x 8'

4005AB 2 $3,484.00 6,968.00 <200

4005AC 2 $13,910.00 27,820.00

4005AD 1 $20,880.00 20,880.00

4005AE Disposal rate, dose rate at container surface >100,0000 $350,700.00 0.00

4008 Site Availability Charge 1 $145,238.00 145,238.00 >100,000

4006 72" x 8' Engineered Barrier 0 $13,487.00 0.00

4007 84" x 8' Engineered Barrier 2 $14,661.00 29,322.00

4010 Perpetual Care Maintenance Fee $1.75 9,800.00

4012 Site Surveillance Fee $26.00 145,600.00

4013 County Surcharge $6.50 36,400.00

4011 Business and Occupation Tax 3.3% 76,299.40

4014 Commission Regulatory Fee 1.0% 23,121.03

GRAND TOTAL $2,603,323.43

US Ecology Disposal Fee Calculator (January 1 2018 Rates)

Funds/Delivery Order PSNS & IMF FISC Contract: N00406-13-D-3014

2276 REQUEST DOCUMENT

NUMBER

PEARL HARBOR

NAVAL SHIPYARD

CLINS Description of Charge Estimated Quantity Unit Price APP TO B&O NOT APP TO B&O B&O/COM REG FEE 4002 Solid Material Volume (ft3) 3148 $198.30 624,248.40 Yes 4003 Disposal charge per manifested shipment 7 $18,810.00 131,670.00 No 4004 Disposal charge per container 34 $13,010.00 442,340.00 72" x 8'

4005AA 32 $49.00 1,568.00 84" x 8'

4005AB 0 $3,484.00 0.00 <200

4005AC 1 $13,910.00 13,910.00

4005AD 1 $20,880.00 20,880.00

4005AE Disposal rate, dose rate at container surface >100,000 0 $350,700.00 0.00

4008 Site Availability Charge 1 $145,238.00 145,238.00 >100,000 4006 72" x 8' Engineered Barrier 2 $13,487.00 26,974.00 4007 84" x 8' Engineered Barrier 0 $14,661.00 0.00 4010 Perpetual Care Maintenance Fee $1.75 5,509.00 4012 Site Surveillance Fee $26.00 81,848.00 4013 County Surcharge $6.50 20,462.00 4011 Business and Occupation Tax 3.3% 46,425.34 4014 Commission Regulatory Fee 1.0% 14,068.28

GRAND TOTAL $1,575,141.02

Funds/Delivery Order PSNS & IMF FISC Contract: N00406-13-D-3014

2276 REQUEST

DOCUMENT NUMBER

US Ecology Disposal Fee Calculator (January 1 2018 Rates)

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE FORUM, INC.

1619 12TH Street, N.W. – Washington, D.C. 20009

(202) 265-7990 * (202) 265-7995 FAX

April 23, 2009

The Honorable Dale Klein Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Chairman Klein:

On behalf of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum, Inc. (LLW Forum), I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the Commissioners for inviting us to participate in the agency’s low-level radioactive waste briefing on April 17, 2009. We found the meeting to be both interesting and informative and appreciated the opportunity to share our views on this important issue directly with the Commissioners.

There were two items that arose during the briefing, however, on which I wanted to follow-up and provide both you and the Commissioners with some additional information and explanation—the exercise of compact authority and waste attribution.

Exercise of Compact Authority

The first issue concerns Commissioner’s Lyon’s question as to whether or not generators that are located in a region that hosts a compact facility are compelled to use that facility exclusively and prevented from using out-of-compact facilities or alternative options.

Although the speaker answered in the affirmative, this is not completely correct.

In the first place, while it is true that the compact of origin has the legal authority to require regional generators to use a disposal facility in its region, the decision whether or not to do so is discretionary on the part of the governing compact. As an example, the Atlantic Compact does not require its generators to use the Barnwell facility exclusively and, as a result, most Atlantic Compact generators choose to send their Class A waste to the Clive facility in Utah.

Moreover, although the Northwest Compact does require regional generators to dispose of their (non-mixed) low-level radioactive waste at the Richland facility, there is important rationale for doing so. First, this requirement is intended to ensure that the operator recovers its costs allowing the Richland facility to remain economically viable.

Second, this requirement allows disposal fees to be maintained at the lowest possible cost for regional generators. Without such a restriction, regional generators may choose to ship their LLW elsewhere for a short-term savings. If this were to occur, disposal fees for regional generators continuing to use the Richland facility would have to be increased, or the facility would close, as there would be insufficient revenue to support operation of the facility.

The question raises an important issue that has been highlighted by the LLW Forum repeatedly over the years—namely, that unintended consequences need to be taken into account when considering alternatives. As we all know, waste disposal facilities are expensive to site, license, and operate. As a result, if lower cost options are sought for certain waste streams—such as low-activity waste—the lost revenue will need to be made up in other ways, likely through higher disposal costs charged for other waste streams.

Indeed, the Atlantic Compact’s policy is instructional here. Although the compact does not require regional generators to send waste to the Barnwell facility and allows waste to be exported out-of-region to the Clive facility, both the Atlantic Compact and the State of South Carolina have made clear that regional generators will have to make up any shortfall in operating costs of the Barnwell facility due to reduced waste streams in order for the facility to remain open and operational. The unfortunate alternative, which I believe we all want to avoid, would be the complete closure of the facility to all waste.

In addition, at this time, all of the compacts allow generators access to all treatment facilities across the nation. However, some compacts require waste export permits prior to exporting waste for treatment or disposal outside the compact of origin.

Waste Attribution

The other issue upon which we wanted to provide additional commentary relates to the question as to why the Northwest Compact is concerned with the State of Tennessee allowing its processors to manifest waste from out-of-state generators as their own when sending the waste on for disposal.

First, the issue highlights the need to maintain a paper trail of the original waste generator—a federal requirement that is imposed for various important reasons. Indeed, federal manifesting regulations were put into place in order to track the original generator should questions arise regarding the type or class of waste, liability, or other issues of concern.

Second, the need to properly designate the generator of the waste is vital to maintaining agreements and good relations with the host community—an issue that Commissioner Jaczko has highlighted in many of his presentations. Indeed, often the host community for a facility is limited in its willingness to accept only certain waste streams from certain generators. Subverting that process would likely create a sense of mistrust and could impact the long-term viability of these facilities. As an example, we note that Utah residents are supportive of Clive accepting Class A waste, but not of the disposal of Class B and C waste at the facility. Although the state regulatory agency has determined that the waste could be disposed safely at the facility, it is important to respect the limits of the local community in order to maintain local community support for the facility.

Lastly, if waste processors are allowed to attribute treated waste to themselves, there is a concern that processors within sited compacts could take in waste from other compacts that do not have access to the compact disposal facility and then attempt to dispose of waste as if it was waste from that compact.

Conclusion

On behalf of the LLW Forum, we once again express our appreciation for the opportunity to participate in the briefing and to provide this additional input on the referenced issues.

Although we recognize that there are important issues that still need to be worked upon and certain limited waste streams for which we still need to develop disposal capacity, we note that the great majority of low-level radioactive waste in the United States has disposal access and that, most importantly, all of it is being managed safely with regard to public health and the environment.

As the State of Texas is in the final stages of siting a new regional compact facility under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, we believe that this is an exciting and crucial time in the process and it is important that all interested stakeholders have all of the facts and allow the process to play out to what we anticipate will be a successful conclusion. In this regard, it is important to consider potential unintended consequences when dealing with this complex issue. Indeed, most (if not all) of the alternative options that have been suggested could unintentionally result in the closure of existing facilities, which would severely stifle low-level radioactive waste management in this country.

The LLW Forum would like to formally request that you share this letter with all of the NRC Commissioners and include it in the written record for the briefing in order to clarify these important issues.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the briefing and to provide additional input on these limited issues.

Sincerely, Todd D. Lovinger, Esq.

Executive Director LLW Forum, Inc.