Pendleton Solicitation Questions 07.06.2020.docx

KTR Question #1: There is significant public health and environmental impact concern associated with the PFAS and PFOA chemical compounds known as the “Forever Chemicals”. Numerous states are not allowing AFFF in their landfills right now due to the potential releases of these chemicals into the environment. It’s a hot button issue and creating problems for everybody. Contracts that have that allowed landfill are now struggling to find homes for the waste because most landfills are turning it away (because the states tell them too). Regulations are being developed and it’s probably going to disallow landfill in the near future. What happens should this occur?

· DLA Response #1: DLA is aware of the growing concern over treatment and disposal of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) related wastes in the commercial landfill industry. We understand that the industry is currently operating in the absence of formal EPA guidance, and the release of such guidance is anticipated by the end of this calendar year. In the meantime, through our HW disposal contracts, DLA intends to lawfully meet the waste removal and disposal requirements of our military customers. As such, our contracts will continue to offer Generators disposal CLINs that require thermal destruction of AFFF-related wastes at RCRA permitted incinerator facilities. Additionally, the contracts will now offer Generators the option of PFAS disposal at RCRA Subtitle C and/or Subtitle D (or State equivalent) landfills which are constructed with at least one impervious composite liner and leachate collection system. In the event that EPA regulates PFAS disposal requirements that are not aligned with DLA disposal CLINs, DLA will modify existing contracts accordingly.

KTR Question #2: If the PF CLINs are ordered and no regional landfill option exists, will DLA require the contractor to utilize any approved landfill regardless where it’s located? For example, landfills in CA, AZ and NV no longer accept AFFF waste, however, a DLA approved landfill in Texas does allow AFFF waste. Will DLA require the contractor to then use the Texas landfill?

· DLA Response #2: Use of landfills under the contract are not limited or tied to geographic regions and Contractors are expected to perform regardless of the status of landfills in their particular region. Contractors may utilize only landfills listed at time of waste removal on the DLA Qualified Facilities List (QFL); which can be found at: https://www.dla.mil/DispositionServices/Offers/Disposal/HazardousWaste/QualifiedFacilitiesList/. For instructions on how to request that a landfill be added to the QFL, send inquiries to TSDFandTransporterInquiries@dla.mil. The assertion that landfills in the states of CA, AZ, and NV are not currently accepting AFFF waste is incorrect. DLA is aware of at least one RCRA Sub C LF among those states that is currently accepting PFAS-related wastes, including AFFF concentrates.

KTR Question #3: CLINs PF31-PF39 – what if potential offerors are unable to find a Sub C LF willing to accept AFFF/PFAS-Contaminated waste? Provide the names of known subtitle D landfills willing to accept these streams, or please remove these CLINs from the pricing schedule.

· DLA Response #3: In an effort to provide Offerors with more disposal outlets to choose from, descriptions for Base CLINs PF31-PF39 will allow Contractors to utilize either Sub D or Sub C LFs for disposal, at the Contractor’s discretion. See revised Price Schedule with new CLIN descriptions in the solicitation for the Camp Pendleton renewal contract. Here’s an example:

Base CLIN PF31:

Non-RCRA Liquids/Waters, AFFF/PFAS-Contaminated, <1.0 ppm PFAS, for Solidification & RCRA Subtitle D or Subtitle C Landfill (Contractor’s discretion). <10% Suspended Solids. Pumpable if Bulk. Includes AFFF Rinsates. Certificate of Disposal Required.

Physical State: Liquid Permissible EPA Waste Codes: N/A

KTR Question #4: Because of uncertainty surrounding the environmental and human health risks associated with PFAS and PFOS waste and the questions regarding how these materials will be regulated in the near future, the PF CLINs for landfill should be removed from the contract.

· DLA Response #4: If future USEPA regulations specific to the treatment and disposal of PFAS-related waste should conflict with CLIN descriptions as written in existing DLA HW disposal contracts, DLA will not place orders using these CLINs and will modify existing contracts accordingly.

KTR Question #5: Why are there so many PF CLINs to describe what is essentially one, or at most two, Non-RCRA/Non-hazardous waste streams?

· (18 CLIN’s have been added to the solicitation to describe what are all Non-RCRA waste streams. The total volume of the 18 CLINs is likely much higher than the volume of waste that could potentially be shipped. It is understandable the presence of PFAS might require separation from standard Non-RCRA CLIN’s due to the requirements for liners/runoff collection/etc. BUT by having 18 different CLINs to cover the waste the total bid price will be unreasonably weighted toward PF waste streams with no history of being landfilled and that may or may not ever be shipped for landfill).

· DLA Response #5: DLA conducted research in cooperation with the commercial landfill industry in the development of these CLINs. Research revealed that waste acceptance criteria for PFAS-related wastes varied considerably, even among landfills that operate under similar permits and bear the same corporate name. No corporate-wide PFAS waste acceptance policies were identified during our research. It was surmised that if such policies are issued, it won’t be until after EPA promulgates its PFAS guidelines. In an effort to provide offerors a basis for development of informed bids, DLA created waste categories based upon different landfill types, PFAS concentrations, physical states, and permissible EPA Waste Codes. CLINs PF01-09 explicitly require disposal at Sub C (or State equivalent) landfills, while PF31-39 enable Contractors to utilize their most competitive landfill outlets.

KTR Question #6: Could the PF CLIN structure be changed to reflect the descriptions used for AFFF incineration (NR90, 93, 94)?

· DLA Response #6: Not at this time. Since PFAS concentrations appear to be more of a waste acceptance factor amongst landfills than it is with incinerators, DLA believes that the “PF” CLINs (as written) provide opportunity for Contractors to obtain disposal quotes from more landfills. Since AFFF concentrates generally range from 3-6% (30,000 to 60,000 ppm) PFAS, AFFF rinsates under CLIN NR94 (which contain “at least 90% water”) would allow for concentrations up to 6,000 ppm. DLA assumes that most Sub D LFs are not likely to accept PFAS wastes at these concentrations. PFAS-contaminated water, including AFFF rinsates, can vary in concentrations ranging from <1 ppm to several thousand ppm PFAS, which is significant to landfills. Some Sub D LFs may accept liquids with PFAS levels up to only 1, 100, or 1,000 ppm, but few are likely to accept levels greater than this. This is why DLA created Sub D LF CLINs for <1 ppm, 1-100 ppm, and 100-1,000 ppm.

KTR Question #7: What is the purpose of the separate Subtitle C AND Subtitle D designations for the PF waste streams when AFF is not a regulated hazardous waste and Sub C LFs are for hazardous waste?

· (IF a waste is Non-RCRA in California it should qualify for Subtitle D disposal on a federal basis.)

· DLA Response #7: Please refer to DLA Response #3. In some cases, there may be Generators that require disposal at a Sub C LF, and are unwilling to allow for disposal at a Sub D LF. DLA believes that for now, it is best to offer both Sub C and Sub D LF CLINs.

KTR Question #8: Could the CLIN’s be changed to reflect Subtitle D landfills meeting the desired requirements for liners/runoff collection/etc.?

· (This would reduce the number of CLIN’s and allow more options for the bidders)

· DLA Response #8: DLA requires that landfills with a RCRA Subtitle D or RCRA Subtitle C Permit, or State equivalents thereto, be utilized for the disposal of certain PFAS-related wastes, and be constructed with one or more impervious composite liner(s) and leachate collection system(s). The Permits (and not DLA) under which these facilities operate, dictate their specific operating requirements such as liner maintenance, leachate collection, groundwater monitoring, etc.

KTR Question #9: Subtitle C landfills are for hazardous waste, AFFF waste is not hazardous waste (see link). Can the subtitle C CLIN’s be removed?

https://www.epa.gov/landfills/basic-information-about-landfills#:~:text=Subtitle%20C%20establishes%20a%20federal,human%20health%20and%20the%20environment.&text=These%20landfills%20are%20not%20used%20for%20the%20disposal%20of%20solid%20waste.

· DLA Response #9: Not at this time. DLA understands that PFAS are not RCRA-regulated constituents. However, some Generators may require disposal at a Sub C LF and at least some Sub C LFs are currently accepting and disposing of PFAS wastes – some with restricted, and others with unlimited concentration thresholds.

KTR Question #10: If the PF CLIN (AFFF) Landfill pricing can be confirmed to be the same for all of the liquid, solid, mixed liquid/solid waste streams, is it possible to reduce the PF CLIN's to three (liquid/solid/mixed)?

· DLA Response #10: DLA believes that PFAS concentrations will be a determining factor in deciding whether a specific landfill will or will not accept the waste for disposal. For this reason, DLA does not currently believe that it would be prudent for “all liquids”, “all solids”, and “all sludges” to be grouped into only those three (3) unique CLIN categories.

KTR Question #11: Regarding the new CLINs added for AFFF, why are there 2 options for subtitle C and D for the same items? Wouldn’t it suffice to take the safer option of subtitle C landfills only?

· DLA Response #11: Disposal costs at Sub D LFs are typically lower than Sub C LFs. DLA understands that transportation costs present a variable, whereby CLIN pricing for Sub D LF disposal will not necessarily be lower than Sub C LF. Where the Government has authorized disposal at a Sub D LF by ordering CLINs PF31-39, Contractors are authorized to utilize the most cost-effective landfill, i.e., either Sub C or Sub D LF.