Barstow Questions.docx

Use of FL02 or FL03: How does the bidder determine which CLIN will be used by the generators for solid debris waste streams? Even though other types of waste covered by FL03 are not included in FL02, those waste covered by FL02 can also be considered FL03.

Answer: It’s the generator’s discretion to determine whether FL02 fits or FL03 ultimately best fits their waste. The intent for FL02 was for thermal destruction of debris waste streams, with no free liquids.

FL02 or FL03: Can the bidder assume FL02 debris with solvents will not be shipped under CLIN FL03?

Answer: No. Debris with common solvents may be shipped under either FL02 or FL03.

NR79: Please explain what can be recycled in this waste stream? (Appears to be contaminated solid waste that is Non-RCRA hazardous in California)

Answer: The WTE/recycling requirement was removed from this CLIN.

NR79: We are unable to identify any Waste to Energy (WTE) facilities in or around the contract area that will accept the waste on a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, and who will dump and return the containers for reuse. WTE facilities are not regulated as TSDF’s and will not accept California Non-RCRA waste on a manifest. The current language for NR79 is based on landfill disposal and return of empty containers. Please add similar language as NR03 (distance from the generation site) or add a landfill option for this CLIN. Can DLA identify any approved WTE facilities who will conform to this CLIN as written?

Answer: Landfill is now a suitable method of disposal, so this should no longer be a concern.

RE13: Does this CLIN include paper filters? If so, they can not be shipped as Universal Waste in California? (also need to be punctured to qualify as UW)

Answer: Yes, paper filters qualify, and per the CLIN description, filters may be managed as UW, if applicable.

RE14: We do not see any facilities on the approved facility list that will recycle lead articles shipped on a hazardous waste manifest/and or with EPA codes. Does DLA know how the bidder can conform with this CLIN description?

Answer: It is ultimately up to the contractor to find a disposal facility that meets the requirement of the generator. At the time of publishing, there are no TSDFs on the QFL that meet this criteria.

FL01: References flammable aerosols “even when managed as universal waste” and CLIN RE78 references Aerosols “California UW for recycling.” Please explain how the bidder can differentiate between the CLINs?

Answer: Aerosols disposed under FL01 may be sent for the contractor’s choice of compliant disposal, while applicable aerosols disposed under RE78 require a form of recycling as the ultimate treatment method.

TX06 or TX07: Contract language shows TX06 as microencapsulation and TX07 as macroencapsulation as the primary treatment methods. Are the generators mandated to use the CLIN based on treatment technology?

Answer: Generators are not required to choose the clin based solely on treatment technology.

TX06 or TX07: If a waste stream does not contain any organics and qualifies for microencapsulation is the generator required to ship under CLIN TX06?

Answer: If no organics, and if the waste qualifies for microencapsulation, the generator may choose whichever CLIN best fits their disposal need.

CLIN LP03: Please explain why this CLIN is mandatory incineration only? (Traditionally this waste stream has included other options such as recycling).

Answer: The ‘mandatory RCRA incineration’ requirement has been removed from this CLIN description.

LP05 and LP06: Please explain why these CLIN’s are mandatory incineration only? (Deactivation of Oxidizers is a very common treatment method)

Answer: The ‘mandatory RCRA incineration’ requirement has been removed from this CLIN description.