Interested Parties:
SUBJECT: PROGRAM ACQUISITION STRATEGY FOR OBTAINING
MIXED OXIDE (MOX) FUEL FABRICATION AND REACTOR IRRADIATION SERVICES (PAS)
The enclosed PAS is being issued to describe the Department of Energy's (DOE's) proposed approach for acquiring the subject services and to request comments on this approach from prospective offerors and other interested parties.
Prospective offerors
The DOE prefers a consortium approach to obtain the desired services, i.e., a single organization responsible for providing all MOX fuel fabrication, irradiation, and related services. Consortia must be led by one of the U.S.-owned reactor licensee's whose reactor operations are affected or by a U.S.-owned nuclear steam supply system vendor. Industry comments on this consortium approach are specifically requested.
Schedule for Procurement
Major procurement schedule milestones for solicitation activities are as follows:
Procurement Process and Related Events |
Schedule |
|
Initial comments prior to workshop |
8/15/97 |
|
PAS Workshop |
8/28/97 |
|
Final comments on PAS |
9/12/97 |
|
Issue Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) |
11/97 |
|
Issue Final RFP |
2/98 |
|
Proposals due |
5/98 |
PAS Workshop
A PAS Workshop will be held on August 28, 1997 at the Chicago Operations Office located on the Argonne National Laboratory site. It is the intent of the Department to use the PAS and this forum to solicit comments from potential offerors regarding all aspects of the proposed procurement strategy. This is a unique procurement and feedback from potential offerors will assist the DOE in maximizing competition and assist offeror understanding of the Department's requirements. Comments/questions on all aspects of the PAS will be entertained and are encouraged and may be submitted by mail, facsimile or e-mail as follows:
MAIL ADDRESS
U.S. Department of Energy
9800 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
ATTN: Marlene Martinez
FACSIMILE:
(630) 252-2984
E-MAIL ADDRESS
marlene.martinez@ch.doe.gov
To facilitate discussion at the workshop, initial written comments are requested by August 15, 1997. The Department will consider all questions received by August 15, 1997 and at the workshop will address those that will advance the solicitation. Written questions received after August 15, 1997, will be addressed at the workshop as time permits. DOE desires feedback on all phases of the plan. DOE particularly requests feedback from industry on the following elements that are most critical:
A.The proposed contracting approach.
B.The level of information/detail required to be provided in the response to the RFP.
C.Proposed terms and conditions for implementing a contract between industry and the DOE.
D.The Department's approach to allocation of liability.
E.The Department's proposed tentative schedule which includes a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) in November 1997 followed by a final RFP to be issued in February 1998.
The identity of the source of questions will be held in confidence to the extent allowed by law. A written comment period for the PAS will be open until September 12, 1997 for any additional questions or concerns. Comments received after that date will be considered at the discretion of DOE.
The workshop will be held in the Advanced Photon Source facility auditorium, Building 402, at the Argonne National Laboratory; and this session will include an overview of the PAS, an open forum response to questions submitted in writing, and responses to any questions raised at the session at the discretion of DOE.
Directions to the Argonne National Laboratory site and the location of the workshop are enclosed. When a more detailed agenda becomes available it will be published on the Internet at the following URL address:
http://www.ch.doe.gov/business/ACQ.htm
Hotel accommodations for the conference are the responsibility of the attendees. Argonne National Laboratory has a new hotel, the Argonne Guest House, which is located near the workshop site. The hotel is operated by the Marriott Corporation. The daily rate is $60.00 plus tax. If desired, reservations may be made by calling (630) 739-6000 or by FAX (630) 739-1000.
Site Access Questionnaire
Argonne National Laboratory is a limited access Federal facility. Prior notification of attendance is required to gain access to the site. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire, listing the requested information for each person planning to attend, and return it to Marlene Martinez by close of business on August 20, 1997 (address listed above).
Sincerely,
Howard R. Canter
Acting Director
Office of Fissile Materials Disposition
Enclosures:
1. PAS
2. Questionnaire
3. Directions
QUESTIONNAIRE
The following individual(s) will represent our organization:
NAME |
COUNTRY OFCITIZENSHIP(Non-U.S. Citizens Only) |
PLACE OFBIRTH(Non-U.S. Citizens only) |
DATE OFBIRTH(Non-U.S. Citizens Only) |
Our Business Name and Address is as follows:
Name:
Street Address:
City: State: Zip:
Name of Principal Point of Contract:
Telephone Number:
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Collection of this information is authorized by 5 U.S.C.301, Department of Energy Organization Act, and 42 U.S.C.2011, Atomic Energy Act. Your furnishing of the requested information is voluntary; however, failure to provide this information may result in denied access to the Argonne National Laboratory site. The collected information will be used primarily for purposes of approving an individual's access to DOE offices and contractor facilities. Access to the information is limited to authorized employees with a need-to-know in carrying out their official duties. Additional disclosures may be made in accordance with the additional routine uses listed in Appendix B of the published Privacy Act System Notices found at 47 Fed.Reg.14333 (1982).
Estimated driving time; Driving time from airport rental car parking lot to ANL (good weather, non-rush hour, no construction) allow 35-40 minutes. Rush hour (7-9am & 4-6pm), or construction or bad weather, allow at least one hour.
Estimated driving time; driving time from Midway Airport to ANL (good weather, non-rush hour, no construction) allow about 30 minutes. Rush hour (7-9am & 3-6pm), or construction or bad weather, allow up to one hour.
Program Acquisition Strategy for Obtaining Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication and Reactor Irradiation Services (PAS)
Date Published: July 17, 1997
Prepared by:
The Office of Fissile Materials Disposition
United States Department of Energy
ATTACHMENT C—PROPOSED CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN DOE AND CONSORTIUM C-1
The Department of Energy (DOE) issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials, including surplus plutonium, on January 14, 1997. In that ROD, the Department decided to pursue a strategy for plutonium disposition that allows for immobilization of surplus weapons plutonium in glass or ceramic forms and irradiating the surplus plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in existing reactors, while reserving the option to immobilize all the surplus weapons-usable plutonium. The Department also decided that the extent to which either or both of these disposition approaches would ultimately be deployed would depend in part upon future National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for surplus weapons plutonium disposition, although the Department committed to immobilize at least 8 metric tonnes of currently declared surplus plutonium.
The January 14, 1997 ROD stated that the United States would pursue the use of domestic light water reactors (LWRs) for the MOX fuel approach to effect the disposition of its surplus plutonium. The ROD also stated that the United States would consider the use of Canadian Deuterium Oxide Natural Uranium (CANDU) reactors if international agreements with the Russian Federation and Canada were reached to implement disposition of U.S. and Russian plutonium as part of an international plutonium disposition campaign. Accordingly, the present document focuses on the disposition of U.S. plutonium absent any agreement with the Russian Federation to implement plutonium disposition. However, in the event that an international agreement is reached with the Russians and the Canadians to utilize CANDU reactors for the disposition of surplus plutonium, MOX fuel efforts will be modified as necessary. To prepare for this contingency, the Department is working with the Canadian Federal Government and nuclear industry to examine technical, economic, safety, nonproliferation, and environmental issues related to the use of MOX fuel in CANDU reactors. A program is underway to fabricate and test small quantities of MOX fuel at prototypic conditions in a Canadian research reactor. Adequate space will be provided in the MOX fuel fabrication facility to accommodate the fabrication of both LWR and CANDU MOX fuel.
An integral part of the MOX fuel approach is acquisition from the private sector of MOX fuel fabrication and reactor irradiation services. The purpose of this document is to describe the DOE's intended approach for acquiring these services and to request comments from prospective offerors in advance of publishing a draft Request for Proposals. A technical description of the mission is provided in Attachment A.
As indicated in its announcement in the Commerce Business Daily ( March 24, 1997), DOE prefers to use a single consortium to provide all services. If this approach is adopted, the selection of a consortium to provide the services for the disposition of plutonium in reactors would be pursued in parallel with determining whether to ultimately use the MOX fuel approach, and if so, the location for a domestic MOX fuel fabrication facility. A Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared by the DOE to analyze, among other things, the expected environmental impacts associated with establishing a domestic MOX fuel fabrication capability. The decision whether to use the MOX fuel approach, and if so, the siting for the MOX fuel fabrication facility (at a DOE site) will be determined in the Surplus Plutonium Disposition ROD in compliance with the NEPA. The Department will not construct or operate a MOX fuel fabrication facility nor irradiate MOX fuel in commercial nuclear reactors until issuance of, and depending on decisions in, the Surplus Plutonium Disposition ROD. Contract award will not be made until the Surplus Plutonium Disposition ROD is issued.
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are defined:
· Reactor irradiation services: includes all the functions that are necessary to permit the irradiation of MOX fuel elements in commercial LWRs under license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The term includes, for example, performing all the design and engineering services to modify reactors and facilities to use MOX fuel, identifying and performing necessary fuel qualification activities, obtaining NRC license modifications, preparing any necessary federal, state and local environmental permit/other documentation, performing core design and fuel design services, irradiating the fuel, safeguarding fresh fuel under applicable security measures, and storing irradiated fuel pending disposal actions.
· Fuel fabrication services: includes all the functions that are necessary to develop a domestic MOX fuel fabrication facility at a DOE site. The Department anticipates NRC licensing of the MOX fuel fabrication facility, although it is clear that legislation would be required for such external regulation of a DOE-owned facility. The scope of fuel fabrication services includes designing, building/modifying, licensing, and operating a fuel fabrication facility, supplying commercial nuclear fuel for the proposed reactors, and, ultimately, decontaminating and decommissioning the facility.
· Consortium: a team of firms that has the expertise and capabilities to perform the functions outlined in Section A.2.1.2 of Attachment A that are necessary to accomplish the mission.
All references to reactor irradiation, MOX fuel fabrication, consortium, and the like should be understood to mean "potential" reactor irradiation, fuel fabrication, consortium, and so forth, since the Department has not and will not decide whether to ultimately deploy the MOX fuel option until it issues the Surplus Plutonium Disposition ROD.
DOE is pursuing the transformation of plutonium oxide powder derived from surplus plutonium to the spent fuel standard (making the plutonium as difficult to recover and as unattractive for use in weapons as the plutonium in existing commercial spent nuclear fuel). To do so will require both fuel fabrication and reactor irradiation services. DOE prefers that the two services be coupled and integrated by a single consortium. The consortium approach would maximize private sector participation and provide for the coordination of all services within the consortium. Most importantly, it would encourage traditional business relationships among fuel designers, fuel fabricators, reactor vendors, reactor operators, and architect-engineers, including retaining the long-standing relationship between utilities and their fuel fabricators. It would also simplify negotiations and contractual relationships between DOE and the selected consortium.
DOE's strategy is to acquire fuel fabrication and reactor irradiation services in a manner which: (1) promotes competition; (2) limits the time and effort expended by the offerors and DOE; and (3) simplifies the final selection process. DOE is considering awarding one contract to a consortium to perform all aspects of the Statement of Work (SOW) in the Request for Proposals (RFP). A Source Selection Official (SSO) will appoint a Source Evaluation Board (SEB) which will review the proposals and evaluate them against the stated evaluation criteria. The SSO will then select the offeror offering the best value to the government.
This document identifies DOE's plans for acquisition of services. The document is provided as a reference for prospective offerors and to solicit comments.
The comment period will include an opportunity for prospective offerors and the public to submit their questions and comments to DOE in writing. Written comments and suggestions provided to DOE are for the intent of obtaining input to prepare a draft RFP. The submitter's name and organization and any proprietary information will be withheld from release to the public to the extent allowed by law. Prospective offerors are strongly encouraged to provide comments on the PAS in order to assist DOE in the formulation of a draft RFP that is acceptable to both the government and prospective offerors.
To obtain early comments, DOE will convene a PAS workshop for prospective offerors in which a dialogue and question and answer session will be held. DOE does not commit to answer all inquiries but will provide answers to advance the solicitation. The DOE officials involved in the procurement processes and contractors assisting DOE in the acquisition will not meet personally with individuals representing prospective offerors on any matter potentially impacting the procurement processes during the PAS public comment period, except at the PAS Workshop. All contact with DOE and its contractors in reference to this procurement can only be made through the SEB Chairman or designated representative.
The Department is proposing to issue a draft RFP that will consider comments on the PAS from prospective offerors and others. This draft RFP will be issued by DOE to obtain comments from prospective offerors on specific contractual requirements proposed by DOE.
In response to the comments and feedback from the PAS and the draft RFP, DOE intends to issue an RFP. Prospective offerors will be asked to submit written proposals which DOE will evaluate against the criteria in the RFP in accordance with DOE and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).
These are approximate dates for the actions identified in this plan. The dates may be changed at the sole discretion of DOE:
03/24/97 Issue Commerce Business Daily (CBD) Announcement for PAS
07/17/97 Issue PAS
08/15/97 Initial comments due on PAS
08/28/97 PAS Workshop
09/12/97 Final comments due on PAS
11/97 Issue Draft Request for Proposals
02/98 Issue Request for Proposals
05/98 Proposals Due
09/98 Award contract
Attachment A Mission Technical Overview. This attachment provides prospective offerors with DOE's planning basis for pursuing and potentially implementing the reactor option and the subsequent mission requirements and is prepared as a means to elicit comments.
Attachment B Qualification and Evaluation Criteria. This attachment specifies the qualification and evaluation criteria that DOE anticipates using to select a consortium and is prepared as a means to elicit comments.
Attachment C Proposed Contractual Arrangements between DOE and Consortium. This attachment suggests possible types of contracting vehicles between DOE and the consortium. Its purpose is to provide a basis for consideration of possible DOE/consortium business arrangements and is prepared as a means to elicit comments.
Attachment D Information Requested. This attachment lists the information that is proposed to be requested from consortia in response to the RFP and is prepared as a means to elicit comments.
In addition to this document, important technical and programmatic information is available to prospective commentors. The first four documents listed below can be found on the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition Internet WEB site. The Internet address for this WEB site is URL: http://web.fie.com/htdoc/fed/doe/fsl/pub/menu/any. The last two sets of documents can be found on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Internet web site. The Internet address for this web site is URL: http://www.ornl.gov/etd/FMDP/ fmdpproc.htm.
Surplus Fissile Material Storage and Disposition Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, December 1996.
Surplus Fissile Materials Storage and Disposition Record of Decision, January 14, 1997.
Technical Summary Report for Surplus Weapons-Usable Plutonium Disposition, October 31, 1996. This document identifies programmatic cost, schedule, and technical issues relating to plutonium disposition options.
Department of Energy Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement Notice of Intent [6405-01-P], May 16, 1997.
FMDP Reactor Alternative Summary Report, Volume I Existing LWR Alternative, ORNL/TM-13275/V1, September 1996. This report provides detailed coverage of the technical, cost, and schedule issues involved in implementing plutonium disposition in LWRs.
Topical Reports in Support of the Program Acquisition Strategy.
The National Academy of Science (NAS) has called the world's surplus plutonium a "clear and present danger" in the Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium Volume I, 1994. The disposition of surplus weapons-usable plutonium in the United States is being pursued to mitigate the plutonium proliferation danger. Actions being undertaken by the United States will be orchestrated in concert with international efforts to address surplus plutonium stocks in the Russian Federation. The rate of implementation of plutonium disposition will likely be dependent on terms and conditions in international agreements yet to be negotiated.
DOE is tasked with the disposition of plutonium that is surplus to national security requirements to a condition that meets the spent fuel standard. Existing LWRs will potentially be used to achieve the spent fuel standard by irradiating the plutonium in the form of MOX fuel in fuel cycles comparable to conventionally used low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel cycles. The spent fuel standard thus achieved renders the residual plutonium to a nonweapons-usable form and demonstrates irreversible arms reduction.
The first step in the disposition of the surplus plutonium as MOX fuel in reactors is to convert the surplus materials to plutonium oxide powder. This step will be performed by DOE and its contractors and is not part of the scope of this procurement. The SOW for this procurement will require that the plutonium oxide powder be blended with uranium oxide powder, pressed into fuel pellets, and placed in fuel rods. The MOX fuel will then be irradiated in existing commercial LWRs to meet the spent fuel standard. Spent fuel disposition is outside the scope of this procurement. Disposition of MOX spent fuel will likely be handled in the same manner as LEU spent fuel.
This document describes DOE's baseline plans for potential fuel fabrication, irradiation, and associated services. The baseline satisfies the following purposes:
The information outlined in this document is based on several assumptions listed below that are reasonable for planning purposes at this time. Changes will be made as needed in the future. Unless otherwise indicated in this document, MT denotes metric tonnes of plutonium.
1. International Agreements: Future international agreements will be needed to establish a framework and timetable for international plutonium disposition actions. Flexibility in fuel design approaches and operations of the fuel facility is required to link U.S. efforts to international actions. The need for flexibility is also driven by the potential for additional plutonium that may be declared surplus and by the potential for use of additional reactors.
2. NEPA Compliance: DOE's preferred alternative, including the preferred site for a MOX fuel fabrication facility, will be announced in early 1998, and the ROD will be issued later in 1998. Further NEPA analysis for existing licensed facilities may be provided in conjunction with NRC's licensing.
3. Transportation: Plutonium oxide and unirradiated MOX fuel elements will be transported by DOE via safe, secure trailers (SSTs).
4. Feed Materials: The amount of feed material for the reactor disposition mission is expected to be about 33 MT but may range from 20-40 MT. Plutonium feed materials will be made available starting in 2004 from a dry (also known as hydride) chemical process at a rate of approximately 3.5 MT/year to be added to the inventory of other oxides available at that time.
5. MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility Licensing and Ownership: In the event legislation is implemented to permit NRC to license a DOE fuel fabrication facility, the consortium (or one of its permanent members) will be a licensee.
6. International Safeguards: Pursuant to Presidential Decision Directives 13 and 41, all surplus plutonium will be made available for the application of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards under the U.S./IAEA Voluntary Offer Agreement as soon as practicable.
7. Domestic Safeguards and Security: NRC safeguards and security requirements apply to the operations at the reactor site and MOX fuel fabrication facility.
DOE proposes to contract with a private-sector consortium to transform the surplus plutonium to the spent fuel standard. DOE would provide plutonium to the consortium as an oxide. The consortium would provide fuel fabrication and reactor irradiation services and all other related disposition processes after receipt of the plutonium oxide from DOE, except that DOE would be responsible for transportation of the unirradiated special nuclear material (SNM) between sites. A government-owned and NRC-licensed (depending on legislation) MOX fuel fabrication facility would be designed, built/modified, and operated, by the consortium on an existing DOE site. The consortium would construct and startup this facility pursuant to the contract. The consortium would operate the facility on behalf of the Government and make a payment to DOE. Operational and decommissioning costs would be borne by the consortium.
The MOX fuel fabrication plant will be operated solely for the disposition of surplus U.S. plutonium. The government will terminate operation of the fuel fabrication facility either after completion of the plutonium disposition mission or earlier, if required by changes to U.S. policies. DOE retains the right to defer or terminate MOX fuel fabrication or irradiation services.
As the licensees of the operating reactors, the reactor owners retain their inherent responsibilities for operating their reactors safely in accordance with the NRC regulations.
The consortium would have the responsibility to ensure that all functions to implement MOX fuel disposition are performed, though some functions may be subcontracted.
DOE has selected existing LWRs as the platform for potential reactor-based plutonium disposition because of the low cost, shorter schedule, and minimal technical risks associated with the use of MOX fuel in LWRs compared to other reactor alternatives. Utilization of MOX fuel for LWRs is not a new concept since the technologies are operating on a commercial basis in Europe today. To this end, the design of facilities, cores, and fuel cycles should be predicated on using existing technology and should avoid developing any novel fuel cycles. In particular, the MOX fuel designs should avoid any approaches that will require an extensive developmental and/or experimental test program for qualification and licensing. The need for conducting fuel qualification testing should be restricted to examining and characterizing parameters that are unique to the surplus weapons-derived plutonium, such as the morphology of the hydride-derived powder and the possible presence of small amounts of gallium in the plutonium powder, unless overriding technical, cost, or schedule advantages can be shown.
The remainder of this document is predicated on the assumption that the approach described above is implemented.
The following are examples of DOE responsibilities:
1.Make available to offerors the non-classified experimental and analytical results obtained by DOE and its contractors during the last several years.
2.Select and contract with the consortium.
3.Determine whether to ultimately deploy the MOX fuel approach, and if so, select a site for and own a MOX fuel fabrication facility.
4.Establish the rate at which plutonium oxide will be provided to the consortium.
5.Provide a certified package design for the transport of fresh MOX fuel from the MOX fuel fabrication facility to the reactor sites.
6.Make available plutonium oxide and depleted uranium as feed source materials.
7.Transport plutonium oxide powder to the MOX fuel fabrication facility and transport fresh fuel assemblies between the fuel facility and the reactors.
8.Process the necessary DOE Level 3 clearances.
9.Accept SNM-derived transuranic (TRU) waste.
10. Make changes, if any, in the statement of work.
11. Provide project oversight and performance assessments.
12. Provide oversight and verification of adequate safeguards and security for special nuclear material.
13. Maintain stakeholder involvement program.
The consortium will:
1. Provide management of the MOX disposition functions within the consortium, including technical direction and control, financial controls, coordinating among subcontractors, and reports and liaison to DOE.
2. Provide MOX fuel fabrication services including design, construction, startup, and operation of a MOX fuel fabrication facility and final decontamination and decommissioning of the MOX fuel fabrication facility upon completion of the plutonium disposition mission.
3. Provide transportation and conversion of government furnished depleted uranium to UO2, if depleted uranium is selected by the consortium.
4. Provide reactor services including fuel design and core management; reactor and fuel safety analysis; completion of reactor plant modifications, if any; conduct of fuel qualification, irradiation of the MOX fuel; and storage of irradiated fuel pending disposal. (The reactor owners retain their current responsibilities for decontamination and decommissioning of their facilities.)
5. Provide safeguards and security for all operations within the MOX fuel fabrication facility site and at the reactor sites. (IAEA as well as the NRC and other specified federal safeguard standards must be maintained.)
6. Obtain and maintain the NRC licenses and site permits for the execution of this program and any federal, state, and local licenses or permits.
7. Procure and maintain fresh MOX fuel transportation packages.
8. Establish a proactive stakeholder relations program in coordination with the DOE.
The following requirements, constraints, and criteria apply to the schedule.
The consortium would be required to propose a reactor loading schedule such that the first in a series of MOX core reloads (not lead assemblies) is inserted into a reactor in or before 2007. The consortium shall also propose a reactor loading schedule such that the last MOX fuel assembly has been irradiated for at least one cycle before or in 2022.
To achieve the 2007 requirement, the consortium shall not rely on the use of MOX fuel fabricated in Europe. If a MOX fuel fabrication capability is required to make lead assemblies to satisfy the 2007 requirement, the consortium must demonstrate how the lead assemblies will be fabricated domestically. The offeror could consider using existing DOE facilities or constructing a pilot line in advance of or in parallel with a production line in the MOX fuel fabrication facility. (See A.2.3.4)
The availability of plutonium oxide may limit the initiation of certain activities. The following constraints apply:
1. Sufficient plutonium oxide is currently available to support whatever lead assembly demonstrations might reasonably be necessary. However, this available oxide was derived through aqueous processing and therefore is not necessarily prototypic of plutonium to be made available in significant quantity (hundreds of kilograms) from future large-scale hydride processes.
2. By the beginning of 2001, DOE anticipates that at least 0.5 MT of plutonium from weapons dismantlement via hydride processing will be available for lead assembly demonstration or production operation, and at least 1 MT will be available by the beginning of 2004.
3. The generation rate of plutonium oxide after 2004 is assumed to be approximately 3.5 MT/year. The demand for plutonium oxide by the fuel fabrication facility shall not exceed the supply available, which includes any prior accumulation.
The consortium must be a legal entity capable of assuring financial responsibility and accountability to DOE. The consortium must provide an organizational structure such that project management authority clearly resides at a single point, regardless of the specific function being performed. This requirement includes the establishment of clear lines of authority among the participants in the consortium. The consortium must be organized such that all contractual arrangements with DOE are with the consortium. The consortium would have responsibility for all the functions necessary to satisfy the mission requirements.
The consortium shall establish one firm as the lead organization. The lead organization shall be:
The consortium shall assign an individual as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO shall be a full-time employee of the lead organization and shall be required to obtain a DOE-issued Level 3 clearance.
Fabrication of fuel, fuel irradiation in reactors, and program/project management must be provided by firms that are members of the consortium. Consortium members will provide contracted services over the life of the contract.
The following functions shall be performed by consortium members or subcontractors:
Design of commercial fuel.
Nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) design and reactor modification services.
Architect/Engineering (A/E) services.
Capability to obtain NRC licensing of the MOX fuel fabrication facility (depending on legislation).
Participants performing these functions shall be specified as part of the consortium proposal.
In the event that a consortium member or subcontractor performing one of the above functions withdraws from the consortium, the consortium must propose a qualified replacement capability (if necessary to complete the mission). DOE must approve any changes in membership in the consortium and subcontractors performing any of the above functions.
The consortium must establish and maintain a proactive stakeholder involvement program to include a public education and information campaign for residents in communities affected by the MOX fuel program. DOE would retain its obligation to maintain its own stakeholder program. The consortium's program would complement DOE's.
Depending on decisions made in the Surplus Plutonium Disposition ROD, DOE will contract for construction of the domestic fuel fabrication facility that will be located at one of the following candidate DOE sites: Savannah River Site (SRS), the Hanford Reservation, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, or the PANTEX Site. DOE intends to execute a long-term agreement for the facility with the consortium, including a negotiated payment to DOE. New facilities will be considered at SRS, Idaho, and PANTEX sites. Modification of existing buildings is being considered at the Hanford site. The consortium must be capable and willing to fabricate and operate a fuel fabrication facility at any of the four sites.
PuO2 will be available as specified in A.1.4.2. In determining the rates for using the PuO2, the designer may draw down any accumulated inventory as desired.
DOE desires to use the output from its hydride processes as the source of plutonium oxide for MOX fuel without requiring any additional chemical (i.e., reagent) processing.
Plutonium will be made available at no cost to the fuel fabricator as a ceramic-grade oxide powder. In general, the plutonium will meet all of the ASTM C757-90 requirements for plutonium oxide for MOX fuel. The plutonium will have a total fissile concentration of ~93%. The powder will be delivered via DOE SSTs and will be encased in government-owned, welded stainless steel cans and outer transport containers.
The plutonium that will become available after 2004 should be assumed to have been produced from the hydride process.
Much of the plutonium will contain small residual levels of gallium. If desired, to accelerate fuel qualification or licensing, the DOE can make available substantially gallium-free material to start up the campaign. However, the opportunity to use such material would be restricted to existing oxides (mostly non-weapons grade) and a few hundred kilograms (kgs) of plutonium oxide powder from the hydride process that may have also undergone subsequent additional processing by DOE.
Depleted uranium, either as uranium hexafluoride (UF6) or uranium trioxide (UO3), will be made available to the consortium at no extra cost. If the consortium chooses to use depleted uranium, the fabrication of MOX fuel must utilize existing DOE inventories of depleted uranium and the consortium must perform any necessary processing of the depleted uranium in existing, licensed U.S. facilities, unless it can demonstrate compelling advantages to using other sources of depleted uranium or other facilities. Alternatively, the consortium may choose to use other uranium enrichments at its own cost from the open market.
The consortium will be responsible for providing conceptual, preliminary, and final designs for the fuel fabrication facility. The final design must be sufficiently complete and detailed to support construction of the facility under a fixed price contract. The facility design and operation shall conform to the NRC regulations promulgated in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 70. Other applicable federal regulations and standards may be specified. State and local regulations and standards will be complied with to the extent applicable. The DOE site selected for the MOX facility will have services which are available (e.g., utilities, fire protection, and security) at a price subject to negotiation between the DOE and the consortium.
The facility design must be compatible with NRC and IAEA safeguards and with verification of domestic safeguards as specified in Section A.3.1.
The non-MOX fuel rods, fuel cladding, and all other bundle hardware including springs, grid spacers, and assembly end fittings will be acquired or manufactured by the consortium. Final bundle assembly will be completed at the fuel fabrication facility.
The fuel fabrication facility design may be required to adapt to a temporary change in MOX fuel demand. Accordingly, the design must accommodate a change in MOX fuel throughput, i.e., production rate, by ±30% relative to the nominal plant design throughput.
In addition, to accommodate the potential for more plutonium being declared surplus in the future, the MOX fuel fabrication facility design shall provide unused space to permit the addition of another production-scale MOX fuel line (nominally 30-45 MTHM/yr; minimum 25 MTHM/yr). The space shall accommodate both pellet manufacturing and fuel assembly fabrication to augment existing production or for production of another type of fuel for LWRs or CANDU reactors.
The fuel fabrication facility shall be designed with low net plutonium loss. DOE desires an all dry facility primarily for waste minimization purposes. The minimum plutonium recovery as a fraction of plutonium that is ultimately incorporated into fuel shall be 99.25% and preferably greater than 99.5%. Wet recycling of plutonium streams cannot be relied on to achieve this requirement. The SNM - derived TRU waste generated will be transferred to the DOE for disposal, with packaging of the waste the responsibility of the fuel fabricator.
The MOX fuel facility must be able to accommodate an interruption of operation due to national policy considerations. If an interruption is dictated by national policy considerations, operation of the facility will continue to satisfy the reactor demand as identified in Section A.2.3.2 or until the ongoing MOX fuel reload campaign is completed, whichever is less restrictive to reactor operations.
The facility shall provide capability to store a minimum of 7.0 MT of plutonium as plutonium oxide in stainless steel cans (nominally 4.5 kg per can) and also be able to store a minimum of one year's supply of finished fuel.
The MOX fuel shall be fabricated to meet reactor demand schedules. However, to avoid excessive inventory at the fuel fabrication and/or the reactor plant facilities, fuel shall not be fabricated more than 18 months in advance of shipment to the reactor, and the fresh fuel shall not be stored at the reactor site longer than the current and next scheduled reload.
After the domestic MOX fuel fabrication facility is available, it will be the exclusive source of the MOX fuel for the reactors.
Transportation of the MOX fuel from the fuel fabrication plant to the reactor plant site(s) will be provided by DOE. Accommodations for adequate storage and safeguards for the fresh fuel will be provided by the consortium. Qualification of the fuel to be used for reactor irradiation is described in Section A.2.3.4.
All phases of reactor design and operation must conform to the NRC regulations and license conditions. The initial MOX core reload designs must be based on existing core designs supported by significant European experience. Once successful initial core performance is demonstrated and design approaches have been validated, extrapolations from the existing experience to achieve higher plutonium disposition rates will be considered. DOE will not consider any design that requires the use of neutron absorbers integral with plutonium in the same fuel pellets.
The realized schedule for disposition of surplus plutonium will depend on a number of external factors including reciprocal actions by the Russian Federation. Therefore, one of the decision criteria in selecting reactors and fuel cycles for U.S. disposition will be the flexibility to adjust to the evolving policy that will drive the plutonium disposition rate. Flexibility means the ability to modify core designs for reloading reactors at future refuelings so as to increase or decrease the plutonium core loading rate. To the extent practical, the core design approach should enable interchangability of LEU assemblies with MOX assemblies, such that more or less MOX fuel can be charged to the reactors with the balance being supplied as traditional LEU fuel.
The consortium shall maintain an inventory of LEU fuel bundles or have the capability to acquire LEU fuel bundles in a timely manner. This requirement to replace the MOX fuel bundles that would have otherwise been loaded in the reactor is necessary to mitigate any disruption of MOX fuel supply due to national or international policy considerations.
To further mitigate fuel supply disruptions due to policy considerations, DOE will provide sufficient notification to the consortium to enable procurement of replacement LEU fuel. The advance notification will be sufficient to allow completion of the MOX fuel load for then-current irradiation cycle and the next MOX core reload for each reactor.
The reactor owner will provide facilities for storage of fresh MOX fuel assemblies at the site prior to insertion into the core. The reactor owner shall possess the capability to store an amount of fresh fuel at each reactor to accommodate at least one partial core reload. Transportation of fuel by SSTs should not be relied upon for just-in-time inventory management. (See also Section A.2.2.3 requirements related to maximum duration for fresh fuel storage times.)
1. Only operating reactors located in the United States will be considered.
2. A reactor will not be considered if its license expires before 2012.
3. A consortium must provide a minimum of three and a maximum of eight operating reactors that can complete the mission (See A.1.4.1) within their remaining licenses.
4. The selected group of reactors must be capable of disposition of 33 MT of plutonium before the end of 2022.
5. The group of reactors proposed must not require more than two fuel qualification and licensing efforts.
The reactor owners retain their responsibility for inserting qualified MOX fuel into their reactors, pursuant to the NRC regulations and license conditions.
The consortium will be required to design, qualify, and license fuel forms in parallel with the development of the domestic MOX fuel fabrication capability.
The consortium shall prepare and execute a plan to provide fuel for any qualification and testing activities. This plan shall reflect that fuel is provided exclusively from domestic facilities. However, the consortium may also propose European sources of fuels for qualification if significant cost or schedule savings result.
If a dedicated pilot line capability is required and it is desired to utilize existing DOE facilities for this purpose, for example, for early fuel qualification or licensing, DOE will select candidate sites for the pilot line capability in conjunction with the issuance of the ROD for Surplus Plutonium Disposition for the siting of the MOX fabrication facility. Any pilot capabilities at a DOE facility would likely be under DOE Orders and regulations, instead of under NRC license.
Any procurement of MOX fuel from foreign fabricators must be coordinated with DOE to ensure that proper agreements between the governments are in place, to ensure that U.S. provided plutonium oxide powder is properly safeguarded, to verify that the U.S. supplied plutonium is not fungible with other sources of plutonium, and to ensure proper secure transport between countries.
Total irradiation time shall be sufficient to irradiate the MOX fuel to a minimum of 20,000 MWd/MTHM. At this level, the intrinsic radiation barrier will be comparable with spent commercial fuel already in storage at many reactor sites.
The reactor owner may change the fuel bundle or assembly irradiation duration or time between refueling for the MOX fuel cycles relative to the LEU cycles, at the owner's discretion. However, DOE will not be financially liable for any decreased net capacity factor due to the change in the irradiation cycle length. For example, if a reactor owner chooses to change the irradiation cycle from 18 to 12 months and then suffers a lower capacity factor as a result, DOE will not be responsible for lost production of electricity.
The planned burnup should reflect a balance between two competing objectives. First, the reactor owner should avoid MOX fuel cycle designs which require that the MOX fuel be depleted to significantly higher burnups than the experience base in Europe. Second, DOE prefers higher burnup over lower burnup to minimize the amount of spent fuel generated.
Reactor owners must develop plans and procedures to handle any pin (or rod) that needs to be withdrawn from a bundle (or assembly) to ensure that proper security control of the extracted pins (or rods) can be maintained. The use of DOE facilities may be considered to dispose of any pin (or rod) that may be suspected of leakage.
Spent fuel that results from this mission must meet acceptance criteria for the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Repository.
Reactor owners may configure their core loading patterns to reflect noncontinuous irradiation of a particular MOX fuel assembly because it may be desirable to irradiate fuel assemblies, withdraw them, and later reinsert them. In so doing, better fuel economy and a faster net plutonium disposition rate (to the spent fuel standard) may be obtained. However, the owner shall provide the required safeguards and security for fuel which is withdrawn and intended to be reinserted before obtaining 20,000 MWd/MTHM.
The fuel fabrication and irradiation service providers will have to provide safeguards and security protection appropriate for storing and handling SNM. The NRC safeguards requirements, including those specified in 10 CFR 73, must be met.
Facility designs, accommodations, procedures, and specifications must accommodate IAEA activities.
The IAEA, the Russian Federation, and the DOE monitors will be given access to the MOX fuel fabrication facility and the reactors involved in burning MOX. Consideration should be given to configuration of facilities, equipment, and processes to permit inspection by these officials with minimal or no access to proprietary or other sensitive information.
Individuals who will have unescorted access to SNM must be U.S. citizens and possess appropriate clearances for the access.
An interface with the plutonium oxide production operations may involve access to limited classified information. Therefore, at least one senior technical manager at the fuel fabrication facility and two or more individuals responsible for fuel qualification must have a DOE-issued Level 3 clearance. Among other things, this clearance requires that the individuals be U.S. citizens.
Interfaces also exist with the DOE SST management system that may involve access to limited amounts of classified information. Accordingly, at least one senior technical manager at the fuel fabrication facility and at least one senior technical manager at each reactor site must possess a DOE-issued Level 3 clearance.
The government will award a contract to the offeror whose offer represents the best value to the government on the basis of (1) the merits of the offer and (2) the offeror's capability, as explained below. The evaluation of qualified proposals will be performed pursuant to the evaluation criteria identified in Sect. B.3.
A SEB will be appointed by the SSO to prepare a solicitation and evaluate the proposals submitted. The offerors are required to prepare written proposals. Proposals will be evaluated by the SEB in accordance with applicable DOE and Federal procurement policies and procedures.
Proposals failing to meet the following qualification criteria will be eliminated from further consideration. An offeror must certify that it meets the qualification criteria.
1.A consortium would have to provide the functions listed below. Participating firms must be identified by assigning a company name to the following functions: (Note: Some firms may be able to satisfy more than one function.)
· Program/Project management
· Fuel irradiation in reactors
· Design of commercial fuel
· NSSS design and reactor modification services
· Fuel fabrication services
· Architect-Engineering services
· Capability to obtain NRC licensing of the MOX fuel fabrication facility (depending on legislation).
9. The organization designated for program/project management must demonstrate experience in contract management, project management, and system integration functions for an interdisciplinary, nuclear industry, or government project for which it held a prime contract of at least $100M.
10. The consortium would have to provide an organizational structure such that project management authority clearly resides at a single point, regardless of the specific function being performed.
11. The consortium shall establish one firm as the lead organization. The lead organization shall be:
A U.S.-owned reactor licensee whose reactor operations are affected; or
A U.S.-owned nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) vendor. (Note: in order to be the lead organization, the contract will provide that the NSSS vendor designs and warrants the fuel.)
1.Only operating reactors located in the United States will be considered.
2.A reactor will not be considered if its license expires before 2012.
3.A consortium must provide a minimum of three and a maximum of eight operating reactors that can complete the mission (See A.1.4.1) within their remaining licenses.
4.The selected group of reactors must be capable of a disposition of 33 MT of Pu before or during 2022.
5.The group of reactors proposed must not require more than two fuel qualification and licensing efforts.
The consortium member proposed to perform the fuel fabrication function must currently be fabricating commercial nuclear reactor fuel for LWRs.
DOE will use technical, business management, and cost criteria to evaluate the submittals of the offerors. The criteria will be applied to the information requested in Attachment D. These criteria are expected to include the following:
Attachment C - PROPOSED CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN DOE AND CONSORTIUM
The DOE Fissile Material Disposition Program Office's intent is that the business/contracting relationship (1) be relatively simple in the sense that the government can deal with one party, (2) enhance cost efficiencies, (3) share financial risk, (4) enhance confidence in mission completion, and (5) emulate normal private-sector fuel supplier/utility relationships. Table C.1 contains DOE's proposed contracting methods and Table C.2 lists government-furnished materials and services. In summary, the performance periods and corresponding contracting types are as follows:
Protection under the Price-Anderson Act will be provided; however, DOE is examining whether NRC or DOE Price-Anderson protection will be provided for the MOX fuel fabrication facility. Operating commercial nuclear reactors will continue to be covered by their existing NRC Price-Anderson protection.
Firm-fixed-price tasks - The consortium will retain all liability, including liability to third parties, except as otherwise provided under the terms of the contract.
Cost-reimbursement tasks - The contract will generally make certain liabilities to third persons, not compensated by insurance, an allowable cost under the contract.
Section 836 of the FY 1993 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 102-484) prohibits the award of a DOE contract under the National Security Program to a company owned by an entity controlled by a foreign government if it is necessary for the company to be given access to a proscribed category of information in order to perform the contract. DOE's implementing regulations are contained in the DEAR, 48 CFR 904.71.
The DEAR contains important provisions and definitions, including the definition of "proscribed information" and the provision in 48 CFR 904.7102 for waiver of the prohibition by the Secretary of Energy.
The DEAR, at 48 CFR 904.70, also sets forth DOE policies and procedures regarding foreign ownership, control or influence (FOCI) over contractors. These procedures are designed to protect against an undue risk to the common defense and security which may result if classified information or special nuclear materials are made available to DOE contractors or subcontractors who are owned, controlled, or influenced by foreign governments, individuals, or organization. In order for the Contracting Officer to obtain sufficient information to make the required findings regarding FOCI, the solicitation under this program will include the representations contained in the DEAR at 48 CFR 952.204-73 and its Alternate I. The resultant contract will contain the DEAR FOCI clause found at 48 CFR 952.204.74.
CONTRACT STRUCTURE/TYPE |
|
Base Contract (3-5 years) |
MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility
Reactor Irradiation Services
Program Management |
Fixed Price Fixed Price Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Cost Reimbursement |
|
Option 1 (~ 2 years) |
MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility
Reactor Irradiation Services · Defense of License Modification Application Program Management |
Cost Reimbursement Cost Reimbursement Cost Reimbursement Cost Reimbursement |
|
Option 2 (~ 5 years) |
MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility · Construction and Startup of MOX Facility Reactor Irradiation Services · Perform required reactor modifications Program Management |
Fixed Price Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement |
|
Option 3 (~ 15 years) |
|
Fee Paid to DOE Paid by consortium Paid by consortium Cost Reimbursement |
GOVERNMENT FURNISHEDMATERIAL & SERVICES |
|
Information requested to be provided by each consortium relates to the criteria established in Attachment B. Submittals for each item listed below shall be no more than ten pages or less, except for items 1 and 14, which shall be no more than twenty pages. The consortium will be required to:
historical licensing performance including NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance ratings and enforcement actions; current and projected electricity production cost with and without debt service; and projected wholesale power costs in region where reactors are located.
9. Describe financial capability of each of the consortium members to perform the mission.
10. Describe experience and proposed approach for external relations, including relations with public utility commissions, state and local authorities, interested parties, and local community residents.
11. Describe the licensing approach, including identification of strategy for obtaining license modifications for reactors and, depending on the enactment of appropriate legislation, the license for the MOX fuel fabrication facility, anticipated licensing issues and proposed solutions, anticipated licensing schedules and any linkage to fuel qualification activities.
12. Describe the experience/past performance and capability to fabricate commercial nuclear fuel.
13. Describe the approach, including issues and proposed solutions, and schedule for designing, building/modifying, and starting up, and operating the MOX fuel fabrication facility including the technical justification for the approach.
14. Describe the estimated capital and operational costs and schedule for each element of the project necessary to complete the mission and the methodology and key assumptions used in the estimate. This should include a discussion of areas of potential cost or schedule savings to the government due to unique features of the proposed approach (including cost sharing), areas of significant cost or schedule uncertainties and the information or actions needed to reduce those uncertainties. Anticipated cash flow to the government during operation of MOX fuel fabrication facility and irradiation of fuel should also be identified.
15. Describe the procurement strategy for equipment and other purchases maximizing competition or other methods to reduce the overall cost to the government.
16. Describe the overall schedule for performing all aspects of the MOX fuel disposition program, including major milestones.