So we typically use $100 a gallon for the TBI as an alternative to include treatment and disposal at a Texas landfill, at the WCS. So that’s where those numbers come from.
Unidentified Analyst: So do those same rates apply to treating the supplemental low-activity waste from Hanford tanks outside of the TBI program? I assume they are the same?
Mark Duff: No, they don’t. It’s a good question. They are different. And the reason they are different is they are important to us and important to the exclusivity of our program. And that is because of the agreements with the state, this waste €“ the secondary waste is coming off of vitrification, which is what is defined as with the state as the preferred treatment alternatives. So what that means is after the secondary waste comes off at the flow, we can put that waste in the local Hanford landfill. So it won’t go down the highway to Texas and Energy Solutions in most cases, there may be some exceptions. It will likely mostly or largely go back on to the Hanford site into their gigantic beautiful new landfill. It’s designed just for this type of waste. So it won’t go very far away.
Unidentified Analyst: Well to be clear, I’m referring to the primary waste. The supplemental low-activity waste you’re doing in TBI, saying once the TBI program is behind us and if this moves into the operational stage of treating the primary supplemental low-activity waste, with the rates that you would be getting paid be the same rates per gallon that you would be getting paid in the TBI program for that primary waste?
Mark Duff: I’m a little confused. So there is two different waste streams. There is one, the secondary waste coming off DFLAW. That’s the one that goes back on site. And then TBI, which is, as you said, supplemental, that’s the TBI. So that’s all supplemental, and that would be the $100.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay, okay. So can you clarify whether the DOE has officially made a decision to grout secondary waste that are generated by vitrification of the tanks, low-activity waste? Or whether this remains a proposal rather than an official decision?
Mark Duff: The ROD amendment is quite a formal document. And it defines DOE’s decision on how to disposition the waste coming off of DFLAW. It goes through a lot of pain and suffering through the DOE to get that ROD amendments approved, and supplemental analysis and that type of thing. So it’s a pretty formal decision in my mind. It will €“ yes, to answer your question, yes, from my perspective, is the ROD amendment is very formal, and it’s their intent to send the secondary waste on DFLAW for commercial treatment site, off-site treatment.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay. Can you please clarify whether the DOE has awarded the tank off-site secondary waste treatment business to you all, to waste control specialists, or to neither of you yet?
Mark Duff: They have not made any awards yet, and we would not expect them to do that until the tank gets operating or very close to operating in the high capacity. We €“ what they’ll do on this, Anthony, most likely and there is some speculation here, is there is €“ each of the entities we’ve mentioned have contracts with the tank operating contractor, which at this point in time is WRPS. The WRPS is there, notwithstanding who wins the ITDC, where the ITDC will get this contract. We have MSA with them, with established rates that will likely be renegotiated along the way. And when the time comes for them to generate this waste from DFLAW. They’ll put out a task order. Maybe competitive, may not be, I don’t know, but they’ll put out a task order.
In the case of this one in the only one company named in the ROD, it will likely just be a task order. We will put in a price, they’ll negotiate with us, and then we will go. So we have a contract in place. They’ll put task orders in place as waste is generated, and that’s contractual approach. That has not occurred yet. And like I said, it won’t likely occur until DFLAW is operated.
