Status of the NRC

Decommissioning Program

2005 Annual Report

Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555–0001
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF DECOMMISSIONING SITES BY SITE CATEGORY . . . . . . . . iv

1. Introduction .........................................................1

2. Decommissioning Sites ................................................1

2.1 Reactor Decommissioning

2.1.1 Power Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1.2 Research and Test Reactors .................................4

2.2 Materials Facilities Decommissioning

2.2.1 Complex Decommissioning Materials Facilities ...................5

2.2.2 Uranium Recovery Facilities ..................................9

2.2.3 Fuel Cycle Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3. Guidance and Rulemaking Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4. Research Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5. International Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6. Program Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

7. Programmatic Decommissioning Activities Since Previous Report . . . . . . . . . . . 15

8. Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

9. FY 2006 Planned Programmatic Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

TABLES

2–1 Power Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning ..............................3

2–2 Research and Test Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning ....................4

2–3 Current Complex Material Sites Undergoing Decommissioning ..................6

2–4 Title II Uranium Recovery Sites Undergoing Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2–5 Fuel Cycle Facilities Undergoing Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
iii

ABBREVIATIONS

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DP Decommissioning Plan

DWMEP Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection

EA environmental assessment

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FSSR final status survey report

FTE full-time equivalents

FY fiscal year

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

IDIP Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan

ISCORS Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards

ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

LTP License Termination Plan

LTR License Termination Rule

MOU memorandum of understanding

mrem millirem

NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

OIG Office of the Inspector General 

OIP Office of International Programs

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool

SER Safety Evaluation Report

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SDMP Site Decommissioning Management Plan

TAG Technical Advisory Group

SRM staff requirements memorandum

TBD to be determined

WIR Waste Incidental to Reprocessing
iv

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF DECOMMISSIONING SITES BY SITE CATEGORY

DECOMMISSIONING POWER REACTORS

1. BIG ROCK POINT 

2. DRESDEN – UNIT 1

3. FERMI – UNIT 1

4. HADDAM NECK – CONNECTICUT YANKEE 

5. HUMBOLDT BAY

6. INDIAN POINT – UNIT 1

7. LACROSSE

8. MILLSTONE – UNIT 1

9. NUCLEAR SHIP SAVANNAH

10. PEACH BOTTOM – UNIT 1

11. RANCHO SECO

12. SAN ONOFRE – UNIT 1

13. SAXTON

14. THREE MILE ISLAND – UNIT 2

15. VALLECITOS BOILING WATER REACTOR (VBWR)

16. YANKEE ROWE

17. & 18. ZION – UNITS 1 & 2

RESEARCH AND TEST REACTORS

1. CORNELL UNIVERSITY – TRIGA

2. CORNELL UNIVERSITY – ZPR

3. FORD NUCLEAR REACTOR

4. GENERAL ATOMICS – TRIGA MARK I

5. GENERAL ATOMICS – TRIGA MARK F

6. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. – GETR

7. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. – EVESR

8. MANHATTAN COLLEGE

9. NASA – MOCKUP

10. NASA – PLUM BROOK

11. UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO

12. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

13. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

14. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA – CAVALIER

15. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

16. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

17. WESTINGHOUSE
v

CURRENT COMPLEX MATERIAL SITES UNDERGOING DECOMMISSIONING

1. AAR MANUFACTURING, INC

2. ABB PROSPECTS, INC. (FORMERLY C.E. WINDSOR)

3. BABCOCK & WILCOX (SHALLOW LAND DISPOSAL AREA)

4. BATTELLE COLUMBUS LABORATORIES

5. CABOT PERFORMANCE MATERIALS, INC

6. CURTISS-WRIGHT CHESWICK

7. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY - FT. BELVOIR

8. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY - FT. MCCLELLAN

9. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY (DOW)

10. EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE

11. ENGELHARD MINERALS – GREAT LAKES

12. FMRI (FANSTEEL), INC.

13. HERITAGE MINERALS, INC

14. HOMER LAUGHLIN CHINA

15. JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND

16. KAISER ALUMINUM

17. KERR McGEE – CIMARRON

18. KERR McGEE – CUSHING REFINERY SITE

19. KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE

20. MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL, INC. (MALLINCKRODT)

21. MOLYCORP INC. – WASHINGTON

22. NWI BRECKENRIDGE

23. PATHFINDER

24. QUEHANNA (FORMERLY PERMAGRAIN PRODUCTS, INC.)

25. ROYERSFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

26. SAFETY LIGHT CORPORATION (SLC)

27. SALMON RIVER

28. SC HOLDINGS, INC.

29. SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION (SMC)

30. STEPAN CHEMICAL COMPANY

31. SUPERIOR STEEL (FORMERLY SUPERBOLT)

32. UNC NAVAL PRODUCTS

33. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

34. WEST VALLEY

35. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY - BLAIRSVILLE

36. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY (HEMATITE FACILITY)

37. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, WALTZ MILL

38. WHITTAKER CORPORATION
vi

TITLE II SITES UNDERGOING DECOMMISSIONING 

1. AMERICAN NUCLEAR CORPORATION

2. BEAR CREEK

3. EXXONMOBIL HIGHLANDS

4. HOMESTAKE

5. PATHFINDER – LUCKY MC

6. PATHFINDER – SHIRLEY BASIN

7. RIO ALGOM – AMBROSIA LAKE

8. UMETCO MINERALS CORPORATION

9. UNITED NUCLEAR CORPORATION (UNC)

10. WESTERN NUCLEAR, INC. – SPLIT ROCK

11. COGEMA MINING, INC

12. SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION (SFC)

FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES UNDERGOING DECOMMISSIONING

1. FRAMATOME RICHLAND

2. GENERAL ATOMICS

3. HONEYWELL
- 1 -

4. Introduction

This report provides a comprehensive summary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s

(NRC’s) decommissioning program. Its purpose is to provide a reference document that

summarizes the decommissioning activities in fiscal year (FY) 2005, including the

decommissioning of complex material sites, commercial reactors, research and test reactors,

uranium mill tailings facilities, and fuel cycle facilities. In addition, this report discusses

accomplishments in the decommissioning program since last year’s report (NUREG-1814), and 

identifies key decommissioning program issues that the staff will address in the coming year. 

The 2004 Annual Report was published as a NUREG in accordance with Commission direction

provided in the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) to SECY 03-0161. The SRM to

SECY-04-0024 approved several changes to the Annual Decommissioning Report including

publishing the annual report as a NUREG in the even years, and in odd years, as a shortened

report to the Commission, using references to the decommissioning website. This 2005 Annual

Report is the first report using the shortened format. 

1. Decommissioning Sites

NRC regulates the decontamination and decommissioning of materials and fuel cycle facilities,

power reactors, research and test reactors, and uranium recovery facilities, with the ultimate

goal of license termination. A broad spectrum of activities associated with these program

functions is summarized in this report. 

On June 17, 2004, the elimination of the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP)

designation was announced in the Federal Register (69 Federal Register 33946). NRC now

manages materials decommissioning sites as “complex sites,” under a comprehensive

decommissioning program. The SDMP designation will be used in this report only to describe

the cleanup criteria prior to the License Termination Rule (LTR).

Approximately 200 materials licenses are terminated each year. Most of these license

terminations are routine, and the sites require little, if any, remediation to meet NRC’s

unrestricted release criteria. The decommissioning program focuses on termination of licenses

that are not routine, because the sites involve more complex decommissioning activities. 

Currently, there are 18 nuclear power reactors, 17 research and test reactors, 38 complex

decommissioning materials facilities, three fuel cycle facilities (partial decommissioning), and 12

uranium recovery facilities that are undergoing non-routine decommissioning or are in long-term

safe storage, under NRC jurisdiction.

Through the Agreement State Program, 33 States have signed formal agreements with NRC,

by which those States have assumed regulatory responsibility over certain byproduct, source,

and small quantities of special nuclear material, including decommissioning of some complex

materials sites. Agreement States do not have regulatory authority over operating or

decommissioning nuclear power plants.
- 2 -

2.1 Reactor Decommissioning

2.1.1 Power Reactors 

Power reactor decommissioning activities include: (a) project management for

decommissioning power reactors and technical review responsibility for licensee submittals in

support of decommissioning; (b) core inspection; and (c) support for development of rulemaking

and guidance.

The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) currently has regulatory project

management responsibility for 13 decommissioning power reactors. The Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation (NRR) has project management responsibility for two decommissioning

reactors (Indian Point – Unit 1; Millstone – Unit 1). Because of extensive stakeholder interest in

these sites (for both the operating and decommissioning units), it is more efficient for NRR also

to perform project management responsibilities for the permanently shutdown units. In

addition, NRR has decommissioning project management for three early demonstration

reactors—Vallecitos, Nuclear Ship Savannah, and Saxton. Table 2–1 identifies the power

reactors undergoing decommissioning. Plant status summaries for all decommissioning

reactors can be viewed on-line by accessing NRC’s Decommissioning website

(http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/decommissioning/power-reactor-sites.html). 

In FY 2005, decommissioning activities were completed at two power reactors. In December

2004, the Trojan Nuclear Plant completed decommissioning activities, submitted the last

supplement of its Final Status Survey Report (FSSR), and submitted an application for

termination of its Facility Operating License. The staff terminated Trojan Nuclear Plant’s

10 CFR Part 50 Operating License No. NPF-1 on May 23, 2005. The site was released for

unrestricted use. The Trojan Nuclear Plant still holds a 10 CFR Part 72 Independent Spent

Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) license.

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee) also completed decommissioning

activities and submitted its FSSR in FY 2005. The FSSR demonstrated that the Maine Yankee

site successfully met the 25 mrem/yr unrestricted release criteria of 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. 

The staff expects to amend the Maine Yankee’s License No. DPR-36, to reduce the site

boundaries to approximately the footprint of the ISFSI in September 2005. 

Also in FY 2005, NMSS approved the License Termination Plans (LTPs) for Big Rock Point and

Yankee Rowe. Table 2–1 provides a schedule for current reactor decommissioning activities.

In FY 2005, Regional inspectors continued to support local decommissioning advisory panel

meetings at Yankee Rowe, Haddam Neck, and Maine Yankee.
- 3 -

Table 2–1

Power Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning

Reactor Location PSDAR**

Submitted

LTP

Submitted

LTP

Approved

Completion

of Decom.

1 Big Rock Point Charlevoix, MI 3/98 4/03 3/05 12/12

2 Dresden – Unit 1 Dresden, IL 6/98 TBD TBD TBD

3 Fermi – Unit 1 Newport, MI 4/98 2006* 2007 2008

4 Haddam Neck –

Connecticut Yankee

Meriden, CT 8/97 7/00 11/02 2007

5 Humboldt Bay Eureka, CA 2/98 2007* 2008 TBD

6 Indian Point – Unit 1 Buchanan, NY 1/96 TBD TBD TBD

7 Lacrosse LaCrosse, WI 5/91 TBD TBD TBD

8 Millstone – Unit 1 Waterford, CT 6/99 TBD TBD TBD

9 Nuclear Ship

Savannah

Newport

News, VA

TBD TBD TBD TBD

10 Peach Bottom –

Unit 1

Delta, PA 6/98 2012* 2013 2014

11 Rancho Seco Sacramento,

CA

12/94 2005* 2006 2008

12 San Onofre – Unit 1 San Clemente,

CA

12/98 TBD TBD TBD

13 Saxton Saxton, PA 1996 2/00 3/03 2005

14 Three Mile Island –

Unit 2

Harrisburg, PA 2/79 TBD TBD TBD

15 Vallecitos - Boiling

Water Reactor

(VBWR)

Sunol, CA 7/66 TBD TBD TBD

16 Yankee Rowe Greenfield,

MA

11/94 4/04 7/05 2008

17 Zion – Units 1 & 2 Waukegan, IL 2/00 TBD TBD TBD

* estimated date ** PSDAR or DP equivalent

NOTE: DP - Decommissioning Plan; LTP - License Termination Plan; PSDAR - Post Shutdown

Decommissioning Activities Report; TBD - To Be Determined
1

Because of “the presence of other nuclear facilities at the site,” decommissioning held

in abeyance in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(b)(4)(i).

2

Currently, there is no firm date for DOE to accept shipment of the spent fuel. A DP has

not been submitted.

3

The licensee is developing a final DP that will be submitted to NRC for approval.

- 4 -

2.1.2 Research and Test Reactors

NRR provides project management and inspection oversight for 17 decommissioning research

and test reactors. Currently, 14 research and test reactors have decommissioning orders or

amendments. Additionally, three research and test reactors are in “possession-only” status,

either waiting for shutdown of another research or test reactor at the site, or for removal of the

fuel from the site by the U.S. Department of Energy. Table 2–2 identifies the research and test

reactors undergoing decommissioning. Plant status summaries for research and test reactors

can be viewed on-line by accessing NRC’s Decommissioning website (http://www.nrc.gov/whatwe-do/regulatory/decommissioning/res-test-reactor-sites.html).

Table 2–2

Research and Test Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning

Reactor Location Status Completion

of Decom. 

1 Cornell University – ZPR Ithaca, NY DECON-Amendment 2010

2 Cornell University – TRIGA Ithaca, NY DECON-Amendment 2010

3 Ford Nuclear Reactor Ann Arbor, MI DECON-Amendment 2008

4 General Atomics – TRIGA Mark F San Diego, CA DECON-Approved TBD

5 General Atomics – TRIGA Mark I San Diego, CA DECON-Approved TBD

6 General Electric Co. – GETR Sunol, CA Possession-Only TBD1

7 General Electric Co. – EVESR Sunol, CA Possession-Only TBD1

8 Manhattan College Bronx, NY DECON-Approved 2005

9 NASA - Mockup Sandusky, OH DECON-Approved 2010

10 NASA - Plum Brook Sandusky, OH DECON-Approved 2010

11 University of Buffalo Buffalo, NY Possession-Only >20122

12 University of Illinois Urbana, IL DECON-Approved TBD3
- 5 -

Reactor Location Status Completion

of Decom.

13 University of Virginia – Cavalier Charlottesville,

VA

DECON-Approved 2005

14 University of Virginia Charlottesville,

VA

DECON-Approved 2005

15 University of Washington Seattle, WA DECON-Approved 2010

16 Veterans Administration Omaha, NE DECON-Amendment 2010

17 Westinghouse Waltz Mill, PA DECON-Approved 2008

2.2 Materials Facilities Decommissioning

2.2.1 Complex Materials Sites Undergoing Decommissioning

Currently, there are 38 complex materials sites undergoing decommissioning (see Table 2–3). 

Since last year’s status report, one site was added to the complex site list (Department of Army

- Ft. Belvoir), and six sites were removed from the complex site list through license termination

or completion of decommissioning: (1) Alliant Ordinance and Ground Systems; (2) Augustana

College; (3) Engelhard Minerals - Ravenna; (4) Kerr McGee Technical Center; (5) Kiski Valley

Water Pollution Control Authority; and (6) Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Table 2-3 identifies the clean-up criteria for each complex site as either License Termination

Rule 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E or SDMP Action Plan criteria. The LTR authorized two

different sets of cleanup criteria—the concentration-based SDMP Action Plan criteria and the

dose-based LTR criteria. Under the provisions of 10 CFR 20.1401(b), any licensee that

submitted its decommissioning plan (DP) before August 20, 1998, and received NRC approval

of that DP before August 20, 1999, could use the SDMP Action Plan criteria for site

remediation. In the SRM on SECY-99-195, the Commission granted an extension of the DP

approval deadline, for 12 sites, to August 20, 2000. In September 2000, the staff notified the

Commission that all 12 DPs were approved by the deadline. All other sites must use the

dose-based criteria of the LTR. Status summaries for the Complex Materials Sites undergoing

decommissioning can be viewed on-line by accessing NRC’s Decommissioning website

(http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/decommissioning/complex-sites.html). These

summaries describe the status of each site and identify the current technical and regulatory

issues impacting completion of decommissioning. For those licensees that have submitted a

DP, the schedules are based on an assessment of the complexity of the DP review. For those

licensees that have not submitted a DP, the schedules are based on other licensee information

available, and the anticipated decommissioning approach. 

Activities associated with the complex materials site decommissioning program include: (a)

review and approval of DPs; (b) conduct of pre-DP development meetings with licensees;

(c) review of licensee FSSRs and conduct of confirmatory surveys; (d) conduct of in-process

inspections; and (e) preparation of Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Safety Evaluation
- 6 -

Reports (SER)(s). In FY 2005, the staff approved DPs for three sites: Michigan Department of

Natural Resources, Pathfinder, and Ft. Belvoir. The staff currently is reviewing DPs that were

submitted in FY 2005 for Cabot Corporation, Dow Chemical Company, Eglin Air Force Base,

Mallinckrodt Chemical, Inc., SC Holdings Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Company (Hematite

Facility).

In addition, the staff routinely reviews financial assurance submittals for materials and fuel cycle

facilities, and maintains a financial instrument security program. Approximately 50 financial

assurance submittals were reviewed in FY 2005. 

Table 2–3

Current Complex Materials Sites Undergoing Decommissioning

Name Location Date DP

Submitted

Date DP

Approved

Cleanup

Criteria

Completion

of Decom.

1 AAR Manufacturing, Inc. Livonia, MI 10/97

Revised

7/05

5/98

2/06*

LTR-RES 1/07

2 ABB Prospects, Inc. Windsor, CT 4/03 6/04 LTR-UNRES 12/07

3 Babcock & Wilcox

(Shallow Land Disposal

Area)

Vandergrift,

PA

2/07* 5/07* LTR-UNRES 10/09

4 Battelle Columbus

Laboratories

Columbus, OH 8/00 2001 ActionUNRES12/05

5 Cabot Performance

Materials, Inc. (Cabot)

Reading, PA 11/02

Revised

6/05

7/06* LTR-UNRES 4/07

6 Curtis-Wright Cheswick Cheswick, PA 6/05 TBD LTR-UNRES 12/08

7 Department of the Army Fort Belvoir,

VA

4/04 6/05 LTR-UNRES 11/05

8 Department of the Army Fort

McClellan, AL

3/99 3/01 LTR-UNRES 12/05

9 Dow Chemical Company Bay City, MI 10/95

Revised

12/03

7/97

9/05*

LTR-UNRES 7/06
Table 2–3

Current Complex Materials Sites Undergoing Decommissioning

Name Location Date DP

Submitted

Date DP

Approved

Cleanup

Criteria

Completion

of Decom.

- 7 -

10 Eglin Air Force Base Walton

County, FL

8/03 9/05* LTR-UNRES 12/05

11 Engelhard Minerals Great Lakes,

IL

NA NA LTR-UNRES TBD

12 FMRI (Fansteel) Inc. Muskogee, OK 8/99

Revised

5/03

12/03 LTR-UNRES 6/23

13 Heritage Minerals Lakehurst, NJ 11/97 10/99 ActionUNRES1/06

14 Homer Laughlin Newell, WV 1/95 1/95 LTR-UNRES 12/06

15 Jefferson Proving Ground

(Department of Army)

Madison, IN 8/99

Revised

TBD

TBD LTR-RES 9/10

16 Kaiser Aluminum Tulsa, OK (Phase 1)

8/98

(Phase 2)

5/01

2/00

6/03

ActionUNRES

LTR-UNRES

3/06

17 Kerr-McGee Cimarron, OK 4/95 8/99 ActionUNRES5/07

18 Kerr-McGee Cushing, OK 8/98 8/99 ActionUNRES12/05

19 Kirtland Air Force Base Albuquerque,

NM

11/02 1/03 LTR-UNRES 12/05

20 Mallinckrodt Chemical

Inc. (Mallinckrodt)

St. Louis, MO (Phase 1)

11/97

(Phase 2)

5/03

5/02

10/05*

LTR-UNRES 7/08

21 Molycorp, Inc. –

Washington

Wash., PA 6/99 8/00 ActionUNRES10/07
Table 2–3

Current Complex Materials Sites Undergoing Decommissioning

Name Location Date DP

Submitted

Date DP

Approved

Cleanup

Criteria

Completion

of Decom.

- 8 -

22 NWI Breckenridge Breckenridge,

MI

3/04 8/04 LTR-UNRES TBD

23 Pathfinder Souix Falls,

SD

2/04 7/05 LTR-UNRES 12/06

24 Quehanna (formerly

Permagrain Products,

Inc.)

Media, PA 4/98, 

Revised

3/03

7/98

9/03

ActionUNRESTBD

25 Royersford Wastewater

Treatment Facility

Royersford,

PA

TBD TBD LTR-UNRES TBD

26 Safety Light Corp. (SLC) Bloomsburg,

PA

12/00 12/01 LTR-UNRES 12/07

27 Salmon River Salmon, ID TBD TBD LTR-UNRES 5/12

28 SC Holdings, Inc. Kawkawlin, MI 11/03 12/05* LTR-UNRES 1/09

29 Shieldalloy Metallurgical

Corp. 

Newfield, NJ 10/05* 1/07* LTR-RES 11/10

30 Stepan Chemical

Company

Maywood, NJ NA NA LTR-UNRES 12/08

31 Superior Steel 

(formerly Superbolt)

Pittsburgh, PA TBD TBD LTR-UNRES TBD

32 Union Carbide Lawrenceberg,

TN

 (Buildings)

(Soil)

8/98 7/00

12/00

ActionUNRES

LTR-UNRES

10/07

33 UNC Naval Products New Haven,

CT

8/98 4/99 LTR-UNRES TBD

34 West Valley West Valley,

NY

8/06* 11/07* LTRUNRES**TBD

35 Westinghouse Electric Blairsville, PA NA NA LTR-UNRES 3/06

36 Westinghouse Electric

(Hematite Facility)

Jefferson City,

MO

8/05 8/06* LTR-UNRES 3/10
Table 2–3

Current Complex Materials Sites Undergoing Decommissioning

Name Location Date DP

Submitted

Date DP

Approved

Cleanup

Criteria

Completion

of Decom.

- 9 -

37 Westinghouse Electric Madison, PA 4/97 1/00 LTR-UNRES 9/06

38 Whittaker Corp. Greenville, PA 12/00

Revised

12/05*

4/06* LTR-UNRES 8/06

* Estimated Date

** The West Valley DP has not yet been submitted. The staff anticipates the DP will include plans to 

release a large portion of the site for unrestricted use, and the remainder of the site may have a 

perpetual license or be released with restrictions.

NOTES:

1. The cleanup criteria identified in this table presents the staff’s most recent information, but does not

necessarily represent the final outcome.

2. Abbreviations used in this table include: (1) Action - SDMP Action Plan Criteria; (2) LTR - LTR Criteria;

(3) RES - Restricted Use; (4) UNRES - Unrestricted Use; (5) TBD - To Be Determined; and (6) NA - Not

Applicable

3. A DP submittal date of NA means a DP will not be submitted because remediation is being performed

under a Record of Decision. 

2.2.2 Uranium Recovery Facilities

NMSS provides project management and technical review for decommissioning and

reclamation of facilities regulated under 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. These licensees include

conventional uranium mills and in-situ leach facilities. Currently, there are 12 NRC-licensed

[Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title II] sites in decommissioning. Table 2–4

identifies the Title II decommissioning sites. Site status summaries can be viewed on-line by

accessing NRC’s Decommissioning website (http://www.nrc.gov/what-wedo/regulatory/decommissioning/uran-recov-sites.html).

Uranium recovery decommissioning activities in the Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and

Safeguards include: (a) regulatory oversight of decommissioning uranium recovery (milling)

sites; (b) review of site characterization plans and data; (c) review and approval of DPs; (d)

preparation of EAs; (e) inspection of decommissioning, including confirmatory surveys; (f)

decommissioning cost estimate reviews (including annual surety updates); and (g) oversight of

license termination. 

In FY 2005, the Uranium Recovery staff completed over 35 licensing actions. The most

significant of the decommissioning actions included:
- 10 -

• Termination of licenses for two Title II uranium mills (Sohio Western L-Bar and

Petrotomics) and transfer of these sites to Department of Energy under a NRC general

license, pursuant to 10 CFR 40.28.

• Approval of an application for alternate concentration limits for Pathfinder - Shirley Basin.

• Approval of ground-water monitoring plans for Western Nuclear, Inc, and Sequoyah Fuels

Corporation.

• Approval of the relocation and closure of evaporation ponds for Rio Algom.

In SECY-05-0047, "Status of Efforts by Western Nuclear, Inc., to Acquire Off-Site Properties in

Conjunction with Decommissioning Its Uranium Recovery Site," the staff reported that Western

Nuclear, Inc., had acquired all but one of the off-site properties. As stated in that Commission

Paper, staff is currently evaluating this submittal and is preparing a separate Commission Paper

containing the results of that review.

Table 2–4

Decommissioning Title II Uranium Recovery Sites

Name Location DP Approved License

Termination

1 American Nuclear Corporation Gas Hills, WY 10/88, Revision 2006* 2007

2 Bear Creek Converse County, WY 5/89 2004

3 ExxonMobil Highlands Converse County, WY 1990 2005

4 Homestake Grants, NM Revised plan - 3/95 2015

5 Pathfinder -Lucky MC Gas Hills, WY Revised plan - 6/96 2005

6 Pathfinder -Shirley Basin Shirley Basin, WY Revised plan - 12/97 2007

7 Rio Algom - Ambrosia Lake McKinley Co., NM 2003 (mill) 2005 (soil)* 2008

8 Umetco Minerals Corp. East Gas Hills, WY Revised soil plan - 4/01 2006

9 United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock, NM 3/91, Revision 2006* 2015

10 Western Nuclear Inc. – Split

Rock

Jeffrey City, WY 1997 2007

11 COGEMA Mining Inc. Johnson & Campbell

Counties, WY

12/01 2007

12 Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Gore, OK 2006* 2010

* Projected approval date
- 11 -

2.2.3 Fuel Cycle Facilities

NMSS provides licensing oversight and decommissioning project management to fuel cycle

facilities, including conversion plants, enrichment plants, and fuel manufacturing plants. Most

of these facilities have been in operation for 20 or more years. As technology improves and

operations at these facilities change, there are often unused areas on the sites that have

residual contamination. The NRC staff continues to work closely with the States and

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate remediation of unused portions of fuel cycle

facilities. 

Table 2–5 identifies the fuel cycle facilities with current decommissioning activities. Regulation

of fuel cycle facilities is accomplished through a combination of: (a) regulatory requirements;

(b) licensing; (c) safety oversight, including inspection, assessment of performance, and

enforcement; (d) operational experience evaluation; and (e) regulatory support activities. 

Summaries of the decommissioning activities at fuel fabrication facilities can be viewed online

by accessing NRC’s Decommissioning website (http://www.nrc.gov/what-wedo/regulatory/decommissioning/fuel-cycle-fac.html).

In 2005, one conversion facility (Honeywell) and two fuel manufacturers (Framatome Richland

and General Atomics) continued some decommissioning activities. 

Table 2–5

Fuel Cycle Facilities Undergoing Decommissioning

Name Location Status

1 Framatome Richland Richland, WA Active

2 General Atomics San Diego, CA Active

3 Honeywell Metropolis, IL Active

3. Guidance and Rulemaking Activities

In previous years, the staff considered broad-scope regulatory improvements for

decommissioning nuclear power plants in the areas of security, emergency planning, and

insurance. However, because of continuing staff efforts to reassess vulnerabilities and redefine

the threats in the area of safeguards and security, the priority for decommissioning regulatory

improvements for decommissioning reactors has been reduced. A relatively small number of

nuclear power plants are undergoing decommissioning, and the staff does not anticipate

additional nuclear power plants decommissioning soon. Given that additional nuclear power

plant decommissionings are not anticipated, resources are being deferred for future nuclear

power plant decommissioning rulemakings that are currently in progress or related to security

matters. Resources for nuclear power plant decommissioning rulemakings that are not

currently in progress or related to security matters were not included in the FY 2005 budget and

are not included in the FY 2006 budget. If any plants do unexpectedly shut down permanently,
- 12 -

decommissioning regulatory issues would continue to be addressed through the amendment

and exemption process in a manner similar to the current practice.

In FY 2005, the staff continued guidance development resulting from the LTR Analysis. 

Stakeholder input on staff guidance development and rulemaking efforts was received during a

two-day public workshop on decommissioning held by the Division of Waste Management and

Environmental Protection (DWMEP) in April 2005. The workshop was attended by

approximately 200 people, consisting of NRC staff, licensees, industry representatives,

consultants, representatives from other Federal agencies, and State representatives. During

the workshop, staff received stakeholder input on topics related to the LTR analysis. Major

guidance development activities in FY 2005 included:

• In September 2005, the staff completed draft revised guidance for the following LTR

Analysis issues: (a) restricted use/institutional controls; (b) on-site disposal; (c) removal of

material after license termination; (d) realistic scenarios; and (e) intentional mixing of soil. 

This guidance addresses the specific recommendations approved by the Commission to

resolve the LTR Analysis issues (SRM-SECY-03-0069). Draft revised guidance was also

developed for other topics, including engineered barriers, and use of Multi-Agency

Radiation Laboratory Analytical Protocols. Early input from stakeholders at the

Decommissioning Workshop in April, a State working group, and an Advisory Committee

on Nuclear Waste working group contributed to the staff’s development of the draft

guidance. The draft revised guidance is scheduled to be published for public comment in

September 2005, and the staff will inform the Commission of public comments on the

restricted use/institutional control issue and other issues before the guidance is finalized in

FY 2006.

• During FY 2005 the staff used a risk-informed approach to inventory and evaluate

information from 82 decommissioning sites to identify which of these sites had subsurface

contamination and what caused the contamination. This information was used to identify

the types of facilities, components, and operational activities that could have a higher “risk”,

or potential, for subsurface contamination. Based on these results, general inspection

guidance is scheduled to be completed in September 2005. This guidance will be used in

FY 2006 to develop specific inspection and enforcement procedures tailored to the types of

facilities, components, and activities identified in FY 2005. The general guidance will also

be used for developing the FY 2006 proposed rulemaking and supporting draft

decommissioning guidance. The rulemaking, guidance, and procedures address the LTR

Analysis issues related to preventing future legacy sites.

• The staff began limited work, during FY 2005, for the proposed rulemaking and supporting

guidance related to preventing future legacy sites planned for FY 2006. This work centered

around preparing for, and obtaining, early input from stakeholders at the Decommissioning

Workshop. 

4. Research Activities

The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) continued providing information, to NMSS, to

support dose modeling of releases of radioactive material from decommissioning sites. In

addition to research activities, RES staff provided technical support for three specific case

reviews (Cimarron, Jefferson Proving Ground, and West Valley) and developed input for
- 13 -

revised decommissioning guidance on the use of engineered barriers. Several examples of this

research information provided are discussed in the following paragraphs. 

RES is supporting development or modification of a number of computer codes useful for site

decommissioning analyses. The RES is modifying dose-assessment codes to incorporate

added realism; RESRAD-OFFSITE is being enhanced to enable assessment of more-realistic

scenarios for potential future human exposure; FRAMES (Framework for Risk Assessment of

Multimedia Environmental Systems); and GMS (the Department of Defense Groundwater

Modeling System) are being linked to enable the assessment of complex ground-water systems

or sites with existing groundwater contamination; and new data and models for food pathways

are being developed to support improved dose calculations. The SADA (Spatial Analysis and

Decision Assistance) is being supported to provide aid for characterizing a contaminated site,

assessing risk, determining the location of future samples, or designing remedial action. During

the past year, RES also has provided training to NMSS on use of RESRAD-OFFSITE, GENII

(the Hanford Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System) in FRAMES, and SADA. 

These codes currently are under testing, evaluation, and verification for beneficial application to

ongoing reviews at complex decommissioning sites. For example, RESRAD-OFFSITE and

FRAMES are being tested for dose modeling analysis of the hybrid Jefferson Proving Ground

site. Further, the SADA code is being used to simulate source terms at complex sites in a more

realistic fashion, and is being applied in the evaluation of the source term of residual activity at

the West Valley Demonstration Project and Mallinckrodt decommissioning sites. 

In 2005, RES has advanced the modeling of geochemical processes during radionuclide

transport through complex subsurface environments, provided an improved technical basis for

estimating financial assurance requirements for the decommissioning on in-situ leach mines,

and reported on the advantages and limitations of applying more realistic modeling of

geochemical processes to decommissioning. RES also is advancing the understanding of the

evolution and degradation of clay covers through laboratory testing.

RES has initiated two technical advisory groups (TAGs) that include NMSS decommissioning

staff. These TAGs serve to enhance communication on issues important to site

decommissioning and provide feedback to RES on research direction. The TAGs are the

"Technical Advisory Group on Ground-Water and Performance Monitoring," and the "Technical

Advisory Group on Assessing Uncertainty in Simulation Modeling of Environmental Systems."

During the past year, RES staff also continued to support interagency cooperative activities. 

One example was the development of the draft Multi-Agency Radiological Survey Assessment

for Materials and Equipment. The RES staff along with NMSS staff, continued participation in

activities of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS) and the

Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Models. An example of this

work is NUREG-1783, "ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Modeling to

Assess Radiation Doses."
- 14 -

5. International Activities

The DWMEP interacts with international organizations and governments in a number of ways

including: (a) participating in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); (b) participating in

the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Nuclear Energy

Agency (NEA); (c) participating in bilateral and trilateral exchanges with other countries; (d)

hosting foreign assignees and providing reciprocal assignments; (e) developing and providing

workshops to requesting countries; and, (f) providing technical support as needed to the NRC

Office of International Programs (OIP). The NRC generally is recognized in the international

nuclear community as an experienced leader in the decommissioning of nuclear sites. NRC

staff interaction with international organizations and governments allows NRC to share insights

into decommissioning approaches that are successful, safe, and cost-effective. It also allows

the NRC staff to provide input into the various international guidance and requirements that

NRC and NRC licensees will need to consider as they interact in a global environment. The

NRC staff gains insight into approaches and methodologies that are being employed in the

international community and considers these approaches as they continue to risk-in form the

NRC Decommissioning Program. A summary of the most significant of these activities is

provided below.

IAEA Activities

The NRC decommissioning staff participated in the development of the IAEA Safety Standards

Series. Within the past year, staff supported the IAEA by:

• Participating in the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the

Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. Staff activities included: (a) revision of the U.S.

National Report; (b) coordination and support of regional workshops to promote ratification

of the Joint Convention by other IAEA Member States; and (c) preparation of a revised

spent fuel and radioactive waste program review process to be considered for the 3rd cycle

of the Joint Convention review process.

• Performing a Member State review of Review of DS172, "Implementation of the

Remediation Process for Past Activities and Accidents." Comments were forwarded to the

IAEA by the OIP in February 2005.

• Performing a Member State review of DS-333, "Safety Requirements for the

Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities." In May 2005, decommissioning staff participated

in a Consultant Services Meeting at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria to review and

address Member State comments on DS-333.

• Performing a Member State review of DS-332, "Safety Guide on the Removal of Sites and

Buildings from Regulatory Control upon the Termination of Practices." The review was

completed and forwarded to the IAEA, by OIP, in May 2005.

• Participating in twice-yearly meetings of the IAEA Waste Safety Standards Committee,

which addresses decommissioning specifically, as part of the waste safety activities of the

IAEA. Safety Standards series publications, such as DS-172, DS-333, and DS-332,

undergo review by this committee after preparation and revision of the draft standards.
- 15 -

• Participating in a meeting in June 2005, to assist in the development of a draft Safety

Report on Decommissioning Strategies (Region IV staff). 

OECD/NEA

The NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) Working Party on

Decommissioning and Dismantling (WPDD) facilitates information exchange and cooperation

among the regulators and implementers in the decommissioning field. The work program

analyzes issues from decommissioning projects conducted world wide and promotes the

sharing of experience on technical and stakeholder issues. Among its products, the WPDD

maintains a compilation of national fact sheets on decommissioning in each member country

and has released a pamphlet which demonstrates accomplishments in the decommissioning of

a range of fuel cycle facilities. The WPDD has also produced technical products which are of

use to the NRC including work on the decommissioning safety case and decommissioning

waste volumes. Also, a successful workshop was held in September 2004 in cooperation with

NEA standing committees, the European Union and the IAEA. The workshop highlighted

technical, regulatory and implementation issues which would benefit from international

cooperation. It also identified recent successes in stakeholder involvement. This input will be

considered in formulating the program of work for the WPDD. NRC will have an opportunity to

influence this program of work to benefit our needs. 

DWMEP staff and management participated on the RWMC WPDD which continued work on:

a. A Decommissioning Safety Case document;

b. A Status paper on Release of Sites; and 

c. A Status paper on Decommissioning Strategy Selection.

And published:

a. A booklet entitled "The Decommissioning and Dismantling of Nuclear Facilities: Status,

Approaches, Challenges" which provides, in non-specialist terminology, a concise overview of

the status of decontamination and dismantlement of nuclear facilities and of the associated

issues in NEA Member countries; and 

b. A NEA brochure which looks at decommissioning across the spectrum of nuclear power

facilities and shows worldwide examples of successful projects.

Bilateral and Trilateral Exchanges with Other Countries

Delegations from France, Spain, and Indonesia visited NRC in FY 2005 to discuss many topics

associated with radioactive waste management. Facility decommissioning, especially for

nuclear power plants, is usually of significant interest to the visiting delegations. 

In addition to hosting individual delegations, the staff participates in a bilateral exchange with

the French Directorate General for Nuclear Safety Agency. Decommissioning is one of the

many topics discussed during the exchange. The bilateral exchange with the French takes

place twice a year; once in the United States and once in France. On October 14-15, 2004,

NRC representatives met with representatives from the General Directorate for Nuclear Safety
- 16 -

and Radiological Protection and Electricite de France in Lyon, France. The objective was to

focus on comparing the French and U.S. regulatory approaches for reactor decommissioning.

Developing and Providing Workshops to Requesting Countries

On June 24-30, 2005, DWMEP staff conducted a workshop on decommissioning for the

Russian Rostekhnadzor in Moscow. The purpose of this meeting was to familiarize the

NRC-equivalent organization of Russian regulators with the process that NRC uses for

decommissioning NRC-licensed sites.

6. Program Integration

The staff continues to take steps to ensure integration of decommissioning activities. First,

NMSS and RES mutually track and coordinate decommissioning activities. Second, the

Decommissioning Management Board meets bi-monthly to provide management input on

decommissioning activities and issues. The Board, composed of managers from NMSS, RES,

NRR, and the regions, along with the Office of the General Counsel, serves as an effective

mechanism for integrating inter office and inter regional program activities and issue resolution. 

The Board is a mechanism by which the staff has enhanced intra agency communication, and it

ensures that NRC’s regulatory processes are integrated. In addition, RES, NRR, the regions,

and Agreement States participate on review teams to comment on draft decommissioning

guidance.

7. Programmatic Decommissioning Activities Since Previous Report

In March 2005, the staff published the Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP),

Rev. 1, which describes how the staff plans to implement recommendations from the

Decommissioning Program Evaluation, the LTR Analysis recommendations approved by the

Commission, Commission direction resulting from the 2004 annual decommissioning briefing,

and other improvements. The plan includes a description of each improvement and associated

milestones, schedules, and staff assignments.

The IDIP will be updated periodically based on staff assessments, staff decommissioning

experience, and independent program reviews such as the Office of the Inspector General

(OIG) audits and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Performance Assessment

Rating Tool (PART) review. This iterative approach of program assessment, followed by

improvements, implements a process of “continuous improvement” in the Decommissioning

Program.

Major IDIP improvement activities completed in FY 2005 include:

• Preparation of draft revised guidance for public comment that will resolve LTR Analysis

issues: (a) restricted use; (b) onsite disposal; (c) realistic scenarios; (d) removal of material

after license termination; and (e) intentional mixing of soil;

• Development of a risk-informed approach and guidance for revising inspection and

enforcement procedures to reduce potential decommissioning problems at operating sites;
- 17 -

• Enhancement of communications and meaningful involvement of all stakeholders involved

with the decommissioning program. The staff’s efforts included: (a) significantly updating

and improving the Decommissioning Web Page; (b) developing a Decommissioning

Brochure; (c) conducting a stakeholder workshop, in April 2005, to seek early input for

guidance and suggestions for improving the program; and (d) using a State working group

to help develop draft guidance;

• Initiation of improvements to collect, document, and disseminate decommissioning lessonslearned including: (a) developing a decommissioning web page for lessons learned; (b)

exchanging information on lessons-learned with stakeholders at the April Decommissioning

Workshop; and, (c) beginning to explore a collaborative approach to lessons-learned with

industry and Agreement States;

• Revision and expansion of the Decommissioning Directorate Operations Manual to put in

place new procedures that implement program improvements including: (a) staff

expenditure tracking; (b) prioritization of work; (c) operating plan management; (d) planning

for revised guidance; (e) sharing information; (f) updating the IDIP; (g) independent

reviews; and, (h) defining the roles of the Offices and Divisions involved with the

Comprehensive Decommissioning Program;

All the IDIP improvements that the staff has implemented during FY 2004 and FY 2005 are

summarized in the Decommissioning Program Improvements Report which will be issued in

September 2005. Although many of the IDIP activities will realize improvements and

efficiencies in coming years, there already have been observed efficiencies from programmatic

improvements. For example, the recent LTP review for Yankee Rowe, was completed in less

time than all previous LTP reviews, because process lessons learned were applied before and

during the review.

In addition, the staff continues to implement communication plans for all complex sites. Sitespecific communication plans are useful tools to ensure that the appropriate stakeholders are

identified and contacted and focuses the staff on messages NRC wants to convey. One of the

activities identified in the communication plans for each site is participation in public meetings to

inform the public about major licensing actions. During the past year, the staff participated in

public meetings for Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority and Ft. Belvoir. Staff also

supported an EPA Public Meeting on the proposed listing of the Safety Light site on the EPA

National Priorities List.

Further, NRC staff continued to implement the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding between

NRC and EPA on Consultation and Finality on Decommissioning and Decontamination of

Contaminated Sites. On October 27, 2004, a second set of three Notification letters was sent

to the EPA informing them of sites undergoing decommissioning that would have triggered

Level 1 Consultation under the memorandum of understanding (MOU) if the DPs for the sites

had been submitted after the MOU was signed. The three letters concerned the Kaiser

Aluminum site in Oklahoma, the Kerr-McGee, Cimarron site in Oklahoma, and the Union

Carbide Corporation site in Tennessee. Further, the staff developed background information

and began the process for conducting a Level 2 consultation under the MOU concerning the

Cushing Refinery Site in Oklahoma. The staff also continued to develop guidance for

implementing the MOU to be included in the revised NUREG-1757 and in the revised

Decommissioning Directorate Operations Manual. 
- 18 -

The staff also participated in a number of industry conferences and workshops. Examples of

conferences and workshops attended by the staff during the past year include Waste

Management ‘05, American Nuclear Society conferences, Fuel Cycle Facilities Forum Meeting,

TLG Conference, and Health Physics Society meetings.

8. Resources

The total decommissioning program staff budget, for FY 2005 and FY 2006, is 85 full-time

equivalents (FTEs) and 99 FTEs, respectively. These resource figures include: (a) licensing

casework directly related to decommissioning sites; (b) inspections; (c) project management

and technical support for decommissioning power reactors, uranium mill tailings facilities, and

fuel cycle facilities; (d) development of rules and guidance; (e) environmental impact statements

and EAs; (f) research to develop more realistic analytical tools to support licensing and

rulemaking activities; and (g) Waste Incidental to Reprocessing. These figures also include

supervisory and non-supervisory indirect FTE, and training and travel associated with the

decommissioning program. 

9.0 FY 2006 Planned Programmatic Activities

Follow up actions to implement the IDIP are planned for FY 2006. These actions include: 

• Publishing final revised guidance on the LTR issues: restricted use; onsite disposal;

realistic scenarios; removal of material after license termination; intentional mixing;

• Revising the IDIP based on OIG review and decommissioning lessons-learned; 

• Preparing for, and participating in, an OMB PART review, including a reevaluation of the

decommissioning program and effectiveness of improvements; 

• Publishing a proposed rule and draft guidance, for public comment, in September 2006, for

the rulemaking and supporting guidance on measures to prevent future legacy sites

(changes to financial assurance and licensee operations); and 

• Continuing to develop decommissioning lessons-learned in conjunction with stakeholders.