DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM 

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT REPORT FOR FY 2004-2005

October 2005

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Contact: Robert L. Johnson NMSS/DWMEP

(301) 415-7282
- 2 -

DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM 

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT REPORT FOR FY 2004-2005

Contents

1. Introduction ..................................................4

1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2 Background ................................................4

1.2.1 LTR Analysis and Commission Direction ...................4

1.2.2 Decommissioning Program Evaluation Recommendations .....4

1.2.3 Commission Direction Resulting from the Annual 

Decommissioning Briefing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2.4 Report Content ......................................5

2. Summary of Key Improvement Activities and Outcomes .....................6

2.1 Improvement Activities Completed in FY 2004 ......................6

2.2 Improvement Activities Completed in FY 2005 ......................6

2.3 Outcomes from Improvement Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Description of Completed Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1 Regulatory Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1.1 Revised Decommissioning Guidance on LTR Issues and 

Other Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1.2 General Guidance for Inspections and Enforcement to 

Prevent Future Legacy Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1.3 Preparation for Rulemaking and Supporting Guidance to 

Prevent Future Legacy Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.2 Program Management Improvements Recommended by the 

Decommissioning Program Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.2.1 Establish a Comprehensive Decommissioning Program 

Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.2.2 Implement the New Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance . 12

3.2.3 Improve Staff Skills and Efficient Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2.3.1 Improve Staff Availability in Critical Disciplines . . . . . . 13

3.2.3.2 Resource Tracking Process and Development of 

a Decommissioning Cost Baseline and Method for 

Measuring Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
- 3 -

3.2.3.3 Develop a Risk-Informed Approach to Prioritize/

Manage Site Decommissioning Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.2.4 Expand Management Reviews of Decommissioning Site

Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2.5 Compare and Evaluate NRC’s Decommissioning Program . . . . 15

3.2.5.1 Sharing Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2.5.2 Independent Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2.6 Revise Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.2.7 Consider Using Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.2.8 IDIP Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.2.9 Communication Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.3 Program Improvements Directed by the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.3.1 Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.3.2 Radiological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.3.3 Finality Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.3.4 Consistency among State and Federal Regulators . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.3.5 Enhance Guidance on Flexibility and Institutional Controls . . . . 23

4.0 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5.0 Referenced Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Attachment 1: Improvements and Products Matrix for the Decommissioning Program
- 4 -

DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM 

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT REPORT FOR FY 2004-2005

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose

This Continuous Improvement Report describes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s

(NRC’s) improvement activities and products completed during Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 as

part of the Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP) Revision 1 (NRC, 2005 b). 

This improvement report is a followup to the evaluation of improvements made to the program

during FY 2000-2003 that are described in the Decommissioning Program Evaluation (NRC,

2003 b).

1.2 Background

Improvements associated with the License Termination Rule (LTR) Analysis, Decommissioning

Program Evaluation recommendations, and Commission direction resulting from the annual

decommissioning briefing held in October 2004, were combined in the IDIP to integrate the

plans for all improvements. Background is given below on these three groups of

improvements. 

1.2.1 LTR Analysis and Commission Direction

NRC staff experience using the LTR resulted in identifying implementation issues important to

the decommissioning of sites. The Commission directed the staff, in June 2002, to conduct an

analysis of LTR implementation issues, with particular emphasis on resolving the restricted

release and institutional control issues. The staff analysis and recommendations for eight

issues were provided to the Commission on May 2, 2003, (SECY-03-0069) (NRC, 2003 a) and

the Commission approved the staff recommendations with comments on November 17, 2003. 

Subsequently, on March 1, 2004, the staff provided the Commission with its analysis of a ninth

issue on intentional mixing of soil (SECY-04-0035) (NRC, 2004 a), and the Commission

approved the staff recommendation, with comments on May 11, 2004. The Commissionapproved recommendations and comments are the basis for the planned regulatory

improvements conducted during FY 2004-2005 and planned during FY 2006-2007 as identified

in the IDIP. A summary of the LTR Analysis, Commission direction, and planned activities for

each of the nine issues is given in a Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2004-08 (NRC, 2004 a). 

The RIS completed the work for two of the nine issues: unimportant quantities and a separate

standard for uranium and thorium. 

1.2.2 Decommissioning Program Evaluation Recommendations

NRC’s Strategic Plan for FY 2000-2005 identified a program evaluation entitled Changes to the

Decommissioning Process to be conducted in FY 2003. On September 29, 2003, the NRC
- 5 -

staff completed the Decommissioning Program Evaluation (NRC, 2003 b). In this report, the

staff evaluated the effectiveness of NRC’s Division of Waste Management (DWM)

Decommissioning Program and recommended future improvements. The staff evaluated

overall program effectiveness using: 1) NRC’s Strategic Plan measures and targets; 2) the

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Operating Plan accomplishments;

and 3) the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool

(PART). The staff used the PART questions as an independent methodology to systematically

and comprehensively evaluate its program to identify areas of the program’s effectiveness that

might need further improvement. The staff also evaluated the effectiveness of 18 specific

changes/improvements that were made to the program during the FY 2001–FY 2003 

evaluation period.

The Decommissioning Program Evaluation noted that although significant improvements had

been completed, future improvements would be beneficial. In particular, it concluded that the

recommendations in the LTR Analysis (SECY-03-0069) to resolve the LTR implementation

issues, when implemented as directed by the Commission, offer potentially significant future

improvements for the program. To complement these regulatory improvements, the

Decommissioning Program Evaluation included additional recommendations that primarily

would improve internal program management . The IDIP identified the improvements to be

completed in FY 2004-2005 and planned for FY 2006 to address the recommendations in the

Decommissioning Program Evaluation. 

1.2.3 Commission Direction Resulting from the Annual Decommissioning Briefing

In October 2004, the staff provided its annual briefing on the Decommissioning Program to the

Commission. In addition to the staff presentation, invited stakeholders representing industry

and a State presented their views on the Decommissioning Program. As a result of this

meeting, the Commission directed the staff to address several items (Staff Requirements

Memoranda (SRM)-M041013A). The Commission requested that the staff discuss at the next

annual briefing on decommissioning, its progress in capturing lessons learned and best

practices from recent experience which can instruct both licensees and NRC staff undertaking

current and future decommissioning projects. The Commission also directed the staff to

continue to address salient issues that affect the efficiency and effectiveness of NRC’s

decommissioning program, including: improving radiological monitoring; establishing measures

to provide finality in the decommissioning process; improving consistency among State and

Federal regulators; and enhancing guidance to better address issues of flexibility in

decommissioning approaches and institutional controls for restricted release scenarios. The

IDIP identified improvement activities for each of these issues. 

1.2.4 Report Content

Section 2.0 of this report provides a summary of key improvements activities completed during

FY 2004 and FY 2005 and the expected outcomes from these activities. Section 3.0 provides a

description of the completed improvement activities. Each description references the

appropriate IDIP number for tracking purposes and references the NRC products that

document the improvement activities. Attachment 1 summarizes the products for each

improvement.
- 6 -

2. Summary of Key Improvement Activities and Outcomes

The IDIP identified 18 improvement activities: 4 regulatory improvements; 9 program

management improvements from the Decommissioning Program Evaluation; and 5

improvements from the Commission’s SRM. The staff completed all improvement activities

planned in the IDIP for FY 2004-2005. Many of these improvements include additional work

planned for FY 2006-2007, such as the rulemaking to prevent future legacy sites and finalizing

the decommissioning guidance that was issued as a draft for public comment in FY 2005.

Key improvement activities for FY 2004 and FY 2005 are summarized below, and expected

outcomes are given for NRC’s Strategic Plan goals. Each improvement is described in 

Section 3.

2.1 Improvement Activities Completed in FY 2004

Published a RIS to inform licensees and stakeholders of NRC’s analysis and plans for

the nine LTR implementation issues (RIS 2004-08) (NRC, 2004 a).

Completed interim guidance on a Long-Term Control (LTC) license for the Shieldalloy

Metallurgical Corporation (SMC) site that the licensee is using to revise its

Decommissioning Plan (DP) and demonstrate compliance with the LTR requirements for

legally enforceable institutional controls at a restricted use site (NRC, 2004 b). 

Restructured into a comprehensive decommissioning program and reorganized DWM

into two separate divisions. 

Conducted staff training to implement the three volumes of the Consolidated

Decommissioning Guidance in NUREG-1757, and hired staff in critical disciplines. 

Shared guidance on LTR Analysis issues with stakeholders (Waste Management (WM)

04) Symposia papers and National Mining Association annual meeting).

2.2 Improvement Activities Completed in FY 2005

Prepared draft decommissioning guidance in NUREG-1757 for public comment on LTR

Analysis issues: restricted use; onsite disposal; realistic scenarios; removal of material

after license termination; and intentional mixing of soil. Also developed draft guidance

for other topics including engineered barriers; coordination of radiation surveys and use

of Multi-Agency Radiation Laboratory Analytical Protocols (MARLAP); and cancelling or

returning financial assurance instruments (NRC, 2005 h) (see Section 3.3.1).

Used a risk-informed approach to develop general guidance for inspections and

enforcement to reduce the potential for subsurface contamination at operating sites and

to prevent future legacy sites (i.e., sites that are complex and cannot decommission

within existing resources for a variety of financial and technical reasons) (NRC, 2005 f)

(see Section 3.1.2).
- 7 -

Began the proposed rulemaking/supporting guidance for changes in financial assurance

and operations to prevent future legacy sites by obtaining early stakeholder input at the

Decommissioning Workshop and procuring contractor support (see Section 3.1.3).

Continued to implement the decommissioning guidance in NUREG-1757 by training

staff on dose modeling, risk-informed approaches, LTR Analysis issues, and institutional

controls. Continued tailored consultations with licensees who are using new guidance

and LTR issues (e.g., the SMC site and the West Valley site) (see Section 3.2.2).

Enhanced critical skills in dose modeling and health physics by hiring new staff and

training existing staff from Headquarters and the Regions to conduct dose modeling

reviews (see Section 3.2.3.1). 

Developed new tools for efficient resource management including a risk-informed work

prioritization procedure and a resource expenditure tracking system (see 

Section 3.2.3.2). 

Developed an approach to estimate baseline costs specific activities at

decommissioning sites. Explored the feasibility of methods to measure efficiency gains

for NRC activities (see Section 3.2.3.2).

Ensured that goals and long-term outcomes for the program aligned with the new

Strategic Plan, revised annual output measures, and added a new performance

measure for the effectiveness goal beginning in FY 2006 (see Section 3.2.6). 

Prepared the IDIP that consolidated and integrated the plans for continuous

improvement during FY 2004-2007 (NRC, 2005 b). Prepared the first

Decommissioning Continuous Improvement Report (this report) to document completed

improvements during FY 2004-2005 (see Section 3.2.8). 

Prepared many program improvement procedures that are being included in a major

update to the Decommissioning Operations Manual.

Continued meaningful stakeholder involvement by: 1) holding a stakeholder workshop

to provide new information about the program, obtain early input on guidance, exchange

lessons learned, and obtain suggestions for further program improvements and 

2) establishing a State working group with representatives from the Organization of

Agreement States (OAS) and Council of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD)

that assisted the staff in developing the draft guidance (see Section 3.1.1).

Continued to enhance stakeholder communications by: 1) enhancing the

Decommissioning web site; 2) developing a new decommissioning brochure to inform

the public about the program; and 3) revising the annual status report for the

Decommissioning Program (see Section 3.2.9).

Developed a lessons learned web page that makes existing NRC lessons learned more

readily available. Began a collaborative effort with industry groups and Agreement

States to broaden the participation in decommissioning lessons learned. Arranged for
- 8 -

and will lead a panel on lessons learned and will chair a decommissioning lessons

learned session at the Waste Management 2006 Symposium (see Section 3.3.1). 

Improved the process for guidance development with early involvement by stakeholders,

the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW), and States. Coordinated with the

ACNW to conduct an independent working group meeting. This meeting provided early

technical review and comments for the staff to consider in developing the draft guidance

for the LTR issues. The working group included five outside decommissioning experts

in addition to the ACNW members (see Section 3.1.1). 

Shared guidance and lessons learned at both domestic conferences (e.g., WM 05

Symposia, American Nuclear Society (ANS) 05 Conference) and international

conferences and workshops (e.g., International Conference on Environmental

Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management, the Federal Environmental Industrial

and Nuclear Supervision Service of the Russian Federation, and organizations working

with nuclear power in China).

2.3 Outcomes from Improvement Activities

Major outcomes from the staffs’ improvement activities are described below for the following

NRC’s Strategic Plan goals. 

Safety 

Decommissioning progress was made at three sites that have particularly challenging

decommissioning problems and financial limitations. 

One licensee (SMC), considering restricted use, was able to make progress

revising its DP by proposing the new NRC LTC license as a legally enforceable

and durable institutional control.

Use of the realistic scenario approach for dose modeling was instrumental in

making decommissioning progress at two sites that have significant financial

limitations. Realistic scenarios and a risk-informed, phasaed decommissioning

resulted in starting remediation at the FMRI Inc. (formerly Fansteel) site. At the

Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority site, an unlicensed site, NRC

completed its action at the site after determining that no further decommissioning

action was needed.

Decommissioning progress was made possible at two other sites.

At the Cabot Reading site, the licensee used the realistic scenario approach and

the flexibility of the LTR to design an engineered barrier for erosion protection to

revise and resubmit its DP. This approach to completing decommissioning is

key for the City of Reading to proceed with its extensive redevelopment plans.

At the Michigan Department of Natural Resources site, license termination was

facilitated by using the realistic scenario approach. This resulted in not
- 9 -

disturbing the contamination and avoiding impacts to workers and the

environment as well as minimizing the decommissioning costs. 

Five LTR implementation issues were addressed by preparing a draft supplement to the

decommissioning guidance in NUREG-1757 for public comment. The draft provides

approaches that are more risk-informed, flexible, and realistic. New risk-informed

approaches were developed for institutional controls and engineered barriers. Flexible

implementation of the LTR was enhanced by the guidance for each of the LTR issues

and engineered barriers. Dose modeling will be more realistic by using reasonably

foreseeable land uses in exposure scenarios.

Openness

Enhanced stakeholder communication tools and early stakeholder involvement with

regulatory guidance development have improved stakeholder understanding of the

decommissioning process, regulations/guidance, and current issues. The staff also has

learned more about stakeholder views on the key issues and ways to improve the

Decommissioning Program. Stakeholder feedback forms from the Decommissioning

workshop were very positive about the staff efforts at the workshop.

Effectiveness and Efficiency

During FY 2004 and FY 2005 there were a higher number of decommissioning project

completions than in previous years. This resulted from a combination of numerous

process improvements, including: 1) proactive approaches to licensing; 

2) implementation of detailed guidance for staff and licensees; 3) improved radiological

survey approaches; 4) use of more realistic dose models; 5) increased number of staff

with critical skills; and 6) increased flexibility in resolving technical and policy issues that

have been impeding site cleanups.

The process developed for identifying realistic scenarios combined with previous

improvements, such as the use of more proactive approaches to interacting with

licensees, resulted in completing the Yankee Rowe LTP review in 15 months. This

review time is approximately one year faster than the average of the five previous 

LTP reviews.

Efficiencies are already evident in the improved timeliness of major reviews. In addition

more efficient use of staff resources should result from using the new tools developed

for tracking and managing staff resource expenditures.

Understanding of NRC’s decommissioning issues and lessons learned should result in

more efficient licensee decommissioning and also might assist the Agreement States’

implementation of the LTR for sites in their states.

The identification of the types of operating sites and components that could have a high 

potential for subsurface contamination and future decommissioning problems was used

to develop general guidance for heightened inspections. This guidance should improve

the focus of the planned rulemaking to prevent future legacy sites and the development

of inspection procedures and enforcement guidance in FY 2006.
- 10 -

Management

The staff’s IDIP and completion of the improvements summarized in this report

demonstrates and ensures the staff’s commitment to continuous improvement.

3.0 Description of Completed Improvements

3.1 Regulatory Improvements

3.1.1 Revised Decommissioning Guidance on LTR issues and Other Topics (IDIP 4.1)

This improvement activity involved implementing the Commission’s direction on five of the LTR

Analysis issues through developing new guidance or revising existing guidance.

During FY 2004, the staff developed interim guidance for the LTC licence at the SMC site. The

LTC license is one of the new options for institutional controls. This option is being used by

SMC in its revised DP.

During FY 2005, the staff developed and published draft guidance for public comment on the

following five LTR Analysis issues as directed by the Commission. 

Restricted use/institutional controls

On-site disposal

Realistic Scenarios

Removal of material after license termination 

Intentional mixing of soil

Draft guidance also was developed for other topics including: engineered barriers; coordination

of radiation surveys; use of the MARLAP; and cancellation or return of financial assurance

instruments. The revised guidance for engineered barriers enhances the guidance for 

restricted and unrestricted release sites. The draft guidance was published for public comment

as NUREG-1757, Supplement 1 (NRC, 2005 h).

The staff enhanced its development of the draft guidance by incorporating early stakeholder

involvement from diverse groups. A decommissioning workshop was conducted in April 2005.

Approximately 180 stakeholders attended, including licensees, State representatives, U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, interested members of the public, and the ACNW. Individual breakout sessions

were conducted for each of the above issues to explain the issue and obtain early input from

stakeholders for the draft guidance. In addition to the workshop, a State working group was

established with representatives from OAS and CRCPD. The working group members

exchanged information with the staff on the issues and participated in the staff’s internal review

process. Early input was also obtained from an ACNW working group made up 

of the ACNW members and five external experts involved with decommissioning. This

independent working group provided early review and comment on the staff’s approaches to the

draft guidance.
- 11 -

3.1.2 General Guidance for Inspections and Enforcement to Prevent Future Legacy

Sites (IDIP 4.2)

This improvement activity involved determining which NRC- licensed operating facilities and

activities could have a high potential for subsurface contamination and developing general

guidance for inspection and enforcement to address these facilities and activities. This

improvement activity along with the rulemaking and guidance described in Section 3.1.3 are all

intended to enhance the prevention of future legacy sites.

The work completed during FY 2005 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. The staff evaluated this information and

identified the types of sites, facility components, and operational activities that could have a

higher potential for subsurface contamination. This study provides lessons learned and risk

insights from decommissioning sites that will be useful to existing and future operating sites

licensed by NRC. Using these lessons learned, the staff developed general guidance for

inspection and enforcement that will be used to develop inspection procedures and

enforcement guidance during FY 2006. These lessons learned from decommissioning sites

also will be used in developing the site operations part of the rulemaking and guidance for

preventing future legacy sites during FY 2006-2007. This report is electronically available at

ML052630421 (NRC, 2005 f).

3.1.3 Preparation for Rulemaking and Supporting Guidance to Prevent Future Legacy

Sites (IDIP 4.3)

During FY 2005 the staff began the rulemaking process by establishing a rulemaking working

group, developing a rulemaking schedule, and procuring a contractor who will provide technical

assistance to the staff for the rulemaking. In addition, early stakeholder input was obtained at

the Decommissioning Workshop on the two LTR Analysis issues for preventing future legacy

sites that will be addressed by the rulemaking.

3.2 Program Management Improvements Recommended by the Decommissioning

Program Evaluation

3.2.1 Establish a Comprehensive Decommissioning Program Perspective (IDIP 5.1)

This improvement activity involved describing the roles and the decommissioning activities of

various NRC organizations making up the Comprehensive Decommissioning Program and

taking restructuring steps to achieve the defined program. (Note that the prioritization approach

identified in IDIP 5.1 is now reported under section 3.2.3.3 as one of the initiatives to improve

efficient utilization of staff). The restructuring was largely accomplished in FY 2004 as reported

in the Federal Register (69 Federal Register 33946) by eliminating the Site Decommissioning

Management Plan (SDMP) designation for sites and managing the SDMP sites as “complex

sites” under a comprehensive decommissioning program (Federal Register, 2004 d). Further

implementation of the comprehensive program perspective was achieved by consolidating

descriptions of all the Agency decommissioning activities and related information in the annual

update for the Decommissioning Program and by upgrading the Decommissioning web site to a

more comprehensive source of information. The description of the roles of various NRC
- 12 -

organizations was also documented in a procedure to be included in the Decommissioning

Operation Manual. This procedure explains how the NMSS/DWMEP Decommissioning

Program, as defined in the Budget (Tier II Subprogram) for complex materials sites and power

reactors, relates to the other Agency decommissioning activities. 

A coordinating role was identified for other NRC organizations responsible for currently

operating licensed sites to begin identifying and resolving conditions or events that could

complicate future decommissioning. This role was added to the revised Charter for the

Decommissioning Board and incorporated into a procedure for the Operations Manual. These

roles will evolve and will be further defined as a result of the rulemaking to prevent future legacy

sites planned for FY 2006-2007. 

During the 2005 Decommissioning Counterparts meeting, discussions were held on the roles of

Headquarters and the Regions for project management and reviews of complex materials sites. 

An agreement was reached on the assignment of lead offices for new decommissioning sites. 

Per this agreement, the Decommissioning Directorate (DCD) will have responsibility for

managing new complex materials site decommissioning projects that require site-specific dose

modeling evaluations, have contaminated groundwater or are requesting restricted release or

alternate criteria (i.e., Group 4-7 sites). The Regional offices will retain regulatory oversight

responsibility for the new sites described in Groups 1 and 2. Sites described in Group 3 can be

managed by either DCD or the Regions, and will be determined through case-by-case

discussions.

3.2.2 Implement the New Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance (IDIP 5.2)

This improvement activity involved enhancing use of the Consolidated Decommissioning

Guidance in NUREG-1757 completed in September 2003 by conducting staff training and

consultations with licensees. 

Staff training on the new Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning guidance in NUREG-1757 was

completed for NMSS and Regions during FY 2004. A formal training course on dose modeling

was developed by the staff and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), and decommissioning staff

from Headquarters and the Regions were trained during FY 2005. The dose modeling course

included training on realistic scenarios. The staff also began informal staff seminars to explain

and discuss important and emerging topics. Seminars were conducted on the LTR’s riskinformed approaches, the LTR Analysis, the institutional control issue, and interim guidance on

the use of the LTC license at a restricted use site. 

Staff training was followed by consultations to inform licensees and stakeholders as

appropriate. For example, meetings were conducted with SMC on the interim guidance for the

LTC license and use of realistic scenarios for a restricted use site. Implementing future 

guidance would also include putting draft new or revised guidance on the new

Decommissioning web site. 

.

The approach of staff training and specific licensee consultations will continue and be used

when there is new guidance to implement. This approach has been documented in a new

operating procedure to be included in the DWMEP Operations Manual.
- 13 -

3.2.3 Improve Staff Skills and Efficient Utilization (IDIP 5.3) 

3.2.3.1 Improve Staff Availability in Critical Disciplines 

This improvement activity involved resolution of a shortage of critical staff skills in dose

modeling and health physics identified in 2003 at the time of the Decommissioning Program

Evaluation. Lack of these critical skills had caused delays in conducting staff licensing reviews. 

Hiring staff with dose modeling and health physics skills to support decommissioning was a

priority during FY 2004 and FY 2005. As a result, there was a net increase of two staff

members in health physics and a net increase of two staff members in dose modeling. 

Additionally, there was a net increase of three staff members having both health physics and

dose modeling capabilities, resulting in an overall net increase of seven staff having health

physics or dose modeling capabilities to support decommissioning. The results are described

in terms of net increase, since assuring adequate staffing is dynamic. Although there was a net

increase of seven staff, that increase resulted from adding 11 staff while at the same time

losing four. Two staff members included in the net increase are serving as project managers.

The staff also expanded its dose modeling capability by contracting with ANL to develop a dose

modeling course during FY 2004. Staff and ANL conducted the training during FY 2005. The

purpose of this training was to provide technical and project management staff in Headquarters

and the Regions with the capability to conduct simple dose modeling reviews or dose modeling

reviews with some help from the staff from the core performance assessment section. 

Finally, a separate and dedicated dose modeling core staff for the decommissioning program

resulted from the reorganization of the Division of Waste Management in FY 2004 into two new

divisions–the DWMEP and the Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety. 

3.2.3.2 Resource Tracking Process and Development of a Decommissioning Cost

Baseline and Method for Measuring Efficiency

Two activities were conducted to develop new tools for tracking and evaluating staff resource

expenditure data. The first activity developed a staff resource (full time equivalent) tracking

method to use during budget execution each year. The second activity explored the feasibility

of a quantitative method to measure efficiency gains in the decommissioning program from year

to year.

To develop the resource tracking process the staff has: 

Revised the procedure for assigning new resource codes;

Aligned resource codes to the line items in the budget;

Developed a monthly reporting process of resource expenditures for codes and budget

line items and comparison to budget estimates; and

Developed a procedure for the above items to be included in the Operating Manual. 
- 14 -

This activity will support several ongoing staff improvement efforts. First, it will provide the staff

with an independent approach to evaluate the monthly resource expenditures and comparing

them to the apportioned resources in the Decommissioning Program budget. Second, it will

allow the staff to identify areas where more efficient approaches may be warranted in order to

achieve Program goals and measures. Third, it will allow the staff to better estimate the

resources necessary in the future to accomplish program goals. 

In considering the feasibility of measuring efficiency gains, the staff has:

Collected and processed resource expenditure data from FY 2003 and FY 2004 for

selected sites that had submitted a DP;

Defined FY 2003 as the “baseline” year;

Developed a method of comparing decommissioning resource data from year to year

and begun comparing FY 2003 and FY 2004 resource data for DP reviews; and 

Collected DP review time data for Calender Year (CY) 1997 through CY 2002 and LTP

review time for CY 1999 through CY 2005 and evaluated the feasibility of using review

time as a measure of efficiency gain. The staff concluded that using DP and LTP review

time is a measure of effectiveness and timeliness; however, for a measure of efficiency,

both time and resource expenditure data need to be evaluated. 

When FY 2005 resource expenditure data becomes available, it will be analyzed along with FY

2003 and FY 2004 data to evaluate the feasibility of using resource and time data to measure

efficiency gain. 

3.2.3.3 Develop a Risk-Informed Approach to Prioritize Site Decommissioning Work

This improvement activity involved development of a risk-informed, prioritization approach to

manage the resources allocated to all site-specific NRC staff licensing activities. The goal is to

more explicitly consider risk and other decommissioning challenges in allocating an appropriate

amount of resources to specific sites and resolving work priorities. The approach would be

used in the budget process as well as budget execution to manage staff expenditure during the

operating year and when resource reallocations might be needed for management decisions on

work priority and staff assignments. The approach uses a scoring scheme to rank current

decommissioning sites. Scores are determined for the following factors: funding problems;

groundwater contamination; offsite/onsite contamination; other hazardous material; license/no

license; public interest; unrestricted/restricted use; site-specific/default derived concentration

guideline limits; EPA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) site; closeness to license

termination (return on investment); licensee cooperation; and involvement by another regulator. 

This approach was documented in a procedure to be included in the Operations Manual. (This

item was in IDIP Section 5.1 but was moved to Section 3.2.3 in this report because it better

aligned with other activities in this section.) 
- 15 -

3.2.4 Expand Management Reviews of Decommissioning Site Progress (IDIP 5.4)

This improvement activity involves: 1) enhancing the coordination between Headquarters and

the Regions for existing decommissioning sites to ensure decommissioning progress,

consistency, and efficiency of resolving common policy and technical issues, and 2) enhancing

coordination with NRC organizations responsible for regulating operating licensed sites to

identify and resolve conditions or events that could complicate future decommissioning. 

For the first action, during FY 2004-2005, the staff: 1) revised the Operating Plan input

process; 2) revised the Decommissioning Board Charter and meeting agendas to focus

discussions on cross-cutting process, technical, and policy issues (to ensure more timely and

consistent resolution of issues); 3) implemented an annual management visit to each Regional

office to discuss issues; and 4) revised Manual Chapter 2602 to enhance planning and

coordination of inspections. The staff developed a new method for providing the Regions with

Operating Plan milestones and metrics, which allows the Regional staff to provide

Headquarters with updates in a more timely manner. The status of existing and potential new

sites are discussed in a focused manner at the Decommissioning Board meetings as a specific

agenda item. In addition, the Board agenda calls for each Region to present, on a rotating

basis, technical or policy issues for discussion and resolution during the Board meeting. There

is closer coordination between the Regions and Headquarters staff during the development of

budgets and the Operating Plan by requesting Regional review and input on both data sets

during initial development. 

For the second action, during FY 2005 the Decommissioning Board Charter and meeting

agendas were revised to include a coordinating role for other NRC organizations responsible for

currently operating licensed sites (e.g., fuel cycle facility sites) to begin identifying and resolving

conditions or events that could complicate future decommissioning. Quarterly updates are

given at Decommissioning Board meetings on sites that may enter decommissioning. The

revised Charter was incorporated into a procedure that will be included in the Operations

Manual. These roles will evolve and will be further defined as a result of the study of sites with

a high potential for subsurface contamination completed in FY 2005 (see Section 2.2) and the

rulemaking to prevent future legacy sites planned for FY 2006-2007. 

3.2.5 Compare and Evaluate NRC’s Decommissioning Program (IDIP 5.5)

This improvement activity involved exploring the potential for an exchange of decommissioning

lessons learned as an effort to improve coordination and compare similar 

programs and experience using the LTR for decommissioning of sites. A second purpose was

to consider options and feasibility for an independent review of NRC’s Decommissioning

Program. The status of these two improvement activities is given below. 

3.2.5.1 Sharing Information 

The staff completed several activities intended to expand and improve the ongoing exchange of

decommissioning information with stakeholders and other organizations conducting similar

decommissioning work for facilities with radioactive materials, including the Agreement States. 

For NRC’s decommissioning stakeholders, the staff enhanced the Decommissioning web site to
- 16 -

make more information about NRC’s decommissioning program easily available (see Section

3.2.9). Information about NRC’s decommissioning sites, process, regulations, key documents,

and lessons learned were added to the web site. The staff informed licensees, Agreement

States, and other stakeholders about the availability of the web site through a demonstration at

the Decommissioning workshop. 

As mentioned in Section 3.3.1, the staff organized and conducted an exchange of

decommissioning lessons learned with Agreement States, industry groups, and other

stakeholders at the Decommissioning workshop. Subsequent to the workshop, the staff invited

the Agreement States and industry groups (Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Fuel Cycle

Facilities Forum (FCFF)) to consider options for sharing decommissioning lessons learned. 

The feasibility of a collaborative effort to identify, store, and make available future lessons

learned will be discussed with Agreement States and industry groups during FY 2006. These

decommissioning lessons learned would help those groups who are or will be involved with

decommissioning sites under NRC’s LTR. 

NRC also has started efforts to exchange information with DOE on its cleanup strategies at

sites not regulated by NRC. During FY 2004, NRC and DOE completed a reimbursable

Interagency Agreement (IA) for NRC to assist DOE with implementing its End States approach

to cleanup of DOE sites. The purpose of the IA is to share with DOE NRC’s risk-informed,

performance-based approaches to decommissioning, learn about DOE’s End States approach,

and exchange information about common decommissioning issues, such as institutional

controls, and realistic land use scenarios. During FY 2005 NRC participated in a DOE

stakeholder meeting to discuss the path forward for the DOE End State program. This meeting

gave NRC an introduction to DOE’s End State approach and issues, and NRC presented an

overview of its risk-informed approach to decommissioning. FY 2006 could provide

opportunities to exchange information on common cleanup issues at very large complex sites,

depending on how DOE decides to proceed with its End State approach.

Finally, the staff routinely participates in several national and international decommissioning

conferences and meetings. During FY 2004 and FY 2005, the staff focused many of its

presentations at these conferences on the improvements to the Decommissioning Program and

how it is resolving decommissioning issues such as institutional controls, realistic scenarios,

intentional soil mixing, and preventing future decommissioning problems (i.e., preventing future

legacy sites). These presentations are another way to keep the stakeholders aware of

emerging issues and changes to NRC’s Decommissioning Program, and to receive feedback.

3.2.5.2 Independent Reviews

This improvement activity involved obtaining appropriately independent reviews of the

Decommissioning Program to supplement self assessments such as the Decommissioning

Program Evaluation completed in FY 2003. Independent reviews of programs are one of many

areas evaluated by OMB’s PART.

The staff’s approach to obtaining independent reviews of the program was to request reviews

from organizations that are: readily available, independent from the staff, have experience with

NRC’ s regulatory role, and have some understanding of the decommissioning of nuclear

facilities. As a result, NRC’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was asked to conduct a
- 17 -

review of the Decommissioning Program, and the ACNW was asked to conduct a review of the

staff’s development of regulatory guidance for decommissioning issues (LTR Analysis issues). 

The ACNW established a special working group to conduct its review of the staff regulatory

guidance development. This working group included five external experts representing industry

and state regulators who volunteered their time to the review and brought diverse experience to

the review that complemented the expertise of the ACNW members.

The OIG conducted an audit of the Decommissioning Program during FY 2005. The objective

of its audit was to verify whether the Decommissioning program achieves its performance

results and determine whether NRC’s Decommissioning program staff implemented

recommendations to improve program performance. A final audit report was completed on

September 21, 2005 (NRC, 2005 e). 

The ACNW review was conducted during FY 2005, and consisted of: 1) attending the April

Decommissioning workshop where the guidance for the decommissioning issues was

discussed, 2) reviewing the staff’s draft guidance material; 3) conducting a full day working

group meeting to discuss the issues with the staff and provide detailed comment; and 4)

prepared an August 12, 2005, letter to the Commission with the results of the review (NRC,

2005 d). The staff and ACNW have agreed that ACNW will continue the review of the final

guidance developed during FY 2006. 

Finally, the staff developed a procedure to be included in the Operations Manual for updating

IDIP that includes a description of the various types of program assessments, including

independent reviews (See Section 3.2.8).

3.2.6 Revise Performance Measures (IDIP 5.6)

This improvement activity involved revising annual budget output measures and targets to be

outcomes that are representative of expected key accomplishments for the year, including

improvements. In FY 2003, when the Decommissioning Program Evaluation was conducted,

the Decommissioning Program had one annual output measure, i.e., remove a specific number

of sites from the Site Decommissioning Management Plan list each fiscal year. The staff

determined that this measure was not indicative of the performance of the program, because

the removal of a set number of sites is, in many instances, predicated on a large number of

external factors which the staff cannot control--licensee's capability (both technical and

financial); stakeholder involvement; the need to coordinate compliance with other State, local or

Federal regulatory requirements; the technical complexity of the site; and unexpected technical

issues that must be addressed before proceeding with cleanup. In addition, because many of

the sites are not licensed, NRC has limited ability to compel timely cleanup. Therefore, the staff

revised the output measure to illustrate the work performed by the NRC staff and to consider

outcome measures. 

In 2004, the Commission revised the NRC's Strategic Plan for FY 2004-FY 2009. As part of

that effort the NRC revised Goals, Strategic Outcomes, Strategies, and Means to meet the

Goals. This effort provided a foundation for subsequent revisions to the performance measures

for each new Goal that are applicable to Agency programs, including the Decommissioning

Program. Subsequently, the annual budget output measure was changed from the number of

sites removed from the SDMP or Complex site list to measures that were aligned with the
- 18 -

Strategic plan, such as developing a prioritization approach for managing site work (FY 2005)

completing final guidance to address LTR implementation issues (FY 2006) and completing

high priority licensing actions (all years). Furthermore, the FY 2007 Performance Budget to

Congress includes a number of improvements to clarify the linkage between the agency’s

performance measures, output measures, and the agency’s strategic outcomes. Revised

performance measures are identified for the Decommissioning Program along with the other

agency programs. In particular, a new decommissioning performance measure for the

effectiveness goal was added beginning in FY 2006 to improve the timeliness of the review

process for nuclear power reactor License Termination Plans by at least 30% over 3 years as

compared to the historical average. 

3.2.7 Consider Using Incentives (IDIP 5.7)

During FY2005, staff considered the use of incentives and disincentives to encourage progress

on decommissioning sites where cleanups have slowed, and to accelerate other cleanups, if

warranted. Staff has already used incentives to assist in completing decommissioning activities

at selected sites, by providing staff review without fees at a site where funds were limited and

by conducting dose analysis at a non-licensee’s site. Staff developed options to expand the

use of these and other incentives and to implement disincentives for sites where progress was

not being made. These options were presented to the attendees at the Decommissioning

workshop, and comments on these options were solicited at a breakout session at the

workshop. Based on these discussions, the staff has decided that developing a “universal”

incentive program for decommissioning is not practical. However, the staff will continue to

provide incentives already used on a case-by-case basis for higher priority sites or used

programatially, such as increasing flexibility of decommissioning options. In the FY 2005 Fee

Rule, it was decided that NRC efforts at non-licensed sites will be fee-recoverable. This

requirement creates an incentive for non-licensees to complete site remediation. Staff has

decided not to implement any disincentives because these could delay decommissioning

activities.

3.2.8 IDIP Process (IDIP 5.8) 

This improvement involved beginning a general process for “continuous improvement” for the

Decommissioning Program and documenting it in the IDIP. 

During FY 2005, the first IDIP was prepared and was used to guide the completion of staff

improvements (NRC, 2005 a). The IDIP documented improvements completed in FY 2004 and

plans for additional improvements during FY 2005-FY 2007. The IDIP integrated three sets of

improvements: regulatory improvements to resolve the LTR Analysis issues; program

management improvements resulting from the recommendations in the 2003 Decommissioning

Program Evaluation; and improvements directed by the Commission in the SRM for the October

2004 briefing. The plan includes a description of each improvement and associated milestones,

schedules, and staff assignments. The Operating Plan was used to track the key milestones

and schedules. The staff plans on periodically revising IDIP as needed. A revision is planned

for early in FY 2006 to update plans for work during FY 2006 and FY 2007 and may also

include actions responding to the OIG audit. IDIP also schedules another revision in FY 2007

to reflect the results of the FY 2006 OMB PART review. 
- 19 -

In addition to the IDIP, the staff prepared a procedure to be included in the Operations Manual

for periodically updating the IDIP. The procedure describes an iterative process consisting of a

repeating cycle of four steps: 1) assess program; 2) plan improvements; 3) conduct

improvements; and 4) measure and reassess program. 

3.2.9 Communication Strategy (IDIP 5.9)

The staff’s communication strategy for FY 2005 resulted in four major improvements to the

communication tools used by the Decommissioning Program: revised annual report format;

enhanced decommissioning web site; prepared a decommissioning brochure; and conducted a

decommissioning workshop for stakeholders. 

Changes were made to the format and content of the annual decommissioning report in

accordance with Commission direction. These included publishing the annual report as a

NUREG in the even years, and as a shortened report to the Commission with references made

to information on the Decommissioning web site in the odd years. These changes are intended

to make information about the Decommissioning Program more readily available to more

stakeholders. The 2004 annual report, published as NUREG-1814, was the first annual report

to incorporate the changes (NRC, 2005 a). 

During FY 2005 the staff completed several enhancements to NRC’s Decommissioning web

site located at http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/decommissioning.html. The new web

site consolidates decommissioning information into a single location and expands the scope to

include all the NRC decommissioning activities that are included in the Comprehensive

Decommissioning Program. The web site was redesigned and restructured to include more

information in a format that should be easier to use. For example new information was added

that describes the decommissioning process for power reactors, material sites, and uranium

recovery sites. Site information was also added, including maps showing facility/site locations

and tables with decommissioning schedules for about 90 sites. Links were provided for simple

access to electronic documents with detailed descriptions of each site. Links were also given

for regulations, guidance, and program documents important to decommissioning (e..g., annual

updates to the status of the Decommissioning Program, Decommissioning Program Evaluation,

IDIP, and EPA MOU). A lessons learned page was added that provides direct links to four sets

a previously published NRC lessons learned as well as an example of a site-specific lesson

learned that illustrates the format to be used for future lessons learned. A link is also given to

access NRC’s Terminated License Tracking System. Finally, a “contact us” page was added

for stakeholders to comment or ask questions about decommissioning. 

The staff also developed and published a brochure to enhance its communication with the

public (NUREG/BR–0325) (NRC, 2005 g). The brochure briefly describes NRC’s

decommissioning process, the facilities it regulates, how members of the public can participate

in the decommissioning process, and information sources for the public. The brochure also

contains a map showing the facilities currently in decommissioning. This map give a visual idea

of the wide range of facilities subject to NRC’s jurisdiction. 

The staff conducted a two-day Decommissioning Workshop in April 2005 that was attended by

over 180 stakeholders, including licensees, State representatives, DOE, EPA, U.S. Army Corps
- 20 -

of Engineers, ACNW, and interested members of the public. The workshop had multiple

purposes: 

Inform stakeholders of NRC’s IDIP, including regulatory and program management

improvements;

Discuss the NRC staff development of guidance for issues resulting from the LTR

Analysis; and

Solicit feedback and suggestions from stakeholders on guidance, decommissioning

lessons learned, and other planned improvements. 

A summary of the workshop is available on the Decommissioning web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/decommissioning/public-involve.html. This summary

includes the results of public comments about the workshop. On the first day of the workshop,

breakout sessions were conducted to allow detailed discussions and stakeholder input for the

LTR Analysis issues and the staff’s plans for draft guidance. The topics addressed during the

breakout sessions included: restricted use/institutional controls; engineered barriers; realistic

scenarios; financial assurance changes to prevent future legacy sites; operating licensee

changes to prevent future legacy sites; on-site disposal; use of intentional mixing of soil;

20.2002 off-site disposal; and potential program improvements such as incentives for

decommissioning; communications; finality (NRC/EPA MOU); and alignment of the NRC and

State programs. The second day focused on lessons learned and included opening remarks by

Commissioner Merrifield followed by panel discussion by members from NRC, FCFF, NEI,

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Westinghouse Electric Company, and Ohio

Department of Health. The afternoon session provided an opportunity for audience feedback

and comments about improvements to the decommissioning process and lessons learned. 

3.3 Program Improvements Directed by the Commission

3.3.1 Lessons Learned (IDIP 6.1)

During FY 2005, the staff conducted several improvement activities to capture and share

lessons learned and best practices with licensees and stakeholders. As mentioned previously,

the staff established a decommissioning lessons learned page on the new Decommissioning

web site. This web page includes a definition of a lesson learned, which is any item that could

be of interest and benefit to many licensees. Lessons learned include positive or negative

experiences that are worth sharing with NRC licensees and stakeholders to improve future

efficiencies. The web page provides a short summary of each lesson, its potential benefits, and

links to publicly available documents that discuss each lesson learned in further detail. The

web page includes links to the following existing published sets of NRC lessons learned: 

Results of staff reviews of decommissioning plans and license termination plans

(documented in RIS-2002-002, and Appendix O in NUREG-1757)

Questions and answers from NEI on specific regulatory issues (documented in Appendix

O in NUREG-1757)
- 21 -

Lessons learned during decommissioning final status survey in-process inspections and

confirmatory surveys (documented in Appendix O in NUREG-1757)

Issues from the LTR Analysis (documented in RIS-2004-008)

An example of a site-specific lessons learned was also included to illustrate the format to be

used for future lessons learned that the staff will periodically identify and add. The staff

developed a procedure for the Operating Manual that outlines the existing process to identify,

preserve, and share decommissioning lessons learned. One of the new approaches the staff

plans on using to identify new NRC lessons learned is for the staff to identify lessons learned

after completion of major licensing actions for specific sites, such as DP reviews and Final

Status Survey reviews.

As mentioned in Section 3.2.9, staff conducted a two-day stakeholders workshop in April 2005. 

The second day of the workshop focused on decommissioning lessons learned. There was a

panel discussion where representatives from NRC, industry groups, and Agreement States

presented their own perspectives on lessons learned. This meeting also served as an

opportunity to ask for input and views from stakeholders that attended the meeting. The staff

also met with ACNW in June 2005 to discuss approaches to capture, preserve, and share

decommissioning lessons learned. Based on feedback from these meetings, the staff started

exploring a collaborative effort with industry groups and Agreement States to discuss ways and

alternatives to capture and share decommissioning lessons learned. This approach was

presented to NEI and the FCFF, and they were invited to participate in this effort. The staff also

presented the idea to members of OAS and invited the Agreement States to participate in this

initiative. Staff is currently planning a meeting with industry groups and Agreement States to

discuss details of a collaborative approach and alternative methods to capture, preserve, and

share lessons learned. This meeting is tentatively scheduled for November 2005.

As discussed in Section 2.2, as part of the work to develop general inspection guidance during

FY 2005, the staff inventoried and evaluated information from 82 decommissioning sites to

identify which of these sites had subsurface contamination and what caused the contamination. 

The staff evaluated this information and identified the types of sites, facility components, and

operational activities that could have a higher potential for subsurface contamination. This

study provides lessons learned and “risk insights” from decommissioning sites that should help

prevent future decommissioning problems at existing and future operating sites (i.e., prevent

future legacy sites). 

The staff has arranged for and will lead a panel on lessons learned and will chair a

decommissioning lessons learned session at the Waste Management 2006 Symposium. 

Similarly, the staff has started planning for participation at a lessons learned workshop

sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Greece in December 2006. 

3.3.2 Radiological Monitoring (IDIP 6.2)

This issue focused on the responsiveness of confirmatory monitoring to licensee

decommissioning schedules. Staff and industry discussions have confirmed that side-by-side

confirmatory radiological surveys for parts of sites are more efficient than performing a final

status survey for the whole site at the end of decommissioning. The staff revised its guidance
- 22 -

in NUREG-1757 Supplement 1 (NRC, 2005 h) to clarify that efficient side-by-side radiological

surveys can be achieved by coordination between licensees and NRC. Although this has

become NRC’s practice, and was identified as a lessons learned in RIS 2002-02 and NUREG1757 vol. 2, Appendix O, it was added to the draft guidance to ensure licensees attention. The

revised guidance is included in the draft guidance for public comment described in 

Section 3.1.1. 

Coordination of confirmatory surveys was discussed at the 2005 Counterparts Meeting by staff

from Headquarters and the Regions to ensure consistency of practice and revised procedures. 

In particular, it was noted that NRC’s contractor for conducting radiological surveys, Oak Ridge

Institutute for Science and Education (ORISE), can be on-site to conduct confirmatory surveys

within 72 hours on an emergency basis, although the normal time-frame for arranging

confirmatory surveys is 2 to 4 weeks. Furthermore, it was discussed that regional inspectors

can collect samples and provide these to ORISE for analysis as another way to facilitate

confirmatory surveys. Associated with this approach, revised procedures and forms for sample

shipping and chain-of-custody that are consistent with MARLAP were also discussed.

Finally, for the Molycorp Washington site, NRC, its contractor (ORISE), and the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection are developing an approach where the state would

supplement the NRC’s conduct of side-by-side confirmatory surveys with the licensee based on

NRC guidance and experience gained from observing NRC/ORISE confirmatory surveys. 

Agreement States and non-Agreement States might be interested in this approach. 

3.3.3 Finality Process (IDIP 6.3)

During FY2005, the decommissioning staff continued to implement the 2002 MOU between the

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

Contaminated Sites. Three letters of Notification were sent to EPA informing them of sites that

were already undergoing decommissioning that would have required Level 1 Consultations if

the MOU had been signed before the DP s for these sites had been approved (three

Notification letters were also sent in FY2004). In parallel, the staff worked with the OGC to

develop proposed language to transmit to Congress for modifications to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act that would eliminate dual regulation. 

The staff developed options to address finality, including an option to negotiate additional

provisions to the MOU. These options were discussed with EPA Office of Solid Waste

managers who oversee the EPA implementation of the MOU, and were presented to the

attendees at the Decommissioning Workshop. Comments on these options were solicited at a

breakout session at the Workshop. 

At this time the staff will continue to implement the MOU as directed by the Commission. Staff

will be conducting the first Level 2 Consultation under the MOU early in FY2006. This initial

consultation should provide a good measure of how well the issue of finality will be addressed

under the MOU consultation process. The staff will re-evaluate whether additional steps need

to be taken to address finality once this initial consultation is completed. 
- 23 -

3.3.4 Consistency among State and Federal Regulators (IDIP 6.4)

During FY2005, the staff developed options to enhance consistency between NRC and State

regulators of decommissioning sites. These options were presented to the attendees at the

Decommissioning Workshop, and comments on these options were solicited at a breakout

session at the Workshop. The options included additional participation of NRC

decommissioning staff in regularly-scheduled OAS meetings, and inclusion of specific material

(e.g., lessons learned) on the NRC Decommissioning web site that addresses this issue. 

The staff will implement these two actions as follows. The staff will work with the Office of State

and Tribal Programs to be included on the schedule for the annual OAS meetings on a regular

basis to update the Agreement States on developments with the NRC decommissioning

program. Staff gave a presentation on new decommissioning developments and OAS

involvement at the OAS annual meeting in October 2005. Staff also will add material to the

Decommissioning web site that addresses specific topics and issues identified as critical in

maintaining consistency between State and Federal regulators. Both of these actions are being

implemented in FY2006. Opportunities for Agreement State decommissioning personnel to

attend NRC-sponsored training pertinent to decommissioning activities are made available

when classes are scheduled at Headquarters and the Regional Offices. Finally, state

involvement with developing new guidance and rulemaking (see Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.3) are

ongoing efforts that should contribute to consistency.

3.3.5 Enhance Guidance on Flexibility and Institutional Controls (IDIP 6.5)

As discussed in Section 3.1.1, new draft guidance was developed for several issues that

provides additional flexibility for decommissioning approaches available to licensees. New

guidance was developed for institutional controls and engineered barriers. This new guidance

describes a risk-informed graded approach for selecting appropriate types of institutional

controls, duration of controls, and site-specific restrictions on future site use that would be use

for restricted use sites. Similarly, a risk-informed graded approach was also developed and

included in the draft guidance for design of engineered barriers. This draft guidance provides

flexibility in the use of engineered barriers at either unrestricted or restricted use sites. It also

explains a risk-informed and performance based approach for licensees to use dose

assessments at a specific site to tailor the design of engineered barriers as necessary to meet

the LTR dose criteria. 

In addition to including a risk-informed graded approach for institutional controls in the draft

guidance, flexibility was added by new guidance for the two new options for institutional controls

involving NRC (i.e., LTC license and the Legal Agreement/Restrictive Covenant) that the

Commission approved as a followup to the staff’s LTR Analysis in SECY-03-0069. Flexibility is

also added by the revised guidance for monitoring and maintenance that would be tailored to

site-specific needs. 

Flexibility was also enhanced by new draft guidance on use of intentional mixing of soil, which

was also one of the LTR Analysis issues approved by the Commission. Use of intentional

mixing of soil provides licensees, on a case-by-case basis, added flexibility in meeting the LTR

dose criteria for limited conditions. For example, such flexibility might provide options for
- 24 -

licensees who might have limited funds or might have difficulties with implementing the

restricted use decommissioning option. 

Finally, a new section was added to the existing decommissioning guidance that discusses the

enhancements to flexibility for institutional controls, engineered barriers, and intentional mixing. 

4.0 Conclusions

The following conclusions can be made regarding the improvements to the Decommissioning

Program.

The staff completed the improvement activities identified in IDIP for FY 2004 

and FY 2005. 

These improvements activities have: contributed to progress at challenging

decommissioning sites; helped resolve LTR implementation issues; made

decommissioning guidance more risk informed and flexible; and enhanced stakeholder

communications and involvement with the program.

The staff expects additional decommissioning progress will result as these

improvements are implemented in the future by the staff and licensees. 

5.0 References Cited

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S.) (NRC). SECY-03-0069, “Results of the License

Termination Rule Analysis.” Policy Issue Memorandum from W.D. Travers to the Commission. 

NRC: Washington, DC. May 2, 2003 (a).

NRC. ML032760266, “Program Evaluation of Changes to the Decommissioning Program.” 

Memorandum from R.L. Johnson thru D.M. Gillen and J.T. Greeves to M. Virgilio. NRC:

Washington, DC. September 29, 2003 (b).

NRC. SECY-04-0035, “Results of the License Termination Rule Analysis of the Use of

Intentional Mixing of Contaminated Soil.” Policy Issue Memorandum from W.D. Travers to the

Commission. NRC: Washington, DC. March 1, 2004.

NRC. ML041320418, “NRC Staff Interim Guidance for a Long-Term Control Possession Only

License at the Sheildalloy Newfield Site, New Jersey.” Letter from K.L. Kalman to D.R. Smith. 

NRC: Washington, DC. May 15, 2004 (a).

NRC. Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-08, “Results of the License Termination Rule Analysis.”

NRC: Washington, DC. May 2004 (b).

Federal Register. 69 Federal Register 33946, “Elimination of the Site Decommissioning

Management Plan and Management of All Sites Undergoing Decommissioning Under a

Comprehensive Decommissioning Program; Information Notice.” June 17, 2004.
- 25 -

NRC. NUREG-1814, “Status of Decommissioning Program, 2004 Annual Report.” NRC:

Washington, DC. January 2005 (a).

NRC. ML050890051, “Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan, FY 2004-2007,

Revision 1.” Memorandum from D.M. Gillen to distribution. NRC: Washington, DC. March 29,

2005 (b).

NRC. “NRC Decommissioning Workshop–April 20 and 21, 2005.” Available on NRC web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/decommissioning/ml051940020.pdf. NRC:

Washington, DC. April 2005 (c).

NRC. “Draft Revised Decommissioning Guidance to Implement the License Termination Rule.” 

Letter from M.T. Ryan to Chairman Diaz. NRC: Washington, DC. August 12, 2005 (d).

NRC/Office of the Inspector General. OIG-05-A-17. “Audit of NRC’s Decommissioining

Program.” NRC: Washington, DC. September 21, 2005 (e).

NRC. ML052630421, “General Guidance for Insections and Enforcement to Prevent Future

Legacy Sites and Indicators of Higher Risk of Subsurface Contamination.” Memorandum from

A. Snyder and D. Brown thru A. Persinko to D. Gillen. NRC: Washington DC. 

September 2005 (f).

NRC. NUREG/BR–0325. “United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Decommissioning

Program.” NRC: Washington, DC. September 2005 (g).

NRC. NUREG–1757, Supplement 1, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,

Updates to Implement the License Termination Rule Analysis.” Draft Report for Comment.

NRC: Washington, DC. September 2005 (h).
Improvements and Products Matrix

IMPROVEMENTS PRODUCTSStrategic Plan Goals S–safety O–openness E–effectiveness  M–management

Improvement Summary Report

Rulemaking9/06 P 9/07 F

ConsolidatedDecomGuidance9/05 D9/06 F

Inspection/EnforcementGuidance9/05 general9/06 D, 9/07 F

OperationsManualprocedures12/05

CommunicationStrategy9/05

Budget/Operating Pla

RegulatoryImprovements1. Institutional Controls SE

U U

2.UnimportantQuantities E

U

3.Separate Standard U,Th E

U

4.On-site Disposal SE 

U U

5.Removal of Material E U

U

6.RealisticScenarios SE U

U

7.Financial Assurance SEChanges

UU U

8.OperationalChanges SE

U U

U

U

9.IntentionalMixing E U

U
- 2 -

IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED PRODUCTS

Improvement Summary Report

Rulemaking Consolidated

Guidance

Inspection/EnforcementGuidance

Operations Manual

Communication

Strategy

Budget/Operating Pla

ProgramManagementImprovements1.Comprehensive Program –roles,prioritization EM

U U U

2. ImplementGuidance–training,licensee meetings EM

U

U 

3.Critical SkillsAvailability, ResourceTracking EM

U U U 

4.Expand Management EMReviews

U U

5.Compare,Evaluate EMProgram

U U

6.Revise ProgramMeasures M

U U

7.ConsiderIncentives E

U

8.ImprovementPlan EM U

U

9.Lessons Learned EMO

U U 
- 3 -

10.Rad MonitoringCoordination E

U U

11.Finality/State Consistency E

U

12. Enhance guidanceon flexibility andinstitutional controls  E

U U

13. CommunicationEnhancements–webpage, brochure,annual update EO

U U U