Status of the 

Decommissioning Program 

2010 Annual Report

Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555–0001

Enclosure 
 ii

CONTENTS 

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

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

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

2.1 Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning ........................................................... 2

2.1.1 Decommissioning Process ....................................................................... 3

2.1.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2010 Activities ................................................... 5

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2011 Trends and Areas of Focus .......................................... 6

2.2 Research and Test Reactor Decommissioning .................................................... 9

2.2.1 Decommissioning Process ....................................................................... 9

2.2.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2010 Activities ................................................. 11

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2011 Trends and Areas of Focus ........................................ 11

2.3 Complex Material Facility Decommissioning ...................................................... 13

2.3.1 Decommissioning Process ..................................................................... 13

2.3.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2010 Activities ................................................. 18

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2011 Trends and Areas of Focus ........................................ 21

2.4 Uranium Recovery Facility Decommissioning .................................................... 25

2.4.1 Decommissioning Process for Uranium Mills ......................................... 26

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2010 Activities ................................................. 29

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2011 Trends and Areas of Focus ........................................ 29

2.5 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning................................................................. 33

2.5.1 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning Process ....................................... 33

2.5.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2010 Activities ................................................. 33

3. Guidance and Rulemaking Activities .................................................................................... 34

4. Research Activities .............................................................................................................. 35

5. International Activities .......................................................................................................... 37

6. Program Integration ............................................................................................................. 39

7. Agreement State Activities ................................................................................................... 41

8. Resources......................................................................................................... 49 

9. Fiscal Year 2011 Planned Programmatic Activities .............................................................. 50

Tables 

Table 2-1 Power and Early Demonstration Reactors Undergoing 

Decommissioning ................................................................................................ 7

Table 2-2 Research and Test Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning ................................... 12

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites ............................................................................. 22

Table 2-4a Decommissioning Title I Uranium Recovery Sites .................................................. 30

Table 2-4b Decommissioning Title II Uranium Recovery Sites ................................................. 32

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites ................................................................ 42
 iii

ABBREVIATIONS 

 

ACL alternate concentration limit 

ANL Argonne National Laboratory 

CBP Cementitious Barriers Partnership 

CERCLA

 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNS Convention on Nuclear Safety 

CRCPD Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DP decommissioning plan 

DWMEP Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FAWG financial assurance working group 

FCSS Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FSME Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs

FSSR Final Status Survey Report 

FTE full-time equivalents 

FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 

FY fiscal year 

GETR General Electric-Hitachi Test Reactor 

HPS Hunters Point Shipyard 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

IDIP Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan 

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

ISR in situ recovery 
 iv

LLW low-level waste 

LTP license termination plan 

LTR License Termination Rule 

LTSP long-term surveillance plan 

N/A not applicable 

NARM naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NEA Nuclear Energy Agency 

NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

OAS Organization of Agreement States 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

PSDAR Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report 

RAI request for additional information 

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

RP reclamation plan 

RWMC Radioactive Waste Management Committee 

SADA Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance 

SDMP Site Decommissioning Management Plan 

SER Safety Evaluation Report 

SLDA Shallow Land Disposal Area 

SOC Statement of Considerations 

TAG technical advisory group 

TBD to be determined 

TER technical evaluation report 

TRIGA Training, Research, Isotopes General Atomics 

UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

VESR Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor 

WPDD Working Party on Decommissioning and Dismantling 

 
1 

1. INTRODUCTION 

This report provides a summary of decommissioning of commercial nuclear facilities in the 

United States. Its purpose is to provide a reference document that summarizes the 

decommissioning activities in fiscal year (FY) 2010, including the decommissioning of complex 

materials sites, commercial reactors, research and test reactors, uranium recovery facilities, and 

fuel cycle facilities. As such, this report discusses current progress and accomplishments of the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Comprehensive Decommissioning Program, 

provides information supplied by Agreement States on decommissioning in their States, and 

identifies key Decommissioning Program activities that the staff will undertake in the coming 

year. Site summaries on the NRC public website (http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/decommissioning.html) are updated on a quarterly basis. The information 

contained in this report is current as of September 30, 2010. 

As noted in our FY 2009 report (SECY-09-0167, “Status of the Decommissioning Program—

2009 Annual Report”), the character of the decommissioning program is changing as: (1) 

successes in the past have substantially reduced the inventory of the sites in decommissioning; 

(2) NRC becomes involved with new facilities (e.g. Hunters Point and McClellan); and (3) new 

programmatic issues arise. Examples of such issues are the regulation of military sites 

contaminated with depleted uranium from past testing of munitions and the contamination of 

military sites with naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM). In 

addition, in FY 2010, staff continued the increased emphasis on the decommissioning of 

conventional uranium milling sites. FY 2010 also marked progress at sites like NWI 

Breckenridge, where decommissioning had previously been delayed. 

It is expected that FY 2011 will see similar trends in the decommissioning program as most 

power reactors remain in SAFSTOR and progress in research and test reactors increases 

somewhat. In FY 2011, completion of decommissioning activities at complex materials sites is 

expected to increase over FY 2010 levels and remain at a similar level for several years. In 

addition, within the next three years, several Title II1

 uranium recovery sites are expected to 

complete decommissioning and be transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for 

long-term control under a general license. 

 

1

 The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 classifies certain facilities that mill or process 

certain radioactive material as: Title 1, which refers to those facilities that were inactive, unregulated 

processing sites when the act was passed; or Title II, which refers to those facilities licensed by the NRC 

or an Agreement State. Section 2.4, infra, explains this in detail. 
2 

2. DECOMMISSIONING SITES 

The NRC regulates the decontamination and decommissioning of materials and fuel cycle 

facilities, power reactors, research and test reactors, and uranium recovery facilities. The 

purpose of the Decommissioning Program is to ensure that NRC-licensed sites, and sites that 

were, or could be, licensed by the NRC, are decommissioned in a safe, timely, and effective 

manner so that they can be returned to beneficial use and to ensure that stakeholders are 

informed and involved in the process, as appropriate. This report summarizes a broad 

spectrum of activities associated with the Program’s functions. 

Each year, the NRC terminates approximately 200 materials licenses. Most of these license 

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

unrestricted release criteria. This report focuses on the more challenging sites where the 

termination of licenses are not routine licensing actions. 

As of September 30, 2010, 12 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors, 12 research and 

test reactors, 19 complex decommissioning materials facilities, 1 fuel cycle facility, 21 Title I

uranium recovery facilities, and 11 Title II uranium recovery facilities are undergoing non-routine 

decommissioning or are in long-term safe storage, under NRC jurisdiction. The NRC public 

Web site (http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/decommissioning.html) contains site status 

summaries for the facilities managed under the Decommissioning Program. These summaries 

describe the status of each site and identify the current technical and regulatory issues affecting 

the completion of decommissioning. The site summaries are updated on a quarterly basis. For 

those licensees or responsible parties that have submitted a decommissioning plan (DP) or 

license termination plan (LTP), the schedules for completion of decommissioning are based on 

an assessment of the complexity of the DP or LTP review. For those that have not submitted a 

DP or LTP, the schedules are based on other available site-specific information and on the 

anticipated decommissioning approach. 

Through the Agreement State Program, 37 States have signed formal agreements with the 

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

source, and small quantities of special nuclear material, including the decommissioning of some 

complex materials sites and uranium recovery sites. Agreement States do not have regulatory 

authority over nuclear reactors licensed under Title 10, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50) or 

fuel cycle facilities. Section 7 of this report discusses the NRC’s coordination with the 

Agreement States’ decommissioning programs. 

2.1 Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning 

NRC power reactor decommissioning activities include project management for 

decommissioning power reactors, technical review of licensee submittals in support of 

decommissioning, core inspections, support for the development of rulemaking and guidance, 

public outreach efforts, international activities, and participation in industry conferences and 

workshops. In addition, the staff routinely processes license amendments and exemptions to 

support the progressive stages of decommissioning. The staff regularly coordinates with other 
3 

offices on issues affecting both operating and decommissioning power reactors, and with the 

Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) regarding the independent spent 

fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) at reactor sites undergoing decommissioning. 

As of September 30, 2010, the 12 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors identified in 

Table 2-1 are undergoing decommissioning. Table 2-1 provides an overview of the status of 

these nuclear power reactors. Plant status summaries for all decommissioning nuclear power 

reactors are available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/. 

2.1.1 Decommissioning Process 

The decommissioning process begins when a licensee decides to permanently cease 

operations. The major steps that make up the reactor decommissioning process are notification 

of cessation of operations, submittal and review of the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning 

Activities Report (PSDAR), submittal, review and approval of the LTP, implementation of the 

LTP, and completion of decommissioning. 

Notification

When the licensee has decided to permanently cease operations, it is required to submit a 

written notification to the NRC. In addition, the licensee is required to notify the NRC in writing 

once fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. 

Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report

Before, or within 2 years after cessation of operations, the licensee must submit a PSDAR to the 

NRC and a copy to the affected State(s). The PSDAR must include: 

• a description and schedule for the planned decommissioning activities; 

• an estimate of the expected costs; and 

• a discussion of the means for concluding that the environmental impacts associated with 

site-specific decommissioning activities will be bounded by appropriate, previously 

issued Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). 

The NRC will notice receipt of the PSDAR in the Federal Register and make the PSDAR 

available for public comment. In addition, the NRC will hold a public meeting in the vicinity of 

the licensee’s facility to discuss the PSDAR. Although the NRC does not approve the PSDAR, 

the licensee cannot perform any major decommissioning activities until 90 days after the NRC 

has received the PSDAR. After this period, the licensee can perform decommissioning activities 

as long as the activities do not have the following results: 

• Foreclose release of the site for unrestricted use; 

• Result in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed; or 
4 

• Jeopardize reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available for 

decommissioning. 

The regulations in 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, Tests, and Experiments,” allow a reactor licensee 

to make changes in the facility without a license amendment. In taking actions permitted under 

10 CFR 50.59, after submittal of the PSDAR, the licensee must notify the NRC, in writing, 

before performing any decommissioning activity inconsistent with, or making any significant 

schedule change from, those actions and schedules in the PSDAR. The licensee exercises its 

own judgment in determining the scope and extent of the latitude provided in 10 CFR 50.59 and 

proceeds at its own risk. 

License Termination Plan

Each power reactor licensee must submit an application for termination of its license. An LTP 

must be submitted at least 2 years before the license termination date. The NRC and licensee 

hold presubmittal meetings to agree on the format and content of the LTP. These meetings are 

intended to improve the efficiency of the LTP development and review process. The LTP must 

include the following: 

• a site characterization; 

• identification of remaining dismantlement activities; 

• plans for site remediation; 

• detailed plans for the final radiation survey; 

• description of the end use of the site, if restricted; 

• an updated site-specific estimate of remaining decommissioning costs; and 

• a supplement to the environmental report describing any new information or significant 

environmental change associated with the licensee’s proposed termination activities. 

In addition, the licensee must demonstrate that it will meet the applicable requirements of the 

License Termination Rule (LTR) in 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against 

Radiation,” Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination.” 

The NRC will notice receipt of the LTP and make the LTP available for public comment. In 

addition, the NRC will hold a public meeting in the vicinity of the licensee’s facility to discuss the 

LTP and the LTP review process. The LTP technical review is guided by NUREG-1700, 

“Standard Review Plan for Evaluating Nuclear Power Reactor License Termination Plans,” 

Revision 1, issued April 2003; NUREG-1757, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance,” 

Revision 1 of Volume 2, issued September 2006; and NUREG-0586, “Final Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities—Supplement 1,” 

issued November 2002. The LTP is approved by license amendment. 
5 

Implementation of the License Termination Plan

After approval of the LTP, the licensee or responsible party must complete decommissioning in 

accordance with the approved LTP. The NRC staff will periodically inspect the 

decommissioning operations at the site to ensure compliance with the LTP. These inspections 

will normally include in-process and confirmatory radiological surveys. 

Decommissioning must be completed within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations, 

unless otherwise approved by the Commission. 

Completion of Decommissioning

At the conclusion of decommissioning activities, the licensee will submit a Final Status Survey 

Report (FSSR) which identifies the final radiological conditions of the site and requests that the 

NRC either: (1) terminate the 10 CFR Part 50 license or (2) reduce the 10 CFR Part 50 license 

boundary to the footprint of the ISFSI. For decommissioning reactors with no ISFSI, or an ISFSI 

holding a specific license under 10 CFR Part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent 

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor Related Greater 

Than Class C Waste,” completion of reactor decommissioning will result in the termination of the 

10 CFR Part 50 license. The NRC will approve the FSSR and the licensee’s request if it 

determines that the licensee has met both of the following conditions: 

• The remaining dismantlement has been performed in accordance with the approved 

LTP. 

• The final radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility 

and site are suitable for release in accordance with the LTR. 

2.1.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2010 Activities 

• Staff finalized the transfer of the possession license for Zion Units 1 and 2 from Exelon 

Generating Company LLC to ZionSolutions LLC to facilitate decommissioning. This will 

allow the implementation of an innovative approach to reactor decommissioning, which, 

if successful, could become the model for decommissioning other power reactor sites. 

• Staff completed an expanded acceptance review of the revised LTP for Fermi Unit 1 

after first indentifying significant additional information necessary for its review. 

• In February 2010, staff issued a license amendment to release off-shore portions of the 

San Onofre Unit 1 cooling intake and outlet pipes for unrestricted use. 

• To ensure openness during the regulatory process, the staff held public meetings,2

including a meeting regarding Humboldt Bay to discuss decommissioning actions. 

 

 

2 Public meetings include formal public meetings sponsored by the NRC and/or the licensee, as well as 

technical meetings that are open to observation by members of the public.
6 

• During the past year, staff performed inspections at Dresden Unit 1, Fermi Unit 1, 

Humboldt Bay, Indian Point 1, La Crosse, Millstone Unit 1, Peach Bottom Unit 1, Three 

Mile Island Unit 2, and Zion Units 1 and 2. 

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2011 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in power reactor decommissioning will remain at a similar level as in FY 2010, with the 

number of sites expected to stay the same as most reactors stay in SAFSTOR. Fermi and 

Humboldt Bay reactors are expected to complete decommissioning in 2012 and 2015, 

respectively. Through unique decommissioning approaches such as the one employed at Zion, 

there may be an increase in the rate of completion of power reactor decommissioning in the 

future.
7 

Table 2-1 Power and Early Demonstration Reactors Undergoing Decommissioni

Reactor Location PSDAR* 

Submitted

LTP Submitted

LTP Approve

1 Dresden Unit 1 Morris, IL 6/98 TBD TBD 2 Fermi Unit 1 Newport, MI 4/98 2009 2010 3 Humboldt Bay Eureka, CA 2/98 2011 2012 4 Indian Point Unit 1 Buchanan, NY 1/96 2020 2022 5 La Crosse La Crosse, WI 5/91 TBD TBD 6 Millstone Unit 1 Waterford, CT 6/99 TBD TBD 7 Nuclear Ship Savannah Baltimore, MD 12/08 2014 TBD 8 Peach Bottom Unit 1 Delta, PA 6/98 TBD TBD 9 San Onofre Unit 1 San Clemente, CA 12/98 TBD TBD 10 Three Mile Island Unit 2 Harrisburg, PA 2/79 TBD TBD 11 Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor Pleasanton, CA 7/66 TBD TBD 12 Zion Units 1 & 2 Zion, IL 2/00 TBD TBD 
8 

TBD to be determined * PSDAR or DP equivalent. ** For decommissioning reactors with no ISFSI or an ISFSI licensed under 10 CFR Part 72, completi

decommissioning will result in the termination of the 10 CFR Part 50 license. For reactors with an the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, completion of decommissioning will result in reducing the 10 CFboundary to the footprint of the ISFSI. 

Note: Licensees submitted DPs (or equivalent) before 1996 and PSDARs after 1996. 
9 

2.2 Research and Test Reactor Decommissioning

NRC research and test reactor decommissioning activities include project management for the 

decommissioning of these reactors, technical review of licensee submittals in support of 

decommissioning, core inspections, support for the development of rulemaking and guidance, 

public outreach, and participation in industry conferences and workshops. In addition, the staff 

routinely processes license amendments and exemptions to support the progressive stages of 

decommissioning. The staff regularly coordinates with other offices on issues affecting research 

and test reactors, both operating and decommissioning. 

As of September 30, 2010, the 12 research and test reactors identified in Table 2-2 are 

undergoing decommissioning, representing an increase of 1 facility (the University of Arizona) 

from the previous FY. In FY 2010, fuel was transferred from General Atomics TRIGA Mark F 

and Mark I research reactors to DOE for storage. General Atomics is now proceeding with 

decommissioning of these reactors. Plant status summaries for all decommissioning research 

and test reactors are available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/researchtest/. 

2.2.1 Decommissioning Process 

The decommissioning process begins when a licensee decides to permanently cease 

operations. The major steps of the decommissioning process are submittal, review and 

approval of a DP, implementation of the DP, and completion of decommissioning. 

Application

Within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations, the licensee must submit a written 

application for license termination to the NRC, and in no case later than 1 year before license 

expiration. Each application for license termination must be accompanied by a DP submitted for 

NRC approval. The NRC and licensee hold presubmittal meetings to agree on the format and 

content of the DP. These meetings are intended to improve the efficiency of the DP 

development and review process. 

Decommissioning Plan

The DP must include the following: 

• The choice of the alternative3

 for decommissioning with a description of the planned 

decommissioning activities; 

 

3

 An alternative is acceptable if it provides for completion of decommissioning without significant delay. 

Consideration will be given to delayed alternatives only when necessary to protect public health and safety, 

including cases where waste disposal capacity is unavailable or other site-specific conditions, such as the 

presence of co-located nuclear facilities, are a factor. 
10 

• A description of the controls and limits on procedures and equipment to protect 

occupational and public health and safety; 

• A description of the planned final radiation survey; 

• An updated estimate of the expected costs for the alternative chosen, including the 

following: 

– a comparison with the estimated present funds set aside for decommissioning 

– a plan for assuring the availability of adequate funds for completion of 

decommissioning 

• A description of technical specifications, quality assurance provisions, and physical 

security plan provisions in place during decommissioning; and 

• A discussion of the means for evaluating the environmental impacts associated with 

decommissioning activities, such as a supplement to the environmental report describing 

any new information or significant environmental change associated with the licensee’s 

proposed termination activities. 

In addition, the licensee must demonstrate that it will meet the applicable requirements of the 

LTR. 

The technical review is guided by NUREG-1537, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing 

Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors,” issued February 1996, and applicable 

portions of NUREG-1757. The DP is approved by license amendment, as a supplement to the 

Safety Evaluation Report (SER), or equivalent. 

Implementation of the Decommissioning Plan

For DPs in which the major dismantlement activities are delayed by first placing the facility in 

storage, planning for these delayed activities may be less detailed. Updated detailed plans 

must be submitted and approved before the start of any dismantlement activities. 

For DPs that delay completion of decommissioning by including a period of storage or 

surveillance, the licensee shall meet the following conditions: 

• Funds needed to complete decommissioning will be placed into an account segregated 

from the licensee’s assets and outside the licensee’s administrative control during the 

storage or surveillance period, or a surety method or fund statement of intent will be 

maintained in accordance with the criteria of 10 CFR 50.75(e). 

• Means will be included for adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels over 

the storage or surveillance period. 

After approval of the DP, the licensee or responsible party must complete decommissioning in 

accordance with the approved DP. The NRC staff will periodically inspect the decommissioning 
11 

operations at the site to ensure compliance with the DP. These inspections will normally include 

in-process and confirmatory radiological surveys. 

Completion of Decommissioning

At the conclusion of decommissioning activities, the licensee will submit an FSSR which 

identifies the final radiological conditions of the site and request that the NRC terminate the 

10 CFR Part 50 license. The NRC will approve the FSSR and the licensee’s termination 

request if it determines that the licensee has met the following conditions: 

• The decommissioning has been performed in accordance with the approved DP. 

• The final radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility 

and site are suitable for release in accordance with the LTR. 

2.2.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2010 Activities 

• In February 2010, the NRC approved a dose assessment approach, via an amendment 

to the licenses for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Mockup 

and Plum Brook facilities, to demonstrate that the stream bed and banks of the Plum 

Brook between the site and the Sandusky Bay meet the criteria for unrestricted use prior 

to license termination. 

• The NRC staff reviewed DPs for the Worcester Polytechnic Institute and University of 

Arizona facilities. 

• The staff performed inspections at Ford Nuclear Reactor, General Atomics TRIGA Mark 

F, General Atomics TRIGA Mark I, General Electric-VESR, NASA Mockup and Plum 

Brook, and Veterans Administration facilities. 

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2011 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in research and test reactor decommissioning is expected to increase in FY 2011 and 

beyond, with Ford Nuclear Reactor and NASA Mockup and Plum Brook facilities expected to 

complete decommissioning in FY 2012. Decommissioning is expected to be completed at the 

Veterans Administration, University of Arizona, and University of Illinois facilities in FY 2013. 
12 

Table 2-2 Research and Test Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning 

Reactor Location Status Completion o

Decomm.

1 Ford Nuclear Reactor Ann Arbor, MI DP Approved 2011 2 General Atomics TRIGA Mark F San Diego, CA DP Approved 2019 3 General Atomics TRIGA Mark I San Diego, CA DP Approved 2019 4 General Electric- Hitachi GETR Sunol, CA Possession-Only 2019 5 General Electric-Hitachi VESR Sunol, CA Possession-Only 2019 6 NASA Mockup Sandusky, OH DP Approved 2011 7 NASA Plum Brook Sandusky, OH DP Approved 2011 8 University of Arizona Tucson, AZ DP Submitted 2012 9 University of Buffalo Buffalo, NY Possession-Only TBD 10 University of Illinois Urbana, IL DP Approved 2012 11 Veterans Administration Omaha, NE DP Submitted 2012 12 Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA DP Submitted TBD 

Notes: GETR General Electric Test Reactor 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration TBD to be determined TRIGA Training, Research, Isotopes General Atomics VESR Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor 
13 

2.3 Complex Material Facility Decommissioning

Materials facilities decommissioning activities include maintaining regulatory oversight of 

complex decommissioning sites, undertaking financial assurance reviews, examining issues and 

funding options to facilitate remediation of sites in non-Agreement States, interacting with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), interacting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), inspecting complex decommissioning sites, conducting public outreach, participating 

in international decommissioning activities, conducting program evaluations, and participating in 

industry conferences and workshops. In addition, the staff routinely reviews decommissioning 

financial assurance submittals for operating materials and fuel cycle facilities and maintains a 

financial instrument security program. 

As of September 30, 2010, 19 complex materials sites are undergoing decommissioning (see 

Table 2-3). Complex material sites are defined as sites where the complexity of the 

decommissioning will require more than minimal technical and administrative support from the 

headquarters program office. It is expected that these sites will take more than a year to 

complete the decommissioning process. Examples of complex materials sites include: sites 

with ground water contamination; sites containing significant soil contamination; sites in which 

the owners are in bankruptcy, any site where a decommissioning plan is required; all fuel cycle 

facilities undergoing decommissioning; and sites where there is significant public and/or 

Congressional interest. 

Table 2-3 identifies whether the completion compliance criteria are based on the dose-based 

LTR criteria or the concentration-based Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) 

Action Plan criteria. Under the provisions of 10 CFR 20.1401(b), any licensee or responsible 

party that submitted its DP before August 20, 1998, and received NRC approval of that DP 

before August 20, 1999, may use the SDMP Action Plan criteria for site remediation. In the staff 

requirements memorandum on SECY-99-195, “Notation Vote on an Exemption for 

Decommissioning Management Program Sites with Decommissioning Plans under Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission Review and Eligible for Grandfathering, Pursuant to 

10 CFR 20.1401(b)(3),” dated August 18, 1999, 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 the NRC had approved all 12 DPs by the deadline. All other sites must use 

the dose-based criteria of the LTR. Only one complex material site remains eligible to use the 

SDMP Action Plan criteria (see Table 2-3). 

Status summaries for the complex materials sites undergoing decommissioning are provided at 

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/complex/. 

2.3.1 Decommissioning Process 

Any one of the following events can initiate the decommissioning process: 

• The license expires; 
14 

• The licensee has decided to permanently cease operations at the entire site (or in any 

separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity such that the 

building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements). 

In the parenthetical cases, the decommissioning process does not lead to license 

termination; 

• No principal activities have been conducted for a period of 24 months; 

• No principal activities have been conducted for a period of 24 months in any separate 

building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity such that the building or 

outdoor area is unsuitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements. In these 

cases, the decommissioning process does not lead to license termination. 

Major steps in the decommissioning process are notification of cessation of operations, 

submittal, review and approval of the DP, implementation of the DP, and completion of 

decommissioning. 

Notification

Within 60 days of the occurrence of any of the triggering conditions, the licensee or responsible 

party is required to notify the NRC of such occurrence and either begin decommissioning or, if 

required, submit a DP within 12 months of notification and begin decommissioning after 

approval of the plan.4

 The regulations authorize alternative schedules, with NRC approval. 

Decommissioning Plan

A DP must be submitted if required by license condition or if the NRC has not previously 

approved the procedures and activities necessary to decommission and the procedures could 

increase potential health and safety impacts on workers or the public, such as in any of the 

following cases: 

• Procedures would involve techniques not applied routinely during cleanup or 

maintenance operations; 

• Workers would be entering areas not normally occupied where surface contamination 

and radiation levels are significantly higher than routinely encountered during operation; 

• Procedures could result in significantly greater airborne concentrations than are present 

during operations; 

• Procedures could result in significantly greater releases of radioactive material to the 

environment than those associated with operations. 

Before submitting a DP, the licensee or responsible party meets with the NRC to agree on the 

form and content of the DP. This presubmittal meeting is intended to make the DP review 

process more efficient by reducing the need for requests for additional information (RAIs). It is 

 

4

 Unlike the case of nuclear power reactor decommissioning, complex material site licensees or responsible 

parties cannot proceed with decommissioning until the DP is approved. 
15 

important for the NRC and the licensee to work effectively in a cooperative manner to resolve 

the issues that make the decommissioning of complex sites challenging. 

In a process similar to LTPs and research and test reactor DPs, the complex material site DP 

review process begins with an acceptance review, to ensure that the DP contains: (1) all 

required information; (2) legible drawings; (3) justification for any proprietary information claims; 

and, (4) no obvious technical inadequacies. The objective of the acceptance review is to verify 

that the application contains sufficient information before the staff begins an in-depth technical 

review. In addition, the staff will conduct a limited technical review to identify significant 

technical deficiencies at an early stage, thereby avoiding a detailed technical review of a 

technically inadequate submittal. At the conclusion of the acceptance review, the NRC will 

either accept the DP for detailed technical review or not accept it and return it to the licensee or 

responsible party with the deficiencies identified. The staff’s detailed technical review is guided 

by NUREG-1757 and its supporting references. 

The staff documents the results of its detailed technical review in an SER and either an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) or EIS. Before finalizing the EA/EIS, the staff provides its draft 

to the appropriate State agency for review and comment. The final EA is published in full or 

summary form in the Federal Register, with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If a 

FONSI cannot be made, an EIS is developed. 

The NRC conducts reviews of DPs proposing restricted release in two phases. The first phase 

of the review focuses on the financial assurance and institutional control provisions of the DP. 

The staff will begin the review of the remainder of the DP only after it is satisfied that the 

licensee’s or responsible parties’ proposed institutional control and financial assurance 

provisions comply with the requirements of the LTR. The applicable portions of NUREG-1757 

guide both phases of the review. 

The second phase of the review addresses all other sections of the technical review and will 

usually include the development of an EIS. If an EIS is to be prepared, the following steps are 

taken: 

• publication of a Notice of Intent; 

• public scoping meeting; 

• preparation and publication of the scoping report; 

• preparation and publication of the draft EIS; 

• public comment period on the draft EIS, including a public meeting; and 

• preparation and publication of the final EIS. 

In parallel with the development of the EIS, the staff develops a draft and final SER. The staff 

coordinates the development of the draft SER with the development of the draft EIS so that any 

RAIs can be consolidated. 
16 

Regardless of whether an EA or EIS is developed, the staff structures its reviews to minimize 

the number of RAIs, without diminishing the technical quality or completeness of the licensee’s 

or responsible party’s ultimate submittal. For example, the staff first develops a set of additional 

information needs and clarifications, including the bases for the additional information and 

clarifications, and then meets with the licensee or responsible party to discuss the issues. The 

staff gives notice of, and conducts, this meeting in accordance with NRC requirements for 

meetings open to the public. The staff documents the results of the meeting in a meeting report. 

The formal RAI includes any issues that cannot be resolved during the meeting. In developing 

the final RAI, the staff documents the insufficient or inadequate information submitted by the 

licensee or responsible party and communicates what additional information is needed to 

address the identified deficiencies. The quality and completeness of the licensee’s DP factor 

directly into the scope and extent of the NRC’s RAIs. 

After publication of the FONSI or EIS, the NRC issues a license amendment, approving the DP, 

along with any additional license conditions found to be necessary as a result of the findings of 

the EA, EIS, and/or the SER. 

Implementation of the Decommissioning Plan

After approval of the DP, the licensee or responsible party must complete decommissioning 

within 24 months in accordance with the approved DP, or apply for an alternate schedule. The 

NRC staff will periodically inspect the decommissioning operations at the site to ensure 

compliance with the DP. These inspections will normally include in-process and confirmatory 

radiological surveys. 

Completion of Decommissioning

As the final step in decommissioning, the licensee or responsible party is required to do the 

following: 

• Certify the disposition of all regulated material, including accumulated wastes, by 

submitting a completed NRC Form 314, “Certificate of Disposition of Materials,” or 

equivalent information. 

• Conduct a radiation survey of the premises where licensed activities were carried out (in 

accordance with the procedures in the approved DP, if a DP is required) and submit a 

report of the results of the survey (FSSR), unless the licensee or responsible party 

demonstrates in some other manner that the premises are suitable for release in 

accordance with the LTR. 

Licenses are terminated or the site is released by written notice when the NRC determines that 

the licensee has met the following conditions: 

• Regulated material has been disposed of properly. 

• Reasonable effort has been made to eliminate residual radioactive contamination, if 

present. 
17 

• The radiation survey has been performed or other information submitted by the licensee 

or responsible party demonstrates that the premises are suitable for release in 

accordance with the LTR.
18 

2.3.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2010 Activities 

• In February 2010, the NRC issued a Technical Evaluation Report documenting its review 

of the Phase 1 DP for West Valley. Staff also concurred on the EIS for West Valley. 

This, along with other actions by DOE and the State of New York, will allow progress to 

be made in decommissioning major parts of the facility. 

• In July 2010, the staff approved the Phase 2 DP for Mallinckrodt Chemical, which 

authorizes Mallinckrodt to proceed with the decommissioning of the NRC-licensed 

portions of the site. 

• The staff continued implementing the limited involvement approach approved by the 

Commission in June 2008, for the Navy’s remediation of the Hunters Point Shipyard 

(HPS) site in San Francisco, CA. 

• The staff conducted a site visit at McClellan Air Force Base and met with Air Force, EPA, 

State of California agencies, the City of San Francisco, and Sacramento County in 

March 2010. The staff concluded that the limited involvement approach would be 

appropriate. 

• The staff conducted a full site visit of the Navy’s Alameda Naval Air Station in March 

2010, and met with the Navy, EPA, State of California agencies, and the City of 

Alameda. Information from the site visit and additional discussions with the Navy will be 

evaluated to determine the appropriate approach for Alameda. 

• The staff worked closely with the Office of the General Counsel and the U.S. Department 

of Justice in evaluating and negotiating a settlement agreement to ensure the proper 

decommissioning of the Kerr-McGee Cimarron site. Tronox, Inc., the licensee for KerrMcGee Cimarron, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2009. 

• In FY 2010, the staff continued review of DPs for the ABC Laboratories and the 

Westinghouse Electric-Hematite sites. 

• The staff performed inspections at AAR Manufacturing, ABB Prospects, ABC Labs, 

Jefferson Proving Grounds, Mallinckrodt Chemical, NWI Breckenridge, Sigma-Aldrich, 

Stepan, UNC Naval Products facilities, and Westinghouse Electric-Hematite. 

• During the past year, the staff participated in public meetings for Westinghouse ElectricHematite, West Valley Demonstration Project, Schofield Barracks, and Pohakuloa 

Training Area sites. The staff also participated in industry conferences and workshops. 
19 

Other significant activities are described below. 

Progress at NWI Land Management - Breckenridge

NWI Breckenridge remains in bankruptcy, but a court settlement resulted in the funds necessary 

to complete remediation. With the availability of funding through the settlement, progress was 

made throughout FY 2010 to remediate the site. A remediation plan was approved by the NRC 

in February 2010, and remediation recommenced at the site in May 2010. In August 2010, 

inspectors responded after NWI Breckenridge’s remediation contractor reported a spill of 

approximately 30 gallons of an unknown and potentially hazardous liquid while performing 

excavation and remediation activities. Decommissioning has since resumed after analysis of 

the soil, and the staff will continue to monitor decommissioning activities by performing 

inspections, and continue to meet with local interest groups. Upon completion of 

decommissioning, the licensee will perform a final status survey, and the NRC will perform a 

confirmatory survey. 

Interactions with the Military about the Regulation of Residual Contamination

The staff’s site visits to the Navy’s Alameda site provided insights about radionuclide 

contaminants that are under NRC jurisdiction (e.g., strontium-90 and depleted uranium) and that 

are often comingled with radium-226. Until recently, the Navy believed that Alameda only had 

radium-226 contamination. These radionuclides have been found primarily in soil, buildings, 

sewer lines, and two landfills, but the strontium-90 was thought to be limited to the landfills 

where strontium-90 deck and personnel markers were buried in the 1960s and 1970s. The 

Navy is in the early phase of remediation investigation for both the radioactive and hazardous 

chemical contaminants under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) process and EPA oversight. The Alameda information prompted 

the staff to meet with each of the military services to discuss the Alameda example and ask if 

there are other sites similar to Alameda. The staff requested that the Navy provide a list of sites 

where radionuclides have been confirmed and where the remediation process has been started. 

The site list also provides information about each site. The Navy’s site list identifies 20 sites 

with radioactive material under NRC jurisdiction. The information from most of these sites 

confirms that radium-226 is comingled with other radionuclides. Region and Headquarters 

decommissioning staff are discussing with the Navy how to effectively and efficiently regulate 

the decommissioning of these sites in coordination with the ongoing remediation under 

CERCLA. Each of the services has indicated that there are additional sites on active 

installations, where contamination is only suspected and information is limited. 

Clarification of the NRC’s Jurisdiction of Military Radium-226

The Statement of Considerations (SOC) for NRC’s NARM rule, included a commitment for NRC 

to interact with the military to resolve potential issues regarding the discussion in the SOC that 

the NRC does not have jurisdiction for certain forms of radium-226 that are military operational 

and under military control. During FY 2010 the staff continued its interactions with the military 

services to understand the forms of radium-226 that are under military control (e.g., 

contamination, devices in vehicles and aircraft, and devices in storage) and associated military 

activities (e.g., remediation of contamination in soil and landfills, and removal of devices from 

vehicles). The military also provided information to clarify if any of these forms could be used in 

military operations. The staff is also working with each military service to obtain a list of sites 
20 

with confirmed radioactive material, including radium-226, that will provide estimates of how 

many sites could come under NRC jurisdiction. These interactions as well as the staff reviews 

of the HPS and McClellan site contributed to identifying potential issues, obtaining the views of 

each military service regarding the question of the NRC’s jurisdiction, and estimating the 

resources needed to support regulation of this form of radium. This information is the basis for 

the staff’s analysis and recommendations on NRC’s jurisdiction for certain forms of military 

radium-226. The staff plans to submit a separate Commission paper on this topic in FY 2011. 

Coordination with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regarding FUSRAP Sites

Although New Jersey is now an Agreement State, it did not request regulatory authority for 

11(e).2 material. As a result, the NRC retained jurisdiction over the Stepan Company site. 

There are three burial pits at the Stepan site. To date, the license is suspended for all three 

burial pits. The NRC staff continues to perform periodic inspections to ensure that the licensee 

complies with environmental monitoring requirements. In June and August 2010, NRC staff 

conducted site inspections and independent split samples were collected to confirm final status 

surveys. In April 2010, Stepan Company submitted a request to dispose of soil stockpiles, 

generated outside the burial pits, at an off-site Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 

Subtitle C facility. 

In addition, the staff also participated in three interagency meetings and one public meeting 

related to the USACE proposed site decommissioning activities at the BWXT Shallow Land 

Disposal Area (SLDA) Site in Vandergrift, Pennsylvania. The NRC staff is currently reviewing 

USACE’s Revised Work Plans for the BWXT-SLDA site submitted in August 2010. The NRC 

staff is also working with USACE to finalize a Confirmatory Order by early spring 2011, which 

will allow suspension of the BWXT-SLDA license and for the USACE to initiate remediation 

activities of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) material under their 

CERCLA authority. 

Army Sites in Hawaii

In 2005, an Army contractor clearing a firing range identified 15 “tail fin assemblies” as being 

from the M101 spotting round – a round used with the Davy Crockett Weapons System. The 

Davy Crockett was a nuclear-capable weapon, and a depleted uranium spotting round was used 

during testing activities that were concluded in the 1960s. The depleted uranium was licensed 

by the Atomic Energy Commission for manufacture and distribution to Army field units. 

Concerns of residents near firing ranges at the Schofield Barracks (on the island of Oahu) and 

Pohakuloa Training Area (on the island of Hawaii) resulted in NRC staff performing inspections 

to verify the presence of depleted uranium at these sites. The Army is in the process of 

determining the extent to which depleted uranium from Davy Crockett munitions testing is 

present at other Army bases on the US mainland. 

 

In November 2008, the Army submitted a request for a possession-only license for its sites 

containing depleted uranium. This license request was supplemented in July 2009, when the 

Army submitted physical security and radiation monitoring plans. In FY 2010, the staff has 

reviewed the Army’s generic environmental monitoring plan and the specific monitoring plans for 

Schofield and Pohakuloa. In March 2010, the NRC requested that, within six months, the Army 

provide plans for each of the seven remaining Army locations containing DU. In September, 
21 

NRC received a letter from the Army requesting an additional two-week extension. On 

September 13, 2010, the Army indicated that it would be submitting a plan for Fort Benning, with 

subsequent reports to follow on a schedule of one plan per month basis. 

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2011 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in the decommissioning of complex material sites is expected to increase in FY 2011, 

with sites such as ABC Laboratories, Beltsville Agricultural Research Laboratory, NWI 

Breckenridge, and Sigma-Aldrich expected to complete decommissioning in the coming year. 

The staff will also continue its focus on Army sites with depleted uranium contamination, and 

continue to work toward clarifying NRC’s jurisdiction of military radium-226.
22 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

ProjeRem

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

revised 9/06, 4/07+

5/98 TBD 

LTR-RES 9/12 

2 ABB Prospects, Inc. Windsor, CT 4/03 6/04 LTR-UNRES 12/13 ABC Labs Columbia, MO 10/09 TBD LTR-UNRES 9/11 4 Babcock & Wilcox 

(Shallow Land Disposal Area) 

Vandergrift, PA 6/01 

revised N/A 

N/A LTR-UNRES 9/15 

5 Beltsville Agricultural 

Research Laboratory 

Beltsville, MD 8/09 TBD LTR-UNRES 12/10 

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

revised 5/03 

12/03 LTR-UNRES 6/23 

7 Hunter’s Point Naval 

Shipyard*** (former Naval shipyard) 

San Francisco, CA 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 

8 Jefferson Proving Ground Madison, IN 8/99 

revised 6/02, 9/13 

10/02 TBD 

LTR-RES 12/13 

9 Kerr-McGee Cimarron, OK 4/95 8/99 Action-UNRES 1/17 10 Mallinckrodt Chemical, 

Inc. 

St. Louis, MO Phase 1 

11/97, Phase 2 9/08 

Phase 1 5/02, Phase 2 7/10 

LTR-UNRES 1/12 
23 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

ProjeRem

11 McClellan*** (former Air 

Force base) 

Sacramento, CA 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 

12 NWI Breckenridge Breckenridge, 

MI 

3/04 8/04 LTR-UNRES 12/10 

13 Pohakuloa Training Area 

(Army site) 

Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A 

14 Schofield Army Barracks 

(Army site) 

Oahu, HI N/A N/A N/A N/A 

15 Sigma-Aldrich Maryland 

Heights, MO 

10/08, revised 11/10 

5/09, Revised TBD 

LTR-UNRES 6/11 

16 Stepan Chemical 

Company 

Maywood, NJ N/A N/A LTR-UNRES 9/14 

17 UNC Naval Products New Haven, 

CT 

8/98, revised 2004,12/06 

4/99, revised 10/07 

LTR-UNRES 9/11 

18 West Valley 

Demonstration Project 

West Valley, NY 

Phase 1 3/09 

Phase 1 2/10 

LTR-UNRES** TBD 

19 Westinghouse Electric 

(Hematite Facility) 

Festus, MO 4/04 

revised 6/06, 8/09 

TBD LTR-UNRES 12/13 
24 

* Timeline for completion is protracted because of the need to satisfy National Environmen

requirements, to conduct a public hearing, to address multiphase DP submittals, or a coabove. 

** The West Valley Phase I DP includes plans to release a large portion of the site for unre

remainder of the site may have a perpetual license or be released with restrictions. 

*** The Navy’s Hunter’s Point Shipyard site and the Air Force’s McClellan site are being rem

and Air Force, respectively, under the required CERCLA process and EPA oversight. It some licensable material might be present at both sites; however, NRC has not licensed the Commission has approved a “limited involvement approach to stay informed” and wiCERCLA process and EPA oversight. More information is available on this approach in 

+ The staff is currently reviewing the draft legal agreement and restrictive covenant for resNotes: • The compliance criteria identified in this table present the staff’s most recent information 

necessarily represent the current or likely outcome. 

• Abbreviations used in this table include: “N/A” for not applicable, “TBD” for to be determ

SDMP Action Plan criteria, “LTR” for LTR criteria, “RES” for restricted use, and “UNRES

• Reasons for multiple DP submittals range from changes in the favored decommissioning 

phased implementation of decommissioning, to poor submittals. 
25 

2.4 Uranium Recovery Facility Decommissioning5

In enacting the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), as amended, 

Congress had two general goals. The first was to provide a remedial action program to stabilize 

and control the residual radioactive material at various identified inactive mill sites, the second 

was to ensure the adequate regulation of uranium production activities and cleanup of mill 

tailings at mill sites that were active and licensed by the NRC (or Agreement States). At the 

time, the NRC did not have direct regulatory control over uranium mill tailings. The tailings 

themselves did not fall into any category of NRC-licensable material. Before 1978, the NRC 

was regulating tailings at active mills indirectly through its licensing of source material milling 

operations under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as supplemented by authority provided by the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as it was then construed. 

Through the provisions of Title I of UMTRCA, Congress addressed the problem of inactive, 

unregulated tailings piles. Title I of UMTRCA specifies the inactive processing sites for 

remediation. Except at the Atlas Moab site, surface reclamation activities have been completed 

and approved by the NRC at all Title I sites. However, ground water cleanup is still ongoing at 

many of these Title I sites. When ground water cleanup is completed, DOE will submit a revised 

long-term surveillance plan (LTSP) for NRC concurrence. Table 2-4a identifies the Title I sites 

that are undergoing decommissioning. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),

Section 40.27, “General License for Custody and Long-Term Care of Residual Radioactive 

Material Disposal Sites,” governs the long-term care of Title I sites under a general license held 

by either DOE or the State in which the site is located. 

 

Title II of UMTRCA addresses mill tailings produced at active sites licensed by the NRC or an 

Agreement State. Title II amended the definition of byproduct material to include mill tailings 

and added specific authority for the Commission to regulate this new category of byproduct 

material at licensed sites. Title II uranium recovery decommissioning activities include 

regulatory oversight of decommissioning uranium recovery sites; review of site characterization 

plans and data; review and approval of reclamation plans (RPs); preparation of EAs and EISs; 

inspection of decommissioning activities, including confirmatory surveys; decommissioning cost 

estimate reviews, including annual surety updates; and oversight of license termination. 

Regulations governing uranium recovery facility decommissioning are at 10 CFR Part 40, 

“Domestic Licensing of Source Material,” and in Appendix A to that Part, “Criteria Relating to the 

Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings of Wastes Produced by the Extraction 

or Concentration of Source Material from Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material 

Content.” Licensed operations include conventional uranium mill facilities and in situ recovery 

(ISR) facilities, as both types of these facilities conduct “uranium milling” (as defined in 10 CFR 

40.4). Table 2-4b identifies the Title II sites no longer operating and in decommissioning. As of 

September 30, 2009, 11 Title II uranium recovery facilities are undergoing decommissioning. 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 40.28, “General License for Custody and 

Long-Term Care of Uranium or Thorium Byproduct Materials Disposal Sites,” governs the longterm care of Title II conventional uranium mill sites under a general license held by either DOE 

or the State in which the site is located. Status summaries for the Title II sites undergoing 

decommissioning are provided at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/. 

 

5

 This report does not address regulation of new or operating uranium recovery facilities with the exception of 

a brief discussion on their decommissioning. 
26 

2.4.1 Decommissioning Process for Uranium Mills 

These facilities are not subject to the license termination criteria set forth in Subpart E, 

“Radiological Criteria for License Termination,” to 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for Protection 

Against Radiation.” They are subject instead to similar requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, as summarized below. 

Any one of the following events may initiate the decommissioning process for uranium recovery 

facilities: 

• The license expires or the license is revoked; 

• The licensee has decided to permanently cease principal activities at the entire site or in 

any separate building or outdoor area; 

• No principal activities have been conducted for a period of 24 months (except for 

impoundments and disposal areas); 

• No principal activities have been conducted for a period of 24 months in any separate 

building or outdoor area (except for impoundments and disposal areas). 

The uranium recovery facility decommissioning process includes several major steps, 

depending on the type of facility. These steps may include notification of intent to 

decommission; submittal, review and approval of the DP6

 or RP; implementation of the DP/RP; 

completion of decommissioning/reclamation; submittal and review of a completion report; 

submittal and review of a well-field restoration report (for ISR facilities); submittal and review of 

an LTSP for sites with tailings piles; termination of the license; and transfer of the property to the 

long-term care custodian for sites with tailings piles, under a general license held by either DOE 

or a State. 

Notification

Within 60 days of the occurrence of any of the triggering events, the licensee must notify the 

NRC of such occurrence and either begin decommissioning or, if required, submit a DP/RP 

within 12 months of notification and begin decommissioning upon plan approval. For new ISR 

or conventional facilities, the licensee submits ground water restoration, surface reclamation, 

and facility DPs with the initial license application. The NRC reviews and approves these plans 

before issuing a license. For ISR facilities, ground water restoration should occur at one wellfield, while other well-fields are actively extracting uranium. Under 10 CFR 40.42(f), facilities 

may delay decommissioning if the NRC determines that such a delay is not detrimental to public 

health and the environment and is in the public interest. 

 

6

 For uranium recovery sites, DPs typically deal with the remediation of structures, while RPs typically deal 

with tailings impoundments, ground water cleanup, and other remediation efforts. 
27 

Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan—Existing Facilities

All uranium recovery facilities currently licensed by the NRC have NRC-approved DP/RPs. 

Therefore, for these facilities, the staff would review only amendments to the existing DP/RPs. 

Amendments would be necessary under the following circumstances: 

• Environmental contamination exists or other new conditions arise that were not 

considered in the existing DP/RP; 

• The licensee requests a change in reclamation design or procedures; or 

• The licensee requests a change in the timing of restoration. 

Depending on the complexity of the revision, a meeting between the licensee and the NRC staff 

may be warranted. 

Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan—New Facilities

Procedures for reviewing DP/RPs for new facilities are similar to those for existing facilities. 

Note that, under 10 CFR 51.20(b)(8), preparation of an EIS is a required part of the licensing 

process for new uranium milling facilities. A generic EIS is now in place for ISR facilities. Site 

specific supplemental EISs (SEISs) are being developed for the new ISR license applications 

under review, and these SEISs will tier off of the generic EIS. 

Implementation of the Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan

Typically, a DP/RP is submitted with an application for an ISR facility. As the licensee prepares 

to enter decommissioning, a revised DP/RP is submitted. After approval of the DP/RP, the 

licensee must complete decommissioning within 24 months or apply for an alternate schedule. 

For conventional facilities, with ground water contamination, or for ISR facilities with well-field 

restoration, 24 months is usually insufficient, because remediation of ground water 

contamination is more time-consuming than remediation of surface contamination. As such, an 

alternate schedule may be appropriate. 

The NRC staff will inspect the licensee activities during decommissioning/reclamation to ensure 

compliance with the DP/RP, associated license conditions, and NRC and other applicable 

regulations (e.g., U.S. Department of Transportation regulations). The staff will also ensure that 

there is no degradation in ground water quality after the completion and approval of ground 

water restoration by monitoring the ground water for a period of time. 

Decommissioning at uranium recovery sites involves two main activities, surface reclamation 

(i.e., soil contamination cleanup, 11e.(2) byproduct material reclamation and disposal, 

equipment removal, and structure decommissioning), and ground water restoration. Ground 

water restoration is considered completed when concentrations on and off site (depending on 

the extent of contaminant migration) meet previously established ground water protection 

standards in accordance with Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40. For the groundwater constituents 

being monitored at a given site, three types of standards are potentially applicable in 

accordance with Criterion 5B(5) in Appendix A: 
28 

(1) NRC-approved background concentrations; 

(2) Maximum contaminant levels established by the EPA (in Table 5C of 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A); and 

(3) NRC-approved alternate concentration limits (ACLs). 

If the licensee demonstrates that concentrations of monitored constituents cannot be restored to 

either background or Appendix A, Table 5C values (whichever value is higher), the staff may 

approve ACLs, after considering all the factors required in Appendix A ,Criterion 5B(6). To 

obtain approval of ACLs, the licensee submits a license amendment request and a detailed 

environmental report that addresses all the Criterion 5B(6) factors. If the staff determines that 

the ACLs are protective of public health and the environment, the staff may approve the ACLs. 

After surface decommissioning/reclamation is completed, the licensee issues a construction 

completion report for staff review and approval. As part of this review, the staff performs a 

completion inspection to confirm that surface reclamation was performed according to the 

DP/RP, license conditions, and NRC regulations. Inspections also include surveys of tailings 

disposal areas to ensure that radon emissions comply with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 6. If additional information is required, the staff will issue RAIs to address outstanding 

issues. 

License Termination—Conventional Mills

After all reclamation activities have been completed and approved, the licensee, the NRC staff, 

and the long-term custodian will start license termination procedures. Before a conventional mill 

license is terminated, the custodial agency (i.e., State agency, DOE, or other Federal agency) 

will submit an LTSP for NRC staff review and acceptance. The LTSP documents the 

custodian’s responsibilities for long-term care, including security, inspections, ground water and 

surface water monitoring, and remedial actions. Concurrent with the staff’s acceptance of an 

LTSP, the existing license is terminated and titles to any mill tailings disposal sites are 

transferred to the custodian under 10 CFR 40.28, “General License for Custody and Long-Term 

Care of Uranium or Thorium Byproduct Materials Disposal Sites.” 

License Termination—In Situ Uranium Recovery Facilities

License termination at an ISR uranium recovery facility occurs when all ground water is restored 

to acceptable levels and surface decommissioning/reclamation is completed and approved by 

the NRC. Surface decommissioning completion typically would include an inspection. Because 

10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 2 generally prohibits ISR uranium extraction facility 

owners from disposing of 11e.(2) byproduct material at their sites, long-term care of ISR 

facilities by a governmental custodian under a general license is not required. However, ISR 

facilities are still required to find a licensed 11e.(2) disposal site for their waste, though some 

facilities are allowed to dispose of liquid wastes in deep disposal wells. Thus, all ground water 

restoration and surface reclamation is performed so that the site can qualify for unrestricted 

release. 
29 

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2010 Activities 

• For Title I facilities in FY 2010, the staff reviewed Groundwater Compliance Action Plans 

for the Gunnison, Naturita, and Lakeview sites. 

• For Title II facilities in FY 2010, the staff reviewed the Pathfinder-Lucky Mc LTSP. 

• In FY 2010, staff performed site inspections at the Homestake Mining, PRI Smith Ranch, 

Rio Algom-Ambrosia Lake, and Western Nuclear Inc.-Split Rock sites. Staff also visited 

the Green River, Lakeview, Moab, Maybell West, Umetco, Shirley Basin South, and 

Riverton sites. 

• In FY 2010, staff also reviewed and approved the long-term care transfer request for the 

Maybell West site in Colorado. In March 2010, DOE became the long-term custodian 

and caretaker of the site. 

To reflect an emphasis on uranium recovery activities, NRC staff has implemented a number of 

initiatives under IDIP, including: updating site closure and site transition management directives, 

clearly defining the closure process, and seeking additional program improvements from staff 

with extensive experience. Specifically, some of the activities completed in FY 2010 include: 

• Senior staff writing site-specific summaries of their knowledge on issues at all the 

Title I and II uranium recovery sites, and training more junior staff in the field. 

• Documenting and cataloging historic Title I and II site information. 

• Creating a library of Title I and II guidance documents. 

• Implementing monthly “Lessons Learned” meetings with all of the 

decommissioning uranium recovery project managers. 

• Recorded knowledge-management seminars of the experiences of senior staff at 

Title I and Title II sites. 

• Working with DOE to finalize a site transfer protocol for the license termination of 

title II sites. 

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2011 Trends and Areas of Focus 

The staff expects the termination of several uranium milling licenses within the next few years. 

American Nuclear Corporation, Bear Creek, ExxonMobil Highlands, and Rio Algom-Ambrosia 

Lake sites are expected to complete decommissioning activities in 2011, as well as Sequoyah 

Fuels in 2012. As in FY 2010, staff will continue its increased interaction with other agencies 

and the Navajo Nation. 
30 

Table 2-4a Decommissioning Title I Uranium Recovery Sites 

Name Location Status 

1 Ambrosia Lake New Mexico Monitoring 2 Burrell Pennsylvania Monitoring 3 Canonsburg Pennsylvania Monitoring 4 Durango Colorado Active 5 Falls City Texas Monitoring 6 Grand Junction Colorado Monitoring 7 Green River Utah Active 8 Gunnison Colorado Active 9 Lakeview Oregon Active 10 Lowman Idaho Monitoring 11 Maybell Colorado Monitoring 12 Mexican Hat/Monument Valley Utah Monitoring 13 Moab Mill Utah Active 14 Naturita Colorado Monitoring 15 Rifle Colorado Active 16 Riverton Wyoming Active 17 Salt Lake City Utah Monitoring 18 Shiprock New Mexico Active 19 Slick Rock Colorado Active 
31 

Table 2-4a Decommissioning Title I Uranium Recovery Sites 

20 Spook Wyoming Monitoring 21 Tuba City Arizona Active Note: Active denotes that a site is still undergoing surface reclamation or is resolving groundwater issues. Monitoring denotes that the site is being monitored under its LTSP or a groundwater compliance action plan. 
32 

Table 2-4b Decommissioning Title II Uranium Recovery Sites 

Name Location DP/RP Approved Completio

of Decomm

1 American Nuclear Corporation Casper, WY 10/88, Revision 2006 2011 2 Bear Creek Converse County, WY 5/89 2011 3 ExxonMobil Highlands Converse County, WY 1990 2011 4 Homestake Mining Company Grants, NM Revised plan—3/95 2017 5 Pathfinder—Lucky Mc Gas Hills, WY Revised plan—7/98 TBD 6 Pathfinder—Shirley Basin Shirley Basin, WY Revised plan—12/97 TBD 7 Rio Algom—Ambrosia Lake Grants, NM 2003 (mill); 2004 (soil) 2011 8 Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Gore, OK 2008 2012 9 Umetco Minerals Corporation East Gas Hills, WY Revised soil plan—

4/01 

TBD 

10 United Nuclear Corporation Churchrock, NM 3/91, Revision 2005 TBD 11 Western Nuclear Inc.—Split Rock Jeffrey City, WY 1997 TBD Note: COGEMA, Crow Butte, Kennecott Uranium Company, and Power Resources Inc., are all operating, in standby, uranium recovery facilities in various stages of partial restoration/decommissioning. TBD to be determined 
33 

2.5 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning 

Currently, the only fuel cycle facility undergoing partial decommissioning is the Nuclear Fuel 

Services site in Erwin, Tennessee. The public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/infofinder/decommissioning/fuel-cycle/ summarizes additional information about the status of the 

facility. 

2.5.1 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning Process 

The decommissioning processes for fuel cycle facilities and for complex material sites are 

similar (see Section 2.3.1). Decommissioning activities at fuel cycle facilities can be conducted 

during operations (partial decommissioning) or after the licensee has ceased all operational 

activities. 

Project management responsibility for fuel cycle facilities resides in NMSS and the Division of 

Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards (FCSS) during licensee operations and partial site 

decommissioning, and within the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs (FSME) and within the Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection (DWMEP) during entire site decommissioning in support of license 

termination. Project management responsibility for fuel cycle facilities is transferred from FCSS 

to DWMEP when the licensee has ceased all operational activities and a critical mass of 

material no longer remains at the site. 

2.5.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2010 Activities 

In FY 2010, Nuclear Fuel Services submitted FSSRs for partial decommissioning of the Erwin, 

Tennessee site and these reports are currently undergoing staff review. The licensee will 

continue to work toward releasing areas of the site. 
34 

3. GUIDANCE AND RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES 

In FY 2010, the staff worked to increase the effectiveness of the Decommissioning Program and 

to gain a better perspective on decommissioning as a whole. The Decommissioning Program 

has been performing a self-evaluation of dose modeling to help it become more effective in the 

decommissioning of sites. Additionally, staff has been working on initiatives which will help 

prevent the creation of sites that are unable to complete decommissioning. 

Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection Self-Evaluation of Dose Modeling 

DWMEP is conducting an evaluation of the uses and applicability of computer codes employed 

in carrying out DWMEP licensing activities, particularly those codes used for the demonstration 

of compliance with the decommissioning dose criteria. This evaluation is intended for DWMEP 

management use, to enhance the efficiency of the use of codes and models and to establish 

consistency and relevance in the selection of these computer codes and models. This activity is 

expected to continue into FY 2011. 

Decommissioning Planning Rule

As the NRC’s Decommissioning Program continues to mature, and fewer sites remain in the 

Decommissioning Program, the program is evolving to focus on ways to expedite the timely and 

effective decommissioning of sites with difficult issues (e.g., those with ground water 

contamination) and the prevention of future sites that are unable to complete decommissioning 

(legacy sites). To help prevent future legacy sites, the NRC submitted SECY-09-0042, dated 

March 13, 2009, to the Commission requesting approval to publish a final rule, 

“Decommissioning Planning (10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72; RIN: 3150-AI55),” which 

was previously published as a proposed rule on January 22, 2008 (73 FR 3812). One aspect of 

the rulemaking focuses on ensuring that licensees have adequate financial assurance to 

complete decommissioning, while the other ensures that licensees have an adequate ground 

water monitoring program in place and will implement measures to minimize ground water 

contamination. Additionally, in certain cases, licensees will have new recordkeeping 

requirements for documenting spills, leaks, and unplanned releases. Implementation activities 

are on hold pending the Commission’s consideration of the final rule. 
35 

4. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 

The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) continues to support the dose modeling of 

releases of radioactive material from decommissioning sites through a number of activities 

discussed below. 

A NUREG/CR that assesses properties of engineered cover soils and composites as they relate 

to water infiltration and radon release from waste management sites such as those at 

decommissioning, low-level waste radioactive waste disposal, and uranium mill tailings sites is 

in preparation. An important conclusion from the research contained in this document is that 

soil materials used in covers do not retain “as built” properties over the period of regulatory 

interest as assumed in most performance assessments. Within about 5 to 10 years after 

installation, the properties of these materials change to values typical of surrounding soils, 

suggesting that radon releases and water infiltration could be greater than that for which the 

covers were initially designed. In a workshop held at the NRC on August 3-5, 2010, experts 

from federal and state agencies, national laboratories, academia, and the private sector 

discussed the behavior of covers and methods to evaluate and model them. In addition to the 

planned NUREG/CR, research is underway to investigate the effects of coupling hydrology, 

erosion and erosion protection approaches on the performance of engineered covers to isolate 

waste. 

 

RES is continuing the development or modification of computer codes useful for site 

decommissioning analyses. The incorporation of source-term modeling into RESRAD-OFFSITE 

is being implemented with Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) incorporating the Disposal Unit 

Source Term code, which contains several source-term models and was prepared by 

Brookhaven National Laboratory, into RESRAD-OFFSITE. 

Cooperative efforts with the DOE, NIST, academic, private sector and international experts 

continued on the Cementitious Barriers Partnership (CBP) which is in its 3rd year. The CBP is a 

multi-disciplinary collaboration formed to develop the next generation of simulation tools to 

evaluate the structural, hydraulic and chemical performance of cementitious barriers used in 

nuclear applications over extended time frames (e.g., more than 100 years for operating 

facilities and greater than 1000 years for waste management applications). The CBP has 

published numerous reports assessing the behavior of cementitious materials for waste disposal 

and describing models for their evaluation and prediction of long-term processes. 

Complementary work at NIST was begun to examine pore solution chemistry and mineral 

phases in cementitious composites with chemical and mineral admixtures. 

In the biosphere research program, soil-to-plant concentration ratios were determined for 

neptunium in three U.S. soils for uptake in alfalfa, corn, potato, and onion. Experiments to 

determine concentration ratios for iodine in these same plants continued this year. Coordination 

with international biosphere studies continued with the International Atomic Energy Agency 

(IAEA) and resulted in the publication of two documents related to the uptake of radionuclides in 

plants and animals. The IAEA Technical Report Series No. 472 “Handbook of Parameter 

Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments” 

and the associated technical document, IAEA-TECDOC-1616, “Quantification of Radionuclide 

Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments for Radiological Assessments” were 

completed and made available to the public. Cooperative studies continued with Pacific 
36 

Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Oregon State University to study radionuclide 

uptake in fruit and nut trees. 

Testing of the “Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance” (SADA) code was completed and the 

code, documentation including case studies, and training were updated and made available to 

user office staff and the public. This code provides a tool for optimizing characterization of 

contaminated sites, assessing risk, determining the location of future volumetric or 3-D samples, 

and designing remedial action. 

Work at PNNL and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) on the long term efficacy of 

bioremediation of groundwater contaminated with uranium at surficial sites and ISR facilities is 

progressing. NUREG/CR-7014, “Processes, Properties, and Conditions Controlling In Situ 

Bioremediation of Uranium in Shallow, Alluvial Aquifers,” dated July 2010, and written by 

researchers at PNNL, presents modeling results of various conditions for bioremediation of 

uranium in shallow aquifers. USGS is completing long term column experiments on the 

bioremediation of uranium in shallow aquifers with results to be modeled by PNNL. 

Experiments are also being conducted to assess bioremediation of uranium at ISR sites with 

modeling activities for these sites also underway. 

ANL has also conducted research on test methods that have been used to the behaviors of 

portland cement-based materials and slag waste. Critical evaluations were made of leach tests 

and modeling approaches that have been used to predict the release of contaminants as these 

materials are weathered. ANL’s research is to be documented in NUREG/CR-7025, 

“Radionuclide Release from Slag and Concrete Waste Materials: Conceptual Models of 

Leaching from Complex Materials and Laboratory Test Methods” which is in the process of 

being published. The primary conclusion reached from these analyses is that many test results 

have been misinterpreted due to the inappropriate application of a process model to the data 

set. The expected product of this activity is a protocol that can be used by the NRC to integrate 

the results of short-term laboratory tests and field measurements that address long-term waste 

material degradation and leaching into the model calculations that are used to assess the 

stability of wastes at NRC-regulated sites. 

RES is participating in the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Sorption Project, Phase III, to provide 

practical and widely accepted guidance for the use of reactive transport models in performance 

assessments of chemically complex sites. A final report is expected in January 2011. In 

addition, RES maintains two technical advisory groups (TAGs) that enhance communication on 

issues important to site decommissioning and provide feedback to RES on research direction. 

These are the TAG on Groundwater and Performance Monitoring and the TAG on Assessing 

Uncertainty in Simulation Modeling of Environmental Systems. The TAG on ground water 

issues continued to be particularly useful this past year in providing insights about the 

environmental contamination found at several operating nuclear power plants. 
37 

5. INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES 

NRC staff participates in multiple international activities to fulfill U.S. commitments to 

international conventions, treaties, and bilateral/multilateral agreements. Staff is also actively 

engaged in developing and updating international radiation safety standards, and technical 

support documents through interaction with international organizations and governments 

including the IAEA and the NEA (of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development). NRC participates in bilateral and trilateral exchanges with other countries, 

hosting foreign assignees and providing reciprocal assignments, developing and providing 

workshops to requesting countries, and providing technical support as needed to the Office of 

International Programs. The NRC is generally recognized in the international nuclear 

community as an experienced leader in the regulation and safety of decommissioning, waste 

disposal, site remediation and environmental protection. NRC staff interaction with international 

organizations and governments allows the NRC to share insights about successful, safe, and 

effective decommissioning approaches. This interaction also allows NRC staff to provide input 

for various international guidance and requirements that benefit other countries in establishing 

and implementing safe decommissioning strategies in the international community. The NRC 

staff gains insight into approaches and methodologies used in the international community and 

considers these approaches as they continue to risk-inform the NRC Decommissioning 

Program. The most significant of these activities are summarized below. 

International Atomic Energy Agency Activities 

The NRC staff/management participated in the review and development of IAEA Safety 

Standards, and also participated in IAEA projects related to decommissioning and waste 

disposal, the International Project on Evaluation and Demonstration of Safety for 

Decommissioning of Facilities Using Radioactive Material and developing safety 

criteria/positions regarding exemption of decommissioning installations from liability under 

Vienna Convention. Within the past year, the staff participated and supported IAEA activities in 

the following ways: 

• Participated in the 28th and 29th semi-annual review cycles of the IAEA Waste Safety 

Standards Committee and meetings held in November 2009 and June 2010, 

respectively. These meetings addressed decommissioning and other related issues 

specifically, as part of IAEA waste safety activities. 

• Participated as a Working Group Chairperson for the IAEA “Joint Technical Meeting on 

the Use of Safety Assessments in Planning and Implementation of Decommissioning of 

Facilities using Radioactive Material” to help ensure that IAEA guidance is appropriate 

and sufficient, and to provide insights from the NRC’s Decommissioning Program for 

developing guidance on the use of safety assessments in decommissioning. 

• Participated in the IAEA project and workshop on Research Reactor Decommissioning 

Demonstration. 
38 

• Participated as IAEA consultants to review and further develop the two IAEA Safety 

Guides: WS-G-2.1 (DS402) Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants and Research 

Reactors; and WS-G-2.4 (DS404) Decommissioning of Fuel Cycle Facilities. 

• Participated in two IAEA workgroup meetings to address potential exemption of nuclear 

installations being decommissioned from the Vienna Convention on Nuclear Liability and 

from the Convention on Supplementary Compensation. Staff participated in the 

development of safety criteria and a position statement, which were submitted to the 

IAEA Expert Group on International Nuclear Liability for consideration. 

• Participated in the June 2009 IAEA conference on uranium recovery and cleanup 

activities, as well as the evaluation of proposed IAEA projects for decommissioning of 

uranium recovery facilities. 

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

Safety of Radioactive Waste Management planning, documentation and organizational 

activities. 

• Participated in the preparation of the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) National 

Report sections on Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste (LLW). 

• Hosted a technical visit by senior managers and staff of the Spanish Consejo de 

Seguridad Nuclear to U.S. decommissioning and uranium recovery facilities. 

Nuclear Energy Agency Activities 

• Contributed to the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) Bureau 

Annual Report for the RWMC-43. 

• Participated as U.S. representative and core group member of the NEA Working Party 

on Decommissioning and Dismantling (WPDD). Staff attended the WPDD 10th annual 

meeting, hosted by France in November 2009. Staff participated in preparation and 

review of several WPDD documents and delivered two presentations. Staff participated 

via teleconference in two WPDD core group meetings in March 2010 and September 

2010. 
39 

6. PROGRAM INTEGRATION 

The Decommissioning Program currently encompasses power and early demonstration 

reactors, research and test reactors, complex materials facilities, fuel facilities, and uranium 

recovery facilities. In addition to the sites undergoing decommissioning regulated by the NRC, 

many complex decommissioning sites are being decommissioned under the purview of the 

Agreement States. Given this breadth of projects, the Decommissioning Program has 

undertaken many initiatives to keep abreast of sites undergoing decommissioning. 

Comprehensive Decommissioning Program

In FY 2010, NRC continued the implementation of an enhanced Comprehensive 

Decommissioning Program, which allows NRC to compile, in a centralized location, more 

complete information on the status of decommissioning and decontamination of complex sites 

and uranium recovery sites in the United States. State contacts were provided a username and 

password to edit their site summaries in NRC’s Complex Sites Tracking System database as 

new information becomes available. Summaries of information on sites regulated by the 

Agreement States are currently available to the public to ensure openness and promote 

communication and thus enhance public confidence by providing them with a national 

perspective on decommissioning. 

Financial Assurance Working Group

In FY 2010, the financial assurance working group (FAWG) continued to evaluate the financial 

assurance required for Category 1 and 2 radioactive sources to ensure that funding is available 

for the final disposition of the sources. The group also considered the issue of long-term 

storage of these unused sources. It was chaired by DWMEP, and included participants with 

varied backgrounds from DOE, the U.S. Department of State, EPA, Organization of Agreement 

States (OAS), and multiple NRC offices. The FAWG met monthly throughout most of FY 2010 

and formulated recommendations for consideration. The group found that until additional 

disposal capacity is made available, the financial burden related to the disposal of these 

materials cannot be quantified with any specificity. Thus, the FAWG focused on various 

mitigation strategies including, but not limited to, modifying current financial assurance 

regulations to broaden their scope. 

Engineered Cover Performance

In FY 2010, RES completed a research project involving assessments of the performance of 

engineered soil/composite cover materials with regard to infiltration of water through the covers 

at disposal sites. DWMEP established a working group, designated “Engineered Covers 

Technical Group”, to discuss and review the implications of this research project and the report 

that resulted. The technical group was tasked with assessing the technical findings in the report 

and its potential impact on LLW, uranium recovery, and decommissioning licensing activities, 

and assessing the short-term/long-term significance of impacts as related to performance of 

engineered covers on the health and safety of the public and the environment. 

In August 2010, RES and FSME held a workshop to discuss barrier performance. The 

workshop focused on engineered surface covers and bottom liners designed to isolate waste by 
40 

impeding surface-water infiltration into the waste systems and mitigating the migration of 

contaminants from the waste disposal site. Topics included engineered barrier performance, 

modeling, monitoring, and regulatory experiences at low-level radioactive waste, 

decommissioning, and uranium mill tailings sites. The workshop was coordinated with the 

States (i.e., Texas, South Carolina, Utah, Colorado, Washington, and New York) and Federal 

agencies (e.g., DOE, EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture/ Agricultural Research Service, 

USGS, and DOE National Laboratories). 

The Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan

The original decommissioning scope of IDIP was expanded to include uranium recovery closure 

and knowledge management activities. As a result, all DWMEP staff involved with the Uranium 

Recovery Closure and Decommissioning Programs were asked to identify improvements based 

on their own work experience. Approved work in FY 2010 and FY 2011 were documented in 

the IDIP Revision 3 that was completed in 2010. Major areas of work include: (1) consolidate 

and upgrade uranium recovery closure guidance; (2) prepare interim guidance for selected 

decommissioning topics (e.g., sensitivity and uncertainty analysis and ALARA for 

decommissioning); (3) preserve and transfer knowledge (e.g., erosion control desk guide and 

site summaries); (4) evaluate engineered cover performance based on new research; (5) 

develop new training courses for uranium recovery; and (6) improve business processes (e.g., 

improve NRC/DOE site transition process). Guidance and knowledge transfer products along 

with new training courses should enhance the internal integration of the program by providing 

information, lessons learned, and new methods that all project managers and technical 

reviewers can use in their licensing reviews and inspections. External integration with licensees 

and DOE will also be enhanced by the consolidated guidance and improved DOE site transition 

process. 
41 

7. AGREEMENT STATE ACTIVITIES 

Thirty-seven States have signed formal agreements with the NRC and assumed regulatory 

responsibility over certain byproduct, source, and small quantities of special nuclear material, 

including the decommissioning of some complex materials sites. However, after a State 

becomes an Agreement State, the NRC continues to have formal and informal interactions with 

the State. 

Formal interactions with Agreement States in FY 2010 included the following: 

• DWMEP staff participated in the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors 

(CRCPD) activities, including the 2010 Annual Meeting and the Committee on Unwanted 

Radioactive Material meeting in March 2010. 

• DWMEP staff worked with the Agreement States to incorporate more detailed 

information about complex materials decommissioning sites and uranium recovery 

facilities undergoing decommissioning under the purview of the Agreement States on the 

decommissioning Web site. These site summaries are available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/complex/. 

• Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program reviews that included 

decommissioning were conducted in several Agreement States (Alabama, Arizona, 

Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas). 

• In July 2010, NRC conducted a Health Physics for Uranium Recovery training course in 

Denver, Colorado, which was attended by staff from many Agreement State programs. 

 

The following are examples of informal interactions: 

• DWMEP staff participated in monthly OAS/CRCPD teleconferences. 

• Agreement State representatives participated in the financial assurance working group, 

discussed in Section 6 of this report. 

Table 7-1 identifies the decommissioning and uranium recovery sites in the Agreement States. 
42 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjCom

CA General Atomics San Diego, CA 10/14/96 8/26/97 TBD CA Excel Research Services, 

Inc 

Fresno, CA 6/22/06 8/30/07 TBD 

CA Providencia Holdings, Inc. Burbank, CA 7/16/01 10/31/02 TBD CA Halaco Oxnard, CA TBD CA The Boeing Company Simi Valley, CA 2/18/99 TBD CA Chevron Mining, Inc. 

(formerly Molycorp) 

Mountain Pass, CA 

6/9/06 TBD TBD 

CA AeroJet Ordnance 

Company 

Chino, CA 2/23/96 5/31/96 TBD 

CA Isotope Specialties Burbank, CA N/A N/A TBD CA Magnesium Alloy Products Compton, CA N/A N/A TBD 

CO Umetco Uravan Uravan, CO 2/01/87 TBD CO Umetco Maybell Maybell, CO 01/01/1995 1995 TBD 
43 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjCom

CO Cotter Uranium Mill Canon City, CO Revised 2005 2005 In st

TBD into 

CO Schwartzwalder Mine 

(Cotter) 

Golden, CO 12/01/1996 1997 TBD 

CO Colorado School of Mines 

Research Institute Table Mtn. 

Golden, CO 08/01/2006 TBD TBD 

CO Colorado School of Mines 

Research Institute Creekside 

Golden, CO TBD TBD TBD 

CO Sweeney Mining and Milling Boulder, CO Pending TBD CO Homestake Mining and 

Pitch 

Sargeants, CO 05/01/2001 06/01/2001 TBD 

CO Redhill Forest Fairplay, CO Pending TBD TBD CO Clean Harbors Deer Trail, CO 2005 2006 TBD 

FL 

Inuka Resources Green Cove 

Springs, FL 

TBD TBD TBD 

IL Spectrulite Consortium Madison, IL TBD 
44 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjCom

IL 

Chicago Magnesium Blue Island, IL 11/02/02 02/01/04 Phas

12/0Phas8/06 Phas11/1

IL TRONOX (formerly KerrMcGee) West Chicago, IL 09/01/93 09/01/94 

Com11/0

Unkn

KS Air Capitol Dial Wichita, KS TBD TBD TBD KS 

Aircraft Instrument & Development/RC Allen Instruments 

Wichita, KS TBD TBD TBD 

KS Century Instruments Corporation Wichita, KS TBD TBD TBD KS Instrument and Flight Research Wichita, KS TBD TBD TBD KS Kelley Instruments, Inc. Wichita, KS TBD TBD TBD KS Instrument, Inc. Wichita, KS TBD TBD 

TBD 

MA Shpack Landfill Norton, MA 09/04 09/04 TBD 
45 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjCom

MA BASF (formerly Engelhard) Plainville, MA None N/A TBD MA Starmet Corp. (formerly 

Nuclear Metals) 

Concord, MA 10/06 Pending TBD 

MA Wyman-Gordon Co. North Grafton, 

MA 

None TBD TBD 

MA Texas Instruments Attleboro, MA None TBD TBD MA Norton/St. Gobain Worcester, MA None TBD TBD 

NE LLWR Disposal Site 

(University of NebraskaLincoln) 

Mead, NE 9/05/07 9/14/07 TBD 

NJ Shieldalloy Metallurgical 

Corp. 

Newfield, NJ 6/06 TBD 2013 

OH 

Metallurg Vanadium Corp. (Formerly Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp.) 

Cambridge, OH 7/13/99 3/6/02 TBD 

OH Ineos USA, LLC (formerly BP Chemical) Lima, OH 4/92 6/98 2020 
46 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjCom

OH Advanced Medical Systems, 

Inc. 

Cleveland, OH 6/01/04 5/23/05 2015 

OR TDY Industries d/b/a Wah 

Chang 

Albany, OR 6/11/03 3/08/06 TBD 

OR PCC Structurals, Inc. Portland, OR 6/10/06 9/14/06 TBD 

PA Curtis-Wright Cheswick Cheswick, PA 3/06 6/07 TBD PA Karnish Instruments Lock Haven, PA TBD PA Molycorp, Inc. (Washington) Washington, PA 6/99 8/00 TBD PA Superbolt (formerly Superior Steel) Carnegie, PA TBD PA Quehanna (formerly Permagrain Products, Inc.) Karthaus, PA 4/98, revised 3/03, 3/06 7/98, 9/03, 11/06 TBD PA Safety Light Corporation Bloomsburg, PA TBD PA Strube Incorporated Lancaster County, PA TBD PA Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Waltz Mill) Madison, PA 4/97 1/00 TBD PA Whittaker Corporation Greenville, PA 12/00, revised 8/03, 10/06 5/07 TBD 

TX ExxonMobil Three Rivers, TX 4/85 9/82 TBD 
47 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjCom

TX ConocoPhillips Falls City, TX 11/87 9/80 TBD TX 

Rio Grande Resources Hobson, TX 4/93 

Alternate Concentration Limit—11/97 

11/96 TBD 

TX 

COGEMA Bruni, TX 11/03 4/06 Grou

watecomSurfaongo

TX 

Intercontinental Energy Corp. 

Three Rivers, TX 3/03 Ongoing Grou

watecomSurfaTBD 

TX 

Everest Exploration, Inc. (decommissioning of Tex-1, Mt. Lucas sites) 

Hobson and Dinero, TX 

8/01 Ongoing Grou

watecomSurfacleanongo
48 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjCom

UT Rio Algom Uranium Mill Lisbon Valley, UT 9/03/02 7/06/04 TBD 

WA Dawn Mining Company Ford, WA 12/94 02/95 2013 

N/A not applicable TBD to be determined 
49 

8. RESOURCES 

The total Decommissioning Program staff budget for FY 2010 was 69 full-time equivalents 

(FTE); and for FY 2011, the program has 69 FTE. Increases in the functional areas of materials 

licensing, inspection, and legal advice and representation are offset by decreases in other 

areas. These resource figures include personnel to perform licensing casework directly related 

to decommissioning sites; inspections; project management and technical support for 

decommissioning power reactors, complex materials sites, uranium mill tailings facilities, and 

fuel cycle facilities; development of rules and guidance; EISs and EAs; research to develop 

more realistic analytical tools to support licensing and rulemaking activities; and Office of the 

General Counsel support. These figures also include supervisory and nonsupervisory indirect 

FTE associated with the Decommissioning Program, and safety and environmental reviews for 

new uranium recovery facilities. 
50 

9. FISCAL YEAR 2011 PLANNED PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES 

The staff has planned a number of programmatic activities for FY 2011, including the continued 

implementation of IDIP. In FY 2011, staff will focus its activities on implementing knowledge 

management aspects of the IDIP. Specifically, knowledge management activities for the 

exchange of decommissioning lessons learned for selected topics (e.g., uranium recovery, 

institutional controls) have been identified by NRC staff. DWMEP management has prioritized 

the implementation of the identified topics. One of the major tasks that has been identified for 

implementation is the update of uranium recovery decommissioning and reclamation guidance 

for Title I and II sites. NRC staff is currently in the early scoping stages for this guidance 

development project. 

Regarding the question about NRC jurisdiction for military radium-226, the staff will develop a 

Commission paper early in FY 2011 based on the information and views obtained from the 

military services. Issues will be discussed and approaches for resolving the issues will be 

recommended. The staff will also continue to coordinate with the military services to obtain a 

list of sites and site-specific information about radium and other radioactive contaminants that 

will assist both the staff and military in planning how to regulate the decommissioning of these 

sites. 

In response to the staff requirements memorandum to SECY-07-0177, “Proposed Rule: 

Decommissioning Planning (10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70 and 72: RIN: 3150-AH45),” dated 

December 10, 2007, the staff will continue to make further improvements to the 

decommissioning planning process for the remediation of significant radioactivity during the 

operational phase of facilities. The objective is to reduce complex decommissioning challenges 

(e.g., ground water contamination) that can lead to sites with inadequate financial assurance 

that are unable to complete decommissioning, also known as legacy sites. The staff is planning 

to engage stakeholders in developing a technical basis for mandating remediation, possible 

dose limits, or alternatives to the dose limits to help prevent future legacy sites. The technical 

bases will be a precursor to a proposed rule to include requirements for licensees to promptly 

remediate radioactively contaminated areas and thereby minimize the creation of legacy sites. 

The staff will be working on this technical basis through FY 2011.