Status of the 

Decommissioning Program 

2009 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 2009 Activities ................................................... 5

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2010 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 2009 Activities ................................................. 11

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2010 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 2009 Activities ................................................. 16

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2010 Trends and Areas of Focus ........................................ 19

2.4 Uranium Recovery Facility Decommissioning .................................................... 23

2.4.1 Decommissioning Process for Uranium Mills ......................................... 24

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2009 Activities ................................................. 26

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2010 Trends and Areas of Focus ........................................ 27

2.5 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning................................................................. 31

2.5.1 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning Process ....................................... 31

2.5.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2009 Activities ................................................. 31

3. Guidance and Rulemaking Activities .................................................................................... 32

4. Research Activities .............................................................................................................. 33

5. International Activities .......................................................................................................... 35

6. Program Integration ............................................................................................................. 37

7. Agreement State Activities ................................................................................................... 39

8. Resources ........................................................................................................................... 47

9. Fiscal Year 2010 Planned Programmatic Activities .............................................................. 48

Tables 

Table 2-1 Power Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning ......................................................... 7

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

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites ............................................................................. 20

Table 2-4a Decommissioning Title I Uranium Recovery Sites .................................................. 28

Table 2-4b Decommissioning Title II Uranium Recovery Sites ................................................. 30

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites ................................................................ 40
 iii

ABBREVIATIONS 

 

ACL alternate concentration limit 

AEC Atomic Energy Commission 

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure Act 

CERCLA

 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRCPD Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors 

DOD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOS U.S. Department of State 

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 

GMB Grants Mineral Belt 

HPS Hunters Point Shipyard 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

IDIP Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan 
 iv

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

ISR in situ recovery 

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 

NPL National Priority List 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

OAS Organization of Agreement States 

PSDAR Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report 

RAI request for additional information 

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

ROD Record of Decision 

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 

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 United States Army Corps of Engineers 

VESR Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor 

WVDP West Valley Demonstration Project 
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) 2009, 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. Previously, this report was published as a NUREG every two years; however, consistent 

with the direction from the Commission, future reports will not be published as a NUREG. 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, 2009. 

As noted in our FY 2008 report (NUREG-1814, “Status of the Decommissioning Program—2008 

Annual Report,” Revision 2), the character of the decommissioning program is changing as (1) 

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

and, (2) NRC becomes involved with new facilities (e.g. Hunters Point and McClellan) and 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 2009, increased emphasis was placed on the decommissioning of conventional 

uranium milling sites. This emphasis resulted in a significant increase in interaction with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of New Mexico in efforts related to 

the UNC Churchrock, Homestake, and Ambrosia Lake Mill sites. 

It is expected that FY 2010 will see similar trends in the decommissioning program as most 

reactors remain in SAFSTOR and progress in research and test reactors is level. In FY 2010, 

completion of decommissioning activities at complex materials sites is expected to increase 

over FY 2009 levels and remain at similar levels for several years. In addition, within the next 

three years, several Title II uranium recovery sites are expected to complete decommissioning 

and be transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for long-term control. 
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, 2009, 12 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors, 11 research and 

test reactors, 18 complex decommissioning materials facilities, 2 fuel cycle facilities, 21 Title I1

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 

certain fuel cycle facilities (e.g., West Valley). 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 

 

1

 The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act groups uranium recovery facilities into Title I sites and 

Title II sites. Section 2.4 explains this in detail. 
3 

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 all power reactors, both operating and decommissioning, 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, 2009, the 12 nuclear power 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; 
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 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 2009 Activities 

• Decommissioning activities were completed at the Rancho Seco reactor in Sacramento, 

California. 

• During the past year, staff performed inspections at Fermi Unit 1, La Crosse, Millstone 

Unit 1, Rancho Seco, and Zion Units 1 and 2. Table 2-1 shows the status of power 

reactor decommissioning activities. 

• Staff reviewed and approved a request to transfer the licensed ownership, management 

authorities, and decommissioning trust fund of Zion Units 1 and 2 to Zion Solutions. The 

license transfer order allows Zion Solutions to receive the license to complete 

decommissioning of the site. Zion Solutions plans to construct and transfer the spent 

fuel to an onsite ISFSI as part of the decommissioning process. 
6 

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

meetings,2

 including a meeting with Fermi Unit 1 to discuss a proposed license 

amendment and license termination planning, and a meeting to discuss the NSS 

Savannah PSDAR. 

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2010 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in power reactor decommissioning will remain at a similar level as in FY 2009, 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 2014, 

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.

 

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.
7 

Table 2-1 Power Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning 

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 Waukegan, 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, 2009, the 11 research and test reactors identified in Table 2-2 are 

undergoing decommissioning, representing an increase of 1 facility (the Worcester Polytechnic 

Institute) from the previous FY. The General Atomics Mark F and Mark I research and test 

reactors are awaiting removal of fuel. 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; 

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

occupational and public health and safety; 

 

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 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 

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

in-process and confirmatory radiological surveys. 
11 

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 2009 Activities 

• The NRC staff began reviewing the Worcester Polytechnic Institute DP, submitted in 

April 2009. 

• The staff performed inspections at Ford Nuclear Reactor, National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) Mockup, and NASA Plum Brook facilities. 

• The staff monitored negotiations between General Atomics and DOE regarding the 

movement of fuel. 

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2010 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in research and test reactor decommissioning is expected to increase in FY 2010 and 

beyond, with NASA Mockup and Plum Brook facilities expected to complete decommissioning in 

2010. Decommissioning is expected to be completed at the Ford Nuclear Reactor and Veterans 

Administration facilities in 2011, and the University of Illinois facility in 2012. General Atomics 

Mark F and Mark I research and test reactors are awaiting removal of fuel. 
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 2010 7 NASA Plum Brook Sandusky, OH DP Approved 2010 8 University of Buffalo Buffalo, NY Possession-Only TBD 9 University of Illinois Urbana, IL DP Approved 2012 10 Veterans Administration Omaha, NE DP Submitted 2011 11 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 

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, 2009, 18 complex materials sites are undergoing decommissioning (see 

Table 2-3). 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; 

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

separate building or outdoor area). 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. In these cases, the decommissioning process does not lead to 

license termination. 
14 

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 

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 

 

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 

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. 

• 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. 

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. 
16 

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. 

• 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. 

2.3.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2009 Activities 

• During the past year, the staff participated in public meetings for the Kerr-McGee 

Cimarron, Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, Westinghouse Electric-Hematite, West 

Valley Demonstration Project, Jefferson Proving Ground, Schofield Barracks, and 

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

workshops, including the Health Physics Society Annual Meeting and the Conference of 

Radiation Control Program Directors’ Annual National Conference on Radiation Control. 
17 

• In FY 2009, the staff reviewed DPs for the ABC Laboratories, Kerr-McGee Cimarron, 

Mallinckrodt Chemical, Inc., Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, and the Westinghouse 

Electric-Hematite sites. Staff approved the DP for Sigma-Aldrich and the draft EIS for 

the West Valley Demonstration Project. 

• Energy Solutions was selected as a contractor for site remediation at the NWI 

Breckenridge site. 

• Staff transferred regulatory control of the Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation site to the 

State of New Jersey when it became an Agreement State at the end of FY 2009. 

Other significant activities are described below. 

Hunters Point, McClellan, and Alameda Military Sites in California

The staff began 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, California. This approach includes reliance on the Navy’s ongoing remediation of 

this Superfund site conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) process with EPA oversight. The primary 

purpose of NRC’s limited involvement approach is the stay informed about the ongoing Navy 

remediation activities. To implement this approach, the staff sent letters to the Navy and EPA 

Region 9 explaining the Commission’s decision and requesting agreement and support. In April 

and May respectively, the Navy and EPA Region 9 provided letters agreeing to support NRC’s 

limited involvement approach at the HPS site. The staff also published a Federal Register

Notice on August 6, 2009, notifying interested stakeholders about NRC’s limited involvement 

approach for the HPS site and the agreement between NRC, the Navy, and EPA Region 9 on 

NRC’s limited involvement approach. 

NRC staff completed its review of the ongoing remediation of the former McClellan Air Force 

base, a Superfund site in Sacramento, California. The staff confirmed its preliminary view 

(stated in SECY-08-0077, “Options for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Involvement with 

the Navy's Remediation of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Site in California”) that the 

McClellan site is sufficiently similar to the HPS site to permit use of the limited involvement 

approach at the McClellan site. 

In September 2009, the staff conducted a scoping site visit to the Navy’s Alameda Naval Air 

Station in Oakland, CA to obtain information on the radioactive contaminants there and the 

Navy’s ongoing remediation. This information will be evaluated by the staff to determine if this 

site is similar enough to Hunters Point to warrant taking the same limited involvement approach 

at Alameda. 

Coordination with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

During the past year the staff, participated in two interagency meetings with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to review site 

decommissioning activities at the BWXT Shallow Land Disposal Site in Vandergrift, PA. NRC 

staff is currently reviewing USACE’s Final Work Plans and providing guidance to USACE to 

satisfy relevant requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special 
18 

Nuclear Material”, 10 CFR Part 73, “Physical Security Protection of Plants and Materials” and 10 

CFR Part 74, “Material Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material” for the future 

remediation of FUSRAP material located in the ten onsite burial pits. In addition, there have 

been follow-up discussions related to the disposal of impacted material that falls below NRC’s 

site-specific cleanup criteria and water discharge permits. USACE indicated their intent to take 

physical possession of the BWXT-SLDA site in the spring of 2010. NRC staff is currently 

working with USACE to finalize a Confirmatory Order, which will allow suspension of the BWXTSLDA license and for the USACE to initiate remediation activities of FUSRAP material under 

their CERCLA authority. 

Although New Jersey is now a licensed Agreement State, they did not request to have the 

Stepan Company site under their portfolio due to the presence of FUSRAP material on-site. As 

a result, NRC retained jurisdiction. There is a Memorandum of Understanding between NRC 

and USACE for the cleanup of this FUSRAP material. USACE took physical possession of 

Burial Pit No. 3 in December 2008 and Burial Pit No. 2 in August 2009 to conduct remediation at 

two of three burial pits at the site. NRC staff continues to perform periodic inspections to ensure 

that the licensee complies with environmental monitoring requirements and continued oversight 

of Burial Pit No. 1, which is not yet under the physical control of the USACE. In October 2009, 

the NRC updated and issued an amended license to the Stepan Company. 

Army Sites in Hawaii

In August 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 AEC 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. Staff has met several times with the Army to 

develop a path forward for managing this depleted uranium. 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. 

On November 6, 2008, the U.S. Army submitted a request for a possession-only license for its 

sites containing depleted uranium. This license request was supplemented on July 8, 2009, 

when the Army submitted physical security and radiation monitoring plans. The Army 

application was accepted for review on August 3, 2009. Notice of opportunity to request a 

hearing on the Army’s application was published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2009. 

On August 25-27, 2009, three Category 3 public meetings were held—one in the vicinity of the 

Schofield Barracks, and two in the vicinity of the Pohakuloa Training Area—to discuss the 

Army’s application, the NRC process for review, and the public’s opportunity to participate in the 

process. 

Jefferson Proving Ground Site in Indiana

Throughout FY 2009, NRC staff participated in numerous teleconferences and has participated 

in several site visits with the Army to discuss progress at the Jefferson Proving Ground (JPG) 

site. The focus of these discussions was the site characterization of the depleted uranium 
19 

impacted area (e.g. sampling of various environmental media; hydraulic conductivity tests; 

stream flowmeter measurements, seepage run surveys, age dating of groundwater). This field 

work is in addition to an ongoing depleted uranium penetrator corrosion study to determine 

leachate rates in various soil types. NRC also hosted an annual public meeting to discuss 

proposed future work such as the preliminary fate and transport modeling and radiation dose 

modeling exercises to support future termination of the license with restricted release for the 

JPG site. 

Mixed Plutonium Contamination Event in Colorado

During FY 2009, support was provided to Region IV for special inspections of a mixed plutonium 

contamination event at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) facility 

located in Boulder, Colorado. The event occurred in June 9, 2008, and the special team 

inspection began on June 30, 2008. The special inspection was completed on September 17, 

2009. NIST and its decontamination contractor remediated the contaminated areas at the 

facility, and on July 24, 2009, NRC issued a letter informing NIST that a review of their final 

status survey report had been completed and that the results demonstrated that the previously 

contaminated areas met the criteria in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E, for unrestricted use. 

Kerr-McGee Cimarron Financial Assurance

In January 2009, Tronox, Inc.'s U.S. operations filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and 

bankruptcy proceedings are ongoing. Tronox holds an NRC Part 70 license for the Kerr-McGee 

Cimarron site, which has a significant NRC financial assurance requirement. The Letter of 

Credit pledged for decommissioning financial assurance is currently in effect until March 2010. 

The NRC Bankruptcy Review Team has determined not to draw upon the Letter of Credit for the 

site at this time since it remains in effect until March 2010. Staff continues to work closely with 

the Office of the General Counsel and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in evaluating and 

negotiating a settlement agreement and will revisit the issue of drawing on the Letter of Credit 

before it expires. 

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2010 Trends and Areas of Focus 

As indicated above, in FY 2010, staff will focus on the potential addition of Army sites with 

depleted uranium contamination. As of September 30, 2009, individual site-specific monitoring 

programs have only been submitted by the Army for its Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa 

Training Area sites. As the Army completes its investigation of additional sites on the U.S. 

mainland where depleted uranium contamination is suspected, such sites would be added by 

license amendment to any possession-only license the staff may issue regarding the Army’s 

Hawaii sites.
20 

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 9/11 

2 ABB Prospects, Inc. Windsor, CT 4/03 6/04 LTR-UNRES 12/10 3 ABC Labs Columbia, MO 11/07 TBD++ LTR-UNRES 2010 4 Babcock & Wilcox 

(Shallow Land Disposal Area) 

Vandergrift, PA 6/01 

revised N/A 

N/A LTR-UNRES 3/13 

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

revised 5/03 

12/03 LTR-UNRES 2023 

6 Hunter’s Point Naval 

Shipyard*** (former Naval shipyard) 

San Francisco, CA 

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

7 Jefferson Proving Ground Madison, IN 8/99 

revised 6/02, 9/13 

10/02 TBD 

LTR-RES 12/13 

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

Inc. 

St. Louis, MO Phase 1 

11/97, Phase 2 9/08 

5/02 TBD 

LTR-UNRES 2012 
21 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

ProjeRem

10 McClellan*** (former Air 

Force base) 

Sacramento, CA 

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

11 NWI Breckenridge Breckenridge, 

MI 

3/04 8/04 LTR-UNRES 2010 

12 Pohakuloa Training Area 

(Army site) 

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

13 Schofield Army Barracks 

(Army site) 

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

14 Sigma-Aldrich Maryland 

Heights, MO 

10/08 5/09 LTR-UNRES 2010 

15 Stepan Chemical 

Company 

Maywood, NJ N/A N/A LTR-UNRES TBD 

16 UNC Naval Products New Haven, 

CT 

8/98 Revised 2004, 12/06 

4/99, 10/07 

LTR-UNRES 2010 

17 West Valley 

Demonstration Project 

West Valley, NY 

Phase I 3/09 

TBD LTR-UNRES** TBD 

18 Westinghouse Electric 

(Hematite Facility) 

Festus, MO 4/04 

revised 6/06, 8/09 

TBD LTR-UNRES 2013 
22 

* 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 DP for Phase I has been submitted. The West Valley Phase I DP inclu

a large portion of the site for unrestricted use, while the remainder of the site may have a 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 res++ DP not accepted for review. Notes: • 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. 
23 

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. 

Under 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, 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 

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

and added specific authorities 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. 
24 

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. 
25 

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; 

• 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, per 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 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: 
26 

(1) NRC-approved background concentrations 

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

Appendix A) 

(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. 

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2009 Activities 

• For Title I facilities in FY 2009, the staff reviewed Groundwater Compliance Action Plans 

for the Durango, Gunnison, and Lakeview sites. 
27 

• For Title II facilities in FY 2009, the staff reviewed the Pathfinder-Lucky Mc LTSP. 

• In FY 2009, staff performed site inspections at PRI Smith Ranch, Pathfinder-Shirley 

Basin, and COGEMA Irigary and Christensen Ranch sites. Staff also visited the Rio 

Algom-Ambrosia Lake site for a confirmatory survey conducted by the Oak Ridge 

Institute for Science and Education. 

• Staff completed its Safety Evaluation Report and approved a reclamation plan for 

Sequoyah Fuels Corporations in 2009. 

The Grants Mineral Belt (GMB) was the primary locus of conventional uranium extraction and 

production activities in New Mexico from the 1950s until late into the 20th century. The GMB 

extends along the southern margin of the San Juan basin in Cibola, McKinley, Sandoval, and 

Bernalillo counties as well as Tribal lands. There are approximately 100 documented formerlyproducing conventional mines/mills in the GMB. Legacy uranium mine and mill sites either have 

had documented contaminant releases, or may have the potential to release contaminants. 

Some of the conventional uranium mine sites have undergone surface reclamation, and may 

have uncontrolled waste rock and ore piles on-site, as well as physical hazards such as open 

shafts. The NRC, EPA, State, and Tribal partners have developed a 5-year plan, and will work 

together, to address public health and environmental impacts from historical conventional 

uranium mining in the GMB. 

NRC staff also participated in two interagency meetings and a collaborative site visit with DOE, 

Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, and New Mexico Environmental Department 

concerning uranium contamination on or near Navajo lands at the UNC Churchrock site. 

Meeting discussions focused on an integrated site-wide cleanup approach to achieve cleanup 

goals and to avoid dual regulations, migration of the groundwater plume, and co-disposal of 

mine waste from the adjoining Northeast Churchrock Mine with licensed by-product material at 

the UNC Churchrock conventional mill site. NRC staff also attended a public meeting hosted by 

the EPA in which the third Five Year Review Plan was presented. In June 2009, NRC 

presented an update to the White House Congressional Staff on the Navajo Nation 5-Year Plan. 

NRC staff continues to assist EPA in technical peer review and anticipates having future tribal 

consultation on these matters. 

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2010 Trends and Areas of Focus 

The staff’s efforts are expected to result in the termination of several uranium milling licenses 

within the next few years. Bear Creek, ExxonMobil Highlands, and Rio Algom-Ambrosia Lake 

sites are expected to complete decommissioning activities in 2010, with American Nuclear 

Corporation and Sequoyah Fuels Corporation expected to complete decommissioning in 2011 

and 2012, respectively. As in FY 2009, staff will continue its increased interaction with other 

agencies in efforts related to sites in New Mexico such as the mill sites at UNC Churchrock, 

Homestake, and Ambrosia Lake. 
28 

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 
29 

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. 
30 

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 2010 3 ExxonMobil Highlands Converse County, WY 1990 2010 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) 2010 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 
31 

2.5 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning 

Currently, the fuel cycle facilities undergoing partial decommissioning are the Nuclear Fuel 

Services site in Erwin, Tennessee, and Eastman Kodak in Rochester, New York. The public 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/fuel-cycle/ summarizes additional 

information about the status of the facilities. 

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 2009 Activities 

In FY 2009, Nuclear Fuel Services submitted FSSRs for partial decommissioning of the Erwin, 

Tennessee site and these reports are currently undergoing staff review. 

Eastman Kodak has removed all of the material associated with their Californium Flux Multiplier 

activities, and has submitted a request to terminate this license. They have completed all the 

surveys required for release, and NMSS has begun the license termination process. 
32 

3. GUIDANCE AND RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES 

In FY 2009, 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. A preliminary 

draft report was submitted to DWMEP management for review. This activity is expected to 

continue into FY 2010. 

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. 
33 

4. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 

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

releases of radioactive material from decommissioning sites and the remediation of ISR 

facilities. In addition to research activities, RES staff provided extensive technical support to 

FSME for the Kerr-McGee Cimarron and Shieldalloy sites. 

 

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

decommissioning analyses. This work includes modifying dose assessment codes to 

incorporate added realism, enhancing RESRAD-OFFSITE with enhanced source term 

capability, maintaining and providing training on FRAMES, and continuing to update parameter 

values for food-chain pathways. Research on plant uptake was extended this year to include 

data from Russian measurements of uptake in large animals. This year, working as part of an 

international team, RES helped complete the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) TRS364 “Handbook of Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Temperate 

Environments” and its supporting technical basis document. Beta testing of the “Spatial 

Analysis and Decision Assistance” (SADA) code was completed and the code, documentation 

including case studies, and training were provided for user office staff. This code provides a 

tool for more efficiently designing site characterization of contaminated sites, assessing risk, 

determining the location of future samples, and designing remedial action. 

RES continued participation 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. Work on the long term efficacy of the 

use of bioremediation at uranium-contaminated sites and ISR facilities continued and new tasks 

were added to secure drill core from an active ISR facility. Work also continued at Argonne 

National Laboratory to develop better models of leaching from radioactive slags from mineral 

processing. The report “Radionuclide Release from Slag and Concrete Waste Materials: 

Modeling and Test Methods” was completed and published in FY 2009. RES completed joint 

work with EPA and the National Science Foundation on a project exploring the failure 

mechanisms of covers at existing disposal facilities. A final report was published establishing 

an extensive technical record on the performance of these covers. Additional work was started 

on the optimization of cover designs and control of the effects of erosion. 

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. It was also 

instrumental in reviewing drafts of a revised ANS 2.17 “Evaluation of Radionuclide Transport in 

the Subsurface.” 

Finally, the Cement Partnership with DOE and the National Institute of Standards and NIST 

moved into its second year. The Cement Partnership shares the expertise and resources of 

three federal organizations to develop common data and tools to evaluate the use of 

cementitious materials for the isolation of environmentally mobile radioactive materials from the 
34 

public and the environment through solidification or containment. Complementary work at NIST 

was begun to examine pore solution chemistry and mineral phases in cementitious composites 

with chemical and mineral admixtures. 
35 

5. INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES 

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

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

Development (OECD), 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 NRC 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 of nuclear 

sites, as well as in the 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 cost-effective 

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

the various international guidance and requirements that the NRC will need to consider within 

the international regulatory context. 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 participated in the development of the IAEA Safety Standards Series. Within the 

past year, the staff supported the IAEA in the following ways: 

• Participating in the December 2008 IAEA Consultancy Meeting in Vienna, Austria, on 

Safety Requirement GS-R-1, “Legal and Governmental Infrastructure for Nuclear, 

Radiation, Radioactive Waste and Transport Safety,” originally published in 

September 2000; 

• Participating in the June 2009 IAEA conference on uranium recovery (UR) and cleanup 

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

facilities; 

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

(WASSC) meetings 26 and 27, in October 2008 and June 2009, respectively. These 

meetings addressed decommissioning and other related issues specifically, as part of 

IAEA waste safety activities; 

 

• Participating in the IAEA International Project on “Use of Safety Assessment in Planning 

and Implementation of Decommissioning of Facilities Using Radioactive Material, 

(FaSa).” The October 2008, FaSa meeting was held in Vienna, Austria, to provide 

direction and planning for decommissioning of facilities using radioactive materials; 

• Hosting two staff from Iraq for training on decommissioning, decontamination, and 

disposal of radioactive sources; 

• Conducting a July 2009 training course on decommissioning for the Vietnamese; 
36 

• Participation in the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel and Safety of 

Radioactive Waste Disposal (JC) Organization meeting in October 2008; 

• Participation in the World Nuclear University (WNU) summer institute in Oxford, UK for 

staff training and exchange of information including decommissioning activities; 

• Participation in the third review cycle of the JC and meeting in May 2009, including 

review of decommissioning. Staff responded and reviewed 45 national reports related to 

decommissioning activities; 

• Participation in France/USA two workshops: (a) IRSN/NRC workshop in September 

2008; and (b) ASN/NRC bilateral workshops, on June 15, 2009 for exchange of 

information including decommissioning activities. 

Nuclear Energy Agency Activities

• The staff contributed to the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) 

Bureau Annual Report for the RWMC-42. 

• The staff provided support to senior management participating in the March 2009, 

annual RWMC meeting, responded to survey questionnaires, and topical sessions on 

assisting member countries in the management of radioactive waste and materials, with 

a focus on the development of strategies for the safe, sustainable, and broadly 

acceptable management of all types of radioactive waste, in particular long-lived waste 

and spent fuel. 

• The staff participated in the NEA Working Party on Decommissioning and Dismantling 

(WPDD) 9th annual meeting, hosted by Slovenia in November 2008. Staff participated in 

preparation and review of several WPDD documents and delivered two presentations. 

Staff participated via teleconference in WPDD two core group meetings in March 2009 

and June 2009. 

• The staff contributed to, and reviewed WPDD reports developed during FY 2008/2009, 

titled: (a) Applying Lessons from Decommissioning for the Design and Operation of New 

Reactors; (b) Risk-Informed Approach to Decommissioning and Waste Storage 

Facilities; (c) Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities – Yes It Can and Has Been Done; 

and (d) Decommissioning Cost Elements, Estimation, Practices, and Reporting 

Requirements. 

 

• Staff participated in providing responses to WPDD and RWMC survey questionnaires. 

• DWMEP staff participated in an April 2009 workshop/conference on degradation of 

concrete and cement and implications to performance assessments. 
37 

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 2009, 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. 

Evaluation of Broad-Scope Licensees

The Division of Nuclear Materials Safety in Region III continued a pilot inspection effort focused 

on broad-scope licensees’ understanding of the Decommissioning Timeliness Rule and 

associated regulations and guidance regarding decommissioning. These inspections identified 

common weaknesses in broad-scope licensees’ implementation and understanding of 

decommissioning requirements. The staff developed a generic communication focusing on the 

results of this broad-scope pilot effort to highlight the inspection findings and inform licensees of 

the NRC’s decommissioning requirements. 

Financial Assurance Working Group

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required the establishment of an interagency task force on 

radiation source protection and security under the lead of the NRC (hereafter referred to as the 

Task Force). The Task Force provided, in “The Radiation Source Protection and Security Task 

Force Report”, dated August 15, 2006, recommendations to the President and Congress related 

to the security of radiation sources in the United States from terrorist threats, including acts of 

sabotage, theft, or use of a radiation sources in a radiological dispersal device. One of the 

recommendations included in the report (Recommendation 9-2 "Evaluation of Financial 

Assurance") tasked NRC to lead a working group in an effort 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 financial assurance working group (FAWG), which is chaired by 

DWMEP, is composed of participants with varied backgrounds from DOE, the U.S. Department 

of State (DOS), EPA, Organization of Agreement States (OAS), and multiple NRC offices. The 

FAWG is also considering Category 3 quantities of material in its assessment. Additionally, the 

FAWG is evaluating Action 7-1 from the Task Force report, which focuses on long-term storage 

of risk-significant sources not in use. FAWG members met monthly during FY 2009 to evaluate 
38 

current financial assurance requirements and develop potential recommendations, with the goal 

of proposing a comprehensive list of viable solutions. The FAWG will continue to meet in FY 

2010 in order to finalize the proposal.
39 

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 2009 included the following: 

• OAS participated in the Division of Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking Working 

Group to develop the Decommissioning Planning Rule, as discussed in Section 3 of this 

report. 

• DWMEP staff participated in the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors 

(CRCPD) activities, including the May 2009 annual meeting. 

• 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 (Illinois, Mississippi, 

Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin). 

 

The following are examples of informal interactions: 

• DWMEP staff participated in monthly OAS/CRCPD teleconferences. 

• Coordinated with New Jersey on activities at the Shieldalloy site in Newfield, New 

Jersey. 

Table 7-1 identifies the decommissioning and uranium recovery sites in the Agreement States. 
40 

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 
41 

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 2009 

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 

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLCNichols Mulberry, FL 8/19/03 3/25/08 2009 

FL U.S. Agri-Chemicals Corp. Fort Meade, FL 3/13/06 Pending 2010 FL C.F. Industries, Inc. Bartow, FL 3/30/07 Pending TBD FL Mosaic Fertilizer, LLCMulberry Mulberry, FL 4/10/07 Pending 2009 
42 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjCom

FL HRK Holdings, Inc. Palmetto, FL 11/01/07 Pending 2010 

IL Spectrulite Consortium Madison, IL TBD 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 
43 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjCom

MA Shpack Landfill Norton, MA 09/04 09/04 2009 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 2009 
44 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjCom

OH Ineos USA, LLC (formerly BP Chemical) Lima, OH 4/92 6/98 2020 OH Advanced Medical Systems, 

Inc. 

Cleveland, OH 6/01/04 5/23/05 2010 

OR TDY Industries Dba 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 2009 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 2009 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 2009 
45 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjCom

TX ExxonMobil Three Rivers, TX 4/85 9/82 TBD 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
46 

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 
47 

8. RESOURCES 

The total Decommissioning Program staff budget for FY 2009 was 59 full-time equivalents 

(FTE); and for FY 2010, the program has 65 FTE. Increases in the functional areas of materials 

licensing, inspection, and legal advice and representation are offset somewhat 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 environmental reviews for new 

uranium recovery facilities. 
48 

9. FISCAL YEAR 2010 PLANNED PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES 

The staff has planned a number of programmatic activities for FY 2010, including the continued 

implementation of the Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP). In FY 2010, 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 for management review. To reflect an emphasis on uranium recovery activities, staff 

has developed a number of initiatives, including: updating site closure and site transition 

management directives, clearly defining the closure process, and seeking additional program 

improvements from staff with extensive experience. DWMEP management will prioritize the 

implementation of the identified decommissioning lessons learned. 

Depending upon direction by the Commission, implementation of the Decommissioning 

Planning Rule, discussed in Section 3 of this report, is planned to begin in FY 2010. The steps 

needed for implementation of the rule include publishing a future NUREG-series publication for 

the financial assurance aspects of the rule. The final regulatory guide is planned to be 

completed in FY 2010. As of September 30, 2009, implementation activities are on hold 

pending the Commission’s consideration of SECY-09-0042. 

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 is also making 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 2010.