Status of the 

Decommissioning Program 

2012 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 ............................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning ............................................................ 3

2.1.1 Decommissioning Process ........................................................................ 4

2.1.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2012 Activities .................................................... 6

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2013 Trends and Areas of Focus ........................................... 7

2.2 Research and Test Reactor Decommissioning ................................................... 10

2.2.1 Decommissioning Process ...................................................................... 10

2.2.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2012 Activities .................................................. 12

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2013 Trends and Areas of Focus ......................................... 12

2.3 Complex Material Facility Decommissioning ....................................................... 14

2.3.1 Decommissioning Process ...................................................................... 14

2.3.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2012 Activities .................................................. 18

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2013 Trends and Areas of Focus ......................................... 21

2.4 Uranium Recovery Facility Decommissioning ..................................................... 26

2.4.1 Decommissioning Process for Uranium Mills .......................................... 27

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2012 Activities .................................................. 30

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2013 Trends and Areas of Focus ......................................... 31

2.5 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning .................................................................. 36

2.5.1 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning Process ........................................ 36

2.5.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2012 Activities .................................................. 36

3. Guidance and Rulemaking Activities ..................................................................................... 37

4. Research Activities ................................................................................................................ 39

5. International Activities ............................................................................................................ 41

6. Program Integration and Improvement .................................................................................. 44

7. Agreement State Activities ..................................................................................................... 47

8. Resources .............................................................................................................................. 53

9. Fiscal Year 2013 Planned Programmatic Activities ............................................................... 54

 

Tables 

Table 2-1 Power and Early Demonstration Reactors Undergoing 

Decommissioning .................................................................................................. 8

Table 2-2 Research and Test Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning .................................... 13

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites .............................................................................. 23

Table 2-4a Decommissioning Title I Uranium Recovery Sites ................................................... 32

Table 2-4b Decommissioning Title II Uranium Recovery Sites .................................................. 34

Table 2-4c Title II Uranium Recovery Sites – DOE Licensed Under 40.28................................ 35

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites ................................................................. 48
 iii

ABBREVIATIONS 

 

ACL alternate concentration limit 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

ANL Argonne National Laboratory 

CBP Cementitious Barriers Partnership 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980 

CNWRA Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRCPD Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors 

CY calendar year 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DG Draft Regulatory Guide 

DP decommissioning plan 

DPR Decommissioning Planning Rule 

DWMEP Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ES Energy Solutions 

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

FSS final status survey 

FSSR Final Status Survey Report 

FRN Federal Register notice 

FTE full-time equivalents 

FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 

FY fiscal year 

GETR General Electric-Hitachi Test Reactor 
 iv

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

IDIP Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation

ISR in situ recovery

LLW low-level waste 

LTP license termination plan 

LTR License Termination Rule 

LTSP long-term surveillance plan 

N/A not applicable 

NARM naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NEA Nuclear Energy Agency 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

PSDAR Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report 

RAI request for additional information 

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

RG Regulatory Guide 

RP reclamation plan 

SDMP Site Decommissioning Management Plan 

SER Safety Evaluation Report 

SLDA Shallow Land Disposal Area 

TBD to be determined 

TER technical evaluation report 

TRIGA Training, Research, Isotopes General Atomics 

UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

UNC United Nuclear Corporation

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

VESR Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor 
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 U.S Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) decommissioning activities in fiscal year (FY) 2012, 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 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. The information contained in this report is current as of September 30, 2012. 

Approximately 10 years ago, the Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection 

(DWMEP) began an effort to enhance the effectiveness of the NRC’s Decommissioning 

Program. These enhancements included several initiatives: upgrading the resources available 

for decommissioning; developing, updating, and consolidating all guidance associated with 

decommissioning into a concise NUREG guidance document, NUREG-1757, “Consolidated 

Decommissioning Guidance;” developing metrics to track staff and licensee activities; 

establishing a proactive communication approach with licensees to facilitate decommissioning; 

and developing an integrated decommissioning improvement plan to systematically examine the 

Decommissioning Program for efficiency gains. This effort resulted in a significant improvement 

in the decommissioning process and a corresponding increase in the number of sites that have 

been successfully decommissioned since 2000 (over 50), some of which had been in 

decommissioning since the late 1980s. In FY 2012, the staff continued to focus on enhancing 

the effectiveness of the Decommissioning Program through a comprehensive effort to 

consolidate and update decommissioning guidance for uranium recovery facilities. 

As noted in our FY 2011 report (SECY-11-0159, “Status of the Decommissioning Program—

2011 Annual Report”), the character of the decommissioning program has changed a great deal 

as successes in the past have substantially reduced the inventory of complex materials sites in 

decommissioning status. In turn, new programmatic issues have arisen as the NRC has 

increased its involvement with facilities with different decommissioning challenges. Examples of 

such challenges 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). The decrease in the inventory of complex 

materials sites allowed the staff in FY 2012 to continue its focus on the decommissioning of 

conventional uranium milling sites, many of which have been in decommissioning for decades. 

In FY 2011, the NRC staff began an effort to leverage its broad decommissioning experience to 

achieve efficiency gains, and this undertaking will continue in the short term. In particular, in the 

aforementioned guidance consolidation effort, highly experienced staff will consider what 

improvements need to be made in the guidance to allow for a better understanding of the “what” 

and “how” of uranium recovery decommissioning. 

In 2012, in response to an audit of the uranium recovery decommissioning program by the 

Office of the Inspector General, the staff developed and implemented an approach for the 

oversight of legacy uranium mills managed under an NRC general license by the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE). In developing this Observational Site Visit approach, staff 
2 

evaluated the DOE inspection program and long-term management programs for the legacy 

sites. Based on the DOE program, staff developed guidance on conducting the site visit and 

completing the site visit report. The staff tested the approach and guidance at several sites and 

revised the approach and guidance based on the results of these visits. 

In terms of accomplishments, decommissioning was completed at the University of Arizona 

research reactor and the NWI Breckenridge complex materials site. The license at the 

University of Arizona was terminated in February 2012. In March 2012, the NWI Breckenridge 

site was released for unrestricted use. Decommissioning activities were completed at NASA 

Mockup and Plum Brook reactors, and staff reviewed the license termination requests. 

Additionally, decommissioning was completed at the University of Illinois Research Reactor and 

the ABB Prospects site in Connecticut. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also completed 

remediation activities at the NRC-licensed portion of the Stepan site in New Jersey. These sites 

are expected to submit license termination requests in FY 2013. The staff also approved the 

Westinghouse Electric-Hematite Decommissioning Plan for its former Fuel Fabrication facility in 

Festus, Missouri. Related approvals for Hematite included: the Fundamental Nuclear Material 

Control Plan, the Physical Security Plan, the Decommissioning Funding Plan, and a 10 CFR 

20.2002 request for alternate disposal of waste to US Ecology, in Idaho. Active remediation 

began in FY 2012 with Regional oversight. 

In FY 2013, the NRC expects two to three complex materials sites to complete 

decommissioning activities, with similar numbers completing decommissioning in succeeding 

years. Most power reactors undergoing decommissioning will remain in SAFSTOR, with Zion, 

La Crosse, and Humboldt Bay in active decommissioning. The NRC staff was notified on 

November 2, 2012, that the Kewaunee Power Station expects to cease power operation in FY 

2013. During FY 2013, the staff will explore potential decommissioning issues related to 

Kewaunee and assess future work through changes in the budget planning process. Progress 

in research and test reactor decommissioning will also continue as two or three more sites are 

expected to complete decommissioning in FY 2013. Within the next several years, several 

Title II1

 uranium recovery sites are expected to complete decommissioning and be transferred to 

DOE for long-term control under a general license.

 

1

 The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, classifies certain facilities that mill 

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

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

by the NRC or an Agreement State. Section 2.4, infra, explains this in detail. 
3 

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 150 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 the site’s license is not a routine licensing action. 

As of September 30, 2012, 12 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors, 11 research and 

test reactors, 17 complex decommissioning materials facilities, 2 fuel cycle facilities, 22 Title I

uranium recovery facilities, and 11 Title II uranium recovery facilities are undergoing 

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 (SNM), 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,” or Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for 

Nuclear Power Plants,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50 or Part 52) or fuel 

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

States’ decommissioning programs. 

2.1 Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning 

The NRC’s power reactor decommissioning activities include project management for 

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

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

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

workshops. In addition, the staff routinely processes license amendments and exemptions to 
4 

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

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

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

storage installations (ISFSIs) at reactor sites undergoing decommissioning. 

As of September 30, 2012, the 12 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors identified in 

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

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

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

2.1.1 Decommissioning Process 

The decommissioning process begins when a licensee decides to permanently cease 

operations. The major steps that make up a licensee’s reactor decommissioning process are: 

notification to the NRC of cessation of operations; submittal of the Post-Shutdown 

Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR); submittal 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 reasons for concluding that the environmental impacts associated 

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

previously issued Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Foreclose release of the site for unrestricted use; 

• Result in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed; or 
5 

• 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 certain 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 

open to the public, and 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; 

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

significant environmental change associated with the licensee’s proposed 

termination activities; and 

• identification of parts, if any, of the facility or site that were released for use before 

approval of the LTP. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revision 1, issued April 2003 (Agencywide Document Access and Management System 
6 

(ADAMS) No. ML031270391); NUREG-1757, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance,” 

Revision 1 of Volume 2, issued September 2006 (ADAMS No. ML063000243); and 

NUREG-0586, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear 

Facilities—Supplement 1,” issued November 2002 (ADAMS No. ML023470327). The LTP is 

approved by license amendment. 

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) that identifies the final radiological conditions of the site, and request that the 

NRC either: (1) terminate the 10 CFR Part 50 license; or (2) if the licensee has an ISFSI, 

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 2012 Activities 

• The staff conducted the technical reviews and issued exemptions from certain 

security requirements in 10 CFR 73.55 for La Crosse and Zion Units 1 and 2. 

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

including a meeting at Humboldt Bay to discuss its LTP and a request for 10 CFR 

20.2002 alternate disposal. 

 

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 

• The staff issued two 10 CFR 20.2002 approvals for alternative disposal of Humboldt 

Bay decommissioning debris and soils. 

• La Crosse moved all spent fuel to an on-site ISFSI with Region III oversight, in 

coordination with NMSS. 

• The staff conducted inspections at Humboldt Bay, N.S. Savannah, Zion Units 1 and 

2, Fermi Unit 1, and La Crosse. 

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2013 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in power reactor decommissioning will remain at a similar level as in FY 2012, with the 

number of sites expected to stay the same as most reactors stay in SAFSTOR. Humboldt Bay 

is expected to complete decommissioning in 2016. Through unique decommissioning 

approaches, such as the transfer of the possession license for Zion Units 1 and 2 in FY 2010, 

the rate of completion of power reactor decommissioning may increase in the future. 

Additionally, staff expects to review another 10 CFR 20.2002 request for alternative disposal of 

Humboldt Bay decommissioning debris and soils. Staff also expects the Kewaunee Power 

Station to enter decommissioning in FY 2013, and will explore potential decommissioning issues 

related to Kewaunee and assess future work through changes in the budget planning process
8 

Table 2-1 Power and Early Demonstration Reactors Undergoing Decommissioni

Reactor Location PSDAR* 

Submitted

LTP Submitted

LTP Approve

1 Dresden Unit 1 Morris, IL 6/98 TBD TBD 2 Fermi Unit 1 Newport, MI 4/98 2011*** TBD 3 Humboldt Bay Eureka, CA 2/98 2011 TBD 4 Indian Point Unit 1 Buchanan, NY 1/96 TBD TBD 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 TBD 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 TBD TBD TBD 11 Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor Pleasanton, CA 7/66 TBD TBD 12 Zion Units 1 & 2 Zion, IL 2/00 TBD TBD 
9 

TBD to be determined * PSDAR or DP equivalent. Prior to August 28, 1996, the effective date of Final Rule “Decommissio

Reactors” (61 FR 39278; July 29,1996), licensees submitted DPs (or 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. 

*** Licensing action put on hold at licensee’s request. 
10 

2.2 Research and Test Reactor Decommissioning

The 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, 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, 2012, the 11 research and test reactors identified in Table 2-2 were 

undergoing decommissioning. Plant status summaries for all decommissioning research and 

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

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 two years following permanent cessation of operations, and in no case later than one 

year before license expiration, the licensee must submit a written application for license 

termination to the NRC. 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 open to the public, and 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; 

• A description of the planned final radiation survey; 

 

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. 
11 

• 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. 

In addition, the licensee should 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 (ADAMS No. 

ML042430055), 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. 

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 review the FSSR and the licensee’s termination request 

if it determines that the licensee has met the following conditions: 
12 

• 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 2012 Activities 

• Decommissioning was completed at the University of Arizona facility. The NRC 

conducted inspections and confirmatory surveys in late 2011, and the license was 

terminated in February 2012. 

• The staff reviewed the license termination request for NASA Mockup and Plum 

Brook reactors after decommissioning was completed. Staff work associated with 

the NASA Plum Brook Facility included the review of 18 FSSRs related to 

decommissioning activities. In-process inspections were conducted by Region III 

staff, and the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education performed confirmatory 

surveys of NASA’s decommissioning activities.4

• Decommissioning was completed at the University of Illinois Research Reactor 

facility in the summer of 2012. Regular inspections were performed since the 

beginning of active decommissioning in October 2011, and the NRC independent 

and confirmatory surveys were completed in July 2012. 

• The staff conducted inspections at the Ford Nuclear Reactor and Worcester 

Polytechnic Institute facilities. 

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2013 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in research and test reactor decommissioning is expected to continue in FY 2013, as 

the Ford Nuclear Reactor, and Worcester Polytechnic Institute are all expected to complete 

decommissioning in FY 2013. Staff is awaiting the submittal of the FSSRs and request for 

license termination from the University of Illinois, which are expected in FY 2013. Staff also 

expects to take regulatory action on DPs for University of Buffalo and Veterans Administration.

 

4

 NRC formally terminated the licenses for the NASA Mockup and Plum Brook reactors on October 10, 

2012. 
13 

Table 2-2 Research and Test Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning 

Reactor Location Status Completion o

Decomm.

1 Ford Nuclear Reactor Ann Arbor, MI DP Approved 2013 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 2012 7 NASA Plum Brook* Sandusky, OH DP Approved 2012 8 University of Buffalo Buffalo, NY Possession-Only 2014 9 University of Illinois Urbana, IL DP Approved 2013 10 Veterans Administration Omaha, NE DP Submitted 2014 11 Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA DP Approved 2013 * License was terminated between September 30, 2012, and the date this report was prepGETR 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 
14 

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 and sites in 

Agreement States that have exclusive federal jurisdiction, interacting with the U.S. 

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

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

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

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

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

financial instrument security program. 

As of September 30, 2012, 17 complex materials sites are undergoing decommissioning (see 

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

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

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

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

with groundwater contamination; sites containing significant soil contamination; sites in which 

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

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

Congressional interest. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decommissioning Management Program Sites with Decommissioning Plans under Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission Review and Eligible for Grandfathering, Pursuant to 

10 CFR 20.1401(b)(3),” dated August 18, 1999, the Commission granted an extension of the DP 

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.3.1 Decommissioning Process 

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

• The license expires; 
15 

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

any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity, such that 

the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in accordance with the NRC 

requirements). In the parenthetical cases, the decommissioning process does not 

lead to license termination; 

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

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

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

building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in accordance with the NRC 

requirements. In these cases, the decommissioning process does not lead to license 

termination. 

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

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

decommissioning. 

Notification

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

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

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

approval of the plan.5

 With the NRC approval, the regulations allow alternative schedules. 

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. 

 

5

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

cannot proceed with decommissioning until the DP is approved. 
16 

Generally, 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 

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. If an EA is developed and a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) is made, the final EA is published in full or summary form in the Federal 

Register. If a FONSI cannot be made, an EIS is developed. Before finalizing the EA/EIS, the 

staff provides its draft to the appropriate State agency for review and comment. 

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 party’s proposed institutional control and financial assurance 

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

guide both phases of the review. 

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

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

taken: 

• Publication of a Notice of Intent; 

• Public scoping meeting; 

• Preparation and publication of the scoping report; 

• Preparation and publication of the draft EIS; 

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

• Preparation and publication of the final EIS. 
17 

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 the 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, and presuming a determination that the DP is otherwise 

acceptable, the NRC issues a license amendment, approving the DP, along with any additional 

license conditions found to be necessary as a result of the findings of the EA, EIS, and/or the 

SER. 

Implementation of the Decommissioning Plan

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

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

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

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

radiological surveys. 

Completion of Decommissioning

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

following: 

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

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

equivalent information. 

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

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

submit a report of the results of the final status survey, unless the licensee or 

responsible party demonstrates in some other manner that the premises are suitable 

for release in accordance with the LTR. 
18 

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 2012 Activities 

• In October 2011, staff approved the Westinghouse Electric-Hematite 

Decommissioning Plan for Westinghouse’s former Fuel Fabrication facility in Festus, 

Missouri. The approval of the Decommissioning Plan involved several challenges. 

Located on the Hematite site were numerous documented and undocumented burial 

pits. Because these pits possibly contained SNM and/or classified equipment, it was 

necessary that the Hematite Decommissioning Plan incorporate within its 

Fundamental Nuclear Material Control and Physical Security Plans and within its 

nuclear criticality assessments those necessary actions, processes and procedures 

should Category I material and/or equipment be identified. Since Westinghouse was 

suing the Federal Government to recover remediation expenses, the staff facilitated 

an approach to criticality safety, physical security, and material control and 

accountability that included contingency actions to adequately protect public health 

and safety. The settlement of the lawsuit required engaging the cooperation of the 

U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of the Navy, and DOE to establish 

a protocol in the event that certain types of equipment and/or Category I material 

were identified. In parallel with the approval of the Decommissioning Plan was the 

approval of the first 10 CFR 20.2002 alternate disposal request involving special 

nuclear material. At the end of FY 2012, the licensee was remediating burial pits and 

shipping waste involving SNM under an approved 10 CFR 20.2002 alternate 

disposal request.

• Region III staff reviewed and approved the final status survey report for the NWI 

Breckenridge site in Breckenridge, MI, after remediation activities were completed in 

late 2011. Region III staff worked for many years with the Bankruptcy Trustee of this 

formerly designated SDMP complex site to complete the safe remediation. The site 

was released for unrestricted use in March 2012. 

• Decommissioning activities have been completed at the ABB Prospects site, a 

former nuclear manufacturing facility located in Connecticut. In February 2012, the 

NRC terminated ABB’s SNM license. However, the byproduct license has not yet 

been terminated and an environmental assessment review is in progress. In FY 

2012, the NRC coordinated reviews of FSSRs with the State of Connecticut and 

USACE and completed site inspections. The ABB site is expected to begin the 

process for license termination in FY 2013. 
19 

• Staff reviewed Post Remedial Action Reports submitted by USACE for the Stepan 

site in Maywood, NJ. Control of the site was relinquished after completion of 

USACE’s remediation activities, and the licensee assumed physical control of the 

site in May 2012. Stepan’s license was reinstated in May 2012 after it had been 

suspended since 2008 to allow for USACE to conduct remediation activities at the 

site. Stepan is expected to begin the process for license termination in FY 2013.6

• Considerable decommissioning progress was made at the Mallinckrodt site in St. 

Louis, MO. Mallinckrodt completed removal of most of the contaminated soil from 

the NRC-licensed portion of the site and is currently conducting final status surveys. 

• With respect to the Cimarron (Kerr-McGee) site in Crescent, OK, the staff worked 

with the site trustee and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality to 

identify and resolve technical and financial issues related to decommissioning. In 

addition, the NRC and State of Oklahoma staff participated in a public meeting that 

the site trustee held in June 2012 to inform the public of plans for decommissioning 

the site and to obtain input from the public. 

• Inspections or site visits were performed at Cimarron, FMRI, Mallinckrodt, NWI 

Breckenridge, West Valley, Stepan, Shallow Land Disposal Area, UNC Naval 

Products, and Westinghouse Electric-Hematite facilities. The staff also conducted 

site visits at McClellan Air Force Base, Alameda Naval Air Station, and Hunters Point 

Shipyard. 

Other significant activities are described below. 

 

Shallow Land Disposal Area

 

After the NRC placed the BWX Technologies, Inc., license in abeyance for the Shallow Land 

Disposal Area (SLDA) site, USACE assumed physical possession of the site on August 22, 

2011, and began cleanup activities. The USACE is congressionally mandated to clean-up the 

SLDA site under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remediation Action Program (FUSRAP). 

On September 30, 2011, USACE ceased excavation activities because their contractor deviated 

from accepted field procedures. The exhumed material was beyond the scope of USACE’s 

established procedures. In response, the NRC staff provided technical guidance and conducted 

several site visits. In early 2012, the SLDA site came under policy review due to growing 

concerns about the cost for management and disposal of exhumed material. In ensuing 

months, the SLDA site garnered public attention. The NRC, in a supportive role, attended 

public meetings in March and June 2012, which were coordinated by USACE. By mid-August 

2012, all exhumed material was safely shipped off-site. 

In FY 2012, the NRC also participated in several interagency meetings with USACE and other 

Federal partners because the U.S Army requested a re-evaluation of its program authority and 

 

6

 The information in this paragraph applies only to the three burial pits that constitute the NRC-licensed 

portion of the Stepan site. 
20 

the Federal approach for a long-term remedial action strategy. On August 10, 2012, a 

consensus was reached that USACE would remain the lead agency for the SLDA remediation 

project with on-site support from DOE and with the NRC remaining in its consulting role. 

One challenging aspect of this cleanup effort is that the records and type of material disposed in 

the ten (10) burial trenches at SLDA site are incomplete. The NRC staff will continue to work 

collaboratively with USACE to revise future Work Plans prior to the resumption of remediation 

activities. In the interim, the NRC staff is assisting with the development of an interagency 

Memorandum of Understanding among USACE, DOE and the NRC that defines the role of each 

Federal entity throughout the remainder of the remediation process. 

Hunters Point, McClellan, and Alameda Military Sites in California

The staff continued implementing the Limited Involvement Approach approved by the 

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

San Francisco, California. See Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) – SECY-08-0077 – 

“Options for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioning Involvement with the Navy’s Remediation 

of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Site in California,” dated June 28, 2008. 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 and with EPA oversight. The primary purpose of the NRC’s Limited Involvement 

Approach is to stay informed about the ongoing Navy remediation activities and confirm its 

continued reliance on the CERCLA process and EPA oversight. The staff also utilized the same 

approach for the McClellan former Air Force Base, a Superfund site in Sacramento, California, 

and the Navy’s Alameda Naval Air Station in Alameda, California. The staff conducted its fourth 

annual visit to these sites in April 2012, which included site visits with the Navy and Air Force, 

along with meetings with EPA Region 9, and State of California agencies. These discussions 

with the principal stakeholders that are participating in the ongoing remediation process 

continue to be an effective way to understand the remediation progress, issues that are being 

addressed, and the oversight activities of EPA and the State agencies. Based on these 

interactions, the staff plans to continue its reliance on the CERCLA process and EPA oversight 

at these three sites. 

 

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

The Statement of Considerations for the NRC’s November 2007 NARM rule included a 

commitment for the NRC to interact with the military to obtain a common understanding of the 

uses of discrete sources of radium-226 and resolve any potential conflicts on a case-by-case 

basis. Issues and staff recommendations for clarifying the NRC’s jurisdiction for certain types of 

radium-226 under military control were identified in a February 16, 2011, SECY paper (SECY11-0023). On March 24, 2011, the Commission approved the staff’s recommendation to 

prepare a guidance document and Federal Register notice (FRN) clarifying that certain types of 

military radium-226 would be subject to the NRC regulations, and described possible regulatory 

approaches to be used to implement the NRC authority for radium-226 contamination and 

radium-226 in items and equipment (SRM-SECY-11-0023). The FRN and associated draft 

Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) were issued on July 8, 2011 (76 FR 40282), for public 

comment. 
21 

The initial 60-day public comment period was reopened for an additional 75 days until 

November 29, 2011. During this extended public comment period, on November 1, 2011, the 

staff conducted a public meeting with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to discuss the draft 

RIS and DoD preliminary concerns and questions. On November 28, 2011, DoD submitted its 

formal comments on the draft RIS. 

Eleven public comment letters were received during the public comment period. Five 

commenters support the proposed clarifications in the draft RIS, including the California 

Department of Public Health and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, which 

are two of the State agencies involved with military remediation in California. Other 

commenters note that the draft RIS is taking a “backseat role” and more NRC involvement is 

needed. Four commenters were neutral, but raise implementation challenges. For example, 

EPA Region 9 believes that the regulatory approach proposed in the draft RIS could complicate 

military cleanup. DoD provided two comment letters—one requesting the 75-day extension of 

the public comment period and a second letter that strongly opposed the draft RIS. The 

principle concerns raised by DoD were: (1) the clarifications in the draft RIS are inconsistent 

with the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and (2) the NRC regulation of non-National Priorities List 

sites would result in dual regulation that would cause duplication of military cleanup efforts being 

conducted under the CERCLA process and additional cleanup costs and delays. Despite its 

opposition, DoD expressed support for further joint discussions on how the NRC can be 

appropriately involved during the military’s remediation so as to avoid duplication of regulatory 

requirements and effort. 

The NRC staff met with a DoD working group consisting of representatives from each of the 

military services and the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and 

Environment) Environmental Management. From February to August 2012, the staff and DoD 

met four times to discuss potential resolution of DoD’s major comments in the following areas: 

(1) remediation process; (2) regulating radium on operational firing ranges and the NRC and 

DoD options for the NRC oversight of site remediation without EPA regulatory oversight; (3) 

items and equipment in storage; and (4) further detail on the NRC and DoD options for oversight 

and the NRC’s draft memorandum of understanding. The staff is using these discussions to 

prepare responses to DoD comments and a revised RIS. 

Army Depleted Uranium License Application

 

In 2012, the NRC staff continued its review of the U.S. Army’s depleted uranium license 

application and their Radiation Safety, Physical Security, Range Safety, and Environmental 

Radiation Monitoring Plans for the Schofield Barracks and Pohakuloa Training Area in Hawaii. 

Staff provided several rounds of RAIs and reviewed several revisions of the aforementioned 

Plans. Staff developed a draft license with extensive license conditions, and held a public 

meeting/webinar to discuss the NRC reviews. Staff also undertook consultations with Native 

Hawaiian Organizations, State of Hawaii, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 

7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2013 Trends and Areas of Focus 
22 

Progress in the decommissioning of complex material sites is expected to increase in FY 2013, 

with sites such as ABB Prospects, Stepan, and Mallinckrodt expected to complete 

decommissioning or license termination in the coming year. The staff will also continue its focus 

on Army sites with depleted uranium contamination, and continue to work with DoD toward 

clarifying the NRC’s jurisdiction of military radium-226 and involvement with military remediation 

of residual radioactive material.
23 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

PR

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

revised 9/06, 4/07+

5/98 TBD 

LTR-UNRES T

2 ABB Prospects, Inc. Windsor, CT 4/03 6/04 LTR-UNRES 23 ABC Labs Columbia, MO 10/09 TBD LTR-UNRES 24 Alameda Naval Air Station** Alameda, CA N/A N/A N/A N5 Beltsville Agricultural 

Research Laboratory 

Beltsville, MD 8/09 TBD LTR-UNRES 2

6 Cimarron (Kerr-McGee) Cimarron, OK 4/95 8/99 Action-UNRES 27 FMRI (Fansteel), Inc. Muskogee, OK 8/99, 

revised 5/03 

12/03 LTR-UNRES 2

8 Hunter’s Point Naval 

Shipyard** (former Naval shipyard) 

San Francisco, CA 

N/A N/A N/A N

9 Jefferson Proving Ground Madison, IN 8/99 

revised 6/02, resubmittal planned 9/13 

10/02 TBD 

LTR-RES 2
24 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

PR

10 Mallinckrodt Chemical, Inc. St. Louis, MO Phase 1 

11/97, Phase 2 9/08 

Phase 1 5/02, Phase 2 7/10 

LTR-UNRES 2

11 McClellan** (former Air Force 

base) 

Sacramento, CA 

N/A N/A N/A N

12 Shallow Land Disposal Area 

(BWX Technologies, Inc.) 

Vandergrift, PA 6/01 

revised N/A 

N/A LTR-UNRES 2

13 Sigma-Aldrich Maryland 

Heights, MO 

10/08, revised 11/10 

5/09, revised TBD 

LTR-UNRES 2

14 Stepan Company Maywood, NJ N/A N/A LTR-UNRES 215 UNC Naval Products New Haven, 

CT 

8/98, revised 2004,12/06 

4/99, revised 10/07 

LTR-UNRES T

16 West Valley Demonstration 

Project 

West Valley, NY 

Phase 1 3/09 

Phase 1 2/10 

LTR-UNRES* T

17 Westinghouse ElectricHematite Facility Festus, MO 4/04 revised 

6/06, 8/09 

10/11 LTR-UNRES 2
25 

+ The staff is currently reviewing the draft legal agreement and restrictive covenant for restricted us* The West Valley Phase I DP includes plans to release a large portion of the site for unrestricted u

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

** The Hunter’s Point Shipyard and Alameda Naval Air Station sites are being remediated by the Na

McClellan site is being remediated by the Air Force, under the required CERCLA process and EPis assumed that some licensable material might be present at both sites; however, the NRC has nthese sites. Instead, the Commission has approved a “limited involvement approach to stay inforrely on the ongoing CERCLA process and EPA oversight. More information is available on this a

SECY-08-0077. 

Notes: • The compliance criteria identified in this table present the staff’s most recent information but do n

represent the current or likely outcome. 

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

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

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

phased implementation of decommissioning, to poor submittals. 
26 

2.4 Uranium Recovery Facility Decommissioning7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

long-term surveillance plan (LTSP) for the NRC concurrence. Table 2-4a identifies the 22 Title I 

sites that are undergoing decommissioning. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

inspection of decommissioning activities, including confirmatory surveys; decommissioning cost 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long-Term Care of Uranium or Thorium Byproduct Materials Disposal Sites,” governs the 

long-term 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. The six Title II sites that have been transferred for 

 

7

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

discussion on their decommissioning. 
27 

long-term care are identified in Table 2-4c. Status summaries for the Title II sites undergoing 

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

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.” Instead, they are subject 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 DP8

 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 groundwater 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, groundwater restoration should occur at one 

well-field, 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. 

 

8

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

tailings impoundments, groundwater cleanup, and other remediation efforts. 
28 

Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan—Existing Facilities

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

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

Amendments would be necessary under the following circumstances: 

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

considered in the existing DP/RP; 

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

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

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

may be warranted. 

Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan—New Facilities

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation of the Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan

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

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

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

schedule. For conventional facilities, with groundwater contamination, or for ISR facilities with 

well-field restoration, 24 months is usually insufficient, because remediation of groundwater 

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’s activities during decommissioning/reclamation to 

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

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

ensure that there is no degradation in groundwater quality after the completion and approval of 

groundwater restoration by monitoring the groundwater 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 groundwater restoration. 

Groundwater restoration is considered completed when concentrations on and off site 

(depending on the extent of contaminant migration) meet previously established groundwater 

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: 
29 

1. NRC-approved background concentrations; 

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

Appendix A); and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP/RP, license conditions, and the 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 the NRC staff review and acceptance. The LTSP documents the 

custodian’s responsibilities for long-term care, including security, inspections, groundwater 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 groundwater 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 groundwater 

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

release. 
30 

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2012 Activities 

• In FY 2012, the NRC staff conducted in-process inspections of the decommissioning 

activities at the Sequoyah Fuels site in Gore, OK. The completed work included the 

demolition of several buildings and the emplacement of waste into Phase I and 

Phase II areas of the onsite disposal cell. Sequoyah Fuels is remediating soil in the 

Phase III area of the onsite disposal cell, in preparation for cell construction in that 

area. 

• In response to the FY 2011 audit by the Office of the Inspector General, staff 

developed and implemented a program to conduct observational site visits at sites 

that have been transferred to DOE and are generally licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 

40.27 and 40.28. Site visits were conducted at Bluewater (Arco), Durango, L-Bar, 

Mexican Hat, Shiprock, Shirley Basin South, and Tuba City. 

• Staff worked with the State of Wyoming and DOE to evaluate options for completing 

decommissioning at the ANC Gas Hills site given the limitations of available funds. 

A Confirmatory Order with the State mandating certain activities was modified to 

focus only on essential elements such as pumping the contaminated water under a 

corrective action program during the summer months, taking annual settlement 

measurements on Pond #1, and submitting an annual report to the NRC. Staff 

reviewed the annual settlement data for Pond #1 and determined that it still has not 

reached 90 percent settlement. The NRC is working with the State to evaluate the 

extent of the contaminated plume of ground water flowing to the north.

• The United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) Church Rock Mill site is designated a 

Superfund Site by the EPA. In response to the EPA’s Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action Memorandum that supported permanent disposal of approximately 1 million 

cubic yards of mine waste from the Northeast Church Rock Mine Site at the UNC 

Church Rock Mill, the NRC staff has been participating in quarterly teleconference 

discussions as part of the EPA’s Technical Design Committee. In May 2012, the 

NRC staff also participated in annual interagency meetings with the EPA, New 

Mexico Environmental Department, DOE, Navajo Nation EPA and the Licensee to 

discuss outstanding technical issues such as the ongoing groundwater remediation 

effort at the UNC Church Rock Mill site. In August 2012, the NRC staff participated 

in two public meetings to discuss the unique EPA Proposed Plan to transfer 

Northeast Church Rock Mine waste to the UNC Church Rock Mill Site. The EPA’s 

final decision on the Proposed Plan is expected in March 2013, and the NRC staff 

will continue to fulfill a technical supportive role on this issue. Notwithstanding the 

EPA’s final decision on the Proposed Plan, no mine waste may be disposed of in the 

NRC-licensed mill site absent the NRC approval of a license amendment request 

from the licensee. 

• Groundwater reclamation activities continue at the Homestake Mining Company site 

near Milan, New Mexico. Groundwater restoration activities are being conducted in 

accordance with the NRC License SUA-1471. In 2006, Homestake submitted an 

updated groundwater Corrective Action Plan for the NRC review and approval. The 

staff is coordinating its review of the updated Corrective Action Plan with the EPA 
31 

and State of New Mexico. Regulatory jurisdictional issues between the NRC, EPA 

and the State threaten to slow reclamation progress at the Homestake site. 

• In FY 2012, staff continued its increased interaction with the Navajo Nation by 

participating in the EPA Navajo Nation Uranium Contamination Stakeholder 

Workshop and attending Navajo Nation/DOE Quarterly Meetings. The NRC 

Headquarters and Region IV managers and program staff also met with the Navajo 

Nation Abandoned Mine Lands/Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Department, 

during the National Mining Association meeting in March 2012 to discuss the 

changes to the Navajo Nation government. In September 2012, site visits were 

conducted at all Navajo Nation sites. In FY 2012, staff continued its cooperative 

efforts with EPA, DOE, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Indian Health Service on 

addressing issues raised in the Navajo Nation 5-Year Plan. 

• In addition to the DOE observational site visits discussed above, site inspections or 

site visits were also performed at the ANC Gas Hills, UNC Church Rock, Sequoyah 

Fuels, Western Nuclear, and Moab sites. 

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2013 Trends and Areas of Focus 

In FY 2013, the staff expects the completion of decommissioning at the Bear Creek and 

Pathfinder Lucky Mc facilities in Wyoming, and the subsequent transfer of these sites to the 

DOE for long term surveillance and monitoring. The staff will also be evaluating UNC Church 

Rock’s license amendment request for changing groundwater background values, which will 

grant opportunities for public participation, as well as the license amendment request for the 

mine waste to be placed in the disposal cells. In FY 2013, staff will continue its outreach efforts 

for the four Title I sites located within the Navajo Nation by participating in future DOE/Navajo 

Nation/Hopi quarterly meetings, resources permitting, and to consult with the Navajo Nation on 

the review of DOE reports and plans for the reclamation and management of these sites. Staff 

will also continue to work with the State of Wyoming and DOE on a path forward for the ANC 

Gas Hills site. 

 
32 

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 Utah Monitoring 13 Monument Valley Arizona Active 14 Moab Mill Utah Active 15 Naturita Colorado Monitoring 16 Rifle Colorado Active 17 Riverton Wyoming Monitoring 18 Salt Lake City Utah Monitoring 19 Shiprock New Mexico Active 
33 

Table 2-4a Decommissioning Title I Uranium Recovery Sites 

20 Slick Rock Colorado Active 21 Spook Wyoming Monitoring 22 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. 
34 

Table 2-4b Decommissioning Title II Uranium Recovery Sites 

Name Location DP/RP Approved Com

of D

1 American Nuclear Corporation Casper, WY 10/88, Revision 2006 2012 Bear Creek Converse County, WY 5/89 2013 ExxonMobil Highlands Converse County, WY 1990 TBD 4 Homestake Mining Company Grants, NM Revised plan—3/95 2015 Pathfinder—Lucky Mc Gas Hills, WY Revised plan—7/98 2016 Pathfinder—Shirley Basin Shirley Basin, WY Revised plan—12/97 TBD 7 Rio Algom—Ambrosia Lake Grants, NM 2003 (mill); 2004 (soil) 2018 Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Gore, OK 2008 2019 

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 opein standby, uranium recovery facilities in various stages of partial restoration/decommissioning. TBD to be determined 
35 

Table 2-4c Title II Uranium Recovery Sites – DOE Licensed Under 10 CFR 40.28 

Name Location Transferred to DOE 

1 Bluewater (Arco) New Mexico 2003 2 Edgemont South Dakota 2003 3 L-Bar New Mexico 2003 4 Maybell West Colorado 2010 5 Sherwood Washington 2003 6 Shirley Basin South Wyoming 2003 
36 

2.5 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning 

Currently, there are two fuel cycle facilities undergoing partial decommissioning: the Nuclear 

Fuel Services site in Erwin, TN, and the Honeywell site in Metropolis, IL. The NRC’s public Web 

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

information about the status of these 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 within NMSS and the Division 

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

decommissioning with technical support from the Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs (FSME). In cases where the entire site is being 

decommissioned in support of license termination, the project management responsibility 

resides within FSME, and specifically, DWMEP. 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 2012 Activities 

Nuclear Fuel Services has continued to work toward releasing portions of an area within its site 

located in Erwin, TN. DMWEP staff is providing support to FCSS by reviewing FSSRs for 

several survey units in the North Site area of the site. 

 

Honeywell has requested decommissioning of a portion of its Metropolis Works facility located in 

Metropolis, IL. Honeywell anticipates that plant operations would continue during and after the 

decommissioning. The DMWEP staff has been supporting FCSS in the review of Honeywell’s 

DP for this partial decommissioning action. Honeywell’s proposed decommissioning design 

presents several unusual challenges because Honeywell has elected to leave waste in place 

under unrestricted land use conditions. Complicating the NRC’s evaluation is Honeywell’s 

simultaneous request to EPA seeking closure of this same portion of the facility. DMWEP is 

nearing completion of the SER which will include the NRC’s decision on the acceptability of 

Honeywell’s DP. 

Staff reviewed the proposed source reduction activities at the AREVA-Lynchburg uranium fuel 

fabrication site in Virginia as part of the licensee’s proposal to ultimately transition from a SNM 

license to a Commonwealth of Virginia byproduct materials license, under which the future 

decommissioning of the facility will ultimately take place. The source reduction project was 

completed and the NRC SNM license was terminated in FY 2012.
37 

3. GUIDANCE AND RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES 

In FY 2012, 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 that 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’s use when assessing ways to enhance the efficiency of the use of codes and 

models and to establish consistency and relevance in the selection of these computer codes 

and models. This activity is expected to continue into FY 2013. 

Decommissioning Guidance

In June 2011, the NRC issued the Decommissioning Planning Rule (DPR) (76 FR 35512). Staff 

worked to revise Volume 3 of NUREG-1757, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance,” so 

that it would be consistent with the DPR. This update was completed and the document was 

published in February 2012. It provides updated guidance on the technical aspects of 

compliance with requirements for timeliness in decommissioning of materials facilities, the 

requirements for financial assurance for decommissioning, and the recordkeeping requirements 

related to eventual decommissioning. Principal changes were made to the financial assurance 

guidance to help ensure adequate funds are available for decommissioning. Some examples 

include: eliminating financial mechanisms that do not correspond to the duration of 

decommissioning; recommending that licensees that rely on guarantees also establish Standby 

Trust Agreements; and, recommending that cost estimates be updated more frequently if 

contamination is detected that would, if left uncorrected, lead to a restricted release scenario. 

Another guidance document in support of the DPR, Draft Regulatory Guide (DG)-4014 (ADAMS 

No. ML111590642), is soon to be issued as Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.22. It addresses the 

identification of contamination for which there must be decommissioning financial assurance. A 

preliminary draft of the guidance was issued in 2008 along with the proposed DPR. DG-4014 

was issued for public comment in December 2011. An interim revision was issued in June 2012 

for public comment to support a public meeting in July 2012. RG 4.22 is planned for release 

prior to the effective date of the DPR, December 17, 2012.

As the guidance for uranium recovery licensing goes back to the late 1970s, the NRC staff 

determined that a thorough reexamination, consolidation, and updating of the guidance being 

used by DWMEP staff would be appropriate. This update is being prepared as a 4th volume to 

NUREG-1757. This volume will incorporate those provisions and aspects of the existing 

uranium recovery guidance, which are specifically relevant to the reclamation, restoration and 

decommissioning of uranium recovery facilities. All commercial licensed facility types will be 
38 

addressed: convention mills, ISR, heap leach and byproduct recovery operations. This volume 

will incorporate provisions unique to byproduct material as defined in section 11(e).2 of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, permanent waste disposal, and financial assurance, 

which are significantly different from such considerations in the decommissioning of other 

materials facilities. During FY 2012, the staff initiated drafting the guidance. As part of the 

approach to enhance early stakeholder input, the membership of the working group has been 

expanded to include the NRC Region IV staff and a representative from the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and Environment. This effort was discussed with stakeholders 

such as the National Mining Association. 
39 

4. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 

The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) continues to focus its support on key 

decommissioning issues through a number of activities discussed below. 

Field studies on the effects of coupling hydrology, erosion and erosion protection approaches on 

the performance of engineered covers to isolate waste were completed in FY 2012. Analysis of 

data is complete and the final reports will be completed in early FY 2013. The research thus far 

indicates that effective erosion control can be achieved with a variety of surfaces in addition to 

conventional rip rap. Gravel admixtures to fine-textured soil appear optimal, as they minimize 

erosion and enhance hydrologic control. Effective erosion control on steep slopes can be 

achieved using ribbons of rip rap or other coarse materials (i.e., they act as "speed bumps" for 

erosion), rather than continuous rip rap slopes. Conventional linear cover slopes are prone to 

change. Using a more natural non-linear grade reduces erosion and promotes long-term 

stability, but will be slightly more complicated to construct. Landform evolution models are 

valuable in identifying future shapes of covers. Creating cover designs that mimic the long-term 

geometry in the as-built condition reduces erosion and promotes better hydrologic control. 

The final report will include validation of the methodologies with field data, standard practices 

for calibrating and conducting landform simulations to assess and optimize coupled 

hydrologic-erosion design, a series of recommended erosion control strategies that result in 

acceptable hydrologic control, and a comparison of the findings between humid and semiarid/arid sites to evaluate climate effects. 

 

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

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

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

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

Brookhaven National Laboratory, into RESRAD-OFFSITE. ANL is now preparing a final report 

on the use of the DUST-modified RESRAD-OFFSITE. Work will also be completed in FY 2013 

to adapt the Decontamination and Decommissioning Code to current computational 

environments. 

Cooperative efforts with the DOE, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and 

academic, private sector, and international experts continued on the Cementitious Barriers 

Partnership (CBP), which is in its fifth and final year. The CBP is a multi-disciplinary 

collaboration formed to develop the next generation of simulation tools to evaluate the 

structural, hydraulic and chemical performance of cementitious barriers used in nuclear 

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

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

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

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

work at NIST to examine pore solution chemistry and mineral phases in cementitious 

composites with chemical and mineral admixtures has been completed. A final NUREG/CR 

report is under review. 
40 

In the biosphere research program, NUREG/CR-7120, “Radionuclide Behavior in Soils and 

Soil-to-Plant Concentration Ratios for Assessing Food-Chain Pathways” (ADAMS No. 

ML12104A017) was published in April 2012. Cooperative studies continued with Pacific 

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

uptake in fruit and nut trees. A NUREG/CR report on “Transfer Factors for Nuclide Uptake by 

Fruit and Nut Trees” is in preparation. 

Researchers at PNNL and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) are completing their 

work to determine the long term efficacy of bioremediation of groundwater contaminated with 

uranium at both surficial sites and deeper ISR facilities. USGS has completed long term column 

experiments on the bioremediation of uranium in shallow aquifers. These results and those from 

the PNNL modeling show that uranium will be readily reoxidized and released to solution. The 

use of added iron (as proposed by a licensee) to generate large quantities of adsorptive 

minerals, was shown to have little effect. As a result, RES has recommended that this 

approach for shallow systems should not be relied on to sequester uranium. Experiments have 

been conducted to assess bioremediation of uranium at ISR sites with modeling activities for 

these sites nearing completion. Preliminary results for these deeper sites indicate that 

re-establishing the natural reducing conditions at depth can be an effective remediation strategy 

in spite of the severe disruption of the original biological community by the ISR process. 

NUREG/CR-7105, “Radionuclide Release from Slag and Concrete Waste Materials, Part 2: 

Relationship between Laboratory Tests and Field Leaching” (ANL) (ADAMS No. 

ML11307A347), provides a discussion of the causes of differences in weathering and leaching 

rates of cement and slag wastes observed in laboratory and field tests. It includes a protocol 

that can be used by the NRC to integrate the results of short-term laboratory tests and field 

measurements that address long-term waste material degradation and leaching into the model 

calculations that are used to assess the stability of wastes at the NRC-regulated sites. 

In January 2012, RES published NUREG/CR-7021, “A Subsurface Decision Model for 

Supporting Environmental Compliance,” Robert Stewart, University of Tennessee (ADAMS No. 

ML12026A022). This report describes a process for evaluating subsurface contamination 

against regulatory standards. It documents the steps employed in the Spatial Analysis and 

Decision Assistance computer code. 

The RES staff completed its 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 with publication of 

“Thermodynamic Sorption Modeling in Support of Radioactive Waste Disposal Safety Cases,” 

May 4, 2012, NEA#06914, ISBN: 978-92-64-17781-9. This report provides technical bases to 

support the use of thermodynamic sorption models in performance assessments. 

The RES staff also provided direct assistance to FSME efforts through a variety of tasks that 

included: (1) contributing to the critical review and Technical Evaluation Report for the 

Savannah River F-Tanks Performance Assessment; (2) contributing to the Engineered Covers 

Technical Group evaluation of covers for UMTRCA wastes; and (3) participating in the 

MARSSIM Interagency Working Group. 
41 

5. INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES 

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

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

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

support documents through interaction with international organizations and governments 

including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the NEA (of the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development). The NRC participates in bilateral and trilateral 

exchanges with other countries, hosting foreign assignees and providing reciprocal 

assignments, developing and providing workshops to requesting countries, and providing 

technical support as needed to the Office of International Programs. The NRC is generally 

recognized in the international nuclear community as an experienced leader in the regulation 

and safety of decommissioning, waste disposal, site remediation and environmental protection. 

Interaction with international organizations and governments allows the NRC to share insights 

about successful, safe, and effective decommissioning approaches. This interaction also allows 

the staff to provide input for various international guidance documents and standards that 

benefit other countries in establishing and implementing safe decommissioning strategies in the 

international community. Conversely, the 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 

• Staff participated in the review and development of IAEA Safety Standards, and also 

participated in IAEA projects related to decommissioning and waste disposal, the 

International Project on Evaluation and Demonstration of Safety for Decommissioning of 

Facilities Using Radioactive Material, and developing safety criteria/positions regarding 

exemption of decommissioning installations from liability under the Vienna Convention. 

• Staff participated in the Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) Mission to Switzerland 

held November 18 to December 3, 2011, at the Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate 

Headquarters in Brugg, Switzerland. The purpose of the IRRS Mission was to review the 

effectiveness of the Swiss framework for safety within the competence of the Swiss Federal 

Nuclear Safety Inspectorate, with specific focus on nuclear and research reactors, 

transportation, decommissioning, and waste management facilities regulatory programs. 

• Staff participated in an interagency (NRC, DOE, EPA and the State Department) delegation 

for the fourth triennial Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties of the Joint Convention on 

the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management 

on May 14-23, 2012. Decommissioning of nuclear facilities was included in the scope of this 

convention for achieving a uniform global level of safety in such management of radioactive 

materials and activities. The DWMEP Division Director served as the Chairman of a 

Country Review Group and a member of the General Committee. 
42 

• The DWMEP Division Director was the U.S. representative to the IAEA Waste Safety 

Standards Committee. Within the past year, the staff participated in and supported IAEA 

activities through participation in the 32nd and 33rd semi-annual review cycles of the IAEA 

Waste Safety Standards Committee and meetings, held December 13–15, 2011 and 

July 2-6, 2012, respectively. Staff also coordinated reviews of several draft IAEA standards 

directly related to decommissioning, cleanup & remediation, and environmental monitoring 

during the review cycles.

• Staff from Region IV and the Office of International Programs participated in an 

IAEA-sponsored consultancy on the “Establishment of an Inspection Programme for the 

Decommissioning of Former Nuclear Activities in Iraq” in Amman, Jordan. Participants 

included representatives from the Iraqi Ministry of Environment’s Radiation Protection 

Center and the Iraqi Radioactive Source Regulatory Authority. The workshop focused on 

the programmatic and technical aspects of conducting decommissioning inspections and 

was oriented toward the decommissioning of Iraqi nuclear facilities damaged or destroyed in 

the Gulf Wars. Region IV also hosted three of the Iraqi representatives, on behalf of IAEA, 

to observe the NRC inspections at several active Region IV decommissioning sites. 

• Several NRC managers participated in the 56th Annual Regular Session of the General 

Conference on September 17-21, 2012, in Vienna, Austria. The NRC provided a 

presentation on U.S. Legacy Sites at a side meeting. 

• Members of the NRC staff participated at the October 2011 IAEA-sponsored workshop for 

the Research Reactor Decommissioning Demonstration Project at the Riso Technical 

Center in Roskilde, Denmark. Staff provided three lectures on decommissioning plans, 

decommissioning safety and decommissioning work integration. Staff participated as a 

mentor for the practical exercises in decommissioning safety assessment. 

• The NRC provided technical experts to support the IAEA in the preparation of Safety 

Standards, which are drafted in consultancy meetings. The following meetings addressed 

decommissioning and other related issues specifically, as part of IAEA waste safety 

activities: 

– Consultancy Meeting to assist in the revision of a combination of Safety Guides 

WS-G-2.4, “Decommissioning of Fuel Cycle Facilities;” and WS-G-2.1, 

“Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors and Research Reactors,” August 25 - 

September 1, 2012, at the Vienna International Center, Vienna, Austria. 

– Consultancy Meeting on Entombment as a Decommissioning Strategy on August 19-25, 

2012, in Vienna, Austria. 

– Consultancy Meeting from January 30 to February 3, 2012, at the IAEA Headquarters in 

Vienna, Austria on: 

• Draft General Safety Requirements Part 6, “Decommissioning and Termination of 

Activities”, DS450 

• Draft Safety Guide DS403, “Decommissioning of Medical, Industrial and Research 

Facilities” 
43 

• Draft Safety Guide DS402, “Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants and 

Research Reactors” 

• Draft Safety Guide DS404, “Decommissioning of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities” 

• New Draft Safety Guide DS452, “Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, except 

Facilities using NORM and Medical, Industrial, Research and Disposal Facilities” 

Nuclear Energy Agency Activities 

• The NRC contributed to the 15th Session of the NEA Radioactive Waste Management 

Committee Bureau Annual Report for the Radioactive Waste Management Committee. 

• Staff continued as a U.S. representative and core group member of the NEA Working Party 

on Decommissioning and Dismantling. 

• Staff participated in the Working Party on Decommissioning and Dismantling 13th annual 

meeting in Paris and delivered a presentation on “Decommissioning and Risk Approach to 

Remediation and Cleanup of Legacy Sites.” 

International Conferences and Meetings

The NRC staff and senior managers participated in numerous conferences held domestically 

and overseas in topical areas including decommissioning. These include: 

• The 14th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste 

Management held in Reims, France from September 26-29, 2011. 

• The Uranium Mining and Remediation Exchange Group in Freiberg, Germany on 

September 21, 2011. 

• The Waste Management Symposium Annual Conference held February 26–March 1, 2012, 

at the Phoenix Convention Center, Phoenix, Arizona. 
44 

6. PROGRAM INTEGRATION AND IMPROVEMENT 

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

The NRC has continued the implementation of an enhanced Comprehensive Decommissioning 

Program, which allows the 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 the 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. 

Knowledge Management 

Progress continued on knowledge management activities identified in the staff’s June 2010 

Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP), Rev. 3, with an ongoing emphasis on 

the uranium recovery part of the decommissioning program. These knowledge management 

activities should result in future efficiencies and enhancements in the staff’s oversight of 

uranium recovery sites under general license with the DOE for long term surveillance as well as 

those uranium recovery sites in closure and under specific licenses to private entities.

As mentioned in Section 3, the staff continued to work on a multi-year effort to review, 

consolidate and update over 130 uranium recovery decommissioning guidance documents. 

When completed, this document will be published as Volume 4 of the Consolidated 

Decommissioning Guidance, NUREG-1757, and will be an important knowledge management 

accomplishment. 

Two major tasks were completed that evaluated and documented extensive staff knowledge 

about engineered covers. These tasks are a follow up to work completed in FY 2011 by the 

working group “Engineered Covers Technical Group.” The Center for Nuclear Waste 

Regulatory Analysis (CNWRA), an NRC contractor, completed the first task documenting the: 

(1) development of databases for radon emission fluxes and groundwater geochemical 

observations at 11 UMTRCA Title II sites; (2) site-specific analyses of cover performance with 

respect to radon emissions and groundwater releases; (3) analyses of methodology for 

estimating inflow through covers; and (4) recommended approaches for monitoring cover inflow 

at existing and potential future mill tailings sites. For this report, a large number of documents 

from the 1980s and 1990s related to the 38 uranium recovery sites were obtained, reviewed, 

pertinent information consolidated, and qualitatively evaluated, resulting in significant knowledge 
45 

preservation. The resulting report and databases provide easy access to this information for the 

NRC Project Managers. CNWRA staff provided the NRC with two databases and associated 

documentation and trained the NRC staff on operating and maintaining the databases. 

The second task involved the CNWRA evaluating how best to study performance-related 

long-term processes that occur in covers, and determining the feasibility of constructing an 

experimental cover on Southwest Research Institute property and monitoring it on a long-term 

basis. Numerous monitoring system designs were evaluated and documented, including 

potential advantages and disadvantages of the cover and monitoring design(s) and approximate 

associated costs for short-term construction and long-term monitoring. In addition, CNWRA 

staff evaluated the cover components to be monitored, data collection methods, and climate and 

location. Results will help staff determine usefulness and applicability of monitoring long-term 

significant processes on and in a possible experimental cover. 

The staff also participated with DOE on a knowledge exchange of DOE’s ongoing research on 

engineered covers related to uranium recovery sites. The staff observed the soil ripping 

evaluation in a test pad of DOE/LM's Enhanced Cover Assessment Project (ECAP). The test 

pad is essentially identical to the upper layers of the cover located at Grand Junction, and 

identical to the covers constructed in a nearby lysimeter test facility. The goal of ripping is to 

accelerate and enhance the transformation of a resistive cover into a water balance cover. 

DOE will use the results to choose the ripping method, if any, for use on one of its lysimeter test 

sections. 

IDIP tasks for developing new training courses and methods were also completed. Two 

courses were added to iLearn in FY 2010—Visual Sample Plan and Health Physics for Uranium 

Recovery—were provided at Agreement State locations, allowing greater access to the States 

and reducing NRC costs. The MARSAME training class was added to iLearn and the first class 

was provided in early FY 2012. DWMEP issued a contract to ANL to upgrade the MILDOSAREA computer code used for radon dose modeling of new applicants and expansion of 

existing uranium facilities. A new training class, MILDOS-AREA Training Workshop, sponsored 

by Human Resources – Training Resource Development, was piloted in FY 2012. At the 

request of an Agreement State, a new course, Characterization and Planning for 

Decommissioning, has been added in iLearn and will be given in early FY 2013. Interim 

guidance on sensitivity and uncertainty analyses was developed, in the form of a desk guide for 

staff use until it is incorporated into NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Appendix I.

Uranium Recovery Decommissioning Program Enhancements

In 2007, responsibility for the uranium recovery sites undergoing decommissioning was 

transferred to DWMEP, along with the staff from FCSS responsible for oversight of the 

decommissioning uranium recovery (UR) sites. At that time, the price of uranium was low and it 

was expected that most of the staff’s efforts would be associated with the oversight of uranium 

recovery sites undergoing decommissioning. However, shortly after the transfer, the price of 

uranium increased significantly, resulting in the uranium industry submitting, or planning to 

submit over 25 applications for new and/or expanded facilities or to re-start facilities that were in 

standby. This resulted in the need to refocus uranium recovery staff efforts from the oversight 

of decommissioning sites to the review and approval of these new applications. 
46 

In order to accommodate this increase in uranium recovery site licensing, and to enhance the 

oversight of decommissioning uranium recovery facilities, the staff in FSME’s Decommissioning 

and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate began a multi-phased effort focused on increasing 

the efficiency and the effectiveness of the oversight of decommissioning UR facilities. 

Because of the efficiency gains realized through the enhancements in the decommissioning 

program, resources that would have been used in the materials and reactor decommissioning 

program are now used to oversee the uranium recovery sites undergoing decommissioning. 

Project management responsibility was transferred from the uranium recovery licensing staff to 

the materials/reactor decommissioning staff, allowing more staff resources to be devoted to 

these sites. This effort began in FY 2009 and was fully implemented in FY 2011. 

In addition to the oversight activities by project managers, in FY 2012, staff developed and 

implemented a program to conduct observational site visits at sites that have been transferred 

to DOE and are generally licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 40.27 and 40.28. The effort included 

development of guidance for conducting the site visits, performing sites visits at a number of 

sites to determine the effectiveness of the guidance and to identify areas for improving the 

guidance. Based on improvements identified during site visits in 2012, the guidance was 

revised and reissued for use by Regional and Project Managers in September 2012. The 

guidance was also incorporated into Volume 4 of NUREG-1757 that is currently being 

developed. 

The NRC staff also continued its interactions with DOE for those sites that are generally 

licensed under 10 CFR 40.27 and 40.28. Staff holds quarterly calls with DOE site Project 

Managers and contractors to discuss site status and issues. Staff is also working with DOE to 

develop a site transfer protocol and has provided comments to DOE on its site transfer 

guidance for DOE staff. Staff has also begun participating in DOE meetings with the Navajo 

Nation and Hopi Tribe pertaining to the sites on the Navajo Nation and Hopi reservation. 

DOE routinely submits groundwater and data validation information to the NRC for each of the 

sites that it has responsibility for under UMTRCA. In FY 2011, staff began the development of a 

site activities/issues database to better track the review of these documents as well as issues 

that are complicating the oversight of the sites. Staff is also developing quantifiable metrics to 

track the review and comment or approval of the information for those sites that are specifically 

licensed and those that have transferred to DOE and are generally licensed under 10 CFR 

40.27 and 40.28. 
47 

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 SNM, 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 2012 included the following: 

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

(CRCPD) activities. 

• 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 (Arizona, California, 

Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and 

Tennessee). 

• NRC conducted a Health Physics for Uranium Recovery training course in Moab, 

Utah, which was attended by staff from many Agreement State programs. 

 

Table 7-1 identifies the decommissioning and uranium recovery sites in the Agreement States. 
48 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjeComp

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 TBD 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 Cotter Uranium Mill Canon City, CO 

2005, revision pending 2005, TBD 

In staTBD iinto D
49 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjeComp

CO 

Schwartzwalder Mine (Cotter) Golden, CO 12/01/96 1997 TBD 

CO Sweeney Mining and Milling Boulder, CO Pending TBD TBD CO 

Homestake Mining and Pitch Sargeants, CO 05/01/01 06/01/01 TBD 

CO Redhill Forest Fairplay, CO Pending TBD TBD CO Clean Harbors Deer Trail, CO 2005 2006 TBD FL Inuka Resources 

Green Cove Springs, FL TBD TBD TBD 

IL Spectrulite Consortium Madison, IL TBD TBD TBD IL 

TRONOX (formerly KerrMcGee) West Chicago, IL 09/01/93 09/01/94 

Phase 11/05 Phase TBD 

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 

MA Shpack Landfill Norton, MA 09/04 09/04 TBD 
50 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjeComp

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 

OH 

Metallurg Vanadium Corp. (Formerly Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp.) Cambridge, OH 7/13/99 3/6/02 TBD 

OH 

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

OH Advanced Medical Systems, 

Inc. Cleveland, OH 6/01/04 5/23/05 2015 

OR 

TDY Industries d/b/a Wah Chang Albany, OR 6/11/03 3/08/06 TBD 

OR PCC Structurals, Inc. Portland, OR 6/10/06 9/14/06 TBD PA Curtis-Wright Cheswick Cheswick, PA 3/06 6/07 TBD 
51 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjeComp

PA Molycorp, Inc. (Washington) Washington, PA 6/99 8/00 TBD PA 

Superbolt (formerly Superior Steel) Carnegie, PA None TBD TBD 

PA 

Quehanna (formerly Permagrain Products, Inc.) Karthaus, PA 

4/98, revised 3/03, 3/06 

7/98, 9/03, 11/06 TBD 

PA Safety Light Corporation Bloomsburg, PA None TBD TBD PA 

Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Waltz Mill) Madison, PA 4/97 1/00 TBD 

PA Whittaker Corporation Greenville, PA 

12/00, revised 8/03, 10/06 5/07 TBD 

TX 

ExxonMobil 

Three Rivers, TX 4/85 9/82 TBD 

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 

GrouncompSurfaongoi
52 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjeComp

TX 

Intercontinental Energy Corp. Three Rivers, TX 3/03 Ongoing 

GrouncompSurfa

TX 

Everest Exploration, Inc. (decommissioning of Tex-1, Mt. Lucas sites) 

Hobson and Dinero, TX 8/01 Ongoing 

GrouncompSurfacleanongoi

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 D&D decontamination and decommissioning N/A not applicable TBD to be determined 
53 

8. RESOURCES 

The total Decommissioning Program staff budget for FY 2012 was 56 full-time equivalents 

(FTE); and for FY 2013, the program has 55 FTE. These resource figures include personnel to 

perform licensing casework directly related to decommissioning sites; inspections; project 

management and technical support for decommissioning power reactors, research and test 

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 nonsupervisory indirect FTE associated with the Decommissioning 

Program, and safety and environmental reviews for new uranium recovery facilities. 
54 

9. FISCAL YEAR 2013 PLANNED PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES 

The staff plans the continued implementation of IDIP and its knowledge management tasks 

during FY 2013. Specifically, the NRC staff have identified knowledge management activities 

for documenting and exchanging decommissioning lessons learned for selected topics (e.g., 

uranium recovery, restricted release, and ALARA. 

Work will continue on the update of uranium recovery decommissioning and reclamation 

guidance for Title I and II sites, which was one of the major tasks previously identified. In FY 

2011, staff began a multi-year effort to review, consolidate, and update over 130 uranium 

recovery decommissioning guidance documents as part of the IDIP improvement process. This 

process will continue throughout FY 2013, and, when completed, this document will be 

published as Volume 4 of the Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, NUREG-1757. 

In early FY 2013, DWMEP staff will work with the Office of Information Services to incorporate 

fact sheets on the public Web site, which will replace the current site summaries for all NRCregulated sites undergoing decommissioning. These fact sheets, developed by CNWRA and 

reviewed by the NRC project managers, will present relevant facility information more clearly, 

with a consistent format and scope. The staff will continue to update site information on a 

quarterly basis. 

Regarding the question about the NRC jurisdiction for military radium-226, the staff plans on 

completing its discussions with DoD regarding the responses to DoD comments on the draft 

RIS. The staff currently plans on providing its evaluation of optimal recommendation to the 

Commission before finalizing the RIS. 

In FY 2013, staff expects to complete a database of UMTRCA Title I and Title II sites. The 

database will contain basic information about each site, information for DOE/Native American 

points of contact, and a list of both historical and current site issues. This database will allow 

staff to better track the review of incoming groundwater and data validation information 

submittals.