Status of the 

Decommissioning Program 

2011 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 ......................................................................................................... 1

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

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

2.1.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2011 Activities ................................................... 6

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2012 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 2011 Activities ................................................. 12

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2012 Trends and Areas of Focus ........................................ 12

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

2.3.1 Decommissioning Process ..................................................................... 15

2.3.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2011 Activities ................................................. 18

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2012 Trends and Areas of Focus ........................................ 21

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

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

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2011 Activities ................................................. 29

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2012 Trends and Areas of Focus ........................................ 29

2.5 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning................................................................. 34

2.5.1 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning Process ....................................... 34

2.5.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2011 Activities ................................................. 34

3. Guidance and Rulemaking Activities .................................................................................... 35

4. Research Activities .............................................................................................................. 37

5. International Activities .......................................................................................................... 39

6. Program Integration ............................................................................................................. 42

7. Agreement State Activities ................................................................................................... 44

8. Resources ........................................................................................................................... 52

9. Fiscal Year 2011 Planned Programmatic Activities .............................................................. 53

 

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 ............................................................................. 22

Table 2-4a Decommissioning Title I Uranium Recovery Sites .................................................. 31

Table 2-4b Decommissioning Title II Uranium Recovery Sites ................................................. 33

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites ................................................................ 46
 iii

ABBREVIATIONS 

 

ACL alternate concentration limit 

ANL Argonne National Laboratory 

BWXT Babcock & Wilcox Technologies 

CBP Cementitious Barriers Partnership 

CERCLA

 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRCPD Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors 

CY calendar year 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

D&D decontamination and decommissioning 

DP decommissioning plan 

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 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 
 iv

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 

OAS Organization of Agreement States 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

PSDAR Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report 

RAI request for additional information 

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

RP reclamation plan 

RWMC Radioactive Waste Management Committee 

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 

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’s) decommissioning activities in fiscal year (FY) 2011, 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, 2011. 

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

(DWMEP) began an effort to enhance the effectiveness of 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; 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 2011, the staff continued to focus on enhancing the effectiveness of the Decommissioning 

Program by undertaking a comprehensive effort to consolidate and update decommissioning 

guidance for uranium recovery facilities. 

As noted in our FY 2010 report (SECY-09-0167, “Status of the Decommissioning Program-2010 

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 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 has allowed the staff in FY 2011 to focus specifically on the decommissioning of 

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

In addition to shifting uranium decommissioning activities to the decommissioning branches in 

order to enhance regulatory oversight, an effort was undertaken to leverage the broad 

decommissioning experience of the NRC staff to achieve efficiency gains. 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 terms of accomplishments, the final Decommissioning Planning Rule was published in June 

2011, and the effort to produce the draft technical basis for a potential rulemaking on prompt 

remediation of spills was initiated. In addition, although only one site completed 
2 

decommissioning in FY 2011 (CSX), this fiscal year did see considerable progress being made 

at sites that have complex technical issues. For example, progress continued on the Phase I 

decommissioning activities at the West Valley Demonstration Project near Buffalo, New York; 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has made substantial progress in completing remediation of 

contamination at the Stepan Chemical site in New Jersey; and remediation efforts have begun 

at the long-stalled Babcock & Wilcox Shallow Land Disposal Area in western Pennsylvania. 

FY 2012 will see two to three complex materials sites completing decommissioning activities, 

with similar numbers completing decommissioning in succeeding years. Most power reactors 

undergoing decommissioning will remain in SAFSTOR and progress in research and test 

reactor decommissioning will increase somewhat. Within the next 3 years, several Title II1

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

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for long-term control under a general license. 

As a final note, in 2011, the Office of the Inspector General conducted an audit of the uranium 

recovery decommissioning activities. The staff expects that the results of that audit will be 

released in early FY 2012.

 

1

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

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

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

or an Agreement State. Section 2.4, infra, explains this in detail. 
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 200 materials licenses. Most of these license 

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

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

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

As of September 30, 2011, 12 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors, 12 research and 

test reactors, 18 complex decommissioning materials facilities, one fuel cycle facility, 21 Title I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anticipated decommissioning approach. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreement States’ decommissioning programs. 

2.1 Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning 

NRC power reactor decommissioning activities include project management for 

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

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

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

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

support the progressive stages of decommissioning. The staff regularly coordinates with other 
4 

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, 2011, the 12 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors identified in 

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

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

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

2.1.1 Decommissioning Process 

The decommissioning process begins when a licensee decides to permanently cease 

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

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

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

LTP, and completion of decommissioning. 

Notification

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

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

once fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. 

Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report

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

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

• a description and schedule for the planned decommissioning activities; 

• an estimate of the expected costs; and 

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

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

previously issued Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Foreclose release of the site for unrestricted use; 

• Result in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed; or 
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 changes in the facility without a license amendment. In taking actions permitted under 

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

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

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

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

proceeds at its own risk. 

License Termination Plan

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

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

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

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

include the following: 

• a site characterization; 

• identification of remaining dismantlement activities; 

• plans for site remediation; 

• detailed plans for the final radiation survey; 

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

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

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

significant environmental change associated with the licensee’s proposed 

termination activities. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

issued November 2002. The LTP is approved by license amendment. 
6 

Implementation of the License Termination Plan

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

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

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

will normally include in-process and confirmatory radiological surveys. 

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

unless otherwise approved by the Commission. 

Completion of Decommissioning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LTP. 

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

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

2.1.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2011 Activities 

• Regional staff proactively completed spent fuel pool safety inspections at spent fuel 

pool sites not accompanied by an operating power reactor, including GE Morris, Zion 

Station, and La Crosse. These inspections were conducted in response to the 

events at Fukushima Dai-ichi and utilized the inspector guidance found in 

TI2515/183. Inspections will continue through FY 2012 to verify program integrity 

and safe operations. 

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

10 CFR 73.55 for Fermi Unit 1, Dresden Unit 1, and Peach Bottom Unit 1. 

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

including meetings at Zion Station, Humboldt Bay, and La Crosse to discuss 

decommissioning actions. 

 

2

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

meetings that are open to observation by members of the public.
7 

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

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

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

Additionally, substantial progress was made during FY 2011 at several sites: 

• At Zion Units 1 and 2, decommissioning planning activities for the removal of large 

components were performed. Containment accesses were constructed to allow for 

equipment removal. 

• At La Crosse, testing began on final spent fuel transfer equipment and dry-runs were 

conducted for the transfer of spent fuel from the spent fuel pool to the Interim Spent 

Fuel Storage Installation. 

• At Humboldt Bay, planning for the removal and segmentation of the reactor core 

internal structures was performed. 

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2012 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in power reactor decommissioning will remain at a similar level as in FY 2011, 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, 

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

future.
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*** 2030 3 Humboldt Bay Eureka, CA 2/98 2011 2012 4 Indian Point Unit 1 Buchanan, NY 1/96 2020 2022 5 La Crosse La Crosse, WI 5/91 TBD TBD 6 Millstone Unit 1 Waterford, CT 6/99 TBD TBD 7 Nuclear Ship Savannah Baltimore, MD 12/08 2014 TBD 8 Peach Bottom Unit 1 Delta, PA 6/98 TBD TBD 9 San Onofre Unit 1 San Clemente, CA 12/98 TBD TBD 10 Three Mile Island Unit 2 Harrisburg, PA 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. ** 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. Note: Licensees submitted DPs (or equivalent) before 1996 and PSDARs after 1996. 
10 

2.2 Research and Test Reactor Decommissioning

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

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

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

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

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

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

and test reactors, both operating and decommissioning. 

As of September 30, 2011, the 12 research and test reactors identified in Table 2-2 are 

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

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

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

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

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

development and review process. 

Decommissioning Plan

The DP must include the following: 

• The choice of the alternative3

 for decommissioning with a description of the planned 

decommissioning activities; 

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

occupational and public health and safety; 

• 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 colocated 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; and 

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

decommissioning activities, such as a supplement to the environmental report 

describing any new information or significant environmental change associated with 

the licensee’s proposed termination activities. 

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

LTR. 

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

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

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

Safety Evaluation Report (SER), or equivalent. 

Implementation of the Decommissioning Plan

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

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

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

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

surveillance, the licensee shall meet the following conditions: 

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

segregated from the licensee’s assets and outside the licensee’s administrative 

control during the storage or surveillance period, or a surety method or fund 

statement of intent will be maintained in accordance with the criteria of 

10 CFR 50.75(e). 

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

over the storage or surveillance period. 

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

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

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

in-process and confirmatory radiological surveys. 
12 

Completion of Decommissioning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2011 Activities 

• The staff completed its review and approved the DP for Worcester Polytechnic 

Institute in Worcester, Massachusetts. 

• Approved the DP and Final Status Survey Plan for the University of Arizona facility 

and met with University of Arizona officials and their contractor in preparation for the 

start of decommissioning activities in FY 2011. Inspections and confirmatory surveys 

were completed in September 2011. Physical work is expected to be completed in 

late calendar year (CY) 2011. 

• The staff met with officials at the University of Buffalo to discuss the plans for 

decommissioning and the schedule for submitting the decommissioning plan. 

• The staff met with the University of Illinois and their contractor in preparation for 

active decommissioning starting in FY 2012. 

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

Mark F, General Atomics TRIGA Mark I, General Electric-VESR, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Mockup and Plum Brook, and 

Veterans Administration facilities. 

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2012 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in research and test reactor decommissioning is expected to increase in FY 2012 and 

beyond, with the University of Arizona and NASA Mockup and Plum Brook facilities expected to 

complete decommissioning. Staff work associated with the NASA Plum Brook facility will 

include the review of 17 FSSRs related to the decommissioning activities.
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 Arizona Tucson, AZ DP Approved 2012 9 University of Buffalo Buffalo, NY Possession-Only TBD 10 University of Illinois Urbana, IL DP Approved 2013 11 Veterans Administration Omaha, NE DP Submitted 2013 12 Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA DP Approved TBD 

Notes: GETR General Electric Test Reactor 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration TBD to be determined TRIGA Training, Research, Isotopes General Atomics VESR Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor 
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, 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, 2011, 18 complex materials sites are undergoing decommissioning (see 

Table 2-3). In January 2011, Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation once again became an NRC 

licensee. Authority for the site was initially transferred on September 30, 2009, when NRC 

entered into an agreement with the State of New Jersey; however, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

concluded that the NRC provided an insufficient response to Shieldalloy's comment asking NRC 

to retain jurisdiction over its site, and vacated the NRC's transfer of authority to New Jersey. 

The NRC is assessing the decision, with respect to future actions regarding New Jersey and its 

authority as an Agreement State Licensing Body for Shieldalloy. 

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/. 
15 

2.3.1 Decommissioning Process 

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

• The license expires; 

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

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

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

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

lead to license termination; 

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

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

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

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

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

termination. 

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

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

decommissioning. 

Notification

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

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

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

approval of the plan.4

 With 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; 

 

4

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

cannot proceed with decommissioning until the DP is approved. 
16 

• Procedures could result in significantly greater airborne concentrations than are 

present during operations; 

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

environment than those associated with operations. 

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

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

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

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

the issues that make the decommissioning of complex sites challenging. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by NUREG-1757 and its supporting references. 

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

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

to the appropriate State agency for review and comment. 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. 

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

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

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

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

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

guide both phases of the review. 

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

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

taken: 

• Publication of a Notice of Intent; 

• Public scoping meeting; 

• Preparation and publication of the scoping report; 

• Preparation and publication of the draft EIS; 
17 

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

• Preparation and publication of the final EIS. 

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

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

RAIs can be consolidated. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the EA, EIS, and/or the SER. 

Implementation of the Decommissioning Plan

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

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

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

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

radiological surveys. 

Completion of Decommissioning

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

following: 

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

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

equivalent information. 

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

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

submit a report of the results of the 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 2011 Activities 

• The staff completed its review of Westinghouse Electric-Hematite Decommissioning 

Plan for its former Fuel Fabrication facility in Festus, Missouri. Related approvals 

include Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan, Physical Security Plan, 

Decommissioning Funding Plan, and a 20.2002 exemption for disposal of waste to 

US Ecology, Idaho. Final approval is expected in early FY 2012. 

• 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, CA. 

• The staff conducted site visits at McClellan Air Force Base, Alameda Naval Air 

Station, and Hunters Point Shipyard. 

• The Sigma-Aldrich site was transferred from Regional lead to Headquarters lead due 

to the need for detailed expertise to understand licensee modeling of groundwater. 

• Inspections were performed at AAR Manufacturing, ABB Prospects, ABC Labs, 

Jefferson Proving Grounds, Mallinckrodt Chemical, NWI Breckenridge, SigmaAldrich, Stepan Chemical, United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) Naval Products, and 

Westinghouse Electric-Hematite facilities. 

Other significant activities are described below. 

 

Release of CSX Property

The CSX Transportation (CSX) property is an unlicensed parcel of land containing three major 

rail lines and right-of-way adjacent to the AAR Manufacturing in Livonia, Michigan. The AAR 

site is a former Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) unlicensed site. Residual 

radioactivity was found on the CSX property that was believed to have originated from the AAR 

site. In late 2009, the project management for CSX property was transferred from Region III to 

FSME/DWMEP’s Reactor Decommissioning Branch, which also had project management 

responsibility for the AAR site. The CSX property was surveyed by Headquarters health 
19 

physicists, Region III inspectors, and the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 

(ORISE), NRC’s independent contractor. The CSX property was found to meet unrestricted 

release criteria under 10 CFR 20.1402 on July 28, 2011 (ML111370451). 

Progress at NWI Land Management - Breckenridge

The decommissioning contractor, Energy Solutions (ES), completed all remediation activities at 

the Breckenridge Waste Disposal Site, and as of September 2011, completed backfilling, 

grading and seeding the site. The final status surveys were completed and ES plans to submit 

their final status survey report in October 2011 for NRC review and approval. The Region III 

inspectors completed all inspections and their confirmatory surveys of the site. Region III 

management and staff attended a public meeting on Wednesday, September 21, 2011, to 

communicate the status and final steps for the project to local stakeholders. EPA and their 

contractor removed for disposal two 55 gallon drums of chemical. The Region III project 

management staff plans to complete a SER and Federal Register notice (FRN) sometime in 

December 2011 to bring the Breckenridge Decommissioning Project to a conclusion. 

 

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, CA. 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 

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 continued the same approach for the McClellan former Air Force Base, a Superfund 

site in Sacramento, CA. The staff conducted its third annual sites visits in March 2011 to these 

sites that included site visits with the Navy and Air Force, along with meetings with EPA Region 

9, and State of California agencies. Conference calls were also conducted with representatives 

from the City of San Francisco and Sacramento County. 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 two sites. 

As a follow-up to a September 2009 scoping site visit and March 2010 site visit to the Navy’s 

Alameda Naval Air Station in Alameda, CA, the staff conducted a second site visit in March 

2011 and met with the Navy, EPA Region 9, and State of California agencies. A conference call 

was also conducted with the City of Alameda representatives. These visits provided information 

on the radioactive contaminants at this site, the Navy’s ongoing remediation under the CERCLA 

process, and EPA’s oversight activities. Based on the information from the site visits and 

additional discussions with the Navy, the staff has decided to take the Limited Involvement 

Approach at Alameda and rely on the Navy’s use of the CERCLA process and EPA’s oversight 

as it is doing for Hunters Point Shipyard and McClellan sites. The staff plans to prepare 

agreement letters in 2011 to EPA Region 9 and the Navy to document NRC’s approach for this 

site. 
20 

Clarification of NRC’s Jurisdiction of Military Radium-226

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

for 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. During FY 

2011, the staff continued its interactions with the military services to understand the types of 

radium-226 that are under military control (e.g., contamination, devices in vehicles and aircraft, 

and devices in storage) and associated military activities (e.g., remediation of contamination in 

soil and landfills, and removal of devices from vehicles). The staff worked with each military 

service to obtain a list of sites with confirmed radioactive material, including radium-226, that 

provided estimates of how many sites could come under NRC jurisdiction. These interactions 

as well as the staff annual site visits to the Navy’s Hunters Point Shipyard site and the Air 

Force’s McClellan site contributed to identifying potential issues. The issues and staff 

recommendations for clarifying NRC’s jurisdiction for certain types of radium-226 under military 

control were provided in a February 16, 2011, Commission paper (SECY-11-0023). On March 

24, 2011, the Commission approved the staff’s recommendation to prepare a guidance 

document and FRN clarifying that radium-226 that would be subject to NRC regulations, and 

described possible regulatory approaches to be used to implement NRC authority for radium226 contamination and radium-226 in items and equipment (SRM-SECY-11-0023). The FRN 

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

comment. The initial 60-day public comment period ended on September 6, 2011. On 

September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57006), the public comment period was reopened for an additional 

75 days, and currently closes on November 29, 2011. In addition, the U.S. Department of 

Defense has requested a meeting with the NRC staff; accordingly, a public meeting has been 

scheduled for November 1, 2011. 

Coordination with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regarding Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action Program Sites

When New Jersey became an Agreement State on September 30, 2009, it did not request 

regulatory authority for 11(e).2 materials. As a result, the NRC retained jurisdiction over the 

Stepan Company site, in Maywood, New Jersey. There are three burial pits at the Stepan site. 

On October 21, 2008, NRC issued a Confirmatory Order suspending Stepan’s NRC license in 

order for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to initiate remediation activities of 

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

authority. To date, the license remains suspended for all three burial pits. USACE has 

completed the remediation for all three burial pits and is continuing with final status survey to 

ensure cleanup criteria have been met. The NRC staff continues to perform periodic 

inspections to ensure that the licensee complies with environmental monitoring requirements. 

In FY 2011, the NRC participated in several interagency meetings with USACE and the State of 

Pennsylvania to discuss a path forward for license suspension and the development of 

Confirmatory Order for Babcock & Wilcox Technologies (BWXT) Shallow Land Disposal Area 

(SLDA) Site in Vandergrift, Pennsylvania. There are 10 burial pits with waste contaminated with 

special nuclear materials. On July 27, 2011, the NRC issued a letter to USACE regarding the 

acceptability of the Work Plans developed to address special nuclear material requirements in 

10 CFR Parts 70, 73 and 74. On August 5, 2011, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order 

suspending BWXT’s license to allow for USACE to initiate remediation activities of FUSRAP 
21 

material under their CERCLA authority. Subsequently, on August 22, 2011, USACE 

commenced remediation activities at burial pits #2 and #3. The USACE projects that 

remediation activities will take approximately 10 years to complete. The NRC staff will continue 

to monitor USACE’s progress at the SLDA site through routine site visits. 

There are two other FUSRAP sites that are being remediated by NRC licensees instead of 

USACE: Mallinckrodt in St. Louis, Missouri, and ABB in Windsor, Connecticut. Significant 

remediation progress has been made in FY 2011 for both sites, and remediation is near 

completion for both. 

Review of University of Missouri’s Alternative Schedule for Decommissioning

In March 2011, the staff accepted and began its technical review of a request for an alternative 

schedule for decommissioning for Pickard Hall located on University of Missouri’s campus. 

Pickard Hall, built in 1892, was identified as containing residual naturally occurring radiological 

material from early 1900s radium separation work performed in the building. The contamination 

was discovered by the university in 2009, during a review of archived records. The licensee 

requested an alternative schedule for decommissioning since the building also serves as the 

University’s Museum of Art and Archaeology and contains numerous vulnerable artifacts. The 

staff is reviewing the request to ensure the university’s controls are adequate to ensure no 

undue health risks to the occupants of the building or the members of the public should an 

alternative schedule be approved. 

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2012 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in the decommissioning of complex material sites is expected to increase in FY 2012, 

with sites such as ABC Laboratories, NWI Breckenridge, and UNC Naval Products expected to 

complete decommissioning in the coming year. The staff will also continue its focus on Army 

sites with depleted uranium contamination, and continue to work toward clarifying NRC’s 

jurisdiction of military radium-226.
22 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

ProjeRem

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

revised 9/06, 4/07+

5/98 TBD 

LTR-RES 2/13 

2 ABB Prospects, Inc. Windsor, CT 4/03 6/04 LTR-UNRES 9/12 3 ABC Labs Columbia, MO 10/09 TBD LTR-UNRES 2012 4 Babcock & Wilcox 

(Shallow Land Disposal Area) 

Vandergrift, PA 6/01 

revised N/A 

N/A LTR-UNRES 12/20 

5 Beltsville Agricultural 

Research Laboratory 

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

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

revised 5/03 

12/03 LTR-UNRES 6/23 

7 Hunter’s Point Naval 

Shipyard** (former Naval shipyard) 

San Francisco, CA 

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

8 Jefferson Proving Ground Madison, IN 8/99 

revised 6/02, 9/13 

10/02 TBD 

LTR-RES 12/13 

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

Inc. 

St. Louis, MO Phase 1 

11/97, Phase 2 9/08 

Phase 1 5/02, Phase 2 7/10 

LTR-UNRES 2/13 
23 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

ProjeRem

11 McClellan** (former Air 

Force base) 

Sacramento, CA 

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

12 NWI Breckenridge Breckenridge, 

MI 

3/04, 1/10 8/04, 2/10 LTR-UNRES 12/1

13 Shieldalloy Metallurgical 

Corporation 

Newfield, NJ 6/06 TBD LTR-RES TBD 

14 Sigma-Aldrich Maryland 

Heights, MO 

10/08, revised 11/10 

5/09, revised TBD 

LTR-UNRES TBD 

15 Stepan Chemical 

Company 

Maywood, NJ N/A N/A LTR-UNRES 2/13 

16 UNC Naval Products New Haven, 

CT 

8/98, revised 2004,12/06 

4/99, revised 10/07 

LTR-UNRES 9/12 

17 West Valley 

Demonstration Project 

West Valley, NY 

Phase 1 3/09 

Phase 1 2/10 

LTR-UNRES* TBD 

18 Westinghouse ElectricHematite Facility Festus, MO 4/04 revised 

6/06, 8/09 

TBD LTR-UNRES 12/13 
24 

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

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

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

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

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

necessarily represent the current or likely outcome. 

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

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

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

phased implementation of decommissioning, to poor submittals. 
25 

2.4 Uranium Recovery Facility Decommissioning5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and approved by the NRC at all Title I sites. However, 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 NRC concurrence. Table 2-4a identifies the Title I sites 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

inspection of decommissioning activities, including confirmatory surveys; decommissioning cost 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

5

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

discussion on their decommissioning. 
26 

2.4.1 Decommissioning Process for Uranium Mills 

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

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

Against Radiation.” 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 DP6

 or RP; implementation of the DP/RP; 

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

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

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

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

or a State. 

Notification

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

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

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

or conventional facilities, the licensee submits 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 wellfield, while other well-fields are actively extracting uranium. Under 10 CFR 40.42(f), facilities 

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

health and the environment and is in the public interest. 

 

6

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

tailings impoundments, groundwater cleanup, and other remediation efforts. 
27 

Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan—Existing Facilities

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

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

Amendments would be necessary under the following circumstances: 

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

considered in the existing DP/RP; 

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

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

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

may be warranted. 

Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan—New Facilities

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation of the Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan

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

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

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

For conventional facilities, with 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 activities during decommissioning/reclamation to ensure 

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

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

there is no degradation in 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: 
28 

1. NRC-approved background concentrations; 

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

Appendix A); and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

issues. 

License Termination—Conventional Mills

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

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

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

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

custodian’s responsibilities for long-term care, including security, inspections, 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. 
29 

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2011 Activities 

• For Title I facilities, the staff continued its review of the Groundwater Compliance 

Action Plans for the Gunnison, Naturita, and Lakeview sites. 

• For Title II facilities, the staff continued its review of the Pathfinder-Lucky Mc LTSP. 

• The staff held a technical meeting regarding its review of Umetco’s Erosion 

Protection Enhancement Design Report. 

• The staff held a public meeting with Western Nuclear to discuss license termination 

for the Split Rock Mill tailings impoundment. 

• Site inspections were performed at the American Nuclear Corporation, UNC Church 

Rock, Sequoyah Fuels, Western Nuclear, Power Resources Inc., Crow Butte, and 

Kennecott Uranium Company sites. Staff also visited the Falls City, Moab, and 

Umetco sites 

• The staff continued to implement a number of initiatives under the Integrated 

Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP), including: senior staff writing sitespecific summaries of their knowledge on issues at the Title I and II uranium 

recovery sites and training more junior staff in the field; documenting and cataloging 

historic Title I and II site information; continuing periodic “Lessons Learned” meetings 

with all of the decommissioning uranium recovery project managers; and working 

with DOE to finalize a site transfer protocol for the license termination of title II sites. 

• The staff began to prepare a 4th volume to the Consolidated Guidance for 

Decommissioning (NUREG-1757) that will incorporate provisions and aspects of the 

existing uranium recovery guidance, which are specifically relevant to the 

reclamation, restoration, and decommissioning of uranium recovery facilities. 

• The Office of the Inspector General conducted an audit of the uranium recovery 

decommissioning program. The results of that audit are expected to be released in 

early FY 2012. 

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2012 Trends and Areas of Focus 

In FY 2012, the staff expects the termination of the Bear Creek and Pathfinder Lucky Mc 

facilities in Wyoming, and the subsequent transfer of these sites to the Department of Energy for 

long term surveillance and monitoring. As in FY 2011, the staff will also continue its increased 

interaction with other agencies and the Navajo Nation. Additionally, the staff will maintain its 

focus on improvements to the Title I/Title II uranium recovery program. Work will continue on 

NUREG-1757, Volume 4, with the completion of the document currently projected for FY 2013. 

 
30 

In FY 2012, the staff will begin to include in this report the status of decommissioning of 

operating uranium recovery in situ facilities. In situ uranium recovery facilities are required to 

carry out decommissioning concurrently with operations. In particular, when a licensee 

permanently ceases injecting lixiviant into a well field, the requirements for decommissioning 

that well field are applicable.
31 

Table 2-4a Decommissioning Title I Uranium Recovery Sites 

Name Location Status 

1 Ambrosia Lake New Mexico Monitoring 2 Burrell Pennsylvania Monitoring 3 Canonsburg Pennsylvania Monitoring 4 Durango Colorado Active 5 Falls City Texas Monitoring 6 Grand Junction Colorado Monitoring 7 Green River Utah Active 8 Gunnison Colorado Active 9 Lakeview Oregon Active 10 Lowman Idaho Monitoring 11 Maybell Colorado Monitoring 12 Mexican Hat/Monument Valley Utah Monitoring 13 Moab Mill Utah Active 14 Naturita Colorado Monitoring 15 Rifle Colorado Active 16 Riverton Wyoming Active 17 Salt Lake City Utah Monitoring 18 Shiprock New Mexico Active 19 Slick Rock Colorado Active 
32 

Table 2-4a Decommissioning Title I Uranium Recovery Sites 

20 Spook Wyoming Monitoring 21 Tuba City Arizona Active Note: Active denotes that a site is still undergoing surface reclamation or is resolving groundwater issues. Monitoring denotes that the site is being monitored under its LTSP or a groundwater compliance action plan. 
33 

Table 2-4b Decommissioning Title II Uranium Recovery Sites 

Name Location DP/RP Approved Completio

of Decomm

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

Umetco Minerals Corporation East Gas Hills, WY 

Revised soil plan—4/01 TBD 

10 United Nuclear Corporation Churchrock, NM 3/91, Revision 2005 TBD 11 Western Nuclear Inc.—Split Rock Jeffrey City, WY 1997 TBD Note: COGEMA, Crow Butte, Kennecott Uranium Company, and Power Resources Inc., are all operating, in standby, uranium recovery facilities in various stages of partial restoration/decommissioning. TBD to be determined 
34 

2.5 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning 

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

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

facility. 

2.5.1 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning Process 

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

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

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

activities. 

Project management responsibility for fuel cycle facilities resides 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 2011 Activities 

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

located in Erwin, Tennessee. 

 

DWMEP 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 special nuclear material 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 is near completion. 

DWMEP staff completed the acceptance review and continued with the detailed technical 

review of Honeywell International, Inc.’s surface impoundment decommissioning plan for pond 

closure activities at its Metropolis Works facility in Illinois. Due to the presence of hazardous 

waste constituents at the pond, close coordination with the State of Illinois will continue to 

ensure that both NRC and State requirements are being met. 
35 

3. GUIDANCE AND RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES 

In FY 2011, the staff worked to increase the effectiveness of the Decommissioning Program and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

expected to continue into FY 2012. 

Decommissioning Planning Rule

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

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

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

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

(i.e., legacy sites). In June 2011, the NRC published the Decommissioning Planning Rule, 

“Decommissioning Planning (10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72)” (76 FR 35512). One 

aspect of the rulemaking focuses on ensuring that licensees have adequate financial assurance 

to complete decommissioning, and another ensures that licensees have an adequate 

groundwater monitoring program in place and will implement measures to minimize 

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

requirements for documenting spills, leaks, and unplanned releases. 

Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance

Volume 3 of NUREG-1757, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance,” has been updated to 

be consistent with the recently approved Decommissioning Planning Rule, discussed above. 

Revision 1 to Volume 3 will provide 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. Work on NUREG-1757, Volume 3, Revision 1, has been completed 

and the document is expected to be published in early FY 2012.

As the guidance for uranium recovery licensing goes back to the late 1970s, a thorough 

reexamination, consolidation, and updating of the guidance being used by DWMEP staff was 

determined to 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 
36 

uranium recovery facilities. All commercial licensed facility types will be addressed: convention 

mills, ISR, heap leach and byproduct recovery operations. Unlike the other three volumes, this 

one 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. The document is currently projected to be completed in the spring of 2013. 

Proposed Rulemaking Initiative on Prompt Remediation

On June 17, 2011, NRC issued the Decommissioning Planning Rule to reduce the likelihood of 

legacy sites. In SRM-SECY-07-0177 (for the Decommissioning Planning Proposed Rule), the 

Commission directed staff to “make further improvements to the decommissioning process by 

addressing remediation of residual radioactivity during the operational phase with the objective 

of avoiding complex decommissioning challenges that can lead to legacy sites ... [and] engage 

stakeholders to develop a technical basis, possible dose limits, criteria for applying the dose 

limits to address this matter, or alternatives to the dose limits to address the intent of this 

objective.” To respond to the Commission’s direction, the staff developed a draft proposed 

technical basis as a precursor to a potential rulemaking. On July 25, 2011, the NRC staff 

conducted a public webinar to inform and solicit stakeholder input on a potential rulemaking to 

address prompt remediation of residual radioactivity during operations. A stakeholder letter and 

Federal Register notice provided information and advance notice of this public webinar. A 

broad spectrum of stakeholders participated in the webinar and the meeting was transcribed to 

capture comments. The Federal Register notice also established a 60-day public comment 

period after the webinar. The NRC staff is presently evaluating stakeholder comments and 

intends to use this input to inform a future SECY paper for Commission consideration. 
37 

4. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 

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

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

discussed below. 

Research is in progress to investigate the effects of coupling hydrology, erosion and erosion 

protection approaches on the performance of engineered covers to isolate waste. 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. 

Future research studies include validating the methodologies with field data, developing 

standard practices for calibrating and conducting landform simulations to assess and optimize 

coupled hydrologic-erosion design, creating a series of recommended erosion control strategies 

that result in acceptable hydrologic control and comparing the findings between humid and 

semi-arid/arid sites to evaluate climate effects. 

 

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

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

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

Source Term (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. ANL also issued NUREG/CR-7038, 

“Verification of REDRAD-OFFSITE.” 

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 4th 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 is in progress to examine pore 

solution chemistry and mineral phases in cementitious composites with chemical and mineral 

admixtures. 

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

neptunium in three U.S. soils for uptake in alfalfa, corn, potato, and onion. Experiments to 
38 

determine concentration ratios for iodine in these same plants were completed this year. A 

NUREG/CR report on “Radionuclide Behavior in Soils and Soil-to-Plant Concentration Ratios for 

Assessing Food-Chain Pathways” was completed and published. Cooperative studies 

continued with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Oregon State University to 

study radionuclide uptake in fruit and nut trees were completed and a draft NUREG/CR report 

on “Transfer Factors for Nuclide Uptake by Fruit and Nut Trees” is under review. 

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 also underway. 

In NUREG/CR-7025, ANL reported research on test methods that have been used to assess 

the release of contaminants from cement and slag wastes. Critical evaluations were made of 

leach tests and modeling approaches that have been used to predict the release of 

contaminants as these materials are weathered. The primary conclusion reached from this 

analysis is that many test results have been misinterpreted due to the inappropriate application 

of a process model to the data set. The second report, NUREG/CR-7105 which will be 

published soon, is a discussion of the causes of differences in weathering and leaching rates 

observed in laboratory and field tests. The expected product of this activity is a protocol that 

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

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

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

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

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

assessments of chemically complex sites. Phase III of the project was completed this year and 

the final report has been submitted for publication. This final report, “Thermodynamic Sorption 

Modelling in Support of Radioactive Waste Disposal Safety Cases: A Guideline Document,” will 

provide technical bases to support the use of thermodynamic sorption models in performance 

assessments. 

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.
39 

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 and requirements that benefit other 

countries in establishing and implementing safe decommissioning strategies in the international 

community. 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 

The 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 Vienna Convention. The FSME Division 

Director was the U.S. representative to the IAEA Waste Safety Standards Committee. Within 

the past year, the staff participated and supported IAEA activities in the following ways: 

• Participated in the 30th and 31st semi-annual review cycles of the IAEA Waste Safety 

Standards Committee and meetings held in December 2010 and June 2011, 

respectively. These meetings addressed decommissioning and other related issues 

specifically, as part of IAEA waste safety activities. 

• Participated in the second annual meeting of the International Project entitled “Use of 

Safety Assessment in Planning and Implementation of Decommissioning of Facilities 

Using Radioactive Material." The focus of this project is to develop guidance for 

developing safety assessments in support of the decommissioning of nuclear 

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

developing guidance on the use of safety assessments in decommissioning. During 

2010, NRC staff acted as a Steering Committee member, as the chairman for the 

development of the regulatory review chapter writing team, and as a writing team 

member for several chapters. 
40 

• Participated in an IAEA steering committee meeting to develop safety assessment 

guidance for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities to help ensure that IAEA 

guidance is appropriate and sufficient, and to provide insights from the NRC’s 

Decommissioning Program for developing guidance on the use of safety 

assessments in decommissioning. 

• Participated in the development of the new Safety Standard for Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Facilities. Staff acted as U.S. country expert in his participation in the IAEA 

consultancy to revise the Safety Requirement for the decommissioning of facilities 

that use radioactive materials. 

• Participated as the sole U.S. government representative in a technical meeting for 

the International Working Forum on Regulatory Supervision of Legacy Sites, with 

initial focus on International and Regional Initiatives to Remediate Contaminated 

Sites in Central Asia. 

• 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. 

• Supported IAEA with the development of three IAEA decommissioning safety 

standards; Power and Research Reactors, Fuel Cycle Facilities and Small Materials 

Facilities. 

• Participated in the July 2011 IAEA Meeting in Vienna, Austria, to develop of a 

voluntary code of safety conduct for the inadvertent disposal of radioactive sources 

in scrap metal. 

• Participated in IAEA Consultancy Meeting on the State Control and Nuclear Security 

of Natural Uranium Production. 

• Participated in the IAEA conference on uranium recovery and cleanup activities, as 

well as the evaluation of proposed IAEA projects for decommissioning of uranium 

recovery facilities. 

• Participated in the interagency working group and steering committees for 

preparation of the 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. Decommissioning of nuclear facilities is included 

in the scope of this convention for achieving a uniform global level of safety in such 

management of radioactive materials and activities. The NRC staff cooperated with 

DOE, EPA and the U.S. State Department in the preparation of a National Report on 

the national safety program in this area. L. Camper (NRC) was elected to serve as a 

member of the General Committee and as a Country Group Chair for the peer review 

process at the review meeting in May 2012. 
41 

• Participated in responding to questions pertaining to the Convention on Nuclear 

Safety National Report sections on Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste. 

• Hosted a technical visit by senior managers and staff of Iraq and discussed 

decommissioning safety aspects in coordination with DOS and OIP. 

Nuclear Energy Agency Activities 

• Co-Hosted with DOE in November 2010, the 11th Annual meeting of the Working 

Party on Dismantling and Decommissioning. NRC staff delivered five presentations 

and allocated a one-day Session on the U.S. Decommissioning Scene. 

• Contributed to the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee Bureau Annual 

Report for the Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC)-44. 

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

Party on Decommissioning and Dismantling. 

• Participated in the 14th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and 

Radioactive Waste Management in Reims/France. Activities included: (a) 

presentations and discussions on decommissioning lessons learned; (b) disposal of 

radioactive waste and large components from decommissioning; (c) challenges when 

selecting disposal options and waste classification; (d) treatment of radium in the 

U.S.; and (e) the Value of a Mature, Stable, and Transparent Regulatory Framework 

in Facilitating ER Programs – Lessons Learned in Decommissioning of Uranium 

Recovery and Other Facilities in the U.S.A. 

• Participated as expert in an NEA Expert Group on Managing Environmental and 

Health Impacts of Uranium Mining (includes milling and ISR referred to as mining 

internationally). 

• Participated in international workshop on “Ageing Management of Nuclear Power 

Plants and Waste Disposal Structures. A paper, “Performance Assessment Insights 

on the Use of Cements in Waste Management,” was presented. 

• Participated in the NRC-South Korea bilateral technical discussions including 

delivering a presentation on “NRC Approaches and Methods for Decommissioning 

Licensing Activities of Commercial Facilities.” 
42 

6. PROGRAM INTEGRATION 

The Decommissioning Program currently encompasses power and early demonstration 

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

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

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

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

undertaken many initiatives to keep abreast of sites undergoing decommissioning. 

Comprehensive Decommissioning Program

In FY 2011, NRC continued the implementation of an enhanced Comprehensive 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

perspective on decommissioning. 

Knowledge Management and Improvements 

Progress was made on many of the activities identified in the staff’s June 2010 IDIP, Rev. 3. 

Emphasis continued to be placed on the uranium recovery part of the decommissioning 

program. The ongoing improvements and 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 part of the IDIP improvements in 2011, staff began a multi-year effort to review, consolidate 

and update over 130 uranium recovery decommissioning guidance documents. During FY 

2011, existing documents were collected and screened, an outline was prepared, and drafting of 

guidance was started. This effort was discussed with stakeholders such as the National Mining 

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

Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, NUREG-1757. 

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

about engineered covers. One task involved establishing the working group “Engineered 

Covers Technical Group” (ECTG) to discuss and review the implications of NRC’s Office of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research draft report NUREG/CR-7028, “Effectiveness of Engineered 

Covers: From Modeling to Performance Monitoring,” (in press) on engineered covers at 38 sites 

regulated by NRC. All but one of the 38 sites was related to uranium recovery activities. An 

important conclusion of the report is that compacted soil materials used in engineered covers do 

not retain “as built” properties over the period of regulatory interest as assumed in most 

performance assessments. ECTG compiled information and data on the 38 sites. Using this 

information, ECTG qualitatively assessed the potential for increased radon release and 
43 

increases groundwater contamination at the sites. Conclusions and short- and long-term 

recommendations will be documented in a report this calendar year. One recommendation has 

been acted upon early: an NRC contractor is currently developing a detailed database on Title 

II in closure sites, which should allow analyses to identify statistical trends, insights, and 

recommendations on future radon and groundwater monitoring and data analyses. This task 

also provides a significant knowledge preservation and transfer document. A large number of 

documents from the 1980s and 1990s related to the 38 sites were obtained, reviewed, pertinent 

information consolidated, and qualitatively evaluated. The resulting report will provide easy 

access to this information for future use. 

The second engineered cover task for knowledge preservation and transfer was completed for 

erosion protection covers at uranium recovery decommissioning sites. A retired NRC staff 

member with over 30 years of experience in developing NRC’s guidance and reviewing uranium 

recovery erosion protection covers documented his knowledge and experience in a desk guide. 

This desk guide includes summaries of the erosion protection covers at over 40 sites for which 

NRC has regulatory responsibility. Each site summary includes the design challenges resolved, 

lessons learned, and recommendations for future NRC tracking. The desk guide also provides 

lessons learned and review suggestions for over 17 technical methods used in reviewing 

erosion protection cover designs. A seminar was given so that the uranium recovery 

decommissioning project managers and technical reviewers would be aware of the information 

in the site summaries and how it could focus their future oversight at these sites. 

Other IDIP completed tasks are related to decommissioning guidance. Staff reviewed NUREG1537, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing Non-Power 

Reactors,” Part 1 and 2, dated February 1996, and recommended that the applicable sections of 

the Standard Review Plan (SRP) be incorporated into the Consolidated Decommissioning 

Guidance in NUREG-1757 as another Chapter in Volume 2 or, alternatively, a new Volume 5. 

The staff also evaluated lessons learned from the review of the first Decommissioning Plan for a 

restricted use site. This evaluation identified improvements for using ALARA in the “eligibility 

analysis” requirement in 10 CFR 20.1403(a) for restricted use sites. The staff plans on 

incorporating these improvements into the Consolidate Decommissioning Guidance in NUREG1757 so that licensees can have a clearer understanding of the intent and information to be 

submitted in a Decommissioning Plan for the 10 CFR 20.1403(a) requirement. 

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

Sample Plan was added to iLearn. A Health Physics for Uranium Recovery course was also 

provided to Agreement States. The MARSAME training class was added to iLearn. A MILDOSArea computer code training class was accepted by Human Resources – Training Resource 

Development. Finally, a contract was developed to upgrade MILDOS-Area computer code for 

training course development. 

During FY 2011, several improvements to business processes were completed. Improvements 

for uranium recovery decommissioning are described in detail later in this section. 

Improvements for reactor decommissioning included: clarification of review responsibilities for 

financial assurance and revised Policy and Procedure 5.1; documentation of the 10 CFR Part 

72 general license process and staff roles; and clarification of the power and test reactor 

transfer process with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 
44 

Uranium Recovery Program Enhancements

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

transferred to DWMEP, along with the staff from the Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and 

Safeguards 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. 

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, beginning in FY 2012, staff will begin routine 

inspections of sites that have been transferred to the Department of Energy and are generally 

licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 40.27 and 40.28. 

NRC staff also enhanced 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. 

DOE routinely submits groundwater and data validation information to 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. This effort will continue into FY 2012. When 

completed, the database will contain basic information about the site, DOE/Native American 

contact information, and the issues associated with each site. 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.
45 

7. AGREEMENT STATE ACTIVITIES 

Thirty-seven States have signed formal agreements with the NRC and assumed regulatory 

responsibility over certain byproduct, source, and small quantities of special nuclear material, 

including the decommissioning of some complex materials sites. However, after a State 

becomes an Agreement State, the NRC continues to have formal and informal interactions with 

the State. 

Formal interactions with Agreement States in FY 2011 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 (Arkansas, Florida, 

Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Utah, 

Virginia). 

• NRC conducted a Health Physics for Uranium Recovery training course in Austin, 

Texas, which was attended by staff from many Agreement State programs. 

 

Table 7-1 identifies the decommissioning and uranium recovery sites in the Agreement States. 
46 

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
47 

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 

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Table Mtn. Golden, CO 08/01/06 TBD TBD 

CO 

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Creekside Golden, CO TBD TBD 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 Chicago Magnesium Blue Island, IL 11/02/02 02/01/04 

Phase 12/04 Phase 8/06 Phase TBD 
48 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjeComp

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 

KS 

Instrument and Flight Research Wichita, KS TBD TBD TBD 

KS Kelley Instruments, Inc. Wichita, KS TBD TBD TBD KS Instrument, Inc. Wichita, KS TBD TBD TBD MA Shpack Landfill Norton, MA 09/04 09/04 TBD 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 
49 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjeComp

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 PA Karnish Instruments Lock Haven, PA TBD PA Molycorp, Inc. (Washington) Washington, PA 6/99 8/00 TBD PA 

Superbolt (formerly Superior Steel) Carnegie, PA TBD 

PA 

Quehanna (formerly Permagrain Products, Inc.) Karthaus, PA 

4/98, revised 3/03, 3/06 

7/98, 9/03, 11/06 TBD 
50 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjeComp

PA Safety Light Corporation Bloomsburg, PA TBD PA Strube Incorporated 

Lancaster County, PA TBD 

PA 

Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Waltz Mill) Madison, PA 4/97 1/00 TBD 

PA Whittaker Corporation Greenville, PA 

12/00, revised 8/03, 10/06 5/07 TBD 

TX 

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

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

TX 

Intercontinental Energy Corp. Three Rivers, TX 3/03 Ongoing 

GrouncompSurfa
51 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

ProjeComp

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 
52 

8. RESOURCES 

The total Decommissioning Program staff budget for FY 2011 was 62 full-time equivalents 

(FTE); and for FY 2012, the program has 57 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, complex materials 

sites, uranium mill tailings facilities, and fuel cycle facilities; development of rules and guidance; 

EISs and EAs; research to develop more realistic analytical tools to support licensing and 

rulemaking activities; and Office of the General Counsel support. These figures also include 

supervisory and nonsupervisory indirect FTE associated with the Decommissioning Program, 

and safety and environmental reviews for new uranium recovery facilities. 
53 

9. FISCAL YEAR 2012 PLANNED PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES 

The staff has planned a number of programmatic activities for FY 2012, including the continued 

implementation of IDIP. In FY 2012, staff will continue to focus its activities on implementing 

knowledge management aspects of the IDIP. Specifically, knowledge management activities for 

the exchange of decommissioning lessons learned for selected topics (e.g., uranium recovery, 

institutional controls) have been identified by NRC staff. DWMEP management has prioritized 

the implementation of the identified topics. One of the major tasks that has been identified for 

implementation is the update of uranium recovery decommissioning and reclamation guidance 

for Title I and II sites. The staff is in the early stages of this guidance development project. 

Regarding the question about NRC jurisdiction for military radium-226, the staff plans on 

meeting with the military branches and the Department of Defense prior to the submission of 

their public comments on the draft Regulatory Information Summary (RIS). Once the public 

comment period ends, the staff plans to respond to comments and to finalize the RIS. 

Subsequently, the guidance in the final RIS will be used to begin develop phased-in approaches 

for implementing NRC’s jurisdiction for military radium. A Radium Implementation Plan would 

be prepared based on consultations with each military service to identify the initial actions and 

questions needed to begin licensing/permitting. The implementation phase is expected to be 

completed during FY 2012. 

 

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 

progress will continue throughout FY 2012, and, when completed, this document will be 

published as Volume 4 of the Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, NUREG-1757. 

In FY 2012, staff expects to complete a database of site activities and issues for UMTRCA Title 

I and Title II sites. When completed, 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.