Status of the 

Decommissioning Program 

2013 Annual Report

Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555–0001

Enclosure 
 ii

CONTENTS 

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

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

2. Decommissioning Sites ............................................................................................................ 3

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

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

2.1.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2013 Activities .................................................... 6

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2014 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 2013 Activities .................................................. 12

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2014 Trends and Areas of Focus ......................................... 12

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

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

2.3.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2013 Activities .................................................. 18

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2014 Trends and Areas of Focus ......................................... 20

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

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

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2013 Activities .................................................. 29

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2014 Trends and Areas of Focus ......................................... 30

2.5 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning .................................................................. 35

2.5.1 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning Process ........................................ 35

2.5.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2013 Activities .................................................. 35

3. Guidance and Rulemaking Activities ..................................................................................... 36

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

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

6. Program Integration and Improvement .................................................................................. 41

7. Agreement State Activities ..................................................................................................... 43

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

9. Fiscal Year 2014 Planned Programmatic Activities ............................................................... 50

 

Tables 

Table 2-1a Power and Early Demonstration Reactors Undergoing 

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

Table 2-1b Decommissioned Power Reactors That Have Independent Spent 

Fuel Storage Installations ...................................................................................... 9

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

40.28 ................................................................................................................... 34

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites ................................................................. 44
 iii

ABBREVIATIONS 

 

ACL alternate concentration limit 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

CBP Cementitious Barriers Partnership 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CY calendar year 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DP decommissioning plan 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DWMEP Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

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 

IDIP Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan 

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

ISR in situ recovery 
 iv

LLW low-level waste 

LTP license termination plan

LTR License Termination Rule

LTSP long-term surveillance plan

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

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 

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

NSIR Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

OGC Office of the General Counsel 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

PSDAR Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report 

RAI request for additional information 

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

RG Regulatory Guide 

RP reclamation plan 

SDMP Site Decommissioning Management Plan 

SER Safety Evaluation Report 

SLDA Shallow Land Disposal Area 

TBD to be determined 

TER technical evaluation report 

TRIGA Training, Research, Isotopes General Atomics 

UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

UNC United Nuclear Corporation

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

VESR Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor 
1 

1. INTRODUCTION 

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

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

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) decommissioning activities in fiscal year (FY) 2013, 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, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

establishing a proactive communication approach with licensees to facilitate decommissioning; 

and developing an integrated decommissioning improvement plan to systematically examine the 

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

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

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

decommissioning since the late 1980s. In FY 2013, the staff continued to focus on enhancing 

the effectiveness of the Decommissioning Program through a comprehensive effort to 

consolidate and update decommissioning guidance for uranium recovery facilities. 

As noted in our FY 2012 report (SECY-12-0153, “Status of the Decommissioning Program—

2012 Annual Report”), the character of the decommissioning program has changed a great deal 

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

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

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

such challenges are the regulation of military sites contaminated with depleted uranium from 

past testing of munitions and the contamination of military sites with naturally occurring and 

accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM). 

In terms of accomplishments, remediation activities were completed at the Analytical BioChemistry Laboratories site in Columbia, MO. The sanitary lagoon and the surrounding effluent 

discharge area were released for unrestricted use in January 2013. Remediation activities were 

also completed at the ABB site, a former nuclear manufacturing facility located in Windsor, CT. 

ABB's Special Nuclear Material (SNM) license was terminated in February 2012. The site was 

released for unrestricted use in September 2013 upon termination of ABB's byproduct license. 

During FY 2012, decommissioning activities were completed at the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) Mockup and Plum Brook reactors in Sandusky, OH, and the 

University of Illinois Research Reactor facility in Urbana, IL. The licenses for these facilities 

were terminated in October 2012 and January 2013, respectively. 
2 

In FY 2014, the NRC expects two to three complex materials sites to complete 

decommissioning activities, with similar numbers completing decommissioning in succeeding 

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

La Crosse, and Humboldt Bay in active decommissioning. Staff will continue to coordinate 

extensively with the Regional offices, as well as the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

(NRR), the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR), and the Office of the 

General Counsel (OGC) regarding the transition of Crystal River Unit 3, Kewaunee, and San 

Onofre Units 2 and 3, from operating reactors to decommissioning. Staff will also begin 

activities related to the transition of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, which expects to 

permanently cease power operation in December 2014. Progress in research and test reactor 

decommissioning will also continue as two or three more sites are expected to complete 

decommissioning in FY 2014. Within the next several years, several Title II1

 uranium recovery 

sites are expected to complete decommissioning and be transferred to the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) for long-term control under a general license.

 

1

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

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

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

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

2. DECOMMISSIONING SITES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

spectrum of activities associated with the Program’s functions. 

Each year, the NRC terminates approximately 150 materials licenses. Most of these license 

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

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

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

As of September 30, 2013, 18 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors, 7 research and 

test reactors, 15 complex decommissioning materials facilities, 2 fuel cycle facilities, and 

11 Title II uranium recovery facilities are undergoing decommissioning or are in long-term safe 

storage, under NRC jurisdiction. Additionally, 22 Title I and 6 Title II uranium recovery facilities 

are in long-term care under a general license held by DOE under 10 CFR 40.27 and 40.28. 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 sitespecific 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 SNM, including the decommissioning of some complex materials 

sites and uranium recovery sites. Agreement States do not have regulatory authority over 

nuclear reactors licensed under Title 10, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and 

Utilization Facilities,” or Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power 

Plants,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50 or Part 52) or fuel cycle facilities. 

Section 7 of this report discusses the NRC’s coordination with the Agreement States’ 

decommissioning programs. 

2.1 Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning 

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

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

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

public outreach efforts, international activities, and participation in industry conferences and 
4 

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 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, 2013, the 18 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors identified in 

Table 2-1a are undergoing decommissioning. Table 2-1a 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/. Table 

2-1b lists the decommissioned power reactors that have ISFSIs onsite. 

2.1.1 Decommissioning Process 

The decommissioning process begins when a licensee decides to permanently cease 

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

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

Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR); submittal of the LTP; implementation of the LTP; 

and completion of decommissioning. 

Notification

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

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

once fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. 

Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report

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

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

• a description of and schedule for the planned decommissioning activities; 

• an estimate of the expected costs; and 

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

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

previously issued Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
5 

• Foreclose release of the site for unrestricted use; 

• Result in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed; or 

• Jeopardize reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available for 

decommissioning. 

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

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

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

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

schedule change from, those actions and schedules in the PSDAR (10 CFR 50.82). 

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 pre-submittal meetings to agree on the format and content of the LTP. These meetings are 

open to the public, and intended to improve the efficiency of the LTP development and review 

process. The LTP must include the following: 

• a site characterization; 

• identification of remaining dismantlement activities; 

• plans for site remediation; 

• detailed plans for the final radiological survey; 

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

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

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

significant environmental change associated with the licensee’s proposed 

termination activities; and 

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

approval of the LTP. 

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

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

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

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

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

LTP and the LTP review process. The LTP technical review is guided by NUREG-1700, 
6 

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

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

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

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

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

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

approved by license amendment. 

Implementation of the License Termination Plan

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

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

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

will normally include in-process and confirmatory radiological surveys. 

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

unless otherwise approved by the Commission. 

Completion of Decommissioning

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

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

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

reduce the 10 CFR Part 50 license boundary to the footprint of the ISFSI. For decommissioning 

reactors with no ISFSI, or an ISFSI holding a specific license under 10 CFR Part 72, “Licensing 

Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive 

Waste, and Reactor Related Greater Than Class C Waste,” completion of reactor 

decommissioning will result in the termination of the 10 CFR Part 50 license. The NRC will 

approve the FSSR and the licensee’s request if it determines that the licensee has met both of 

the following conditions: 

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

LTP. 

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

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

2.1.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2013 Activities 

• During FY 2013, four power reactors permanently ceased operations and entered 

decommissioning: Crystal River Unit 3, Kewaunee, and San Onofre Units 2 and 3. 

Staff coordinated extensively with the Regional offices, as well as NRR, NSIR, and 

OGC regarding End of Cycle meetings, licensing activities, transfer of inspection 

responsibilities, and public meetings. 

• In May 2013, Region III inspection responsibility for Kewaunee was internally 

transferred from the Division of Reactor Projects to the Division of Nuclear Materials 

Safety. 
7 

• In August 2013, Region II transferred responsibility for the oversight of 

decommissioning activities at Crystal River Unit 3 to Region I. Region II will retain 

responsibility for Incident Response until December 2013. This unique transfer 

required close coordination between Regions I and II, and was necessary because of 

a previous re-alignment of functions that assigned materials and decommissioning 

oversight activities to Region I. 

• In August 2013, Region IV inspection responsibility for San Onofre Units 2 and 3 was 

internally transferred from the Division of Reactor Projects to the Division of Nuclear 

Materials Safety. 

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

including a meeting at Humboldt Bay to discuss the licensee’s LTP and meetings at 

Kewaunee and Three Mile Island to discuss PSDARs. Staff held special 

government-to-government and non-government organization meetings regarding 

the San Onofre permanent shutdown. The staff also held a special public meeting 

near San Onofre to discuss the reactor decommissioning process and respond to 

public questions. 

• The staff conducted the technical reviews associated with exemption requests from 

certain security requirements in 10 CFR 73.55 for the Three Mile Island Unit 2 and 

Millstone Unit 1 facilities. 

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

Bay decommissioning debris and soils. 

• The staff completed oversight activities/inspections at reactor decommissioning 

facilities in accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 2561 at Humboldt Bay, 

Indian Point Unit 1, Millstone Unit 1, Peach Bottom Unit 1, Three Mile Island Unit 2, 

and Zion Units 1 and 2. 

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2014 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Staff will continue its extensive coordination with other offices while working to complete the 

transfer of Crystal River Unit 3, Kewaunee, and San Onofre Units 2 and 3 to the 

decommissioning program. Staff also expects the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to enter 

decommissioning in FY 2014. 

 

2

Public meetings include formal public meetings sponsored by the NRC, as well as technical meetings that are open 

to observation by members of the public.
8 

Table 2-1a Power and Early Demonstration Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning 

Reactor Location PSDAR* 

Submitted

LTP Submitted

LTP Approved

Completion of Decomm.** 

1 Crystal River Unit 3 Crystal River, FL TBD TBD TBD TBD 2 Dresden Unit 1 Morris, IL 6/98 TBD TBD 2036 3 Fermi Unit 1 Newport, MI 4/98 2011*** TBD 2032 4 GE-VESR Pleasanton, CA TBD TBD TBD TBD 5 GE-Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor Pleasanton, CA 7/66 TBD TBD 2019 6 Humboldt Bay Eureka, CA 2/98 2013 TBD 2016 7 Indian Point Unit 1 Buchanan, NY 1/96 TBD TBD 2026 8 Kewaunee Kewaunee, WI TBD TBD TBD TBD 9 La Crosse La Crosse, WI 5/91 TBD TBD 2026 10 Millstone Unit 1 Waterford, CT 6/99 TBD TBD TBD 11 Nuclear Ship Savannah Baltimore, MD 12/08 TBD TBD 2031 12 Peach Bottom Unit 1 Delta, PA 6/98 TBD TBD 2034 13 San Onofre Unit 1 San Clemente, CA 12/98 TBD TBD 2030 14 San Onofre Unit 2 San Clemente, CA TBD TBD TBD TBD 15 San Onofre Unit 3 San Clemente, CA TBD TBD TBD TBD 16 Three Mile Island Unit 2 Harrisburg, PA 6/13 TBD TBD 2053 17 Zion Unit 1 Zion, IL 2/00 TBD TBD 2020 18 Zion Unit 2 Zion, IL 2/00 TBD TBD 2020 
9 

GE General Electric TBD to be determined 

VESR Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor 

* PSDAR or DP equivalent. Prior to August 28, 1996, the effective date of Final Rule “Decommissioning of Nuclear 

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

** For decommissioning reactors with no ISFSI or an ISFSI licensed under 10 CFR Part 72, completion of 

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

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

Table 2-1b Decommissioned Power Reactors That Have Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations 

Reactor Onsite Fuel Status Cask Vendor Model 

1 Big Rock Point 10 CFR 50 ISFSI Energy Solutions, Inc. Fuel Solutions W74 2 Connecticut Yankee 10 CFR 50 ISFSI NAC International, Inc. NAC-MPC 3 Fort St. Vrain 10 CFR 72 ISFSI Foster Wheeler Energy 

Applications, Inc. 

Modular Vault Dry Store 

4 Maine Yankee 10 CFR 50 ISFSI NAC International, Inc. NAC-UMS 5 Rancho Seco 10 CFR 72 ISFSI Transnuclear, Inc. NUHOMS-24P 6 Trojan 10 CFR 72 ISFSI Holtec International HI-STORM 100 7 Yankee Rowe 10 CFR 50 ISFSI NAC International, Inc. NAC-MPC 
10 

2.2 Research and Test Reactor Decommissioning

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

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

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

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

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

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

and test reactors, both operating and decommissioning. 

As of September 30, 2013, the 7 research and test reactors identified in Table 2-2 were 

undergoing decommissioning. Plant status summaries for all decommissioning research and 

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

2.2.1 Decommissioning Process 

The decommissioning process begins when a licensee decides to permanently cease 

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

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

Application

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

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

termination to the NRC. Each application for license termination must be accompanied by a DP 

submitted for NRC approval. The NRC and licensee hold pre-submittal meetings to agree on 

the format and content of the DP. These meetings are open to the public, and intended to 

improve the efficiency of the DP development and review process. 

Decommissioning Plan

The DP must include the following: 

• The choice of the alternative3

 for decommissioning with a description of the planned 

decommissioning activities; 

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

occupational and public health and safety; 

• A description of the planned final radiation survey; 

 

3

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

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

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

co-located nuclear facilities, are a factor. 
11 

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

following: 

– A comparison with the estimated present funds set aside for decommissioning. 

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

decommissioning. 

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

security plan provisions in place during decommissioning. 

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

LTR. 

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

Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors,” issued February 1996 (ADAMS No. 

ML042430055), and applicable portions of NUREG-1757. The DP is approved by license 

amendment, as a supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), or equivalent. 

Implementation of the Decommissioning Plan

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

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

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

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

surveillance, the licensee shall meet the following conditions: 

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

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

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

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

10 CFR 50.75(e). 

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

over the storage or surveillance period. 

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

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

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

in-process and confirmatory radiological surveys. 

Completion of Decommissioning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2013 Activities 

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

Brook reactors in Sandusky, OH, after decommissioning was completed. NRC 

terminated the licenses for both reactors in October 2012. 

• The staff reviewed the FSSRs and request for license termination for the University 

of Illinois Research Reactor facility in Urbana, IL. The license was terminated in 

January 2013. NRC performed independent and confirmatory surveys after the 

completion of decommissioning activities. 

• The staff performed confirmatory radiological surveys of the State University of New 

York at Buffalo reactor building, hot cell, and associate laboratories to allow industrial 

demolition of the facility. 

• The staff performed inspections at the University of Michigan Ford Reactor, 

Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and State University of New York at Buffalo facilities. 

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2014 Trends and Areas of Focus 

In FY 2014, the staff expects the decommissioning to be completed at the University of 

Michigan Ford Reactor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and State University of New York at 

Buffalo facilities. The privately owned Aerotest Research Reactor is also expected to officially 

cease operations and transition to decommissioning in 2014.
13 

Table 2-2 Research and Test Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning 

Reactor Location Status Completion of 

Decomm.

1 University of Michigan Ford Reactor Ann Arbor, MI DP Approved 2014 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 Pleasanton, CA Possession-Only 2019 5 State University of New York at Buffalo Buffalo, NY DP Approved 2014 6 Veterans Administration Omaha, NE DP Submitted 2015 7 Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA DP Approved 2014 GETR General Electric Test Reactor TRIGA Training, Research, Isotopes General Atomics 
14 

2.3 Complex Materials Facility Decommissioning

Materials facilities decommissioning activities include maintaining regulatory oversight of 

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

funding options to facilitate remediation of sites in non-Agreement States and sites in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

financial instrument security program. 

As of September 30, 2013, 15 complex materials sites are undergoing decommissioning (see 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressional interest. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decommissioning Management Program Sites with Decommissioning Plans under Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission Review and Eligible for Grandfathering, Pursuant to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.3.1 Decommissioning Process 

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

• The license expires; 
15 

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

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

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

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

lead to license termination; 

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

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

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

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

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

termination. 

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

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

decommissioning. 

Notification

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

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

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

approval of the plan. With the NRC approval, the regulations allow alternative schedules. 

Decommissioning Plan

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

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

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

following cases: 

• Procedures would involve techniques not applied routinely during cleanup or 

maintenance operations; 

• Workers would be entering areas not normally occupied where surface 

contamination and radiation levels are significantly higher than routinely encountered 

during operation; 

• Procedures could result in significantly greater airborne concentrations than are 

present during operations; 

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

environment than those associated with operations. 

Generally, before submitting a DP, the licensee or responsible party meets with the NRC to 

agree on the form and content of the DP. This pre-submittal meeting is intended to make the 

DP review process more efficient by reducing the need for requests for additional information 
16 

(RAIs). It is important for the NRC and the licensee to work effectively in a cooperative manner 

to resolve the issues that make the decommissioning of complex sites challenging. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by NUREG-1757 and its supporting references. 

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

Environmental Assessment (EA) or EIS. If an EA is developed and a Finding of No Significant 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

guide both phases of the review. 

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

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

taken: 

• Publication of a Notice of Intent; 

• Public scoping meeting; 

• Preparation and publication of the scoping report; 

• Preparation and publication of the draft EIS; 

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

• Preparation and publication of the final EIS. 

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. 
17 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After publication of the FONSI or EIS, and presuming a determination that the DP is otherwise 

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

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

SER. 

Implementation of the Decommissioning Plan

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

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

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

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

radiological surveys. 

Completion of Decommissioning

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

following: 

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

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

equivalent information. 

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

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

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

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

for release in accordance with the LTR. 

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. 
18 

• 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 2013 Activities 

• In September 2013, Region I staff completed actions to terminate the NRC license 

for the ABB site in Windsor, CT, and released the site for unrestricted use. Region I 

staff worked closely with FSME, OGC, EPA, USACE, and Connecticut Department of 

Energy and Environmental Protection to complete this multi-year project, during 

which ABB remediated buildings, a burial site, contaminated soil areas, and a brook. 

• Remediation activities were completed at the Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories 

(ABC Labs) site in Columbia, MO. Region III staff reviewed FSSRs and the license 

amendment requesting the release of the sanitary lagoon and the surrounding 

effluent discharge area. Region III staff concluded that the areas met the criteria for 

unrestricted use, and issued a license amendment to release them in January 2013. 

• In December 2012, staff issued a license amendment to the United States 

Department of Agriculture to authorize decommissioning of its Low-Level Radiation 

Burial Site at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, MD. 

• Staff completed oversight activities associated with the demolition of the 01-14 

Building at the West Valley site. The work on this building began in December 2012 

and was completed in May 2013. It was the first major structure demolition and 

removal at the site, which is a complex, multi-phase decommissioning effort. The 

staff also reviewed and consulted with DOE on its documented safety analysis that 

served as the safety basis for the design of the new High Level Waste Canister 

Interim Storage Facility. 

• In May 2013, the staff approved a DP Addendum for the UNC Naval Products site 

located in New Haven, CT, which revised the Derived Concentration Guideline 

Limits. The staff performed an extensive review of the DP Addendum, and evaluated 

the dose assessment methodology and the parameters utilized in order to ensure 

that the dose estimates were adequately supported. 

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

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

the NRC-licensed portion of the site. Mallinckrodt has completed most final status 

surveys and submitted the FSSRs to NRC for review. 

• The staff completed inspections or site visits at Beltsville Agricultural Research 

Laboratory, FMRI, Cimarron, Mallinckrodt, Shallow Land Disposal Area (SLDA), and 

West Valley. The staff also conducted site visits at McClellan Air Force Base, 

Alameda Naval Air Station, and Hunters Point Shipyard. 
19 

Other significant activities are described below. 

 

Shallow Land Disposal Area

 

After the NRC placed the BWX Technologies, Inc., license in abeyance for the SLDA site, 

USACE assumed physical possession of the site on August 22, 2011, and began cleanup 

activities. The USACE is congressionally mandated to clean-up the SLDA site under the 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remediation Action Program (FUSRAP). 

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

from accepted field procedures. In August 2012, all exhumed material was safely shipped offsite. Based on several interagency meetings with USACE and other Federal partners, a 

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

remediation project with on-site support from DOE, with the NRC remaining in its consulting 

role. 

Throughout FY 2013, the NRC staff has been assisting USACE with the development of an 

interagency Site-specific Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between 

USACE, DOE, and the NRC. The Supplemental MOU complements the existing MOU and 

incorporates for SLDA the relevant and appropriate requirements of 10 CFR Parts 70, 73 and 

74. The Supplemental MOU will also stipulate the specific roles of each Federal entity 

throughout the remainder of the remediation process. In August 2013, the NRC participated in 

the Corps After-Action Review of 2011 SLDA activities with USACE representatives from Corps 

Headquarters, the Omaha, Pittsburgh and Buffalo District Offices, the Cincinnati Division Office 

and DOE. The NRC is a member of the USACE SLDA Project Development Team. The NRC 

staff will continue to work collaboratively with USACE with respect to site remediation activities. 

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

the ten burial trenches at the SLDA site are incomplete. 

Hunters Point, McClellan, and Alameda Military Sites in California

The staff continued implementing the Limited Involvement Approach approved by the 

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

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

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

of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Site in California,” dated June 28, 2008. This approach 

includes reliance on the Navy’s ongoing remediation of this Superfund site conducted under the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) 

process and with EPA oversight. The primary purpose of the NRC’s Limited Involvement 

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

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

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

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

annual visit to these sites in August 2013, which included site visits with the Navy and Air Force, 

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

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

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

addressed, and the oversight activities of EPA and the State agencies. Based on these 
20 

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

at these three sites. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

comment. 

The NRC staff continued its discussions with the DoD working group consisting of 

representatives from each of the military services and the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary 

of Defense to address the DoD comments on the draft RIS. During FY 2013, three discussions 

were conducted that addressed DoD’s comments on licensing concerns, legal issues, NRC 

fees, and remediation of other unlicensed Atomic Energy Act material under CERCLA. As a 

result, the NRC staff and DoD working group agreed to proceed with NRC’s involvement with 

DoD remediation under the CERCLA process through a MOU, rather than licensing as 

proposed in the draft RIS. The proposed MOU would be comprehensive and provide one 

process for all services. Key components of the MOU were discussed. As requested by the 

NRC staff, on August 1, 2013, DoD provided a letter that supports the MOU approach. 

Army Depleted Uranium License Application

 

In 2013, the NRC staff continued its review of the U.S. Army’s depleted uranium license 

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

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

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

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

meetings/webinars to discuss the NRC reviews. Staff also continued consultations with Native 

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

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

The license was issued in October 2013. 

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2014 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in the decommissioning of complex materials sites is expected to increase in FY 2014. 

Beltsville, Stepan and Mallinckrodt are expected to complete decommissioning or license 

termination in the near future. The staff will also continue its focus on Army sites with depleted 

uranium contamination, and continue to work with DoD toward clarifying the NRC’s jurisdiction 
21 

of military radium-226 and involvement with military remediation of residual radioactive material. 

Staff is in the preliminary stages of involvement with the remediation under the CERCLA 

process of the National Park Service’s Great Kills Park site, located in Staten Island, New York, 

as well as other non-military sites with radium contamination. NRC staff is also developing a 

process to begin identifying historic non-military sites with potential radium contamination. 
22 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

Projected Removal

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

revised 9/06, 4/07 

5/98 TBD 

LTR-UNRES TBD 

2 Alameda Naval Air Station** Alameda, CA N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 Beltsville Agricultural 

Research Laboratory 

Beltsville, MD 8/09 12/13 LTR-UNRES 2014 

4 Cimarron (Kerr-McGee) Cimarron, OK 4/95 8/99 Action-UNRES 2017 5 FMRI (Fansteel), Inc. Muskogee, OK 8/99, 

revised 5/03 

12/03 LTR-UNRES 2023 

6 Hunter’s Point Naval 

Shipyard** (former Naval shipyard) 

San Francisco, CA 

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

7 Jefferson Proving Ground Madison, IN 8/99 

revised 6/02, resubmittal planned 9/13 

10/02 TBD 

LTR-RES 2015 

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

11/97, Phase 2 9/08 

Phase 1 5/02, Phase 2 7/10 

LTR-UNRES 2014 
23 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

Projected Removal

9 McClellan** (former Air Force 

base) 

Sacramento, CA 

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

10 Shallow Land Disposal Area 

(BWX Technologies, Inc.) 

Vandergrift, PA 6/01 

revised N/A 

N/A LTR-UNRES 2020 

11 Sigma-Aldrich Maryland 

Heights, MO 

10/08, revised 11/10 

5/09, revised TBD 

LTR-UNRES 2015 

12 Stepan Company Maywood, NJ N/A N/A LTR-UNRES 2014 13 UNC Naval Products New Haven, 

CT 

8/98, revised 2004,12/06 

4/99, revised 10/07 

LTR-UNRES TBD 

14 West Valley Demonstration 

Project 

West Valley, NY 

Phase 1 3/09 

Phase 1 2/10 

LTR-UNRES* TBD 

15 Westinghouse ElectricHematite Facility Festus, MO 4/04 revised 

6/06, 8/09 

10/11 LTR-UNRES TBD 
24 

* The West Valley Phase I DP includes plans to release a large portion of the site for unrestricted use, while the 

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

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

McClellan site is being remediated by the Air Force, under the required CERCLA process and EPA oversight. It is assumed that some licensable material might be present at both sites; however, the NRC has not licensed these sites. Instead, the Commission has approved a “limited involvement approach to stay informed” and will rely on the ongoing CERCLA process and EPA oversight. More information is available on this approach in SECY-08-0077. 

Notes: • The compliance criteria identified in this table present the staff’s most recent information but do not necessarily 

represent the current or likely outcome. 

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

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

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

phased implementation of decommissioning, to poor submittals. 
25 

2.4 Uranium Recovery Facility Decommissioning4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

inspection of decommissioning activities, including confirmatory surveys; decommissioning cost 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 30, 2013, 11 Title II uranium recovery facilities are undergoing decommissioning. 

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

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

long-term care of Title II conventional uranium mill sites under a general license held by either 

DOE or the State in which the site is located. The six Title II sites that have been transferred for 

 

4

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

discussion on their decommissioning. 
26 

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

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

2.4.1 Decommissioning Process for Uranium Mills 

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

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

Against Radiation.” Instead, they are subject to similar requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, as summarized below. 

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

facilities: 

• The license expires or the license is revoked; 

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

or in any separate building or outdoor area; 

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

impoundments and disposal areas); 

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

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

The uranium recovery facility decommissioning process includes several major steps, 

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

decommission; submittal, review and approval of the DP5

 or RP; implementation of the DP/RP; 

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

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

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

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

or a State. 

Notification

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

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

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

or conventional facilities, the licensee submits groundwater restoration, surface reclamation, 

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

before issuing a license. For ISR facilities, groundwater restoration should occur at one 

well-field, while other well-fields are actively extracting uranium. Under 10 CFR 40.42(f), 

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

to public health and the environment and is in the public interest. 

 

5

 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 revised DP/RP, 

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

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

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

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

alternate schedule may be appropriate. 

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

ensure compliance with the DP/RP, associated license conditions, and 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 the NRC regulations. Inspections also include surveys of 

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

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

issues. 

License Termination—Conventional Mills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Care of Uranium or Thorium Byproduct Materials Disposal Sites.” 

License Termination—In Situ Uranium Recovery Facilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

release. 
29 

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2013 Activities 

• In FY 2013, the NRC staff conducted in-process inspections of the decommissioning 

activities at the Sequoyah Fuels site in Gore, OK. Remediation of impacted soil in 

the Phase III Disposal Cell footprint and removal/packaging of the Sanitary Lagoon 

sediments and soils was completed. In addition, contaminated groundwater that was 

perched on top of bedrock in the Phase III footprint was recovered, treated and 

released. The Phase III Cell Base construction was then completed and waste 

materials (treated calcium fluoride sludge, miscellaneous contaminated soils and 

demolition debris) are presently being placed in the Phase III portion of the disposal 

cell. 

• Staff continued to work with the State of Wyoming to evaluate options for completing 

decommissioning at the ANC Gas Hills site, including determining the best use of the 

amount remaining in the decommissioning fund. One option includes the 

construction of a diversion channel around Pond #1 to avoid erosion in the event of a 

flood.

• The United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) Church Rock Mill Site is licensed by NRC 

and designated a Superfund Site by the EPA. A small scale groundwater 

remediation system, and semi-annual groundwater monitoring is in progress at the 

UNC Mill Site. In September 2011, the EPA issued a Non-Time-Critical Removal 

Action Memorandum for permanent disposal of approximately one million cubic 

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

Church Rock Mill Site. This proposed action will require UNC to submit a license 

amendment request to place the mine waste above the existing tailings 

impoundment. Moreover, disposal of mine waste from the Northeast Church Rock 

Mine Site at the UNC Mill Site would be a major Federal action requiring significant 

collaboration among multiple agencies and with the Navajo Nation. As a result, the 

staff has been participating in the EPA’s Technical Design Committee to ensure 

close coordination of the effort. In April 2013, the licensee (UNC) submitted a 

license amendment request to change groundwater background values for the 

Church Rock Mill Site. The staff noticed the license amendment request in the 

Federal Register, provided RAIs, and held publicly noticed meetings on this licensing 

action. 

• Groundwater reclamation activities continue at the Homestake Mining Company of 

California (Homestake) site near Milan, NM. Groundwater restoration activities are 

being conducted in accordance with the NRC License SUA-1471. In 2006, 

Homestake submitted an updated groundwater Corrective Action Plan for the NRC 

review and approval. Based on a NRC request for additional information, 

Homestake submitted Revision 2 of the Corrective Action Plan in March 2012 for 

NRC review and approval. NRC staff review of Revision 2 of the Corrective Action 

Plan is ongoing. In April 2013, Homestake submitted an update to its 

Decommissioning and Reclamation Plan for NRC review and approval, and NRC 

staff review is ongoing. 
30 

• In FY 2013, staff continued its increased interaction with the Navajo Nation by 

participating in the EPA Navajo Nation Uranium Contamination Stakeholder 

Workshop and participating in Navajo Nation/DOE Quarterly Meetings. NRC senior 

managers met with Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly at NRC Headquarters to 

discuss issues associated with uranium milling and reclamation activities on or near 

the Navajo Nation. NRC staff continued to work with other Federal agencies on the 

Navajo Nation 5-Year Plan. A summary report of accomplishments achieved during 

the first five years of the Navajo Nation 5-Year Plan was published in January 2013. 

• Regional staff conducted observational site visits at sites that have been transferred 

to DOE and are generally licensed pursuant to 10 CFR 40.27 and 40.28. Site visits 

were conducted at Falls City, Grand Junction, Maybell, Maybell West, Naturita, and 

Slick Rock. 

• In addition, staff also performed site inspections or site visits at the ANC Gas Hills, 

Homestake, UNC Church Rock, Sequoyah Fuels, Durita, Green River, Moab, Rifle, 

and Uravan sites. 

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2014 Trends and Areas of Focus 

In FY 2014, the staff expects the completion of decommissioning at the Bear Creek, Pathfinder 

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

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

Rock Mill Site’s license amendment request for changing groundwater background values, as 

well as the anticipated license amendment request for the mine waste to be placed in the 

disposal cells on the UNC Church Rock Mill Site. In FY 2014, staff will continue its outreach 

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

DOE/Navajo Nation/Hopi quarterly meetings and consulting with the Navajo Nation on the 

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

also continue to work with the State of Wyoming on a path forward for the ANC Gas Hills site. 

 
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 Utah Monitoring 13 Monument Valley Arizona Active 14 Moab Mill Utah Active 15 Naturita Colorado Monitoring 16 Rifle Colorado Active 17 Riverton Wyoming Monitoring 18 Salt Lake City Utah Monitoring 19 Shiprock New Mexico Active 
32 

Table 2-4a Decommissioning Title I Uranium Recovery Sites 

20 Slick Rock Colorado Active 21 Spook Wyoming Monitoring 22 Tuba City Arizona Active Note: Active denotes that a site is still undergoing surface reclamation or is resolving groundwater issues. Monitoring denotes that the site is being monitored under its LTSP or a groundwater compliance action plan. 
33 

Table 2-4b Decommissioning Title II Uranium Recovery Sites 

Name Location DP/RP Approved Completion 

of Decomm.

1 American Nuclear Corporation Casper, WY 10/88, Revision 2006 TBD 2 Bear Creek Converse County, WY 5/89 2014 3 ExxonMobil Highlands Converse County, WY 1990 TBD 4 Homestake Mining Company Grants, NM Revised plan—3/95 2017 5 Pathfinder—Lucky Mc Gas Hills, WY Revised plan—7/98 2014 6 Pathfinder—Shirley Basin Shirley Basin, WY Revised plan—12/97 TBD 7 Rio Algom—Ambrosia Lake Grants, NM 2003 (mill); 2004 (soil) 2015 8 Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Gore, OK 2008 2018 9 

Umetco Minerals Corporation East Gas Hills, WY 

Revised soil plan—4/01 2014 

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, or in standby, uranium recovery facilities in various stages of partial restoration/decommissioning. TBD to be determined 
34 

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

Name Location Transferred to DOE 

1 Bluewater (Arco) New Mexico 2003 2 Edgemont South Dakota 2003 3 L-Bar New Mexico 2003 4 Maybell West Colorado 2010 5 Sherwood Washington 2003 6 Shirley Basin South Wyoming 2003 
35 

2.5 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning 

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

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

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

information about the status of these facilities. 

2.5.1 Fuel Cycle Facility Decommissioning Process 

The decommissioning processes for fuel cycle facilities and for complex materials 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 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 2013 Activities 

NMSS approved a proposal from Honeywell to decommission a portion of its Metropolis Works 

facility located in Metropolis, IL. DWMEP staff supported FCSS in the review of the DP for this 

partial decommissioning action. The DP approval is documented in Amendment 10 to SUB526, issued September 27, 2013, which includes a Safety Evaluation Report and an EA and 

FONSI. 

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

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

several survey units in the North Site area. 
36 

3. GUIDANCE AND RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES

In FY 2013, the staff worked to increase the effectiveness of the Decommissioning Program and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

management’s use when assessing ways to enhance the efficiency of the use of codes and 

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

and models. This activity is expected to continue into FY 2014. 

Decommissioning Guidance

In December 2012, the NRC issued Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.22, “Decommissioning Planning 

During Operations,” a guidance document in support of the Decommissioning Planning Rule (76 

FR 35512). RG 4.22 addresses the identification of contamination for which there must be 

decommissioning financial assurance. The Decommissioning Planning Rule became effective 

on December 17, 2012, and revised the requirements for timeliness in decommissioning of 

materials facilities, the requirements for financial assurance for decommissioning, and the 

recordkeeping requirements related to eventual decommissioning. 

 

During FY 2013, DWMEP staff worked toward the issuance of RG 1.184, “Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Power Reactors.” The document provides guidance on the actions required of 

licensees to decommissioning nuclear power reactors licensed under the provisions of 10 CFR 

Parts 50 and 52.

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

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

used by DWMEP staff would be appropriate. This is a multi-year effort to review, consolidate 

and update over 130 uranium recovery decommissioning guidance documents. The update is 

being prepared as Volume 4 of NUREG-1757. This volume will incorporate those provisions 

and aspects of the existing uranium recovery guidance, which are specifically relevant to the 

reclamation, restoration and decommissioning of uranium recovery facilities. All commercial 

licensed facility types will be addressed: convention mills, ISR, heap leach and byproduct 

recovery operations. This volume will incorporate provisions unique to byproduct material as 

defined in section 11(e).2 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, permanent waste 

disposal, and financial assurance, which are significantly different from such considerations in 

the decommissioning of other materials facilities. 

 
37 

4. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 

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

decommissioning issues through a number of activities discussed below. 

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

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

was completed with Argonne National Laboratory incorporating the Disposal Unit Source Term 

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

National Laboratory, into RESRAD-OFFSITE. A final report on the use of the DUST-modified 

RESRAD-OFFSITE has been submitted for publication. Work is underway to update the 

RESRAD-OFFSITE user manual. Work was also completed in FY 2013 to adapt the 

Decontamination and Decommissioning Code to current computational environments. 

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

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

Partnership (CBP). The CBP memorandum of understanding among DOE, NRC and NIST 

ended this year and is now being revised to address activities for the next five years. The CBP 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cementitious composites with chemical and mineral admixtures has been completed. A final 

NUREG/CR report has been reviewed and is in preparation for publication. 

Cooperative studies between Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Oregon State 

University to study radionuclide uptake in fruit and nut trees were completed. A NUREG/CR 

report on “Transfer Factors for Nuclide Uptake by Fruit and Nut Trees” is ready for publication. 

Researchers at PNNL and the U.S. Geological Survey completed their work to determine the 

long term efficacy of bioremediation of groundwater contaminated with uranium at both surficial 

sites and deeper ISR facilities. The U.S. Geological Survey 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 can be readily reoxidized and released to solution in 

these shallow formations. The use of added iron (as proposed by a licensee) to generate large 

quantities of adsorptive minerals, was shown to reduce uranium concentrations and release 

rates but not enough to allow use of this technology on near-surface sites. As a result, RES has 

recommended that this approach for shallow systems should not be relied on to sequester 

uranium. The NUREG/CR report containing experimental and modeling results is in final 

editing. All work has been completed to assess bioremediation of uranium at ISR sites including 

modeling activities. Results for these deeper sites indicate that re-establishing the natural 

reducing conditions at depth can be an effective remediation strategy in spite of the severe 

disruption of the original biological community by the ISR process. The experimental and 
38 

modeling results are documented in NUREG/CR-7167 “Assessing the Potential for 

Biorestoration of Uranium In-Situ Recovery Sites,” which is in final review in RES. 

The draft NUREG/CR “Radionuclide Release from Slag and Concrete Waste Materials: Part 3 

Testing Protocols” is in final editing and will be ready for publication soon. This report, taking 

information from the previous two NUREG/CR reports for this project, recommends short-term 

testing protocols and modeling approaches to characterize the release of contaminants from 

waste materials in large-scale surface disposal sites. The objectives of these tests are to 

provide contaminant release rates and to characterize transport behavior within the waste pile, 

based on representative samples of the waste material. Results can then be used in 

performance assessment models. 

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

included: (1) contributing to the critical review for the Savannah River F-Tanks and H-Tanks 

Performance Assessments; (2) participating in the MARSSIM Interagency Working Group; and 

(3) interacting with DOE and NIST to develop renewal for the CBP. A User Need Response is 

being prepared for work requested by FSME to examine radon emissions from uranium mill 

tailing caps.
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 Nuclear Energy Agency 

(NEA). The NRC participates in bilateral and trilateral exchanges with other countries, hosting 

foreign assignees and providing reciprocal assignments, developing and providing workshops to 

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

Programs. The NRC is generally recognized in the international nuclear community as an 

experienced leader in the regulation and safety of decommissioning, waste disposal, site 

remediation and environmental protection. Interaction with international organizations and 

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

decommissioning approaches. This interaction also allows the staff to provide input for various 

international guidance documents and standards, which benefit other countries in establishing 

and implementing safe decommissioning strategies in the international community. Conversely, 

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

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

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

International Atomic Energy Agency Activities 

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

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

International Project on Evaluation and Demonstration of Safety for Decommissioning of 

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

exemption of decommissioning installations from liability under the Vienna Convention. 

• Staff has initiated the preparation of a United State National Report on the safety of spent 

fuel, radioactive waste and disused sealed sources. This process involves an interagency 

(NRC, DOE, EPA and the State Department) working group and is prepared as a national 

obligation under the provisions of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel 

Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (Joint Convention). 

Decommissioning staff in NRC provided technical and programmatic support to the U.S. 

Delegation to the Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Joint Convention which took place in April 

2013. Decommissioning of nuclear facilities was included in the scope of this convention for 

achieving a uniform global level of safety in such management of radioactive materials and 

activities. The DWMEP Division Director served as the Chairman of a Country Review 

Group and continues to serve as a member of the General Committee. 

• Staff supported the meeting of the IAEA Research Reactor Decommissioning 

Demonstration Project workshop held at the State University of New York at Buffalo in 

December 2012. 
40 

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

Standards, which are drafted in consultancy meetings. One such example was the 

Consultancy Meeting on Draft Decommissioning Safety Guide (DS-452) “Decommissioning 

of Nuclear Facilities,” August 30 to September 7, 2013 in Vienna, Austria. 

• Staff participated in a technical meeting of the International Forum on Regulatory 

Supervision of Legacy Sites, related to the remediation of legacy nuclear facilities. 

• The NRC coordinated the Member State review of the General Safety Requirements Part 6, 

“Safety Requirements for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities.” 

Nuclear Energy Agency Activities 

• The NRC contributed to the 16th Session of the NEA Radioactive Waste Management 

Committee Bureau Annual Report for the Radioactive Waste Management Committee. 

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

on Decommissioning and Dismantling, and participated in the 13th annual meeting in 

Penrith, United Kingdom. 

• Staff co-authored the NEA technical report on “R&D and Innovation Needs for 

Decommissioning.” 

• Staff provided technical support for a presentation in the NEA Policy Debate on 

Decommissioning. 

International Conferences and Presentations

• The Acting Director of FSME gave a plenary speech at the 15th International Conference on 

Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management held in Brussels, Belgium, 

in September 2013. 

• Staff delivered presentations for delegates from Japan, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom, 

and provided technical support for a training workshop and exchange of information with 

Taiwan on the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors.
41 

6. PROGRAM INTEGRATION AND IMPROVEMENT 

The Decommissioning Program currently encompasses power and early demonstration 

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

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

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

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

undertaken many initiatives to keep abreast of sites undergoing decommissioning. 

Comprehensive Decommissioning Program

The NRC has continued the implementation of an enhanced Comprehensive Decommissioning 

Program, which allows the NRC to compile, in a centralized location, information on the status 

of decommissioning and decontamination of complex sites and uranium recovery sites in the 

United States. In FY 2013, State contacts provided responses to letter FSME-13-077, 

“Information Request: Status of Current Complex Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery 

Sites.” This site information was compiled and placed into a database for publication on NRC’s 

public website. Summaries of information on sites regulated by the Agreement States are 

currently available to the public to ensure openness and promote communication and thus 

enhance public confidence by providing them with a national perspective on decommissioning. 

Knowledge Management 

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

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

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

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

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

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

addition, the staff has taken a proactive approach to enhance knowledge transfer by conducting 

several decommissioning-related seminars and by implementing succession planning in FY 

2013.

Uranium Recovery Decommissioning Program Enhancements

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

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

decommissioning uranium recovery 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. 

 
42 

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. 

In addition to the oversight activities by project managers, in FY 2013, staff developed and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

developed. 

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

licensed under 10 CFR 40.27 and 40.28. Staff is working with DOE to develop a site transfer 

protocol and has provided comments to DOE on its site transfer guidance for DOE staff. Staff 

has also continued its participation in DOE meetings with the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe 

pertaining to the sites on the Navajo Nation and Hopi reservation. 

DOE routinely submits groundwater and data validation information to the NRC for each of the 

sites that it has responsibility for under UMTRCA. In FY 2011, staff began the development of a 

site activities/issues database to better track the review of these documents as well as issues 

that are complicating the oversight of the sites. Staff is also developing quantifiable metrics to 

track the review and comment or approval of the information for those sites that are specifically 

licensed and those that have transferred to DOE and are generally licensed under 10 CFR 

40.27 and 40.28. 

In 2013, the NRC staff continued working with the EPA, along with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

DOE, and the Indian Health Service on a coordinated Five-Year Plan to address uranium 

contamination in consultation with Navajo Nation. The Five-Year Plan represents a coordinated 

approach by the agencies, and outlines a strategy for gaining a better understanding and 

addressing the problem of uranium contamination on the Navajo Nation from past mining and 

milling activities. In 2013, the NRC worked with the agencies to develop a summary report for 

Congress on the progress made during the first five years in completing the goals outlined in the 

Five-Year Plan. 
43 

7. AGREEMENT STATE ACTIVITIES 

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

responsibility over certain byproduct, source, and small quantities of SNM, including the 

decommissioning of some complex materials sites. However, after a State becomes an 

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

Formal interactions with Agreement States in FY 2013 included the following: 

• On August 5, 2013, the NRC reinstated the State of New Jersey’s authority to 

regulate the Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation site in Newfield, NJ. During the 

time between April 15, 2013, and August 5, 2013, while the NRC maintained 

authority for the site, the NRC staff issued License SMB-743 (Amendment 11), which 

incorporated administrative license conditions developed while the site was under 

the State of New Jersey’s regulatory authority. 

• 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 (Georgia, Illinois, 

Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, Washington). 

 

Table 7-1 identifies the decommissioning and uranium recovery sites in the Agreement States. 
44 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

Project Complete

CA Halaco Oxnard, CA N/A N/A TBD CA The Boeing Company Simi Valley, CA 10/03 10/03 2014 CA 

Chevron Mining, Inc. (formerly Molycorp) 

Mountain Pass, CA 6/06 7/08 2015 

CA Isotope Specialties Burbank, CA 2013 TBD 2016 CA Magnesium Alloy Products Compton, CA 2006 2008 2016 CO Umetco Uravan Uravan, CO 2/01/87 TBD CO Cotter Uranium Mill Canon City, CO 

2005, revision pending 2005, TBD 

In standby. TBD if going into D&D. 

CO 

Schwartzwalder Mine (Cotter) Golden, CO 12/01/96 1997 TBD 

CO Sweeney Mining and Milling Boulder, CO Pending TBD TBD CO 

Homestake Mining and Pitch Sargeants, CO 05/01/01 06/01/01 TBD 

CO Redhill Forest Fairplay, CO Pending TBD TBD CO Clean Harbors Deer Trail, CO 2005 2006 TBD FL Iluka Resources 

Green Cove Springs, FL TBD TBD TBD 
45 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

Project Complete

IL Spectrulite Consortium Madison, IL TBD TBD TBD IL 

TRONOX (formerly KerrMcGee) West Chicago, IL 09/01/93 09/01/94 

Phase 1—11/05 Phase 2—TBD 

KS Air Capitol Dial Wichita, KS TBD TBD TBD KS 

Aircraft Instrument & Development/RC Allen Instruments Wichita, KS TBD TBD TBD 

KS 

Century Instruments Corporation Wichita, KS TBD TBD TBD 

MA Shpack Landfill Norton, MA 09/04 09/04 TBD MA BASF (formerly Engelhard) Plainville, MA None N/A TBD MA 

Starmet Corp. (formerly Nuclear Metals) Concord, MA 10/06 Pending TBD 

MA Wyman-Gordon Co. 

North Grafton, MA None TBD TBD 

MA Texas Instruments Attleboro, MA None TBD TBD MA Norton/St. Gobain Worcester, MA None TBD TBD NJ 

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. Newfield, NJ TBD TBD TBD 
46 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

Project Complete

OH 

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

OH Advanced Medical Systems, 

Inc. Cleveland, OH 6/04 5/05 2016 

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 

Global Tungsten & Powders Corporation Towanda, PA 6/13 9/13 2014 

PA Karnish Instruments Lock Haven, PA 2015 PA Keystone Metals Reduction Cheswick, PA TBD PA Remacor 

West Pittsburg, PA TBD 

PA Safety Light Corporation Bloomsburg, PA None TBD TBD PA Strube Incorporated 

Lancaster Co., PA 2016 

PA 

Superbolt (formerly Superior Steel) Carnegie, PA None TBD TBD 

PA 

Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Waltz Mill) Madison, PA 4/97 1/00 TBD 
47 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

Project Complete

PA Whittaker Corporation Greenville, PA 

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

TN Duratek Services, Inc. Oak Ridge, TN 8/12 10/12 2015 TX 

ASARCO (Federated Metals) Houston, TC TBD 

TX ExxonMobil Three Rivers, TX 4/85 9/82 TBD TX ConocoPhillips Falls City, TX 11/87 9/80 TBD TX Iso-Tex Diagnostics Houston, TX TBD TX Pearland-Manvel Landfill Pearland, TC TBD TX Rio Grande Resources Hobson, TX 

4/93 Alternate Concentration Limit—11/97 11/96 TBD 

TX 

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

Groundwater complete Surface TBD 

TX 

South Texas Mining Venture, LLP (decommissioning of Tex-1, Mt. Lucas sites) 

Hobson and Dinero, TX 8/01 Ongoing 

Groundwater complete Surface cleanup ongoing 
48 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

Date DP Approved

Project Complete

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 2014 D&D decontamination and decommissioning N/A not applicable TBD to be determined 
49 

8. RESOURCES 

The total Decommissioning Program staff budget for FY 2013 was 58.6 full-time equivalents 

(FTE); and for FY 2014, the program has 59.2 FTE. These resource figures include personnel 

to perform licensing casework directly related to decommissioning sites; inspections; project 

management and technical support for decommissioning power reactors, research and test 

reactors, complex materials sites, uranium mill tailings facilities, and fuel cycle facilities; 

development of rules and guidance; EISs and EAs; research to develop more realistic analytical 

tools to support licensing and rulemaking activities; and Office of the General Counsel support. 

These figures also include nonsupervisory indirect FTE associated with the Decommissioning 

Program, and safety and environmental reviews for new uranium recovery facilities. 
50 

9. FISCAL YEAR 2014 PLANNED PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES 

The staff plans the continued implementation of IDIP and its knowledge management tasks 

during FY 2014. Specifically, the NRC staff have identified knowledge management activities 

for documenting and exchanging decommissioning lessons learned for selected topics (e.g., 

uranium recovery, restricted release, and ALARA). 

Work will continue on the update of uranium recovery decommissioning and reclamation 

guidance for Title I and II sites, which was one of the major tasks previously identified. In FY 

2011, staff began a multi-year effort to review, consolidate, and update over 130 uranium 

recovery decommissioning guidance documents as part of the IDIP improvement process. This 

process will continue throughout FY 2014, and, when completed, this document will be 

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

Regarding the question about the NRC jurisdiction for military radium-226, the staff is preparing 

a Commission information paper that describes the results of its discussions with DoD and its 

plans to complete an MOU and RIS during FY 2014. This paper is currently scheduled to be 

submitted to the Commission during the second quarter of FY 2014, but it is dependent on 

receiving additional inputs from DoD.