Status of the 

Decommissioning Program 

2014 Annual Report

Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

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 2014 Activities .................................................... 6

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2015 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 2014 Activities .................................................. 12

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2015 Trends and Areas of Focus ......................................... 12

2.3 Complex Materials Facility Decommissioning ..................................................... 14

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

2.3.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2014 Activities .................................................. 18

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2015 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 2014 Activities .................................................. 29

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2015 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 2014 Activities .................................................. 35

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

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

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

6. Program Integration and Improvement .................................................................................. 42

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

8. Resources .............................................................................................................................. 48

9. Fiscal Year 2015 Planned Programmatic Activities ............................................................... 49

 

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 ................................................................. 45
 iii

ABBREVIATIONS 

 

ACL alternate concentration limit 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

ANC American Nuclear Corporation 

CAP Corrective Action Plan 

CBP Cementitious Barriers Partnership 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DP decommissioning plan 

DUST Disposal Unit Source Term 

DWMEP Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FCSE Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards, and Environmental Review 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FSME Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs 

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 

LTP license termination plan 

LTR License Termination Rule 
 iv

LTSP long-term surveillance plan 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

N/A not applicable 

NARM naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material 

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 

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 

RP reclamation plan 

SDMP Site Decommissioning Management Plan 

SER Safety Evaluation Report 

SLDA Shallow Land Disposal Area 

SNM special nuclear material 

SRM Staff Requirements Memorandum 

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 

WPDD Working Party on Decommissioning and Dismantling 
1 

1. INTRODUCTION 

This report provides a summary of decommissioning of 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) 2014, 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 the 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, 2014.1

 

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 2014, the staff continued to focus on enhancing 

the effectiveness of the Decommissioning Program through a comprehensive effort to 

consolidate and update decommissioning guidance. 

As noted in the staff’s FY 2013 report (SECY-13-0128, “Status of the Decommissioning 

Program—2013 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 radium and 

other Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, material subject to the NRC’s regulatory 

authority. 

In FY 2015, the NRC expects two to three complex materials sites to complete 

decommissioning activities, with similar numbers completing decommissioning in subsequent 

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

Humboldt Bay, and San Onofre Units 2 and 3 in active decommissioning. Staff within the Office 

of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), the Regional offices, as well as the Office 

 

1 On October 5, 2014, the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs (FSME) 

merged with the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). Since the reorganization, the 

Decommissioning Program has resided within the Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste 

Programs in NMSS. Subsequent versions of this report will include the new organizational titles. 
2 

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

(NSIR), and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) will continue to coordinate extensively on 

activities that support the transition of Crystal River Unit 3, Kewaunee, and San Onofre Units 2 

and 3, from operating reactors to plants in a decommissioning status. Staff will also increase 

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 2015. Within the next several years, several Title II2

 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.

 

2

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

certain radioactive material as: Title I, 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 125 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, 2014, 18 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors, 7 research 

and test reactors, 16 complex 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 Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 40.27 and 40.28. The NRC public Web site 

(http://www.nrc.gov/waste/decommissioning.html) contains site status summaries for the 

facilities managed under the Decommissioning Program. These summaries describe the status 

of each site and identify the current technical and regulatory issues affecting the completion of 

decommissioning. The site summaries are updated on a quarterly basis. For those licensees 

or responsible parties that have submitted a decommissioning plan (DP) or license termination 

plan (LTP), the schedules for completion of decommissioning are based on an assessment of 

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

schedules are based on other available site-specific information and on the anticipated 

decommissioning approach. 

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

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

source, and small quantities of special nuclear material (SNM), including the decommissioning 

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

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

of Production and Utilization Facilities,” or Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for 

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

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

States’ decommissioning programs. 

2.1 Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning 

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

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

decommissioning, core inspections, support for the development of rulemaking and guidance, 
4 

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

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

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

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

Division of Spent Fuel Management in NMSS regarding the independent spent fuel storage 

installations (ISFSIs) at reactor sites undergoing decommissioning. 

As of September 30, 2014, 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 2014 Activities 

• During FY 2014, work continued on the transfer of project management responsibility 

for four reactors from NRR to the Decommissioning Program: Crystal River Unit 3, 

Kewaunee, and San Onofre Units 2 and 3. Staff within FSME, Regional offices, as 

well as NRR, NSIR, and OGC coordinated extensively regarding licensing activities, 

transfer of inspection responsibilities, and public meetings at these sites that have 

permanently ceased operations and have transferred into a decommissioning status. 
7 

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

meetings,3 including a meeting regarding the PSDAR for Crystal River 3 and a 

discussion on Vermont Yankee’s decision to cease operations and begin 

decommissioning during the Reactor Oversight Process end-of-cycle meeting. In 

addition, staff held a government-to-government meeting with the States of Vermont, 

New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. 

• Staff completed oversight activities/inspections at reactor decommissioning facilities 

in accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 2561 at GE Vallecitos, Humboldt Bay, 

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

Unit 1, Three Mile Island Unit 2, Zion Units 1 and 2, and Crystal River Unit 3. The 

staff also conducted site visits at Dresden, San Onofre, Kewaunee, and Vermont 

Yankee. 

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2015 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. Reactors that have recently ceased operation remain under NRR 

project management until formal transfer occurs around the time when the de-fueled technical 

specifications and safety analysis are approved. These four reactors are expected to formally 

transfer to NMSS by 2016. Staff also expects the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to 

permanently cease operations and enter decommissioning status at the end of calendar year 

2014.

 

3

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 Decommission

Reactor Location PSDAR* 

Submitted

LTP Submitted

LTP Approve

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

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, complet

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

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

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

Reactor Onsite Fuel Status Cask Vendor Model 

1 Big Rock Point 10 CFR 50 ISFSI Energy Solutions, Inc. Fuel Solutions W72 Connecticut Yankee 10 CFR 50 ISFSI NAC International, Inc. NAC-MPC 3 Fort St. Vrain 

(DOE site) 

10 CFR 72 ISFSI Foster Wheeler Energy 

Applications, Inc. 

Modular Vault Dry 

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 BNFL Transtor/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, 2014, 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 2 years following permanent cessation of operations, and in no case later than 1 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 alternative4

 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; 

 

4

 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 2014 Activities 

• After the completion of decommissioning activities at the University of Michigan Ford 

Reactor site in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the staff performed inspections and 

independent confirmatory surveys and reviewed the licensee’s FSSRs. 

• After the completion of decommissioning activities at the Worcester Polytechnic 

Institute site in Worcester, Massachusetts, the staff performed inspections and 

independent confirmatory surveys and reviewed the licensee’s FSSRs. 

• At the State University of New York at Buffalo in Buffalo, New York, the staff 

performed inspections and independent confirmatory surveys to support the 

demolition and “free-release” of the facility. 

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2015 Trends and Areas of Focus 

In FY 2015, 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. 
13 

Table 2-2 Research and Test Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning 

Reactor Location Status Completio

Decomm.

1 University of Michigan Ford Reactor Ann Arbor, MI DP Approved 2015 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 2015 6 Veterans Administration Omaha, NE DP Submitted 2016 7 Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA DP Approved 2015 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, 2014, 16 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, Cimarron (Kerr-McGee), 

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 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 EIS or EA and FONSI, 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 2014 Activities 

• Staff approved the remediation work plan for the AAR Manufacturing site in Livonia, 

Michigan. AAR subsequently completed the remediation of 32 grids of thorium 

contaminated soil, and staff expects to receive a final work completion report in early 

FY 2015. AAR is a former unlicensed SDMP site. 

• In February 2014, DOE and New York State Energy and Research Development 

Authority established a path forward for Phase 2 Decommissioning of the West 

Valley site. The decisions for Phase 2 Decommissioning are to be made by 2020, 

and NRC staff plans to stay informed as these plans mature. 

• Staff approved a 10 CFR 20.2002 request made by Westinghouse Electric-Hematite 

for alternate disposal of waste at US Ecology in Idaho. Staff is currently reviewing 

another request for alternate disposal that was submitted by Westinghouse ElectricHematite in July 2014. 

• Staff began the review of a request for license termination for the Stepan Company 

site in Maywood, New Jersey. Remediation of the three NRC-licensed burial pits 

was completed in 2012 by the USACE. 

• Staff completed the review of a revised Characterization Survey Plan for the United 

Nuclear Corporation (UNC) Naval site in New Haven, Connecticut. The plan details 

the strategy that will be implemented to assess conditions in areas that have 

exhibited some level of contamination but are a challenge to actively remediate. 

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

Louis, Missouri. 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. 

• Considerable decommissioning progress was made at the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Beltsville Agricultural Research Laboratory site in Beltsville, Maryland. 

Most final status surveys have been completed at the site. Staff completed 

inspections and performed independent confirmatory sampling. 

• Staff began the review of a DP and environmental report to terminate the license for 

the Jefferson Proving Ground site in Madison, Indiana. If approved, this would be 

the first time that the NRC approves the release of a site with restricted use. 

• Staff completed inspections or site visits at AAR, Beltsville Agricultural Research 

Laboratory, FMRI, Cimarron, Mallinckrodt, Shallow Land Disposal Area (SLDA), and 
19 

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

Alameda Naval Air Station, and Hunters Point Shipyard as part of its limited 

involvement approach approved by the Commission in 2008. 

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 after a contractor exhumed 

material that was beyond the scope of USACE’s established 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. 

The NRC staff assisted USACE with the development of an interagency Site-specific 

Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between USACE, DOE, and the NRC. 

The Supplemental MOU was signed by all parties in early 2014. It complements the existing 

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

73 and 74. The Supplemental MOU also stipulates the specific roles of each Federal entity 

throughout the remainder of the remediation process. The NRC is a member of the USACE 

SLDA Project Development Team, and staff will continue to work collaboratively with USACE 

with respect to site remediation activities. 

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 Commission Involvement with the Navy’s Remediation of 

the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Site in California,” dated June 26, 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 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 sixth annual visit to 

these sites in July 2014, which included site visits with the Navy and Air Force, along with 

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

principal stakeholders that are participating in the ongoing remediation process continue to be 

an effective way to understand the remediation progress, issues that are being addressed, and 

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

plans to continue its reliance on the CERCLA process and EPA oversight at these three sites. 

Additionally, NRC staff held conference calls with representatives from Sacramento County and 

the City of Alameda to discuss their insights on these sites, since some site lands have 

transferred or will transfer to them. 

 

Clarification of the NRC’s Jurisdiction over 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 over certain types 

of radium-226 under military control were identified in a February 16, 2011, SECY paper 

(SECY-11-0023). 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 U.S. Department of Defense (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. 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. In August 2014, NRC staff presented the option for a proposed 

comprehensive MOU to the Commission for their consideration in SECY-14-0082. Key 

components of the proposed comprehensive MOU were provided within SECY-14-0082. 

Army Depleted Uranium License Application

 

The NRC staff continued its work on the licensing of U.S. Army installations possessing 

depleted uranium from the Davy Crockett weapon system. A license for the Schofield Barracks 

and Pohakuloa Training Area sites in Hawaii was issued in October 2013. Throughout FY 2014, 

FSME and OGC staff worked with the Army to identify and develop information necessary and 

sufficient for NRC to issue license amendment(s) adding the remaining 15 installations, which 

are located in other states, to the current license. Throughout FY 2014, staff 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. 

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2015 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in the decommissioning of complex materials sites is expected to increase in FY 2015. 

AAR, Stepan, and Beltsville Agricultural Research Laboratory are expected to complete 

decommissioning or license termination in the upcoming FY. 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 over military radium-226 and involvement with military 
21 

remediation of residual radioactive material. Staff has been in discussions with the National 

Park Service regarding the ongoing remediation under the CERCLA process of the Great Kills 

Park site, located in Staten Island, New York. The Great Kills Park site is currently under 

consideration for addition to the Superfund National Priorities List of proposed sites. NRC staff 

has also been in discussions with EPA Region I, regarding their cleanup activities at the former 

Waterbury Clock factory located in Waterbury, Connecticut. NRC staff is continuing its 

development of a process for the identification of non-military sites with potential radium 

contamination. 
22 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

PR

1 AAR Manufacturing, Inc. Livonia, MI 8/13, amended 

10/13* 

12/13* LTR-UNRES 2

2 Alameda Naval Air Station** Alameda, CA N/A N/A N/A N3 Beltsville Agricultural 

Research Laboratory 

Beltsville, MD 8/09 12/13 LTR-UNRES 2

4 Cimarron (Kerr-McGee) Cimarron, OK 4/95 8/99 Action-UNRES 25 Department of the Army, U.S. 

Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center 

Picatinny, NJ 11/13 TBD LTR-UNRES T

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

revised 5/03 

12/03 LTR-UNRES 2

7 Hunter’s Point Naval 

Shipyard** (former Naval shipyard) 

San Francisco, CA 

N/A N/A N/A N

8 Jefferson Proving Ground Madison, IN 8/99 

revised 6/02, 9/13 

10/02 TBD 

LTR-RES 2

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

11/97, Phase 2 9/08 

Phase 1 5/02, Phase 2 7/10 

LTR-UNRES 2
23 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

PR

10 McClellan** (former Air Force 

base) 

Sacramento, CA 

N/A N/A N/A N

11 Shallow Land Disposal Area 

(BWX Technologies, Inc.) 

Vandergrift, PA 6/01 

revised N/A 

N/A LTR-UNRES 2

12 Sigma-Aldrich Maryland 

Heights, MO 

10/08, revised 11/10 

5/09, revised TBD 

LTR-UNRES 2

13 Stepan Company Maywood, NJ N/A N/A LTR-UNRES 214 UNC Naval Products New Haven, 

CT 

8/98, revised 2004,12/06 

4/99, revised 10/07 

LTR-UNRES T

15 West Valley Demonstration 

Project 

West Valley, NY 

Phase 1 3/09 

Phase 1 2/10 

LTR-UNRES*** T

16 Westinghouse ElectricHematite Facility Festus, MO 4/04 revised 

6/06, 8/09 

10/11 LTR-UNRES T
24 

* AAR Manufacturing is an unlicensed site; therefore, these dates apply to a work plan instead of a ** The Hunter’s Point Shipyard and Alameda Naval Air Station sites are being remediated by the Na

McClellan site is being remediated by the Air Force, under the required CERCLA process and EPis assumed that some licensable material might be present at both sites; however, the NRC has nthese sites. Instead, the Commission has approved a “limited involvement approach to stay inforrely on the ongoing CERCLA process and EPA oversight. More information is available on this aSECY-08-0077. 

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

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

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

represent the current or likely outcome. 

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

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

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

phased implementation of decommissioning, to poor submittals. 
25 

2.4 Uranium Recovery Facility Decommissioning5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

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

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

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

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

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

long-term surveillance plan (LTSP) for NRC concurrence. Table 2-4a identifies the 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, 2014, 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 

 

5

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

discussion on their decommissioning. 
26 

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 DP6

 or RP; implementation of the DP/RP; 

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

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

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

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

or a State. 

Notification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 safety and is otherwise in the public interest. 

 

6

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

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

Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan—Existing Facilities

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

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

Amendments would be necessary under the following circumstances: 

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

considered in the existing DP/RP; 

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

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

Depending on the complexity of the revision, a public 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 2014 Activities 

• In FY 2014, the NRC staff conducted an in-process inspection of decommissioning 

activities at the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation site in Gore, Oklahoma. During that 

inspection, the NRC staff also visited a quarry in Zeb, Oklahoma, that Sequoyah 

Fuels is considering for the supply of rock cover material. In FY 2014, Sequoyah 

Fuels completed construction of the Phase III cell base after completing soil and 

perched groundwater remediation under the footprint of Phase III. All of the 

stabilized calcium fluoride sludge has been excavated and placed in the cell along 

with all of the impacted soil from the Phase III footprint cleanup. Buried solid waste 

materials from the North Waste Burial Area and impacted soils from the Pond 1 

Spoils Pile have also been excavated and placed in the cell. Land surface within the 

Restricted Area north of the Cell has been remediated and is being surveyed in 

preparation for NRC confirmation. The Calcium Fluoride Settling Basins and Clarifier, 

the two Calcium Fluoride Burial Areas and the Pond 1 Spoils Pile Area, all located 

within the Restricted Area, will be ready for verification by mid-November. NRC staff 

anticipates conducting the confirmatory survey in November 2014. Remediation 

completion is expected in October 2015. 

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

decommissioning at the American Nuclear Corporation (ANC) Gas Hills site, 

including determining the best use of the amount remaining in the decommissioning 

fund. NRC and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality have established 

monthly calls to discuss the best path forward for decommissioning the site.

• In FY 2014, 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 staff 

continued to work with other Federal agencies on the Navajo Nation 5-Year Plan. 

• The 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 Northeast 

Church Rock Mine Site at the adjoining 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, which is expected in FY 2016. 

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. The cleanup of the Northeast Church Rock Mine Site is a high priority 

objective in the Navajo Nation 5-Year Plan. 

• Staff continued meeting with Western Nuclear regarding the termination of the 

radioactive materials license for their Split Rock facility in Jeffery City, Wyoming. In 

July 2014, Western Nuclear submitted a letter outlining the activities they have 
30 

performed to complete the termination of the license and their rationale for 

concluding that the license can be terminated. The staff is currently reviewing this 

letter and the licensee’s rationale. 

• Groundwater restoration activities continue at the Homestake site near Milan, New 

Mexico, in accordance with the NRC License SUA-1471. The site is also an EPA 

Superfund site, and NRC has an MOU with EPA to coordinate cleanup criteria for the 

site. The MOU stipulates that the remediation of the site would be done under NRC 

regulatory authority. In March 2012, Homestake submitted Revision 2 of the 

Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for NRC review and approval. Because Revision 2 of 

the CAP was also an attempt to meet the requirements to have the site removed 

from EPA’s National Priorities List, the NRC requested comments from EPA to 

ensure the CAP satisfied their requirements. NRC staff also held a public meeting 

near the site in June 2012 to discuss and accept public comments on the CAP. Due 

to requests from the public, NRC provided a several month extension to the public 

comment period. NRC staff review of Revision 2 of the CAP and response to the 

public comments is in concurrence. In April 2013, Homestake submitted an update 

to its Decommissioning and Reclamation Plan for NRC review and approval. The 

NRC held a public meeting near the site in August 2013 to accept public comment on 

the Decommissioning and Reclamation Plan. The public requested an extension of 

the opportunity for hearing and public comment period. The opportunity for hearing 

was not extended, but the public comment period was extended an additional 3 

months. With an approach similar to the review of the CAP, NRC staff review and 

response to public comments is ongoing. In April 2014, staff met with New Mexico 

Senator Heinrichs’ staff to review the remediation progress being made at the site. 

Staff performed an inspection of the Homestake site in August 2014. 

• 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 Ambrosia Lake, Bluewater, Burrell, Canonsburg, L-Bar, and Shiprock. 

• In addition, staff conducted site inspections or site visits at the ANC Gas Hills, UNC 

Church Rock, Sequoyah Fuels, Durita, Rifle, and Uravan sites. 

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2015 Trends and Areas of Focus 

In FY 2015, the staff expects the completion of remediation at Sequoyah Fuels, and the 

subsequent transfer of the site to the DOE for long-term surveillance and monitoring. The staff 

will also continue coordinating with other Federal agencies regarding the anticipated license 

amendment request for mine waste to be placed in the disposal cells on the UNC Church Rock 

Mill Site. In FY 2015, 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 continue to participate in activities associated with the 

Navajo Nation 5-Year Plan. Staff will also continue to work with the State of Wyoming on a path 

forward for the ANC Gas Hills site. During FY 2015, staff will issue a request for additional 

information and respond to public comments on the Homestake Decommissioning and 

Reclamation Plan, hold a public meeting near the site, and conduct an inspection of the 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 Com

of D

1 American Nuclear Corporation Casper, WY 10/88, Revision 2006 TBD 2 Bear Creek Converse County, WY 5/89 2013 ExxonMobil Highlands Converse County, WY 1990 TBD 4 Homestake Mining Company Grants, NM Revised plan—3/95 2015 Pathfinder—Lucky Mc Gas Hills, WY Revised plan—7/98 2016 Pathfinder—Shirley Basin Shirley Basin, WY Revised plan—12/97 TBD 7 Rio Algom—Ambrosia Lake Grants, NM 2003 (mill); 2004 (soil) 2018 Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Gore, OK 2008 2019 

Umetco Minerals Corporation East Gas Hills, WY 

Revised soil plan—4/01 201

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

operations and partial site decommissioning with technical support from the Decommissioning 

Program. In cases where the entire site is being decommissioned in support of license 

termination, the project management responsibility resides within the Decommissioning 

Program. Project management responsibility for fuel cycle facilities is transferred from FCSE 

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 2014 Activities 

During FY 2014, Honeywell began work to decommission a portion of its Metropolis Works 

facility located in Metropolis, IL. Honeywell is decommissioning four surface impoundment 

ponds, and plans to release the ponds from its source material license for unrestricted use. The 

DP was approved in September 2013. 

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

located in Erwin, TN. In FY 2014, Decommissioning Program staff continued to provide support 

to FCSE by reviewing FSSRs for several survey units in the North Site area. The FSSRs 

primarily address subsurface layers of the North Site area, which include former radiological 

burial areas and ponds that received effluents. 
36 

3. GUIDANCE AND RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES

In FY 2014, 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 (DWMEP) Self-Evaluation of 

Dose Modeling 

DWMEP continued 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 NRC’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 2015. 

Decommissioning Guidance

Revision 1 of NUREG-1757, Volume 2, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: 

Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria,” was published in 

September 2006. An effort to update the volume was initiated in early 2014. This update will 

amend the guidance to address longstanding technical issues and lessons learned which would 

improve the quality of licensee decommissioning plans and license termination plans and 

improve the efficiency of staff review of these documents. Some of the revisions are to as low as 

reasonably achievable (ALARA) analysis, composite sampling, and decommissioning licensee 

versus contractor responsibilities. Additionally, miscellaneous editorial changes were made. 

The revised NUREG is expected to go to the Regions for review by the end of the year and be 

published for public comment early in 2015. 

 

Because the guidance for uranium recovery licensing dates 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) 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 has continued 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 was published as NUREG/CR-7127, “New Source Term Model for the 

RESRAD-OFFSITE Code Version 3.” The RESRAD-OFFSITE User’s Manual is in final editing 

and will be submitted for publication in November 2014. 

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

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

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

been revised and signed by NRC and DOE, and it awaits final approval by NIST. 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. CBP 

conducted several workshops on use of their Toolbox Version 2, a group of models on concrete 

chemistry and behavior. RES and FSME staff attended. Complementary work at NIST to 

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

and mineral admixtures has been completed and published as NIST/TIR-7947. 

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

University to study radionuclide uptake in fruit and nut trees were completed with the publication 

in July 2014 of NUREG/CR- 7174; “Transfer Factors for Nuclide Uptake by Fruit and Nut 

Trees”. The data in this report will be used to update parameter values in dose assessment 

codes that evaluate exposures to radioactive materials in the food chain pathway. 

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

Biorestoration of Uranium In-Situ Recovery Sites,” which was published in June 2014. The U.S. 

Geological Survey experimental results for bioremediation of shallow uranium contaminated 

soils 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 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. NUREG/CR-7178, 
38 

“Uranium Sequestration during Biostimulated Reduction and in Response to the Return of Oxic 

Conditions in Shallow Aquifers,” has been submitted by NRC staff for publication. 

NUREG/CR-7169, “Sensors and Monitoring to Assess Grout and Vault Behavior for 

Performance Assessment,” was published in June 2014. This report was done under the RES 

Long-Term Research Program and examines approaches to monitoring moisture and cracking 

in large grout monoliths and their associated vaults. A presentation was made to FSME staff on 

this topic. The work indicates that several geophysical methods may be useful in assessing 

grout conditions. 

A new research program was begun, in response to a User Need, on the effects of changes in 

properties of mill tailings engineered covers on the emission of radon. This study will evaluate 

the effects of soil structure formation by abiotic and biotic process on the hydraulic conductivity 

and gaseous diffusivity of radon barriers, how structural development varies with depth and 

thickness of the radon barrier, and how structure influences transmission of radon and seepage 

carrying ground water contaminants. 

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

Testing Protocols,” was prepared by Argonne National Laboratory. It takes information from the 

previous two NUREG/CR reports for this project, and 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 H-Tanks Performance 

Assessments; (2) participating in the MARSSIM Interagency Working Group; (3) preparing a 

short course entitled “Fundamentals of Adsorption of Contaminants; Kd, the Partition 

Coefficient, What Does That Mean?;” (4) participating in reviews and providing suggestions to 

the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses regarding their experimental plan on tank 

backfill grout behavior; and (5) contributing to a Desk Guide on Adsorption for FSME. The short 

course was presented to FSME staff on two occasions and was well attended. It was recorded, 

edited, and is now available as a Knowledge Management course.
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 reviewing, developing, and updating international radiation safety standards, and 

technical support documents through interaction with international organizations, including the 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), and foreign 

governments 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. The NRC is 

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

regulation and safety of decommissioning, spent fuel management and storage, radioactive 

waste management and disposal, site remediation, and environmental protection. Interaction 

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

lessons learned and successful, safe, and effective decommissioning approaches. This 

interaction also allows the staff to provide input for various international guidance documents 

and standards that benefit other countries in establishing and implementing safe 

decommissioning strategies in the international community. Conversely, the staff gains insight 

into approaches and methodologies used in the international community and considers these 

approaches as they continue to risk-inform the NRC Decommissioning Program. The most 

significant of these activities are summarized below. 

International Atomic Energy Agency Activities 

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

participated in IAEA projects and workshops related to decommissioning and waste 

disposal, as well as participation as expert consultants to update IAEA key standards or to 

advise on development of other countries’ regulatory programs. For example: (1) staff 

conducted reviews and updated several IAEA standards related to decommissioning during 

the Waste Safety Standards Committee 36th and 37th review cycles; (2) staff provided a 

presentation at an IAEA workshop on Deferred Decommissioning at Materials sites; (3) staff 

participated in planning and organization of the International Forum of Uranium Legacy Sites 

for remediation, supervision, and regulatory development; (4) staff participated in 

development and update of IAEA safety requirements on “Decommissioning of Nuclear 

Installations;” (5) staff participated in the “Regulatory Aspects and Practical Experiences in 

the “Application of Entombment Decommissioning Strategies;” (6) staff participated in an 

IAEA project on “Human Intrusion Scenarios” applicable to waste management and 

decommissioning; (7) staff participated in the development of an IAEA Technical Document 

on “Review of Remediation Plans;” (8) staff participated in an IAEA consultancy meeting for 

“Developing Romania’s Decommissioning Regulations;” and (9) staff participated in a 

workshop on uranium mill decommissioning for Brazil. 

• Staff has initiated the preparation of the fifth 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) Steering Committee and working 

group, and the report is prepared as a national obligation under the provisions of the Joint 
40 

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 and to the U.S. Delegation to the Second 

Extraordinary Meeting of the Contracting Parties in May 2014. 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 in May 2012 and continued to 

serve as a member of the General Committee through the Second Extraordinary Meeting in 

May 2014. 

• 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 

DWMEP Deputy Division Director served as chairman of this IAEA effort and led the most 

recent meeting in July 2014. 

• The NRC coordinated the Member State review of the IAEA General Safety Requirements 

Part 6, “Safety Requirements for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,” which was 

published in July 2014. 

• NRC staff participated in the development of predisposal management of waste (including 

waste generated from decommissioning) for power reactors and Nuclear Fuel Cycle 

Facilities. Staff is also coordinating final reviews of these standards. 

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 (WPDD), and participated in the 14h

 annual meeting 

in Paris, France. 

• Staff co-authored the NEA technical report on “Site Characterization for Decommissioning.” 

• Staff participated as U.S. and NRC representative in NEA Working Groups and Task Groups 

on: (1) WPDD Core Group; (2) Working Group on Radiological Characterization for 

Decommissioning-Phase II; (3) Nuclear Site Restoration Task Group; (d) Working Group on 

R&D for Decommissioning; and (4) Working Group on Decommissioning Funding. 

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

Decommissioning. 

Other International Interactions

• In January 2014, staff provided support to the Korean Institute of Nuclear Safety by 

conducting a workshop on reactor decommissioning. With support from the Office of 
41 

International Programs, staff completed a Joint Cooperation Plan for Reactor 

Decommissioning. 

• In June 2014, staff escorted a Taiwanese Atomic Energy Council regulator to Zion to 

observe decommissioning inspection activities, and coordinated a two-day meeting at NRC 

Headquarters on the decommissioning program. This was a follow up to the Reactor 

Decommissioning Workshop staff conducted in Taiwan in 2013. 
42 

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. 

Power Reactor Program Evaluation

The Decommissioning Program has a history of seeking opportunities to improve its processes in 

order to accomplish decommissioning activities more effectively. Due to the shutdowns of 

Crystal River Unit 3, Kewaunee, and San Onofre Units 2 and 3, the NRC expects an increase in 

the decommissioning workload. In response to this anticipated increase in workload, the FSME 

staff performed a program evaluation of its power reactor decommissioning regulatory function. 

The power reactor decommissioning program evaluation was an outgrowth of the staff’s 

Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP) efforts and part of its initiative to foster 

continuous improvement. 

The staff interviewed senior staff members and project managers involved with the 

decommissioning power reactor program to obtain recommended improvements that could 

enhance work quality and effectiveness. These interviews provided input that focused on 

improvements in knowledge management, policy, and processes. The resulting set of 

recommendations was used in conjunction with a review of all guidance and policy documents 

within the power reactor decommissioning program to identify guidance documents in need of 

updating as well as other potential improvements. Subsequently, FSME management reviewed 

the tasks identified to promote programmatic enhancement and set task priorities. Staff is 

currently working these programmatic enhancement tasks. 

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 2014, State contacts provided responses to letter FSME-14-075, 

“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 by IDIP, as several 

knowledge management seminars were held by mangers and senior staff. Seminars were held 

throughout FY 2014 on a variety of topics, including the power reactor decommissioning 
43 

process, decommissioning lessons learned, and an overview of the License Termination Rule. 

These knowledge management activities should result in future efficiencies and enhancements 

in the staff’s oversight of sites, particularly with the expected increase in workload with reactors 

entering decommissioning. In addition, the staff has taken a proactive approach to enhance 

knowledge transfer by continuing its implementation of succession planning in FY 2014.

Uranium Recovery Decommissioning Program Enhancements

Throughout FY 2014, FSME staff continued 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. 

In addition to site oversight activities by project managers, in FY 2014, staff developed and 

implemented a process for reviewing routine ground and surface water reports for the UMTRCA 

Title I and Title II sites that have been transferred to the DOE for long-term care and 

maintenance pursuant to 10 CFR 40.27 and 40.28. The new process uses a checklist, and 

accompanying guidance, that allows the site Project Manager to perform a screening evaluation 

of the report that can identify issues or concerns before the report is reviewed by a staff 

hydrologist. This effort should result in a more efficient review of the routine reports and allow 

the staff hydrologists to focus on more complex groundwater issues. The guidance was also 

incorporated into Volume 4 of NUREG-1757 that is currently being developed. 

 

In 2014 the staff reviewed and provided input on several DOE reports pertaining to the 

remediation of ground water at the sites on the Navajo Nation. These reports were developed 

by DOE to support their evaluation of the remediation strategies at the sites on the Navajo 

Nation and may provide the basis for revising the strategies in the future. 

In 2014, the NRC staff continued working with the EPA, along with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

DOE, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the Indian Health Service, in 

consultation with Navajo Nation, on a coordinated 5-Year Plan to address uranium 

contamination on the Navajo Nation from past mining and milling activities. The 5-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 agencies reported to Congress on the status of 

activities outlined under the first 5-Year Plan and committed to continuing the work in the future. 

In 2014, the NRC worked with the same agencies to develop the 2014-2019 5-Year Plan, which 

builds on the first 5-Year Plan’s successes, uses information gained during the first 5-Year Plan 

to better plan for future work under the Plan, and includes several enhanced outreach activities. 
44 

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 2014 included the following: 

• On October 1, 2013, Shieldalloy filed a petition for review in the United States Court 

of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit of CLI-13-6, which had reinstated the transfer of 

authority over Sheildalloy’s Newfield, New Jersey, site back to the State of New 

Jersey. The D.C. Circuit Court issued an opinion on October 14, 2014, that denied 

Shieldalloy’s petition for review. 

• DWMEP staff worked with the Agreement States to incorporate more detailed 

information about complex materials decommissioning sites and uranium recovery 

facilities undergoing decommissioning under the purview of the Agreement States on 

the decommissioning Web site. These site summaries are available at 

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

• Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program reviews that included 

decommissioning were conducted in several Agreement States (Arkansas, Kansas, 

Georgia, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas). 

 

Table 7-1 identifies the decommissioning and uranium recovery sites in the Agreement States. 
45 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

DA

CA Chevron Mining, Inc. (formerly Molycorp) Mountain Pass, CA 6/06 7CA Halaco Oxnard, CA N/A NCA Isotope Specialties Burbank, CA 2013 TCA Magnesium Alloy Products Compton, CA 2006 2CA The Boeing Company Simi Valley, CA 10/03 1CO Cotter Schwartzwalder Mine Golden, CO 7/10 7CO Cotter Uranium Mill Canon City, CO 9/03 1CO Hecla Mining Company – Durita Naturita, CO 10/91 3CO Umetco Uravan Uravan, CO 6/93 1FL Iluka Resources Green Cove Springs, FL TBD TIL ADCO Services, Inc. Tinley Park, IL 2/13 TIL Weston Solutions (formerly Kerr-McGee) West Chicago, IL 9/93 6KS Beta Chem Laboratory Lenexa, KS TBD TMA BASF (formerly Engelhard) Plainville, MA N/A NMA Norton/St. Gobain Worcester, MA TBD TMA Shpack Landfill Norton, MA 09/04 0MA Starmet Corp. (formerly Nuclear Metals) Concord, MA 10/06 T
46 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

DA

MA Texas Instruments Attleboro, MA TBD TMA Wyman-Gordon Co. North Grafton, MA TBD TNJ Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. Newfield, NJ TBD TOH Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. Cleveland, OH 6/04 5OH Ineos USA (formerly BP Chemical) Lima, OH 4/92 6OR PCC Structurals, Inc. Portland, OR 6/06 9OR TDY Industries d/b/a Wah Chang Albany, OR 6/03 3PA Curtiss-Wright Cheswick Cheswick, PA 3/06 6PA Global Tungsten & Powders Corp. Towanda, PA 6/13 9PA Karnish Instruments Lock Haven, PA N/A NPA Keystone Metals Reduction Cheswick, PA N/A NPA Remacor West Pittsburg, PA N/A NPA Safety Light Corporation Bloomsburg, PA TBD TPA Strube Incorporated Lancaster, PA TBD TPA Superbolt (formerly Superior Steel) Carnegie, PA TBD TPA Westinghouse Electric (Waltz Mill) Madison, PA 4/97 1PA Whittaker Corporation Greenville, PA 

12/00, revised 8/03, 10/06 5
47 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

DA

TN CB&I Federal Services, LLC Knoxville, TN 6/14 7TX ASARCO (Federated Metals) Houston, TX TBD TTX ConocoPhillips Falls City, TX 11/87 9TX ExxonMobil Three Rivers, TX 4/85 9TX Intercontinental Energy Corp. Three Rivers, TX 3/03 TTX Iso-Tex Diagnostics Houston, TX 

11/06, revised 11/10 T

TX Pearland-Manvel Landfill Pearland, TX 2/02 TTX Rio Grande Resources Hobson, TX 

4/93, ACL—11/97 1

TX 

South Texas Mining Venture, LLP (Tex-1, Mt. Lucas sites) Hobson and Dinero, TX 8/01 T

UT Rio Algom Uranium Mill Lisbon Valley, UT 9/02 7WA Dawn Mining Company Ford, WA 6/94 1N/A not applicable TBD to be determined 
48 

8. RESOURCES 

The total Decommissioning Program staff budget for FY 2014 was 63.2 full-time equivalents 

(FTE); and for FY 2015 the program has requested 65.0 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. 
49 

9. FISCAL YEAR 2015 PLANNED PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES 

The staff plans the continued implementation of IDIP and its knowledge management tasks 

during FY 2015. Specifically, the NRC staff has identified knowledge management activities for 

documenting and exchanging decommissioning lessons learned for selected topics (e.g., 

uranium recovery, restricted release, and ALARA). 

The power reactor decommissioning program evaluation resulted in a set of recommendations, 

which was used in conjunction with a review of all guidance and policy documents within the 

power reactor decommissioning program to identify guidance documents in need of updating as 

well as other potential improvements. Subsequently, FSME management reviewed the tasks 

identified to promote programmatic enhancement and set task priorities. Throughout FY 2015, 

staff will continue to work on these programmatic enhancement tasks. 

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 2015, and, when completed, this document will be 

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

In response to the emerging issue of historic, non-military sites with radium contamination (e.g., 

Great Kills Park, Waterbury Clock Factory), NRC staff began work to develop a process for the 

identification of other potential historic, non-military sites with potential radium contamination. 

Staff will continue this effort during FY 2015. 

The October 5, 2014, FSME and NMSS merger involved a reorganization that will enable the 

new NMSS to meet anticipated future challenges and operate more effectively by balancing 

workload. Throughout FY 2015, staff and management will focus on this transition and the 

implementation of improved processes in the new NMSS.