RULEMAKING ISSUE 

(Notation Vote)

October 16, 2016 SECY-16-0121 

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RULEMAKING TO ADDRESS 

REMEDIATION OF RESIDUAL RADIOACTIVITY DURING OPERATION 

PURPOSE: 

To provide the Commission with an evaluation of options and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) staff recommendations regarding the need for rulemaking to address the 

remediation of residual radioactivity at licensed facilities during the operational phase of facility 

life, also known as prompt remediation. The NRC staff’s recommendation was shaped by an 

evaluation of operational experience gained during implementation of the Decommissioning 

Planning Rule (DPR) (76 FR 35512) and stakeholder feedback received during public meetings 

and through other forums. 

SUMMARY: 

This paper provides the results of the Commission-directed analysis of the implementation of 

the DPR, with particular emphasis on the operational experiences of licensees that have had 

releases resulting in residual radioactivity at their facilities since promulgation of the DPR. 

Specifically, the NRC staff collected 3 years of data on the effectiveness of the DPR, evaluated 

operational experience associated with implementation of the DPR at various types of facilities, 

and solicited stakeholder comments on the potential need for additional rulemaking. This paper 

provides the Commission with an evaluation of the options available to address prompt 

remediation of residual radioactivity at licensed facilities during the operational phase of facility 

life. The NRC staff recommends that no rulemaking or provision of additional guidance on 

prompt remediation be initiated. 

CONTACT: Marlayna Vaaler, NMSS/DUWP 

 301-415-3178
The Commissioners -2- 

BACKGROUND: 

The initial decommissioning regulations were promulgated as “General Requirements for 

Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities” (53 FR 24018; June 27, 1988). The rule established the 

definition of decommissioning as the removal of a facility safely from service and the reduction 

of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and 

termination of the license. The rule also set forth technical, financial, and environmental criteria 

for decommissioning licensed nuclear facilities. 

The decommissioning regulations were subsequently amended in 1997 with issuance of 

Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination,” to Part 20, “Standards For Protection 

Against Radiation,” of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), also known as the 

License Termination Rule (LTR) (62 FR 39088; July 21, 1997). The LTR provided specific 

radiological criteria for the decommissioning of lands and structures to determine the adequacy 

of remediation of residual radioactivity for unrestricted use and under restricted conditions. 

Specifically, the rule established criteria for a dose rate to the public of less than 25 mrem/year 

and in accordance with the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) requirements for 

unrestricted site use. It also established criteria for Commission approval of release of a site for 

restricted use, utilizing appropriate institutional controls, and continued monitoring measures. 

Following promulgation of the LTR, in Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) SECY-01-0194 

– AAR Manufacturing Group, Inc., and Proposed Use of Unimportant Quantities of Source 

Material as Decommissioning Criteria (Agencywide Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML021690563), the Commission directed the NRC staff to 

conduct an analysis of LTR issues, with particular emphasis on addressing restricted site 

release and the use of institutional controls. The NRC staff presented the results of its analyses 

and recommendations for action in SECY-03-0069 – Results of the License Termination Rule 

Analysis (ADAMS Accession No. ML030840302). 

In SRM-SECY-03-0069 (ADAMS Accession No. ML033210595), the Commission approved the 

staff’s recommendation to proceed with rulemaking for a decommissioning planning rule that, 

among other things, would require that costs to remediate residual radioactivity be included in 

the decommissioning cost estimate and that appropriate financial assurance instruments be 

identified for licensees (excluding Part 50 licensees that are subject to the specific funding 

requirements in 10 CFR 50.75, “Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning,” 

and 10 CFR 50.82, “Termination of license”). The objective of the DPR was to improve overall 

decommissioning planning by enhancing knowledge of the location and amount of residual 

radioactivity, thereby reducing the likelihood that any currently operating facility would become a 

legacy site. 

During development of the DPR from 2004 to 2007, the NRC staff discussed the proposed rule 

with the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) on several occasions, including the 

potential for establishing regulations requiring remediation to take place during operation. The 

ACNW observed that “premature action in the absence of adequate understanding of the site
The Commissioners -3- 

and system behavior may be inappropriate or even counter-productive to remediation goals,” 

and recommended against incorporating a requirement for remediation during operation.1 

Therefore, the NRC staff did not include language for a requirement addressing remediation 

during facility operation in the technical basis or in the draft DPR. The NRC published the DPR 

in 2011 (76 FR 35512; June 17, 2011), with an effective date of December 17, 2012. The DPR 

applies to the operational phase of a licensed facility and requires licensees to establish 

programs that: (1) minimize introduction of radiological contamination into the site environment; 

(2) require surveys of areas, including the subsurface, that are reasonable under the 

circumstances to evaluate residual radioactivity; (3) document radiological survey data which 

identifies the location and amount of subsurface residual radioactivity detected; and (4) report 

updated financial assurance information as required by the DPR. The DPR does not have a 

mandatory requirement for licensees to conduct prompt remediation during operation. 

In SRM-SECY-07-0177 – Proposed Rule: Decommissioning Planning (10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 

40, 50, 70, and 72; ADAMS Accession No. ML073440549), which approved the proposed DPR, 

the Commission directed the NRC staff to “make further improvements to the decommissioning 

planning process by addressing remediation of residual radioactivity during the operational 

phase with the objective of avoiding complex decommissioning challenges that can lead to 

legacy sites.” To that end, the NRC staff developed a proposed draft technical basis for prompt 

remediation (ADAMS Accession No. ML111580353) and published a Federal Register notice 

(see 76 FR 42074; July 18, 2011), announcing the NRC’s “Consideration of Rulemaking to 

Address Prompt Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operations.” 

The NRC staff conducted a public meeting and webinar to discuss prompt remediation on 

July 25, 2011 (see 76 FR 42074; July 18, 2011), obtained and evaluated additional stakeholder 

comments, and revised the draft regulatory basis associated with a potential rulemaking 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML120190685). Subsequently, in SRM-SECY-12-0046 – Options for 

Revising the Regulatory Approach to Groundwater Protection (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML121450704), the Commission directed the NRC staff to solicit additional stakeholder 

comments on the draft regulatory and technical bases for a proposed prompt remediation rule. 

The Commission also directed the NRC staff to evaluate the pros and cons of moving forward 

with a proposed prompt remediation rulemaking, including the initial analysis of whether the 

backfit requirements of 10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting,” would be satisfied. 

The NRC staff conducted another public meeting and webinar on June 4, 2013 (see 

78 FR 33008; June 3, 2013), to obtain stakeholder comments on the ongoing prompt 

remediation issue, and included the results of the staff’s evaluation of those comments in 

SECY-13-0108 – Staff Recommendations for Addressing Remediation of Residual Radioactivity 

During Operations (ADAMS Accession No. ML13217A230). In SRM-SECY-13-0108 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13354B759), the Commission approved the NRC staff’s recommendation to 

collect 2 years of additional data from the implementation of the DPR. The Commission also 

directed that, “after collection and evaluation of the data and engaging stakeholders in a public 

meeting focused on operational experience from implementation of the DPR, the staff should 

provide to the Commission a paper with the staff’s recommendation for addressing remediation 

of residual radioactivity at licensed facilities during the operational phase of the facility.” 

 

1 Letter from Michael T. Ryan, Chairman, ACNW, to Dale E. Klein, Chairman, NRC, “Prevention of 

Legacy Sites,” dated October 17, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML062960469). 
The Commissioners -4- 

The NRC staff collected more than 2 years of data on the implementation of the DPR and 

hosted a public webinar on July 11, 2016 (see 81 FR 43959; July 6, 2016), during which 

members of the public, licensees, Agreement States, non-Agreement States, and other 

stakeholders provided input on the implementation of the DPR to date. This input has been 

used to inform the NRC staff’s recommendations to the Commission regarding the need for 

additional regulations or guidance regarding prompt remediation during operation. 

DISCUSSION: 

While the DPR requires licensees to perform surveys (including surveys of the subsurface) that 

are reasonable to identify significant concentrations or quantities of residual radioactivity, it does 

not require licensees to conduct remediation during the operational phase of plant life. During 

operation, radiological contamination has the potential to spread to significantly larger volumes 

of groundwater in surrounding subsurface media if not appropriately monitored, controlled, or 

remediated. In addition, contamination that is not identified and appropriately accounted for in 

the decommissioning funding instruments has created legacy sites. However, based on its 

evaluation of how licensees are complying with the DPR, as well as the regulations that 

establish public dose criteria, the NRC staff determined that licensees are operating their 

facilities in a manner to minimize leaks and spills, monitor for residual radioactivity, adjust 

decommissioning funding to account for residual radioactivity, and maintain doses to the public 

within regulatory limits. Taken together, compliance with these regulations ensures public 

health and safety and reduces the potential for additional legacy sites. 

In addition, based on previous ACNW input and ongoing evaluations related to licensee 

compliance with the DPR, the NRC staff has determined that there continues to be several 

challenges presented by a potential new rule requiring prompt remediation. These include the 

potential impacts of remediation activities on operational safety, the difficulty of establishing 

general applicable requirements for the broad range of licensees, and the cost/benefit 

considerations with respect to backfitting. To date, residual radioactivity has been mostly limited 

to onsite areas, and there has not been a significant impact on public health and safety. 

Licensees must comply with the applicable dose standards both during operation and 

decommissioning activities, as well as other applicable regulations and ALARA principles, 

thereby ensuring the protection of public health and safety. In addition, the staff considers it 

unlikely that a rulemaking requiring prompt remediation would meet 10 CFR 50.109 backfitting 

requirements with respect to a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health 

and safety. Further, generic action levels for prompt remediation are not necessarily riskinformed and may not apply equally at all sites. The wide range of circumstances that may be 

present at an NRC-licensed facility undergoing decommissioning could result in a rule that is too 

broad and complex to be effectively implemented or enforced, which would not be consistent 

with the NRC’s principles of good regulation. 

In determining whether the manner in which licensees are complying with the DPR has been 

adequate to prevent future legacy sites, the NRC staff used the following information sources to 

evaluate the need for, and potential benefits arising from, additional rulemaking in the area of 

prompt remediation: (1) the NRC inspection results; (2) licensee event reports and radiological 

effluent monitoring reports; (3) the financial assurance mechanisms available to support 

decommissioning at different types of facilities; (4) the results of the Nuclear Energy 
The Commissioners -5- 

Institute (NEI) 07-07, “Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative” (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML072610036), and associated groundwater contamination evaluations; (5) guidance 

promulgated by the NRC and industry groups such as NEI and the Electric Power Research 

Institute (EPRI); and (6) stakeholder feedback collected during the July 11, 2016, public webinar 

and through other forums. A more detailed discussion of, and the NRC staff’s evaluation with 

respect to each of these areas are contained in the enclosure to this paper. Overall, the NRC 

staff concluded that: 

• Existing dose limits codified in NRC regulations currently provide adequate protection for 

public health and safety during operation. As such, an additional rule requiring prompt 

remediation would provide limited additional benefit and would not likely meet the backfitting 

provisions of 10 CFR 50.109. 

• The current DPR requires early identification of existing “significant residual radioactivity” 

and timely adjustments to decommissioning funding, thereby mitigating the potential that 

residual contamination that is unaccounted for in the decommissioning funding instruments 

would lead to future legacy sites. 

• The DPR characterizes “significant” residual radioactivity as “a quantity of radioactive 

material that would later require remediation during decommissioning to meet the 

25 mrem/year unrestricted use criteria of 10 CFR 20.1402.” 

• No new legacy sites have been identified since the financial assurance regulations were 

promulgated in 1988, and no sites have had to make adjustments to their decommissioning 

funds due to the identification of residual radioactivity since implementation of the DPR. 

• In some circumstances, mandated remediation during operation could adversely impact 

operational safety as certain locations may only be accessible after operations have ceased 

or when operational conditions permit.

• Protection of the environment, particularly the groundwater resource, from abnormal 

releases is based upon effective groundwater monitoring programs for determination of 

significant residual radioactivity, as well as use of industry initiatives where appropriate. 

• Licensees are effectively complying with the DPR. The current regulations are sufficient to 

ensure that when operation at a facility ceases, site characterization will result in the 

appropriate identification of all significant residual subsurface radioactivity, and adequate 

financial resources will be available to complete decommissioning for release of the site for 

unrestricted use at the time of license termination. 

RULEMAKING OPTIONS: 

The options for addressing prompt remediation of residual radioactivity during operation, 

discussed more fully below, are (1) proceed with rulemaking, (2) defer a decision on rulemaking 

until additional implementation data from the DPR can be gathered, (3) no action, or (4) develop 

additional guidance to address prompt remediation. 
The Commissioners -6- 

Option 1: Propose Rulemaking on Prompt Remediation 

Option 1a: Publish a proposed rule requiring prompt remediation when residual 

radioactivity exceeds a fixed calculated dose (e.g., 25 mrem/year at the time of 

proposed decommissioning or an exceedance of the 10 CFR Part 20 or ALARA 

criteria in the unrestricted area). 

Pros: 

• Provides the most robust assurance of licensee action to reduce the 

likelihood of future legacy sites and reduce the costs to remediate the site 

during decommissioning. 

• Avoids the problem of lost institutional memory. The people most familiar 

with the facility would most likely be available to help with cleanup. 

• Addresses some local authorities, States, and public concerns and 

interests, and avoids public liability for long-term care of new legacy sites. 

• Under a new rule, licensees with tritium in the groundwater would be able 

to extract the contaminated groundwater, and then monitor and discharge 

using generically approved effluent discharge methods, rather than 

relying on site-specific justifications for tritium remediation activities. 

• Limits potential doses to the public due to migration of contamination. 

• Provides enforceable criteria for both the licensees and the NRC 

inspectors to determine compliance, which would provide the greatest 

degree of regulatory predictability and consistency of licensee 

implementation. 

Cons: 

• To date, most residual radioactivity in the form of particulate radioactivity 

has been found under or near facility systems, structures, and 

components where remediation activities would be difficult and, in some 

cases, could affect safe operation of the facility. 

• A new rule would have limited benefit because the DPR already provides 

licensees ample business-related incentives to perform remediation when 

practical because of reporting requirements, requirements to maintain 

residual radioactivity at ALARA levels, and requirements to increase 

decommissioning funding if remediation is not performed. These 

incentives effectively provide additional assurance of compliance. 

• A new rule would be a duplication of regulation given that licensees 

already must comply with ALARA requirements and the NRC dose limits 

in 10 CFR Part 20 during operation and decommissioning.
The Commissioners -7- 

• A new rule would have limited benefit because adequate recordkeeping, 

subject to periodic inspections, already ensures that the nature and extent 

of contamination will be well understood regardless of whether the people 

performing the cleanup are familiar with the facility or the contamination 

when it occurred. 

• As noted by the ACNW, it would be difficult to develop rule language that 

meets the NRC principles of clarity and efficiency for the wide range of 

facility types and site conditions that would need to be addressed. 

Option 1b: Publish a proposed rule mandating that licensees develop a written 

plan, including cost estimates and schedules, to address residual radioactivity 

concentrations that would require remediation to meet unrestricted release 

criteria at the time of proposed license termination. Require the plan to include 

an evaluation of, and document, the pros and cons of prompt versus delayed 

remediation. 

Pros: 

• Provides a requirement for the licensee to establish performance and risk 

bases for its chosen course of action. 

• Most information needed to complete the analysis is already available to 

the licensees (i.e., contaminant concentrations are routinely measured for 

compliance with existing regulations, and decommissioning costs are 

required to be evaluated on a periodic basis). 

• Better ensures a response by the affected licensee that is proportionate 

to the risk presented by the known contamination. 

• Enforceability would provide the greatest degree of regulatory 

predictability and consistency of licensee implementation. 

• Imposes less burden on the NRC and licensees than requiring prompt 

remediation in all cases. 

Cons: 

• A new rule would have limited benefit because licensees implementing 

the NEI 07-07 voluntary Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative are 

already performing these types of evaluations. 

• A new rule would have limited benefit because other licensees also 

perform cost/benefit evaluations based on their business models, and 

incentives already exist to minimize costs. These considerations ensure 

that prompt remediation will be undertaken if necessary. 

• A new rule would have limited benefit because the DPR already requires 

most licensees to estimate the costs of remediation and adjust their 
The Commissioners -8- 

decommissioning funding accordingly. This provides adequate incentive 

for prompt remediation. 

• A new rule would have limited benefit because it may provide little 

information beyond what is already required by the DPR on the extent of 

contamination and costs to remediate it. 

Option 2: Defer Decision on Prompt Remediation Rulemaking for 5 Years to Gather 

More Information on Decommissioning Planning Rule Implementation Experience 

Pros: 

• Reduces resource expenditures in comparison to rulemaking in the short term. 

• More data gathering could provide a more substantial basis for a decision on 

whether or not to initiate rulemaking. 

• Provides an opportunity for more interaction with the regions on their experience 

in reviewing abnormal releases, and volunteered remediation by licensees. 

• Compared with no action alternative, maintains an additional increment of 

regulatory incentive for licensee diligence in implementing the DPR, including 

conducting prompt remediation when warranted. 

Cons: 

• Postpones the decision on whether there remains a need to address the potential 

for future legacy sites. May needlessly create regulatory uncertainty. 

• Current operating experience gives no indication that the number or severity of 

legacy sites is likely to grow or that DPR implementation may not be effective. 

• Resources would need to be expended to collect and analyze additional data. 

Option 3: No Action 

Pros: 

• Existing DPR requirements ensure that contamination is identified and monitored 

during facility operation. 

• Voluntary industry initiatives already encourage an evaluation of prompt 

remediation and specify action thresholds for addressing contamination. 

• Licensees already have incentives to perform remediation during operation, and 

operating experience has shown that facilities tend to remediate well before the 

decommissioning stage whenever practical or beneficial to the site. 

• Current regulations require licensees that identify significant contamination to 

adjust their decommissioning financial assurance to permit removal of the 
The Commissioners -9- 

• residual radioactivity sufficient for unrestricted release of the site at license 

termination. This minimizes the potential for future legacy sites. 

• Licensees already must comply with the NRC dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 

during operation and decommissioning, which provides adequate protection for 

public health and safety. 

• This alternative requires no additional resource expenditures. 

Cons: 

• Contamination not promptly remediated may increase decommissioning costs 

due to the spread of contaminants and complexities in selecting and 

implementing remediation options to achieve remediation at a later time. 

• Provides no enforceable requirement for prompt remediation if a licensee 

chooses to postpone cleanup of significant contamination as long as the 

contamination remains within the public dose limits. 

Option 4: Develop Guidance to Address Prompt Remediation 

Option 4a: Develop additional regulatory guidance on how to evaluate the 

impact of residual radioactivity. 

Pros: 

• Would provide licensees with regulatory guidance outlining methods 

acceptable to the NRC staff for evaluation of the potential impact of 

residual radioactivity. 

• Would provide licensees with guidance on how to determine whether a 

release is significant, an acceptable method to evaluate the extent of 

residual radioactivity, and recommendations on when and how to prepare 

a remediation plan, including adequate modeling and monitoring. 

• In the absence of known or suspected new legacy sites, appears to be a 

more risk-informed regulatory response than rulemaking. 

• Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.22, “Decommissioning Planning During 

Operations,” already provides guidance to licensees on conducting 

appropriate radiological surveys, maintaining records of residual 

radioactivity, and providing adequate funding to complete 

decommissioning. RG 4.25, “Assessment of Abnormal Radionuclide 

Discharges in Ground Water to the Unrestricted Area at Nuclear Power 

Plant Sites,” will be issued in the near future and addresses many of the 

concerns associated with prompt remediation. Accordingly, the scope of 

additional guidance needed to address prompt remediation is likely to be 

reduced. 

• Numerous NEI and EPRI guidance documents already exist or are in 

development to address minimization of contamination during operation 
The Commissioners -10 

(especially in regard to groundwater considerations) and methods for 

evaluating the need for prompt remediation. After an independent 

evaluation of these documents, the NRC could build on them to provide 

regulatory guidance that is familiar to industry and more likely to be 

readily adopted. To the extent that the NRC could incorporate technically 

sound industry guidance that is already available or under development, 

the cost of developing NRC guidance could be reduced. 

• Likely to require fewer resources than rulemaking. 

Cons: 

• Would not be enforceable. 

• May be difficult to develop guidance language to address the wide range 

of facility types and site conditions that would be impacted. 

• Would likely involve substantial uncertainties in monitoring and modeling 

results as anything related to subsurface investigation and modeling 

activities during operation are typically uncertain and expensive. 

Option 4b: Develop a generic communication document to establish NRC 

expectations regarding the evaluation of unplanned releases and the threshold to 

conduct prompt remediation activities. 

Pros: 

• Would provide licensees with information on how to determine if a release 

is significant, as well as recommendations on the need for and possible 

plan to conduct remediation. 

• Could be used as a vehicle to solicit additional information on the 

implementation of the DPR and remediation activities during operation. 

• In the absence of known or anticipated new legacy sites, appears to be a 

more risk-informed regulatory response than rulemaking. 

• Likely to require fewer resources than rulemaking. 

Cons: 

• Would not be enforceable. 

• Would not provide NRC-approved method(s) for demonstrating 

compliance with the DPR requirements when there are questions about 

whether and how to conduct prompt remediation.
The Commissioners -11- 

• Numerous other NEI and EPRI guidance documents already exist or are 

in development to address minimization of contamination during operation 

(especially in regard to groundwater considerations) and methods for 

evaluating the need for prompt remediation. A new NRC generic 

communication, unlike a guidance document providing accepted 

method(s) to demonstrate DPR compliance, may have limited benefit. 

• May incur additional costs for licensees if additional information is 

requested as part of a generic letter. 

• Without more specific guidance, a generic communication would be 

unlikely to resolve monitoring and modeling uncertainties. 

CONCLUSIONS: 

Given the above considerations as well as the discussion and evaluation contained in the 

enclosure to this paper, the NRC staff concludes that the NRC’s existing regulations are 

adequate because they require licensees to, among other things: 

• Comply with the ALARA requirements for effluent releases and regulatory dose limits for 

individual members of the public and the environmental radiation standards contained in 

10 CFR Part 20 (e.g., §20.1301(e)). 

• Control licensed material to minimize the introduction of residual radioactivity into the site, 

including the subsurface (§20.1406(c)). 

• Perform site surveys and monitoring activities to evaluate the potential radiological hazards 

of residual activity, including the subsurface (§20.1501(a)). 

• Keep records important to decommissioning including those for areas that may have 

become contaminated during facility operation (§30.35, 40.36, 50.75, and 70.25). 

In addition, (1) the 10 CFR Part 50 Technical Specifications help ensure control and monitoring 

of licensed material, and all licensees implement an ALARA radiation protection program and 

adhere to relevant NRC guidance; (2) all nuclear facilities have fully implemented the final DPR, 

and all power reactors continue to adhere to NEI’s voluntary Industry Groundwater Protection 

Initiative; and (3) the NRC can and does routinely inspect licensee programs to ensure 

compliance with all applicable regulations, including those for the DPR. These facts are 

sufficient to support the recommendation not to proceed with any additional rulemaking related 

to prompt remediation at this time. There are no known DPR implementation issues that would 

lead the NRC staff to conclude that the promulgation of additional regulations for prompt 

remediation would have a positive impact on the public health and safety or the environment 

commensurate with the associated burden on licensees, other stakeholders, and the NRC. 
The Commissioners -12 

RECOMMENDATION: 

The NRC staff recommends Option 3, no action. 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objections to this paper or the NRC staff’s 

recommended approach. 

 

 /RA/

Victor M. McCree 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosure: 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

 Staff Evaluation of the Implementation 

 of the Decommissioning Planning Rule 

 and the need for the Prompt Remediation 

 Requirements during the Operational 

 Phase of Facility Life 

 
The Commissioners - 12 - 

RECOMMENDATION: 

The NRC staff recommends Option 3, no action. 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objections to this paper or the NRC staff’s 

recommended approach. 

 

 

 /RA/ 

Victor M. McCree 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosure: 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

 Staff Evaluation of the Implementation 

 of the Decommissioning Planning Rule 

 and the need for the Prompt Remediation 

 Requirements during the Operational 

 Phase of Facility Life 

ADAMS Accession No. ML16235A298 SRM-S13-0108-1 

OFFICE DUWP/PM DUWP/LA DRA/BC DUWP/BC DUWP/DD 

NAME MVaaler CHolston UShoop (via email) BWatson AKock 

DATE 9/24/2016 9/26/2016 9/28/2016 9/26/2016 9/27/2016 

OFFICE OGC / NLO DUWP/D Technical Editor NMSS EDO 

NAME MMarsh (via email) JTappert WMoore MDapas VMcCree 

DATE 9/28/2016 9/28/2016 9/29/2016 10/03/16 10/ 16 /16 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Enclosure 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF EVALUATION OF THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECOMMISSIONING PLANNING RULE AND THE NEED FOR 

PROMPT REMEDIATION REQUIREMENTS DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE OF 

FACILITY LIFE

Stakeholder Feedback 

There is broad agreement among both industry and non-industry stakeholders that minimizing 

radiological contamination throughout the life of a facility is a good practice in keeping with the 

as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principles. There is less agreement on how that 

should be accomplished. In general, many non-industry stakeholders (e.g., local authorities, 

States, and the general public) expressed the opinion that additional regulatory requirements for 

prompt remediation are needed to ensure that facilities are able to meet the criteria for site 

release for unrestricted use at the time of decommissioning. However, industry stakeholders 

maintain that the existing NRC regulations and guidance documents, as well as industry 

voluntary initiatives and available guidance, already provide a framework to reduce 

contamination, protect public safety, and ensure sites meet the requirements for cleanup. 

One of the significant comments from industry stakeholders was that the Nuclear Energy 

Institute (NEI) 07-07 Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative already establishes a sitespecific remediation process to prevent migration of licensed material offsite and minimize 

potential decommissioning impacts. Another significant comment from industry stakeholders 

was that there are already sufficient NRC requirements and industry initiatives to report 

abnormal releases of licensed material, and that these events are typically monitored and the 

corrective actions evaluated under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection 

process. Another commenter stated that rigorous enforcement of existing regulations would 

achieve the goals of prompt remediation better than additional regulations. In general, the 

information gathered on the implementation of the DPR supports these assertions in that the 

NRC staff identified several examples of licensees choosing to remediate leaks and spills in the 

near term without an NRC requirement. 

One significant comment from non-industry stakeholders was that a new rule requiring prompt 

remediation would maintain residual radioactivity at low levels during operation and reduce the 

likelihood of a legacy site in the event of early shutdown when decommissioning trusts are not 

fully funded. Based on the information gathered at operating facilities, the NRC staff concluded 

that licensees, in general, are conducting operations in a way that minimizes the introduction of 

radiological contamination and provides for monitoring of any unplanned releases, which are 

major requirements of the Decommissioning Planning Rule (DPR). Licensees also maintain 

ALARA practices that assist in minimizing residual radioactivity during operation. 

In addition, the NRC staff conducted a review of the decommissioning financial assurance 

mechanisms for the various types of licensees impacted by the DPR and determined that the 

associated financial regulations are sufficient to ensure that appropriate decommissioning 

funding is available even in the event of premature shutdown. The DPR ensures that 

decommissioning funding is evaluated during operation and is adjusted commensurate with the 

decommissioning impacts of any unplanned releases. The NRC staff also determined that there 

have been no new legacy sites identified since promulgation of the financial assurance rules in 

1988, and no licensees have had to make adjustments to their decommissioning funds as a 
- 2 - 

result of the DPR, meaning that no residual radioactivity has been identified at a level that would 

require licensees to set aside additional funds to address cleanup during decommissioning. 

Taken together, this information leads the NRC staff to conclude that the DPR is being 

effectively implemented, and the existing regulatory framework is adequate to protect public 

health and safety and prevent future legacy sites. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory and Inspection Activities 

Concurrently with the effective date of the DPR, the NRC issued Temporary Instruction (TI) 

2600/017, “Review of the Implementation of the Decommissioning Planning Rule,” which was 

applicable to licensees other than Part 50 licensees, to assist inspectors in evaluating licensee 

compliance with the DPR. TI 2600/017 instructed inspectors to assess the licensees’ responses 

to the requirements of the DPR contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) Part 20, which require licensees to minimize contamination released, by (1) reviewing 

potential sources of contamination at the site, and (2) verifying monitoring and sampling plans 

were updated to identify potential radiological contamination throughout the facility and site 

environment, including the subsurface. During the implementation of TI 2600/017 at 11 

facilities, NRC inspectors were able to verify that the licensees maintained adequate radiological 

control programs to minimize the introduction of contamination into the site environments and 

had programs in place to ensure that releases of radiological effluents to the environment are 

promptly identified, recorded, and characterized. No findings of significance were identified at 

any of the facilities inspected under TI 2600/017. 

For nuclear power plants, the NRC staff also inspected the implementation of NEI 07-07 under 

Tl 2515/173, “Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative,” and Tl 2515/185, “Follow-Up on the 

Industry’s Groundwater Protection Initiative.” The NRC staff concluded that all licensees except 

one had adequately completed NEI 07-07 Objective 1.4, “Establish a remediation protocol to 

prevent migration of licensed material offsite and to minimize decommissioning impacts.” The 

licensee that had not completed this action entered the issue into its corrective action program 

and the NRC concluded that the issues were satisfactorily addressed during a subsequent 

inspection. 

During power reactor licensing, applicants for a combined license application or early site permit 

are required to provide the results of an investigation of onsite hydrogeology characterization 

and demonstrate that a postulated accidental release will conservatively bound any leaks, spills, 

or inadvertent releases except severe accidental releases (i.e., core melting). If the evaluated 

radionuclide concentrations from an accidental release exceed the effluent control limits 

specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, the applicant is expected to propose technical 

specifications limiting the total amount of radioactivity allowed to be contained in liquid radwaste 

tanks or components. These actions ensure that new reactor licensees operate in a manner 

that minimizes the potential for contamination, and in accordance with the requirements of the 

DPR. 

The Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) baseline inspection program is used to inspect power 

reactor licensees to verify compliance with, among other things, the requirements of 10 CFR 

Part 20. Specifically, the ROP inspection program verifies that licensees maintain compliance 

with Subpart B, “Radiation Protection Programs,” and Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. As part of 

its evaluation of the implementation of the DPR, the NRC staff reviewed the ROP inspection 

 
- 3 - 

results since 2013 and determined that there have been five low significance findings/violations 

related to the portions of 10 CFR Part 20 addressed by the DPR. 

These findings were primarily related to 10 CFR 20.1406, “Minimization of Contamination,” 

which requires licensees to minimize the introduction of residual radioactivity into the site 

environment during operation. Inspectors identified violations of 10 CFR 20.1406 when 

licensees did not take timely action to identify and address the source of unplanned releases, 

thereby failing to minimize the introduction of contamination into the site. A primary 

consideration of the DPR is that unplanned releases are identified and evaluated quickly, 

allowing appropriate decisions to be made regarding monitoring and potential remediation 

activities, as well as to maintain an accurate characterization of the site’s residual radioactivity. 

The NRC staff evaluated these findings to determine whether the unplanned releases, if not 

addressed by the licensee in a timely fashion, could have potentially impacted future 

decommissioning activities or funding mechanisms. Given the very low safety significance of 

the findings and the overall scale of the unplanned releases, the NRC staff concluded that these 

five examples of failure to adequately implement the DPR would not have presented challenges 

to eventual site decommissioning or led to the creation of a legacy site. In addition, the facts 

that the deficiencies were identified as part of routine NRC inspection activities, evaluated by 

the licensees to determine whether prompt remediation or additional monitoring was required to 

address the unplanned release, and that decommissioning funding was assured throughout, 

demonstrate the effectiveness of the DPR requirements within the current regulatory framework. 

Taken together, this information leads the NRC staff to conclude that the DPR is being 

effectively implemented as it relates to minimizing contamination during operation and ensuring 

that releases of radioactivity to the environment are promptly identified and characterized. 

Effluent and Environmental Monitoring Requirements 

A major principle of the DPR is ensuring that releases of radioactivity to the environment are 

promptly identified and characterized, which is accomplished in part by effective environmental 

monitoring. Existing NRC regulations govern the identification, discharge, and monitoring of 

radiological effluents to ensure that public doses remain below the limits in 10 CFR Part 20. For 

power reactors, these requirements are implemented as part of the radiological environmental 

monitoring program (REMP), which is implemented by the licensee at each reactor facility. 

Specifically, air (gaseous) effluent releases and liquid effluent releases from all sources are 

monitored in accordance with the plant’s Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The 

acceptable release limits stated in the ODCM are based on NRC regulations. The REMP 

supplements the effluent monitoring program by verifying that the measurable concentrations of 

radioactive materials and levels of radiation in the environment are consistent with the values 

predicted by the licensee’s modeling of releases. The licensee is required to implement the 

REMP in accordance with its Technical Specifications and ODCM. 

 

During operation, the NRC monitors and inspects the licensee’s REMP through the review of 

annually submitted radiological effluent discharge reports, as well as routine inspections of the 

licensee’s facility to verify the effectiveness of the REMP. The public dose calculations resulting 

from implementation of the Radiological Effluent Controls Program are included in the annual 

radiological effluent discharge report, which is submitted to the NRC and available for public 

review. Dose limits to members of the public are set forth in 10 CFR Part 20 and specific 

licensee technical specifications conforming to the ALARA criteria in 10 CFR Part 50, 
- 4 - 

Appendix I, “Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to 

Meet the Criterion ‘As Low as is Reasonably Achievable’ for Radioactive Material in Light 

Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents,” and are monitored and enforced by the NRC. 

During its evaluation of the implementation of the DPR, the NRC staff examined the licensees’ 

Radioactive Effluent Controls Program processes and procedures and determined that (1) spills 

and releases are being appropriately documented and characterized; (2) the adequacy of the 

associated procedures are being routinely reviewed under NRC oversight activities; and 

(3) licensees are submitting reports of leaks or spills at the appropriate reportable levels. In 

addition, the NRC staff notes that based on the current requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, 

licensees must meet the radioactive cleanup standards at the time of decommissioning, 

regardless of the overall contamination level at the facility or previous remediation activities. 

Taken together, the above information leads the NRC staff to conclude that the DPR is being 

effectively implemented as it relates to ensuring that releases of radioactivity to the environment 

are promptly identified and characterized, that doses to members of the public remain below the 

regulatory limits, and the current regulatory requirements ensure protection of public health as a 

result of any releases. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Guidance Documents 

Numerous regulatory guidance documents exist to assist licensees in implementation of the 

DPR by providing acceptable methods for monitoring radioactive effluents, operational 

approaches to minimize the introduction of contamination, and general decommissioning 

planning guidance. The following NRC regulatory guides (RG) are applicable to measurement 

of residual radioactivity, minimizing residual radioactivity, and performing decommissioning 

planning during operation: 

• RG 1.21, “Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactive Material in Liquid and 

Gaseous Effluents and Solid Waste,” which contains information on the monitoring of 

abnormal or unplanned releases. 

• RG 4.1, “Radiological Environmental Monitoring for Nuclear Power Plants,” which provides a 

method considered acceptable for use in establishing and conducting an environmental 

monitoring program at nuclear power plants. In particular, it describes guidance on the 

establishment of a REMP, which involves measuring the levels of radiation and radioactive 

materials in the local environment. 

• RG 4.21, “Minimization of Contamination and Radioactive Waste Generation: Life-Cycle 

Planning,” which provides guidance on meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1406. 

Regulatory Position C.2 of RG 4.21 focuses on gathering sufficient information to support 

the development of a conceptual site model and in planning design features for the early 

detection of leakage and migration of radioactivity in soils and ground and surface water. 

• RG 4.22, “Decommissioning Planning During Operations,” which provides guidance to 

licensees who are required to minimize contamination and radioactive waste generation, 

conduct appropriate radiological surveys including the subsurface, maintain records of 

residual radioactivity, and provide adequate funding to complete decommissioning in 

accordance with portions of the DPR, namely, 10 CFR 20.1406 and 10 CFR 20.1501. 
- 5 - 

• NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear 

Power Plants: LWR Edition” (SRP), Section 2.4.13, “Accidental Releases of Radioactive 

Liquid Effluents in Ground and Surface Waters,” provides guidance for reactor license 

applicants to characterize the site and evaluate the ability of the groundwater environment to 

delay, disperse, dilute, or concentrate liquid effluents. SRP Section 11.2, “Liquid Radwaste 

Management System,” provides guidelines to evaluate radiological consequences from an 

accidental release and implement additional protective measures to limit the potential for 

radionuclide contamination during the plant design stage. 

• These SRP sections are supplemented by Branch Technical Position 11-6, “Postulated 

Radioactive Releases Due to Liquid-Containing Tank Failures,” and two Interim Staff 

Guidance (ISG) documents, DC/COL-ISG-013, “Assessing the Radiological Consequences 

of Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Liquid Waste Tanks for Combined 

License Applications,“ and DC/COL-ISG-014, “Assessing the Radiological Consequences of 

Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Liquid Waste Tanks in Ground and 

Surface Waters for Combined License Applications.” 

In addition, the NRC staff is currently in the final stages of completing draft RG 4.25, 

“Assessment of Abnormal Radionuclide Discharges in Ground Water to the Unrestricted Area at 

Nuclear Power Plant Sites.” This draft guide describes an approach the NRC staff considers 

acceptable for use in assessing abnormal discharges of radionuclides in groundwater from the 

subsurface to the unrestricted area at nuclear power plant sites. 

Taken together, the information contained in these guidance documents presents the NRC’s 

overall expectations regarding the minimization of contamination during operation, as well as 

the need for subsequent monitoring, evaluation of remediation options for contamination, and 

assessment of funding to address residual radioactivity that is present, whether planned or 

unplanned. After reviewing the information contained in the issued regulatory guides, SRP, and 

draft RG 4.25, the NRC staff concludes that sufficient regulatory guidance exists to implement 

the current regulatory framework and assist licensees in implementing the DPR effectively. 

Industry Guidance Documents 

Several industry guidance documents also exist that, while more specific to groundwater 

considerations, are available to assist licensees in determining the need for remediation. The 

two most relevant documents are NEI 07-07 and Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI) 

report titled “Groundwater and Soil Remediation Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants, Public 

Edition” (Agencywide Document and Access Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

No. ML113120014). Because the DPR requires licensees to periodically check for residual 

radioactivity throughout the site, including subsurface soil and groundwater, the appropriate 

identification and monitoring of groundwater pathways is of high importance. In addition, these 

industry guidelines provide detailed information on the creation of a remediation protocol to 

enable licensees to make informed decisions regarding the type of remediation most 

appropriate for their site-specific conditions during operation (i.e., prompt remediation). 

NEI 07-07 describes the Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative (GPI), which identifies 

actions to improve the management and response to instances where the inadvertent release of 

radioactive substances may result in low but detectible levels of plant-related radiological 

materials in subsurface soils and water. The GPI also identifies those actions necessary for 
- 6 - 

implementation of a timely and effective groundwater protection program. Some of the primary 

objectives of the GPI are to establish site-specific action plans to help assure timely detection 

and effective response to situations involving radiological releases in groundwater, to prevent 

migration of inadvertently released material offsite, and to quantify any potential impacts on 

future decommissioning activities. 

The EPRI guidelines provide methods to assess the need for and timing of remediation of soil 

and/or groundwater contamination from onsite leaks, spills, or inadvertent releases. The 

suggested remediation evaluation protocol established by the EPRI guidelines includes 

remediation objectives, site investigation criteria, and draft site release limits to evaluate the 

need for remediation in the event of a leak or spill. Specifically, the EPRI guideline objectives 

were designed to (1) prevent migration of licensed material offsite; (2) minimize 

decommissioning impacts; and (3) determine when soil and/or groundwater remediation would 

be most beneficial and effective in terms of technical considerations, feasibility, and cost. 

The NEI 07-07 GPI has been adopted by all operating power reactors, and the EPRI guidelines 

are used throughout the industry at both operating and decommissioning power reactors. 

Licensees that are implementing the NEI 07-07 GPI are considered to meet the requirements of 

the DPR. Specifically, NEI 07-07 Objective 1.4.a addresses developing a remediation protocol 

to prevent migration of licensed material to offsite areas and minimize decommissioning 

impacts. This objective includes establishing written procedures outlining the decision making 

process for remediation of leaks and spills or other inadvertent releases. Licensees for all 

operating power reactors have established these procedures, and in general they ensure that 

licensees evaluate the costs and benefits of performing prompt remediation. Licensees make a 

determination based on this evaluation as to whether prompt remediation is advisable (i.e., has 

an overall benefit during operation). The remediation determination takes into account many 

aspects such as dose pathways, spill volume, proximity of the spill to the site boundary or other 

structures, weather conditions, environmental impacts, additional decommissioning costs, site 

release criteria, and whether or not prompt remediation will be effective. 

In addition, NEI 08-08A, “Generic FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] Template Guidance for 

Life-Cycle Minimization of Contamination” (ADAMS Accession No. ML093220530), provides a 

complete generic program description for use in developing construction and operating license 

applications. The document reflects contemporary NRC guidance, including RG 1.206, 

“Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants,” and industry-NRC discussions 

regarding the applicable standards to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1406 for life-cycle 

minimization of contamination. Specifically, NEI 08-08A provides industry guidance applicable 

to reactor license applicants for (1) minimizing nuclear power plant facility contamination, 

(2) minimizing contamination of the environment, (3) facilitation of decommissioning, and (4) 

minimizing the generation of waste. NEI 08-08A also provides specific items that should be 

considered during power plant facility design, operation, and procedural implementation.

During its evaluation of the implementation of the DPR, the NRC staff identified multiple 

examples (approximately 14 of the 65 sites) where licensees have performed remediation of 

onsite residual radioactivity as a result of their participation in the industry initiatives, even 

though there was no NRC regulation in place that required prompt remediation during operation. 

This information leads the NRC staff to conclude that the DPR is being adequately implemented 

as it relates to minimizing contamination during operation, ensuring that releases of radioactivity 

to the environment are promptly identified and characterized, and documenting radiological 
- 7 - 

survey data that identifies the location and concentrations of contamination that may require 

remediation at the time of license termination. In addition, industry guidance exists on 

determining the need for prompt remediation using an established decision making process. 

The NRC staff also identified that there are numerous additional resources available to the 

industry to address the minimization of contamination at operating facilities. These include: 

• NEI 09-14, Revision 3, “Guideline for the Management of Underground Piping and Tank 

Integrity,” dated April 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13130A322). 

• American National Standards Institute / American Nuclear Society-2.17-2010 (R2016), 

“Evaluation of Subsurface Radionuclide Transport at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants,” 

dated 2016. 

• International Atomic Energy Agency TECDOC Series No. 482, “Prevention and Mitigation of 

Ground-Water Contamination from Radioactive Releases,” dated 1988. 

These guidance documents assist licensees in evaluating components and systems that have a 

higher potential for creating an unplanned radiological release (i.e., buried piping), as well as 

provide discussions of the fundamental concepts of groundwater transport and conceptual site 

modeling, which are important components in evaluating the significance of the releases and 

residual radioactive plumes. Along with the industry initiatives discussed above, the NRC staff 

concludes that adequate industry guidance exists to assist licensees in effectively implementing 

the DPR. 

Operating Experience at Nuclear Power Reactors 

For power reactor licensees, the NRC staff reviewed and evaluated operating experience (OpE) 

data related to leaks and spills of licensed radioactive material. The NRC staff focused on OpE 

data from 2013 through 2015 pertaining to licensees’ implementation of the existing DPR 

requirements, including Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports and Annual Radiological 

Environmental Operating Reports; 10 CFR 50.72, “Immediate notification requirements for 

operating nuclear power reactors,” reports; 10 CFR 50.75(g), “Reporting and recordkeeping for 

decommissioning planning,” records related to leaks and spills; NRC inspection reports; and 

evaluations related to the licensees’ implementation of industry initiatives. The NRC staff’s 

review also included an evaluation of the licensees’ written procedures outlining the decision 

making process related to remediation of inadvertent releases to onsite areas. In addition, the 

NRC staff obtained information directly from licensees on their remediation protocols and the 

processes used to implement the DPR at specific sites. 

After a thorough review of both OpE data and procedures related to the requirements of the 

DPR and industry initiatives, the NRC staff concludes that power reactor licensees have 

adequately implemented the DPR and are adequately addressing abnormal releases (i.e., leaks 

and spills). However, in discussions with both industry and non-industry stakeholders about the 

minimization of contamination at operating facilities, the issues surrounding groundwater 

remediation for tritium were repeatedly raised. Many members of the public held the perception 

that prompt remediation of tritium is an appropriate measure to protect public health and safety. 

Because the DPR requires surveys for residual radioactivity, including the subsurface, and 
- 8 - 

because of the public’s perception, the NRC staff also evaluated how prompt remediation 

considerations impact groundwater releases, especially in regard to tritium.

Under the current regulatory framework, if a licensee determines that timely remediation of a 

release of radioactive material to groundwater during operation has an overall benefit, then the 

most effective remediation technique is chosen. The most common remediation technique is to 

extract the contaminated groundwater or soil, monitor the contamination, and discharge the 

licensed material as a regulatory or monitored release. As remediation progresses, the licensee 

monitors the remediation technique for effectiveness. If remediation is not performed, the 

licensee is required to monitor the groundwater concentrations and then estimate, report, and 

account for the associated discharge to the unrestricted area in accordance with 

10 CFR 50.36a, “Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors.” 

The general principle of groundwater flow is that groundwater will migrate down gradient to an 

adjacent large water body (e.g., aquifer, river, lake, or ocean) with environmental dilution and 

eventual dispersion as a liquid effluent. Groundwater transport of tritium occurs at the same 

rate as groundwater flow since tritium cannot be filtered or otherwise removed from liquid 

effluents (unless evaporated into the atmosphere). Other radionuclides such as cesium-137 

(Cs-137) and strontium-90 (Sr-90) are absorbed within the geologic media and thus travel much 

slower than tritium. As a result, in most cases involving tritium contamination, remediation does 

not equate to elimination of the tritium. Therefore, the decision to remediate tritium is largely 

based upon the contaminant activity levels and travel time to the accessible environment. For 

other radionuclide contaminants, the retardation factors and conceptual site model must be 

determined to estimate groundwater discharge fluxes and travel times. 

Operating experience with remediating tritium releases has demonstrated that there are some 

small potential negative impacts of prompt remediation of the affected groundwater. For 

example, if the chosen remediation method is to promptly remove the groundwater containing 

tritium from the subsurface and subsequently monitor and discharge the groundwater at an 

approved discharge location, the discharge would be much faster and at a higher 

concentration than would occur if the remediation method of monitored natural attenuation were 

implemented. The latter method would cause the same amount of tritium to be discharged to 

the same adjacent waterway at an attenuated slower rate within the groundwater to the same 

discharge location. In addition, extraction of groundwater via pumping may inadvertently 

enhance transport of residual groundwater plumes containing radionuclides such as Cs-137 or 

Sr-90, thereby introducing a new challenge for evaluating the possibility of increased discharges 

of other contaminants to the environment. Given these considerations, the NRC staff notes that 

while the remediation of groundwater during operation may appear intuitively beneficial, in 

practice, remediation is often complex and may create unintended consequences which need to 

be addressed. 

While there is generally little health and safety benefit associated with prompt remediation of 

tritium, as noted above, there is a benefit associated with public perception in avoiding the 

negative impacts of delaying groundwater remediation activities, thereby causing degradation to 

the groundwater resource. As such, in cooperation with State and local authorities, several 

licensees have chosen to conduct remediation activities to maintain a positive environmental 

stewardship relationship with the State and local entities. In addition, per the requirements of 

the associated industry initiatives, 10 CFR 50.36a, and the Radioactive Effluent Controls 

Program, significant effluent releases at nuclear power plants are now monitored, giving the 

NRC staff confidence that remediation decisions are being made appropriately. Given the 
- 9 - 

above, the NRC staff concludes that additional regulatory requirements for prompt remediation 

are not warranted because current requirements adequately protect public health and safety 

and the environment. 

Operating Experience at Other Nuclear Facilities 

All nuclear facilities licensed under 10 CFR Part 30, Part 40, Part 70, and Part 72 are subject to 

the DPR. In addition, these facilities are subject to the Decommissioning Timeliness 

Rule (DTR), which went into effect in 1994 (59 FR 36026; July 15, 1994), and was established 

to ensure the timely decommissioning of licensed facilities. In general, the DTR requires that 

decommissioning be completed within 24 months unless the NRC approves an alternative 

schedule. According to NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2015-19, “Decommissioning 

Timeliness Rule Implementation and Associated Regulatory Relief” (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML15226A397), the DTR was established to avoid delays in decommissioning sites at 

which licensed activities have permanently ceased. Additionally, the DTR reduces the risk of 

delays in decommissioning because of bankruptcy, corporate takeover, or other unforeseen 

changes in a company’s financial status. The DTR establishes requirements for (1) notifying the 

NRC of pending decommissioning actions and cessations in licensee operations, (2) when 

decommissioning plans need to be submitted, and (3) completing decommissioning activities. 

During its evaluation of the implementation of the DPR at facilities other than nuclear power 

reactors, the NRC staff examined the licensees’ decision-making processes in regard to 

remediation and determined: 

• In general, the DTR encourages licensees to remediate unplanned contamination in the 

near term to prevent challenging the decommissioning timeliness requirements. 

• No licensees have had to make adjustments to their decommissioning funds as a result of 

the DPR, meaning that no contamination has occurred or been identified at a level that 

would require licensees to set aside additional funds to address cleanup during 

decommissioning. 

• Decisions regarding the timeliness of remediation are largely influenced by the requirements 

of 10 CFR Part 20 and the evaluations conducted under 10 CFR 70.25(g), “Financial 

assurance and recordkeeping for decommissioning,” for certain types of licensees, as well 

as the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 40 CFR 190, “Environmental 

Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

In addition, as part of an audit of the uranium recovery inspection program, the NRC staff 

reviewed the applicable inspection procedures and confirmed that they include direction to verify 

that the requirements for decommissioning planning under the DPR are included in licensee 

procedures/processes. Specifically, these procedures require inspectors to examine the 

components of decommissioning planning at non-reactor facilities to ensure that: (1) spills and 

releases are appropriately documented and characterized, and the adequacy of the associated 

procedures are reviewed; (2) licensees are submitting reports of leaks or spills at the 

appropriate reportable levels; (3) licensees are taking action to mitigate and/or remediate 

contamination based on the potential for public exposure and the need to meet the regulatory 

cleanup limits at the time of decommissioning; and (4) financial surety is reviewed and verified 

at regular intervals using the most current values based on the licensee’s spill/release reports. 
- 10 - 

The regional inspectors confirmed that use of the non-reactor inspection procedures has 

enabled them to verify that licensees have appropriate procedures in place for dealing with 

leaks and spills, as well as the associated potential releases, and are appropriately 

documenting inadvertent contamination events (to include excursions for uranium recovery 

sites) for inclusion in their decommissioning files. The inspectors further noted that because the 

NRC has cited non-reactor licensees for failure to promptly evaluate spills and releases in the 

past, most licensees now adequately maintain a program and procedures for evaluating and 

documenting such releases. In addition, to ensure that inadvertent contamination does not 

challenge public dose limits or create an area where the licensee must implement additional 

radiological controls, contaminated areas are most often promptly mitigated and remediated at 

the discretion of the licensee as a good operational practice. Finally, in all cases where 

remediation took place at non-reactor facilities since implementation of the DPR, the regional 

inspectors verified that control of the area was within procedural requirements, and the area 

was properly characterized, thereby meeting all associated regulatory requirements. 

In examining the implementation of the DPR and use of the DTR at non-reactor facilities, the 

NRC staff determined that the associated licensees have adequately implemented the DPR and 

are addressing inadvertent leaks and spills effectively. Given the information described above, 

the NRC staff concludes that the DPR is being effectively implemented at non-reactor facilities 

as it relates to minimizing contamination during operation, ensuring that releases of radioactivity 

to the environment are promptly identified and characterized, documenting radiological survey 

data, and ensuring the financial surety of the decommissioning entity. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Conclusion on the Need for Additional Actions to 

Address Remediation During Operation 

Now that the DPR has been in place for more than 3 years, the NRC staff has evaluated the 

regulatory requirements to determine if existing regulations are sufficient to prevent creation of 

more legacy sites. The NRC staff notes that given the length of time it takes to decommission a 

nuclear facility, there were few data points to consider since implementation of the DPR. 

However, as described above, the operating experience at all nuclear facilities, as well as the 

lack of identification of any new legacy sites, gives the NRC staff confidence that the continued 

use of the DPR, associated industry initiatives, and licensee compliance with other NRC 

requirements will adequately prevent new legacy sites. Therefore, the NRC staff recommends 

that the Commission not direct additional rulemaking or other regulatory actions pertaining to 

prompt remediation for any licensees.