Status of the 

Decommissioning Program 

2015 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 2015 Activities .................................................... 6

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2016 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 2015 Activities .................................................. 12

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2016 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 2015 Activities .................................................. 18

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2016 Trends and Areas of Focus ......................................... 21

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

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

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2015 Activities .................................................. 29

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2016 Trends and Areas of Focus ......................................... 29

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

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

2.5.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2015 Activities .................................................. 34

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

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

5. International Activities ............................................................................................................ 38

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

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

8. Resources .............................................................................................................................. 47

9. Fiscal Year 2016 Planned Programmatic Activities ............................................................... 48

 

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 ................................................... 30

Table 2-4b Decommissioning Title II Uranium Recovery Sites .................................................. 32

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

40.28 ................................................................................................................... 33

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

DTWG Decommissioning Transition Working Group 

DUWP Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs 

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 

HLW high-level waste 

NMSS Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs 

FSSR Final Status Survey Report 

FRN Federal Register notice 

FTE full-time equivalents 

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 

JLD Japan Lessons Learned Division 

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 

NYSERDA New York State Energy and Research Development Authority 

OGC Office of the General Counsel 

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 

WVDP West Valley Demonstration Project 
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) 2015, 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, 2015. 

Approximately 10 years ago, the Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste 

Programs (DUWP) 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 2015, 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 2014 report (SECY-14-0128, “Status of the Decommissioning 

Program—2014 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 and non-military sites 

with radium. 

In FY 2015, the NRC terminated licenses for two research reactors at the University of Michigan 

and Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The NRC also completed site closure at the AAR site in 

Livonia, Michigan. In FY 2016, 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 Units 1 and 2, 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 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 operating 

reactors to plants in a decommissioning status. Progress in research and test reactor 
2 

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

decommissioning in FY 2016. Within the next several years, several Title II1

 uranium recovery 

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

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

 

1

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

certain radioactive material as: Title 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, 2015, 19 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors, 5 research 

and test reactors, 15 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 Decommissioning Program 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, 2015, the 19 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 permanent cessation of operations and removal of fuel; 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 2015 Activities 

• During FY 2015, transfer of project management responsibility from NRR to NMSS 

was completed for four reactors: Crystal River Unit 3, Kewaunee, and San Onofre 

Units 2 and 3. Transfer of project management responsibility also began for 

Vermont Yankee. Staff within NMSS, 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,2 including a meeting regarding the PSDAR for Vermont Yankee in 

February. In addition, staff held a government-to-government meeting with the States 

of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. The staff also held a public 

meeting in April regarding the LTP for Zion Units 1 and 2, which was submitted in 

December 2014. Finally, staff held a public meeting in July near Kewaunee to 

perform outreach to the local community and inform them of oversight and inspection 

activities ongoing at the site. 

• 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, NS Savannah, 

Unit 1, Three Mile Island Unit 2, Zion Units 1 and 2, Kewaunee, Fermi 1, and Crystal 

River Unit 3. The staff also conducted site visits at Dresden Unit 1, San Onofre Units 

2 and 3, and Vermont Yankee. 

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2016 Trends and Areas of Focus 

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

transfer of recently shut down reactors to the Decommissioning Program. Reactors that have 

recently ceased operation remain under NRR project management until formal transfer occurs 

shortly after the licensee’s de-fueled technical specifications and safety analysis are approved. 

 

2

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

to observation by members of the public.
8 

Table 2-1a Power and Early Demonstration Reactors Undergoing 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-EVESR 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 Vermont Yankee Vernon, VT 12/14 TBD TBD 18 Zion Unit 1 Zion, IL 2/00 12/14 TBD 19 Zion Unit 2 Zion, IL 2/00 12/14 TBD 
9 

GE General Electric TBD to be determined 

EVESR ESADA (Empire State Atomic Development Associates) Vallecitos Experimental Superheat React

* 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, 2015, the five 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 or preceded by a 

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

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

improve the efficiency of the DP development and review process. 

Decommissioning Plan

The DP must include the following: 

• The choice of the alternative3

 for decommissioning with a description of the planned 

decommissioning activities; 

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

occupational and public health and safety; 

• A description of the planned final radiation survey; 

 

3

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

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

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

co-located nuclear facilities, are a factor. 
11 

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

following: 

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

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

decommissioning. 

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

security plan provisions in place during decommissioning. 

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

LTR. 

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

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

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

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

Implementation of the Decommissioning Plan

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

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

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

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

surveillance, the licensee shall meet the following conditions: 

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

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

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

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

10 CFR 50.75(e). 

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

over the storage or surveillance period. 

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

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

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

in-process and confirmatory radiological surveys. 

Completion of Decommissioning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2015 Activities 

• In December, staff terminated the license for the Worcester Polytechnic Institute site 

in Worcester, Massachusetts, and released the site for unrestricted use. 

• In April, the staff terminated the license for the University of Michigan Ford Reactor 

site in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and released the site for unrestricted use. 

• 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. In addition, inspections and confirmatory 

surveys were performed on land areas at the site. 

• In January, the staff approved the DP for the Department of Veterans Affairs facility 

in Omaha, Nebraska. The staff performed an inspection during decommissioning 

work and reviewed and approved a final status survey plan for the facility. 

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2016 Trends and Areas of Focus 

In FY 2016, the staff expects the decommissioning to be completed at the Department of 

Veterans Affairs in Omaha and State University of New York at Buffalo facilities. 
13 

Table 2-2 Research and Test Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning 

Reactor Location Status Completio

Decommis

1 General Atomics TRIGA Mark F San Diego, CA DP Approved 2012 General Atomics TRIGA Mark I San Diego, CA DP Approved 2013 General Electric-Hitachi GETR Pleasanton, CA Possession-Only 2014 State University of New York at Buffalo Buffalo, NY DP Approved 2015 Department of Veterans Affairs Omaha, NE DP Approved 201GETR 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, 2015, 15 complex materials sites are undergoing decommissioning (see 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressional interest. 

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

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

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

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

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

complex material site, Cimarron (Kerr-McGee), remains eligible to use the SDMP Action Plan 

criteria (see Table 2-3). All other sites must use the dose-based criteria of the LTR. 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. 

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 2015 Activities 

• Staff reviewed the final work completion report and released the AAR site in Livonia, 

Michigan, for unrestricted use. AAR is a former unlicensed SDMP site. 

• In FY 2015, FMRI and its parent, Fansteel, agreed to a series of forbearance 

agreements with the Department of Justice, Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality, and the NRC. On August 17, 2015, a 12 month Forbearance Agreement 

was signed. The Agreement maintains a monthly funding rate of FMRI by Fansteel 

and stipulates certain actions by FMRI associated with the resolution of DP SER 

issues involving Derived Concentration Guideline Levels and the Final Status Survey 

Plan, and decommissioning progress at the site. 

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

for alternate disposal of waste at US Ecology in Idaho. 

• Staff continued 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 for restricted use. 

• Staff continued its 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 has completed final status surveys and submitted the 

FSSRs to NRC for review. In FY 2015, staff conducted a Level 2 consultation with 

EPA under the NRC-EPA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Consultation 

and Finality on Decommissioning and Decontamination of Contaminated Sites 

regarding the Mallinckrodt site. 

• Most final status surveys have been completed at the U.S. Department of 

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

Staff completed inspections and performed independent confirmatory sampling. 

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

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

West Valley. Staff also completed an inspection at Pohakuloa Training Area, and 

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

Hunters Point Shipyard as part of its stay informed approach approved by the 

Commission in 2008. 

Other significant activities are described below. 

 

Hunters Point, McClellan, and Alameda Military Sites in California

The staff continued implementing the stay informed 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 that remediation of the site meets 10 CFR 

20.1402 or 1403 dose limits. 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 eighth annual visit to these sites in 

September 2015, which included site visits with the Navy and Air Force, along with meetings 

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

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

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

oversight activities of EPA and the state agencies. Based on these interactions, the staff plans 

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

Additionally, NRC staff held conference calls with representatives from the City of San 

Francisco, 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 naturally occurring and 

accelerator-produced radioactive material rule included a commitment for the NRC to interact 

with the military to obtain a common understanding of the uses of discrete sources of radium226 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 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 under NRC regulatory 

authority, 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. Comments were received from 

10 parties including the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 
20 

The NRC staff continued its discussions with the DoD working group 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. In December 2014, the Commission approved the staff’s recommendation for a 

comprehensive MOU. Following the Commission’s direction, the NRC staff has provided a draft 

MOU to the DoD working group and has been negotiating open issues with them. Completion 

of the MOU is expected early in 2016, after which implementation of the MOU will begin by 

working jointly with DoD on an implementation plan, a site inventory, and initial monitoring at 

pilot sites. The stay informed approach for the California sites will continue under the MOU 

along with other new sites. 

NRC has performed outreach activities with the States regarding NRC’s future role at these 

unlicensed military sites by: 1) presenting at Organization of Agreement States conference 

calls; 2) holding a poster session at the 47th National Conference on Radiation Control; and 

3) sending an All Agreement States letter (STC-15-046) informing them of NRC’s proposed role 

at unlicensed military sites under the MOU and to plans to coordinate with individual States. 

Non-Military Radium Sites

The NRC staff is close to completing an effort to identify and prioritize non-military sites with 

potential radium contamination due to historical manufacturing of consumer products. Planning 

has also started for near-term programmatic follow-up actions for the identified sites. 

Great Kills Park is a Federally-owned landfill with radium contamination located in Staten Island, 

New York, that is currently undergoing CERCLA investigation and remediation. NRC staff has 

been in discussion with EPA Region II, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of 

the Interior regarding the possibility of entering into an MOU wherein the NRC would take a stay 

informed approach, similar to the approach the NRC has taken to military sites. 

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. In June 2015, the 

NRC received an application from the Army to amend its NRC license to incorporate 15 

remaining sites, which are located on multiple installations throughout the United States. The 

staff found the application acceptable for docketing and it is currently undergoing detailed 

review. Staff has continued consultations with Native Hawaiian Organizations, the State of 

Hawaii, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

 

West Valley Demonstration Project

Progress was made in 2015 at the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) site near 

Buffalo, NY, which is a complex and multi-phase decommissioning project. Through the West 

Valley Demonstration Project Act of 1980, the NRC has specific agency responsibilities for 
21 

informal review, consultation, and monitoring of DOE activities at the site. In February 2014, 

DOE and New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA), the 

licensee, established a path forward for Phase 2 Decommissioning of the WVDP site. Current 

issues include decision-making to complete decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship 

based on the approach determined during the additional studies and evaluations. During 2015, 

DOE and NYSERDA conducted planning activities for these additional studies and evaluations, 

referred to as Phase I studies, that include erosion studies, exhumation studies, engineered 

barrier studies. These studies are meant to assist decision-making during the Phase 2 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement process. 

The first phase of decommissioning, estimated to take 10 years to complete, is already in 

progress and is being conducted in accordance with the DOE’s NRC approved Phase I 

decommissioning plan. This work includes relocating the 275 high-level waste (HLW) canisters 

into a dry cask storage system on-site with the demolition of on-site structures (Remote Handled 

Waste Facility, Vitrification Facility, Process Plant), continuing shipping of low-level waste, and 

managing of dry tanks and NRC-licensed disposal area. In FY 2015, preparations were made 

for the movement of the HLW to the temporary storage pad. Decisions for the second phase of 

decommissioning are to be made by 2020. 

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2016 Trends and Areas of Focus 

Progress in the decommissioning of complex materials sites is expected to increase in FY 2016. 

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

license termination in the upcoming FY. The staff will continue its focus on Army sites with 

depleted uranium contamination, and complete the RIS and MOU to clarify and implement 

NRC’s jurisdiction over military radium and involvement with military remediation of unlicensed 

residual radioactive material. Monitoring a few sites under the MOU is expected to begin. With 

respect to non-military radium, staff will continue its 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. NRC staff will also continue discussions with EPA Region I, 

regarding their radium cleanup activities at the former Waterbury Clock factory located in 

Waterbury, Connecticut. NRC staff plans to complete its process for identifying and prioritizing 

non-military sites with potential radium contamination and then planning follow up actions for 

these sites. NRC staff will continue oversight of activities at the WVDP, with a focus on the 

project for relocation of the high-level waste canisters into shielded casks at the onsite storage 

pad. 

 
22 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

PR

1 Alameda Naval Air Station* Alameda, CA N/A N/A N/A N2 Beltsville Agricultural 

Research Laboratory 

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

3 Cimarron (Kerr-McGee) Cimarron, OK 4/95 8/99 Action-UNRES 24 Department of the Army, U.S. 

Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center 

Picatinny, NJ 11/13 TBD LTR-UNRES T

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

revised 5/03 

12/03 LTR-UNRES 2

6 Hunter’s Point Naval 

Shipyard* (former Naval shipyard) 

San Francisco, CA 

N/A N/A N/A N

7 Jefferson Proving Ground Madison, IN 8/99 

revised 6/02, 9/13 

10/02 TBD 

LTR-RES 2

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

11/97, Phase 2 9/08 

Phase 1 5/02, Phase 2 7/10 

LTR-UNRES 2

9 McClellan* (former Air Force 

base) 

Sacramento, CA 

N/A N/A N/A N
23 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

PR

10 Shallow Land Disposal Area 

(BWX Technologies, Inc.) 

Vandergrift, PA 6/01 

revised N/A 

N/A LTR-UNRES T

11 Sigma-Aldrich Maryland 

Heights, MO 

10/08, revised 11/10 

5/09, revised TBD 

LTR-UNRES 2

12 Stepan Company Maywood, NJ N/A N/A LTR-UNRES 213 UNC Naval Products New Haven, 

CT 

8/98, revised 2004,12/06 

4/99, revised 10/07 

LTR-UNRES T

14 West Valley Demonstration 

Project 

West Valley, NY 

Phase 1 3/09 

Phase 1 2/10 

LTR-UNRES** T

15 Westinghouse ElectricHematite Facility Festus, MO 4/04 revised 

6/06, 8/09 

10/11 LTR-UNRES T
24 

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

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

SECY-08-0077. 

** 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 Decommissioning4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NRC’s past interpretation of 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. UMTRCA 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, 2015, 11 Title II uranium recovery facilities are undergoing decommissioning. 

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

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

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

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

 

4

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

discussion on their decommissioning. 
26 

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

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

2.4.1 Decommissioning Process for Uranium Mills 

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

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

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

Appendix A, as summarized below. 

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

facilities: 

• The license expires or the license is revoked; 

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

or in any separate building or outdoor area; 

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

impoundments and disposal areas); or 

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

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

The uranium recovery facility decommissioning process includes several major steps, 

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

decommission; submittal, review and approval of the DP5

 or RP; implementation of the DP/RP; 

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

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

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

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

or a State. 

Notification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to public health and safety and is otherwise in the public interest. 

 

5

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

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

Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan—Existing Facilities

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

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

Amendments would be necessary under the following circumstances: 

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

considered in the existing DP/RP; 

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

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

Depending on the complexity of the revision, a 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 2015 Activities 

• 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 the 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 with the 

NRC as the lead regulatory authority. In March 2012, Homestake submitted 

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

staff held a public meeting near the site to discuss and accept public comments on 

the CAP. NRC staff’s request for additional information for Revision 2 of the CAP 

and response to the public comments was issued in April 2015. 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. 

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

public comments is in concurrence. In April 2015, staff met with New Mexico 

Senator Heinrichs’ staff to brief them on the remediation progress being made at the 

site. Staff last performed an inspection of the Homestake site in August 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 continued 

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

• 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. 

• 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 Lowman, Sherwood, Rifle, Gunnison, Spook, and Edgemont. 

• 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 2016 Trends and Areas of Focus 

In FY 2016, 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 from the Northeast Church Rock Mine Site to be placed in 

the disposal cells on the UNC Church Rock Mill Site. In FY 2016, 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. 
30 

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 
31 

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. 
32 

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 20110 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 
33 

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 1997 2 Edgemont South Dakota 1996 3 L-Bar New Mexico 2005 4 Maybell West Colorado 2010 5 Sherwood Washington 2001 6 Shirley Basin South Wyoming 2005 
34 

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 2015 Activities 

During FY 2015, Honeywell continued decommissioning 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 2015, 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. 
35 

3. GUIDANCE AND RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES

In FY 2015, 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. 

Decommissioning Rulemaking

 

With the permanent shutdown of five power reactors in 2013 and 2014, the Commission 

requested the NRC staff to consider rulemaking as an efficiency measure to expedite the 

transition of operating reactors to decommissioning. In SRM-SECY-14-0118, the Commission 

directed the NRC staff to proceed with rulemaking on reactor decommissioning and set an 

objective of early 2019 for its completion. The Commission also stated that this rulemaking 

should address the following: 

• issues discussed in SECY-00-0145 such as the graded approach to emergency 

preparedness; 

• lessons learned from the plants that have already (or are currently) going through 

the decommissioning process; 

• the advisability of requiring a licensee's PSDAR to be approved by the NRC; 

• the appropriateness of maintaining the three existing options (DECON, 

SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB) for decommissioning and the timeframes associated 

with those options; 

• the appropriate role of State and local governments and nongovernmental 

stakeholders in the decommissioning process; and 

• any other issues deemed relevant by the NRC staff. 

NRR, NMSS, and NSIR began the process for this rulemaking effort in FY 2015. The NRC’s 

goals in amending these regulations would be to provide an efficient decommissioning process, 

reduce the need for exemptions from existing regulations, and support the principles of good 

regulation, including openness, clarity, and reliability. The NRC will solicit public comments on 

the contemplated action and invite stakeholders and interested persons to participate. 

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 the as 

low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) analysis, composite sampling, and decommissioning 

licensee versus contractor responsibilities. An update to uranium recovery licensing guidance is 

also 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 
36 

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. 

Self-Evaluation of Dose Modeling 

DUWP continued an evaluation of the uses and applicability of computer codes employed in 

carrying out DUWP 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 2016. 

 
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 RESRAD-OFFSITE User’s Manual was published as 

NUREG/CR- 7189, entitled User’s Guide for RESRAD-OFFSITE. In FY 2015, a User’s Need 

request from NMSS was accepted that focuses on upgrading a number of computer codes. 

This includes work on RESRAD-OFFSITE and RESRAD-BUILD to update default parameters, 

modify RESRAD-OFFSITE 3.1 to include solubility and diffusion limited leaching source terms, 

update and benchmark MILDOS-AREA, and add new features to Visual Sampling Plan (VSP) 

based on MARSSIM final survey protocols. 

Cooperative efforts with DOE, academic, private sector, and international experts continued on 

the Cement Barriers Partnership (CBP). 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. 

In FY 2015, a new research program was created, 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 processes 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. It is a collaboration between DOE 

Office of Legacy Management and NRC with investigators at the University of Wisconsin, 

University of Virginia, and Navarro Engineering (the DOE contractor). Mill tailing sites have 

been assessed, a candidate site list compiled, and detailed plans for the field work (as required 

by NMSS) have been written. Laboratory work to test and calibrate large radon accumulators 

have been completed. Once the work plan is accepted, field work can begin. 

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

included: (1) a RES staff member participating as an expert witness for the Crow Butte ISR 

facility relicensing hearing before the ASLB in Crawford Nebraska; (2) participating in the 

MARSSIM Interagency Working Group; and, (3) participating in reviews and providing 

suggestions to the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses regarding their experimental 

plan on tank backfill grout behavior. 
38 

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 & Bilaterals 

• 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, acted as expert consultants to update IAEA key standards or to advice on 

development of other countries’ regulatory programs. For example: (1) staff conducted 32 

reviews and updates of several IAEA standards related to decommissioning and LLW during 

the Waste Safety Standards Committee (WASSC) 38th and 39th review cycles; (2) staff 

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

for remediation, supervision, and regulatory development; (3) staff participated in update 

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

Installations;” (4) staff participated in development of technical document on the “Regulatory 

Aspects and Practical Experiences in the “Application of Entombment Decommissioning 

Strategies;” (5) staff participated in the IAEA project on “Human Intrusion Scenarios” 

applicable to waste management and decommissioning; (6) staff participated in the 

development of an IAEA Technical Document on “Review of Remediation Plans;” (7) staff 

participated in the IAEA 2nd Phase for “Developing Romania’s Decommissioning 

Regulations;” and (8) staff participated in an IAEA training workshop on dose/risk 

assessment and use of RESRAD codes as a trainer/instructor. 

• Staff/Management provided support to the NRC Chairman during his visit to Japan in April 

2015. Staff coordinated a workshop on decommissioning and staff/NMSS Management 

(e.g.; NMSS Deputy Director) accompanied the Chairman to address issues pertaining to 

decommissioning, waste management, and spent fuel management after an accident. 
39 

• Staff provided support to the NRC Deputy Executive Director during Commission of Safety 

Standards 37th and 38th review cycles and accompanied visits to Germany for bilateral 

cooperation on decommissioning and waste management.

• Staff participated in several bilateral discussions related to decommissioning with Germany; 

Canada, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. 

• Staff/Management participated in a technical meetings of the International Forum on 

Regulatory Supervision of Legacy Sites, related to the remediation of legacy nuclear 

facilities. The DUWP Deputy Division Director served as Chairman/Lead of this IAEA effort 

particularly in exchanging information among forum members regarding strategies and 

regulatory approaches to regulating legacy sites, led discussions at the most recent 

meetings held in February and May 2015, and in developing an IAEA technical document on 

legacy site regulation. 

• The NRC staff participated in the final revision of the IAEA General Safety Requirements 

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

• NRC staff participated in the final revision and development of predisposal management of 

waste (including waste generated from decommissioning) for power reactors and Nuclear 

Fuel Cycle Facilities. Staff also participated in the IAEA Project on review of the safety case 

for predisposal management of radioactive waste (e.g.; CRAFT II Project). 

• Staff participated in the IAEA Project on Human Intrusion and the development of scenarios 

as related to decommissioning and waste management. 

• Staff participated in the Integrated Regulatory Review Service review of Switzerland, 

particularly decommissioning and LLW management. 

• Staff participated as U.S. and NRC representative in an IAEA Technical Meeting of the Joint 

Working Group on Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste, Status and Trends Project. 

• Staff participated in decommissioning and LLW management reviews and workshops, and 

provided advice on regulatory development for a few countries such as: Libya, Romania, 

UAE (for LLW) and North African Region (IAEA Project on Support for Planning for 

Decommissioning of Research Reactors in North African Region). 

• Staff participated in a few decommissioning workshops in the context of bilateral 

agreements with the Republic of Korea and with Taiwan. 

• Staff participated in several other miscellaneous IAEA activities such as: 

(a) decommissioning of research reactors; (b) revision of a Safety Guide for application of 

the concept of exclusion and clearance; (c) long-term management of sealed sources and 

implementation of the code of conduct; (d) decommissioning of damaged nuclear facilities; 

(e) IAEA revision of DS468 on “remediation processes of areas affected by past activities 

and accidents;” (f) development of Technical Document on Entombment; (g) International 

Commission on Radiological Protection on Radon calculations; (h) major environmental 
40 

impacts on uranium millings; (i) model of regulations for decommissioning; (j) 

decommissioning self-assessment; and (k) remediation of groundwater in U-mining. 

• Staff participated in the 5th Review Meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent 

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

in Vienna. Staff submitted the U.S. National Report to IAEA Secretariat; addressed all 

questions received on the U.S. National Report and completed reviews of all 68 Contracting 

Parties’ National Reports. 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 Convention. Decommissioning staff in 

NRC provided technical and programmatic support to the U.S. Delegation at the Meeting of 

the Joint Convention which took place in May 2015. It is noted that 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. 

Nuclear Energy Agency Activities 

• The NRC contributed to the 17th 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 WPDD Task Groups 

meetings. Staff co-authored NEA technical reports on “R&D and Innovation Needs for 

Decommissioning;” and “Nuclear Site Remediation and Restoration during 

Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations.” 

• Staff participated as U.S. representatives 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; (4) Working Group on 

Decommissioning Funding; and (5) Expert Group on Inventorying and Reporting 

Methodology. 

• Staff also coordinated WM 2015 Symposia Panel Session #128 to discuss WPDD/IAEA’s 

decommissioning activities and dissemination of information pertaining to WPDD’s results 

and reports 

Activity Related to Fukushima Lessons Learned for Decommissioning: 

Staff addressed “External Hazard Assessment at DUWP Decommissioning Licensed Facilities & 

Activities” in the context of a Japan Lessons Learned Division (JLD) request to support a SECY 

paper related to these facilities. In this context, a lengthy report was prepared on Application of 

Fukushima Lessons Learned for Decommissioning. Staff delivered presentations at two public 

meetings on the application of Fukushima Lessons Learned to decommissioning. 

 
41 

6. PROGRAM INTEGRATION AND IMPROVEMENT 

The Decommissioning Program currently encompasses power and early demonstration 

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

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

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

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

undertaken many initiatives to keep abreast of sites undergoing decommissioning. 

Power Reactor Program Improvements

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

order to accomplish decommissioning activities more effectively. In response to an anticipated 

increase in workload due to early reactor shutdowns, the NMSS 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 evaluation resulted in a set of recommendations to update guidance and 

policy documents within the power reactor decommissioning program to capture program 

improvements and lessons learned. Subsequently, NMSS management reviewed the tasks 

identified to promote programmatic enhancement and set task priorities. Revisions to a number 

of NUREG guidance documents and the Reactor Decommissioning Inspection Manual and core 

inspection procedures began in FY 2015 and are expected to continue over the next few years. 

In response to the four nuclear power plants that permanently ceased operations in 2012, and 

an announcement that another would also be shutting down, NRC management formed the 

Reactor Decommissioning Transition Working Group (DTWG) to make the licensing process 

more efficient for reactors transitioning from operations to decommissioning and to address 

industry issues by an integrated inter-office effort. The DTWG was tasked with identifying and 

addressing the near-term and long-term challenges and issues that have emerged from 

regulatory activities associated with recent permanently shuttered power reactors as these 

reactors transition to a decommissioning status. The DTWG is performing a comprehensive 

examination of transition-related actions to identify regulatory inefficiencies, challenge areas, 

potential policy issues, and planned and potential future actions to provide for a more consistent 

and efficient transition process. In addition, the DTWG has established communications and 

coordination among the involved NRC offices to provide a common understanding and 

awareness of reactor decommissioning transition activities and issues. 

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 2015, State contacts provided responses to letter STC-15-059, 

“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 
42 

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 2015 on a variety of topics, including the power reactor decommissioning 

process, decommissioning lessons learned, and an overview of DUWP international activities. 

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 2015.

Uranium Recovery Decommissioning Program Enhancements

Throughout FY 2015, NMSS 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 continued discussions with DOE on developing long-term care fees and post-license 

termination groundwater monitoring, and has initiated discussions on the transfer of sites that 

are scheduled for completion and transfer within the next five years. 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 2015, 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 2015, the NRC continued its implementation of the 2014-2019 5-Year Plan, which includes 

several enhanced outreach activities. 
43 

7. AGREEMENT STATE ACTIVITIES 

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

responsibility over certain byproduct, source, and small quantities of SNM, including the 

decommissioning of some complex materials sites. However, after a State becomes an 

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

Formal interactions with Agreement States in FY 2015 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 Shieldalloy’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. 

• DUWP 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 (Alabama, Florida, 

New Jersey, Utah). 

 

Table 7-1 identifies the decommissioning and uranium recovery sites in the Agreement States. 
44 

Table 7-1 Agreement State Decommissioning Sites 

State Name Location

Date DP Submitted

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
45 

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
46 

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 
47 

8. RESOURCES 

The total Decommissioning Program staff budget for FY 2015 was 58.5 full-time equivalents 

(FTE); and for FY 2016 the program has requested 61.0 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. 
48 

9. FISCAL YEAR 2016 PLANNED PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES 

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

during FY 2016. 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, NMSS management reviewed the tasks 

identified to promote programmatic enhancement and set task priorities. Throughout FY 2016, 

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 2016, 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 is continuing its development of a 

process for the identification, prioritization, and regulatory oversight of historic non-military sites 

with potential radium contamination. 

The DTWG will continue to address issues that emerge from regulatory activities associated 

with recent power reactors shutdowns as these reactors transition to a decommissioning status. 

The NRC offices involved will continue coordination to provide for a more consistent and 

efficient transition process.