Status of the 

Decommissioning Program 

2016 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 2016 Activities .................................................... 6

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2017 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 2016 Activities .................................................. 12

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2017 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 2016 Activities .................................................. 16

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2017 Trends and Areas of Focus ......................................... 20

2.4 Uranium Recovery Facility Decommissioning ..................................................... 24

2.4.1 Decommissioning Process for Uranium Mills .......................................... 25

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2016 Activities .................................................. 28

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2017 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 2016 Activities .................................................. 34

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

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

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

6. Program Integration and Improvement .................................................................................. 40

7. Agreement State Activities ..................................................................................................... 42

8. Resources .............................................................................................................................. 46

9. Fiscal Year 2017 Planned Programmatic Activities ............................................................... 47

 

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 .............................................................................. 21

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 ................................................................. 43
 iii

ABBREVIATIONS 

ACL alternate concentration limit 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

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 

FSSR Final Status Survey Report 

FTE full-time equivalents 

FY fiscal year 

GETR General Electric-Hitachi Test Reactor 

HLW high-level waste 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

IDIP Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan 

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

ISR in situ recovery 

LTP license termination plan 

LTR License Termination Rule

LTSP long-term surveillance plan 

MARSSIM Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

N/A not applicable 

NARM naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material 
 iv

NEA Nuclear Energy Agency 

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 

OAS Organization of Agreement States 

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 

SNM special nuclear material 

SRM Staff Requirements Memorandum 

TBD to be determined 

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 activities at 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) 2016, including 

the decommissioning of complex materials sites, power 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 Decommissioning Program, provides information 

supplied by Agreement States on decommissioning in their States, and identifies key 

Decommissioning Program activities that NRC staff will undertake in the coming year. The 

information contained in this report is current as of September 30, 2016. 

Approximately 15 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 

to regulate 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 NRC 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. 

As noted in NRC staff’s FY 2015 report (SECY-15-0151, “Status of the Decommissioning 

Program—2015 Annual Report”), 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 regulation of military and non-military sites with radium 

contamination. 

In FY 2016, the NRC terminated materials licenses at the Mallinckrodt site in St. Louis, Missouri, 

and the Stepan Company site in Maywood, New Jersey. The NRC also terminated the 

operating license for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs research reactor in Omaha, 

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

Zion Units 1 and 2, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, and San Onofre Units 2 and 3 in active 

decommissioning. The inventory of decommissioning power reactor sites is expected to 

increase as licensees for several reactors have expressed their intent to permanently cease 

power operations by 2019, including Fort Calhoun, Clinton, Quad Cities, Pilgrim, and Oyster 

Creek. 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. In 2017, NRC staff expects to work toward the 
2 

termination of licenses at Beltsville Agricultural Laboratory, and begin decommissioning 

licensing and oversight at the Centrus Fuel Facility in Piketon, Ohio. NRC staff also expects 

that decommissioning activities will be completed at Humboldt Bay. Within the next few 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, 2016, 19 nuclear power and early demonstration reactors, 4 research 

and test reactors, 13 complex materials facilities, 2 fuel cycle facilities (partial 

decommissioning), 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 website 

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

managed under the Decommissioning Program. These summaries, which are updated 

quarterly, describe the status of each site and identify the major technical and regulatory issues 

affecting the completion of decommissioning. 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, 

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

workshops. In addition, NRC 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, 2016, 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: 

certification to the NRC of permanent cessation of operations and removal of fuel; submittal and 

implementation 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 certification to the NRC. In addition, the licensee is required to provide certification to 

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: 

• Foreclose release of the site for unrestricted use; 
5 

• 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(a)(7)). 

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

activities are being conducted in accordance with all applicable regulations and commitments. 

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 discuss 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 
6 

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

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

Revision 1, issued April 2003 (Agencywide Documents 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. 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 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 2016 Activities 

• In May, NRC staff approved the LTP for Humboldt Bay. The LTP provides the 

license requirements the licensee needs to meet for radiological termination of the 

license. 

• In May, NRC staff issued an Order approving the transfer of the license for the La 

Crosse reactor from Dairyland Power Cooperative to LaCrosseSolutions, LLC, which 

is a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Solutions, LLC. This transfer will allow 

LaCrosseSolutions to assume the licensed possession, maintenance, and 
7 

decommissioning authorities in order to expedite the completion of decommissioning 

at the site. 

• NRC staff reviewed requests and issued partial site releases under 10 CFR 50.83 for 

non-impacted land at the Zion and GE Vallecitos sites. 

• NRC staff received a request for an alternate decommissioning schedule for the 

reactors at the GE Vallecitos facility, which proposes to extend the schedule for 

decommissioning beyond the 60-year timeline required for power reactor licensees in 

10 CFR 50.82(a)(3). As of September 2016, NRC staff is evaluating the licensee’s 

request. 

• NRR transferred project management responsibility for Vermont Yankee to NMSS. 

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 sites that have permanently ceased operations and have 

transferred into a decommissioning status. 

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

meetings,2 including a meeting regarding the LTP and partial site release for La 

Crosse in September 2016 and a meeting regarding the partial site release request 

for Zion in December 2015. 

• NRC staff completed oversight activities and 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, 

Nuclear Ship Savannah, San Onofre Units 2 and 3, Three Mile Island Unit 2, Zion 

Units 1 and 2, Kewaunee, Fermi 1, and Crystal River Unit 3. NRC staff also 

conducted site visits at Dresden Unit 1 and Vermont Yankee. 

2.1.3 Fiscal Year 2017 Trends and Areas of Focus 

NRC 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 defueled technical specifications and safety analysis are 

approved. Licensees for several reactors have expressed their intent to permanently cease 

power operations by 2019 or sooner, including Fort Calhoun, Clinton, Quad Cities, Pilgrim, and 

Oyster Creek. 

 

2Public 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 Decommissionin

Reactor Location Status Date of 

Shutdown 

PSDAR* Submitted

LTP Submitted

1 Crystal River Unit 3 Crystal River, FL SAFSTOR 2/13 12/13 TBD 2 Dresden Unit 1 Morris, IL SAFSTOR 10/78 6/98 TBD 3 Fermi Unit 1 Newport, MI SAFSTOR 9/72 4/98 2011*** 4 GE-EVESR Sunol, CA SAFSTOR 2/67 N/A TBD 5 GE-Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor Sunol, CA SAFSTOR 12/63 7/66 TBD 6 Humboldt Bay Eureka, CA DECON 7/76 2/98 5/13 7 Indian Point Unit 1 Buchanan, NY SAFSTOR 10/74 1/96 TBD 8 Kewaunee Kewaunee, WI SAFSTOR 5/13 5/13 TBD 9 La Crosse La Crosse, WI DECON 4/87 5/91 7/16 10 Millstone Unit 1 Waterford, CT SAFSTOR 7/98 6/99 TBD 11 Nuclear Ship Savannah Baltimore, MD SAFSTOR 11/70 12/08 TBD 12 Peach Bottom Unit 1 Delta, PA SAFSTOR 10/74 6/98 TBD 13 San Onofre Unit 1 San Clemente, CA SAFSTOR 11/92 12/98 TBD 14 San Onofre Unit 2 San Clemente, CA DECON 6/13 9/14 TBD 15 San Onofre Unit 3 San Clemente, CA DECON 6/13 9/14 TBD 16 Three Mile Island Unit 2 Harrisburg, PA SAFSTOR 3/79 6/13 TBD 17 Vermont Yankee Vernon, VT SAFSTOR 12/14 12/14 TBD 18 Zion Unit 1 Zion, IL DECON 2/97 2/00 12/14 19 Zion Unit 2 Zion, IL DECON 9/96 2/00 12/14 
9 

GE General Electric TBD to be determined 

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

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

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

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

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

*** 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, NRC staff 

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

decommissioning. 

As of September 30, 2016, the four 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 of a DP, review and 

approval of the 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 discuss 

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. 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. The NRC will terminate the license if it 

determines that the licensee has met the following conditions: 

• The decommissioning has been performed in accordance with the approved DP. 
12 

• 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 2016 Activities 

• In July, NRC staff terminated the license for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

research reactor in Omaha, Nebraska. NRC staff performed inspections, reviewed 

and approved a final status survey plan for the facility, and reviewed an independent 

confirmatory survey report and the licensee’s final status survey report as part of the 

site closure. 

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

performed inspections and reviews of confirmatory surveys to support the demolition 

and release of the facility and land areas at the site. 

2.2.3 Fiscal Year 2017 Trends and Areas of Focus 

In FY 2017, NRC staff expects to review a license termination request for the State University of 

New York at Buffalo facility. 
13 

Table 2-2 Research and Test Reactors Undergoing Decommissioning 

Reactor Location Date of 

Shutdown 

Status 

1 General Atomics TRIGA Mark F San Diego, CA 9/94 DP Approved 2 General Atomics TRIGA Mark I San Diego, CA 12/96 DP Approved 3 General Electric-Hitachi GETR Sunol, CA 1/85 Possession-Only 4 State University of New York at Buffalo Buffalo, NY 7/96 DP Approved GETR General Electric Test Reactor TRIGA Training, Research, Isotopes General Atomics 
14 

2.3 Complex Materials Facility Decommissioning 

Materials facilities decommissioning activities include maintaining regulatory oversight of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

industry conferences and workshops. In addition, NRC 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, 2016, 13 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. 

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; 

• 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; 
15 

• 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 

discuss 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 

(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. 
16 

The DP is approved by license amendment, as a supplement to the SER, or equivalent, along 

with any additional license conditions found to be necessary as a results of the findings of NRC 

staff’s review. 

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. 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. 

• 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 2016 Activities 

• In February 2016, NRC staff terminated the license for the Mallinckrodt site in St. 

Louis, Missouri, and released the site for unrestricted use. 

• In February 2016, NRC staff terminated the license for the Stepan Company site in 

Maywood, New Jersey, and released the site for unrestricted use. Remediation of 

the three NRC-licensed burial pits was completed in 2012 by the USACE. 
17 

• In November 2015, the U.S. Army withdrew its application for the decommissioning 

of its Jefferson Proving Ground site in Madison, IN. As an alternative, the U.S. Army 

will be pursuing an exemption to the decommissioning timeliness rule under 10 CFR 

40.42 and will request to amend their license to Possession Only. 

• Remediation activities have been completed at the Westinghouse Electric-Hematite 

facility in Festus, MO. The licensee has completed radiological surveys and plans to 

submit a FSSR to the NRC within the next year. 

• NRC staff completed its review of the Supplemental Radiological Survey Plan for the 

United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) Naval site in New Haven, Connecticut, and in 

June 2016, UNC began conducting characterization surveys of the additional areas 

described in the plan. 

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

Laboratory, FMRI, Cimarron, Westinghouse Electric-Hematite, Shallow Land 

Disposal Area (SLDA), UNC Naval, and West Valley. NRC staff also conducted site 

visits at McClellan Air Force Base, Alameda Naval Air Station, and Hunters Point 

Shipyard. 

Other significant activities are described below. 

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 (NARM) rule included a commitment for the NRC to 

interact with the military to obtain a common understanding of the uses of discrete sources of 

radium-226 and resolve any potential conflicts on a case-by-case basis. NRC staff and a U.S. 

Department of Defense (DoD) working group held many discussions about a 2011 draft 

Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) that clarified the certain types of military radium-226 that 

would be under NRC regulatory authority and described regulatory approaches to be used to 

implement NRC’s authority, including a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 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 NRC 

staff’s recommendation for a comprehensive MOU. Following the Commission’s direction, NRC 

staff worked with the DoD working group and the final MOU (Accession No. ML16092A294) was 

signed in April 2016. Subsequently, NRC finalized the RIS (Accession No. ML15167A324) and 

an enclosure containing a summary of public comments on the draft RIS and NRC’s responses. 

The availability of both the MOU and the RIS was noticed in the Federal Register (81 FR 31669, 

(May 19, 2016)). NRC staff and DoD have started implementing the MOU. DoD provided NRC 

with an initial site inventory and NRC staff has notified DoD that it will use a monitoring 

approach at two “pilot” sites during the remainder of FY 2016 and FY 2017 as described in 

SECY-14-0082 and noted above. The initial use of “pilot” sites will provide experience using 

the MOU with DoD and experience using NRC’s draft monitoring procedures. The stay 

informed approach for the California sites, along with future sites, will continue under the MOU 

for all sites in FY 2017 based on site prioritization. 
18 

NRC has performed many outreach activities with the States regarding NRC’s role under the 

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

(OAS) conference calls; 2) holding a poster session at the 47th and 48th National Conference on 

Radiation Control; 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, 4) sending another All Agreement States letter (STC-16-072) notifying them of 

the availability of the final MOU and final RIS, as well as providing them with the initial list of 

DoD sites under the MOU, and 5) making a presentation at the August 22, 2016, OAS 

conference on NRC’s progress and path forward for the MOU with DoD and the RIS. 

Hunters Point, McClellan, and Alameda Military Sites in California 

NRC 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. NRC 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. NRC staff conducted its ninth annual visit to these 

sites in September 2016, 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, NRC 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. 

As part of its oversight of service providers, NRC performed an investigation into whether Tetra 

Tech EC, Inc. deliberately falsified soil samples at Hunters Point Shipyard. NRC subsequently 

issued a Notice of Violation and escalated enforcement to Tetra Tech EC, Inc. for the deliberate 

falsification of soil samples. 

In addition, NRC staff began implementing the NRC/DoD remediation MOU, related to the 

NRC’s role at military sites with radium, which was signed in April 2016. As part of the pilot site 

approach discussed in SECY-14-0082, NRC staff identified the Navy’s Treasure Island site in 

California as the first pilot site under the MOU and conducted a site visit in September 2016 in 

conjunction with its site visits to the California sites noted above. The purpose of this site visit 

was to obtain background about the site and its remediation to help NRC staff plan its future 

monitoring activities at this site. NRC staff also identified the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground 

site in Utah as a second pilot site and is planning a site visit in late fall 2016 to obtain 
19 

background information about this site. Due to the regular communications between DoD and 

NRC staff, implementation of the MOU is going well. 

Non-Military Radium Sites 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave the NRC authority over radium and some other materials in 

a category known as NARM. The NRC’s first step in implementing that new authority was to put 

in place regulations. These regulations, known as the NARM rule, became effective 

November 30, 2007. While the NRC was developing its program for military radium sites, NRC 

staff became aware of radium cleanup efforts at the former Waterbury Clock Factory in 

Waterbury, Connecticut, and the Great Kills Park site in Staten Island, New York. As the NRC 

learned more about these projects, it began a systematic effort to identify sites around the 

country where radium was used to ensure those sites no longer posed a risk. NRC staff has 

identified and prioritized a list of non-military sites with potential radium contamination due to 

historical manufacturing of consumer products. NRC staff has also started near-term 

programmatic follow-up actions for the identified sites. NRC staff has been coordinating with 

States regarding identified sites with historical radium use. Following the completion of the site 

identification effort, NRC staff began outreach with both Agreement and Non-Agreement States 

to share information about the sites identified and NRC staff’s approach to these sites in both 

Agreement and non-Agreement States. More information regarding this approach is available 

at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/radium.html. 

Great Kills Park is a Federally-owned landfill with radium contamination that is currently 

undergoing CERCLA investigation and remediation. NRC staff has been in discussion with EPA 

Region 2, 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 an approach similar to the 

approach the NRC has taken to military sites to address an overlap between CERCLA and the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, at Great Kills Park. NRC staff also continued to work 

with EPA Region I regarding their cleanup activities at the former Waterbury Clock Factory, and 

will continue this coordination in FY 2017. 

Army Depleted Uranium License Application 

 

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 add 15 other installations, 

which are located throughout the United States. NRC staff completed its review and issued 

Amendment 1 to License SUC-1593 to incorporate the additional sites in March 2016. NRC 

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 2016 at the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) site near 

Buffalo, NY, which is a complex and multi-phase decommissioning project. The West Valley 

site was the first and only commercial reprocessing plant to operate in the United States from 
20 

1966-1972. Approximately four years after shutting down, the site was returned to the site 

owner, New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA). Through 

the West Valley Demonstration Project Act of 1980, the NRC has specific agency 

responsibilities for informal review, consultation, and monitoring of DOE activities at the site. In 

February 2014, DOE and NYSERDA, the licensee, established a path forward for Phase 2 

Decommissioning of the WVDP site. During Phase 1 Decommissioning, a number of highly 

contaminated facilities will be removed, characterization activities will be conducted and soil 

remediation actions will be performed. Phase 2 Decommissioning will address the Waste Tank 

Farm, the waste disposal areas, and the non-source area of the groundwater plume. DOE 

intends to complete any remaining WVDP decision-making with its Phase 2 decision (to be 

made within 10 years of the Record of Decision) in a Supplemental EIS and expects to select 

either removal or in-place closure, or a combination of the two options, for portions of the site for 

which it has decommissioning responsibility. During 2016, DOE and NYSERDA continued to 

conduct planning activities for additional studies and evaluations, referred to as Phase 1 

studies, which include erosion studies, exhumation studies, and engineered barrier 

studies. These studies are meant to assist decision-making or inform the Phase 2 

Supplemental EIS. DOE and NYSERDA plan to manage the contract for the Supplemental EIS, 

which will be administered by DOE. 

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

is being conducted in accordance with the DOE’s NRC-approved Phase 1 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 to ship low-level waste, and managing 

dry tanks and the NRC-licensed disposal area. In November 2015, NRC staff conducted a 

monitoring visit to observe the start of the loading and lid welding of the first HLW canister to be 

moved to the onsite storage pad. In FY 2016, DOE began to relocate the legacy waste from the 

Main Process Plant Building, continued to ship legacy waste and deactivate buildings for 

demolition, and worked on the shutdown of the vitrification stack and stack monitoring system. 

As of August 2016, about 50% of the legacy waste has been shipped offsite, about 95% of the 

vitrification facility was deactivated, and about 53% of the Main Plant Process Building was 

deactivated. DOE plans to demolish the vitrification building and complete the relocation of the 

legacy waste from the Main Process Plant Building in FY 2017. 

2.3.3 Fiscal Year 2017 Trends and Areas of Focus 

In FY 2017, NRC staff will continue its follow-up efforts related to non-military sites with potential 

radium contamination due to historical manufacturing of consumer products, including 

identifying and addressing contamination at these sites. NRC staff will continue its monitoring 

role at additional military radium MOU sites in FY 2017. NRC staff will reach out to DoD to 

better understand the inventory of depleted uranium at military installations. NRC staff will also 

continue oversight of activities at the WVDP, with a focus on the project for relocation of the 

HLW canisters into shielded casks at the onsite storage pad. 

 
21 

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 MOU** 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 T

6 Hunter’s Point Naval 

Shipyard* (former Naval shipyard) 

San Francisco, CA 

N/A N/A MOU** N

7 Jefferson Proving Ground Madison, IN 8/99 

revised 6/02 

10/02 LTR-RES T

8 McClellan* (former Air Force 

base) 

Sacramento, CA 

N/A N/A MOU** N

9 Shallow Land Disposal Area 

(BWX Technologies, Inc.) 

Vandergrift, PA 6/01 

revised N/A 

N/A LTR-UNRES T
22 

Table 2-3 Complex Decommissioning Sites 

Name Location Date DP 

Submitted

Date DP Approved

Compliance Criteria

PR

10 Sigma-Aldrich Maryland 

Heights, MO 

10/08, revised 11/10 

5/09, revised TBD 

LTR-UNRES 2

11 UNC Naval Products New Haven, 

CT 

8/98, revised 2004,12/06 

4/99, revised 10/07 

LTR-UNRES T

12 West Valley Demonstration 

Project 

West Valley, NY 

Phase 1 3/09 

Phase 1 2/10 

LTR-UNRES*** T

13 Westinghouse ElectricHematite Facility Festus, MO 4/04 revised 

6/06, 8/09 

10/11 LTR-UNRES T
23 

* 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. 

** “Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. 

of Defense for Coordination on CERCLA Response Actions at DoD Sites with Radioactive Materia

April 28, 2016 (ADAMS No. ML16092A294). 

*** 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 NRC staff’s most recent information but do 

necessarily 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. 
24 

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 specified the inactive processing sites for 

remediation and required that DOE remediate these sites. Except at the Atlas Moab site, 

surface reclamation activities have been completed by DOE 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 as of the date UMTRCA was passed. 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 Environmental Assessments (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, 2016, 11 Title II uranium recovery facilities are undergoing decommissioning. 

10 CFR 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, 

 

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

discussion on their decommissioning. 
25 

after decommissioning is complete. The six Title II sites that have been transferred for longterm 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. 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. 
26 

Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan 

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

staff may be warranted. 

Implementation of the Decommissioning Plan/Reclamation Plan 

As the licensee prepares to enter decommissioning, it submits a revised DP/RP. 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. 

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). NRC 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: 

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). 
27 

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), NRC 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 NRC staff determines that 

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

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

report for NRC staff review and approval. As part of this review, NRC 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, NRC staff will issue RAIs to address 

outstanding issues. 

License Termination—Conventional Mills 

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

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

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

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

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

surface water monitoring, and remedial actions. Concurrent with NRC 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. 

 
28 

2.4.2 Summary of Fiscal Year 2016 Activities 

• In March 2016, NRC staff met with New Mexico Senator Heinrichs’ staff to brief them 

on the remediation progress being made at the Homestake site, and NRC’s 

interactions with the EPA and the public. In May 2016, NRC staff concluded a 

review of records dated from 1998 to 2015 to determine whether Homestake was in 

compliance with regulatory and license requirements related to groundwater 

restoration activities at the site. As a result of this review, five apparent violations 

were identified and are being considered for enforcement action in accordance with 

the NRC Enforcement Policy (ADAMS No. ML16251A526). NRC staff last 

performed an inspection of the Homestake site in August 2016. 

• NRC staff continued to work with the State of Wyoming to evaluate options for 

completing decommissioning at the American Nuclear Corporation Gas Hills site, 

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

fund. At the request of the State of Wyoming, the Confirmatory Order has been 

revised to allow Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality to use the remaining 

decommissioning funds to stabilize the site until the decision is made on how best to 

complete the decommissioning of the site. 

• NRC staff continued its participation with other Federal agencies and the Navajo 

Nation in implementing the Five-Year Plan to Address Uranium Contamination on the 

Navajo Nation. NRC staff participated in open house meetings at the Tuba City and 

Monument Valley sites and provided training to the Navajo Outreach Coordinator. 

NRC staff is also working with the Navajo Nation and Federal agencies to develop 

training for the Navajo on uranium and its health and environmental impacts. NRC 

staff continued participation in Navajo Nation/Hopi/DOE Quarterly meetings and 

community outreach, and worked with the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection 

Agency and the DOE to address concerns raised by the Navajo Nation regarding the 

Mexican Hat site in Arizona. 

• NRC staff is currently reviewing a license amendment request from Rio Algom 

Mining, LLC regarding the potential release of a portion of the Ambrosia Lake site. 

The EPA is evaluating this portion of the site as a potential future repository for 

uranium mine waste from 12 uranium mines located in the Ambrosia Lake District. 

The EPA is addressing the mine waste as part of a CERCLA Non-Time Critical 

removal process as a result of the Tronox Settlement Agreement for mines located 

on the Navajo Nation. 

• NRC staff conducted site inspections or site visits at the UNC Church Rock, 

Homestake Mining, Pathfinder Shirley Basin, ExxonMobil Highlands, and Rio Algom 

sites. 

• In addition, NRC 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 the Falls City and Tuba City sites. 

 
29 

2.4.3 Fiscal Year 2017 Trends and Areas of Focus 

In FY 2017, NRC staff expects the completion of remediation activities at the Sequoyah Fuels 

site. The transfer of this site and others (e.g., Pathfinder—Lucky Mc) to DOE for long-term 

surveillance is expected to occur within the next few years. NRC 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. NRC staff will also continue its participation in the activities 

associated with the Navajo Nation Five-Year Plan, DOE/Navajo Nation/Hopi quarterly meetings 

and reviewing DOE reports and plans for the reclamation and management of these sites. 
30 

Table 2-4a Decommissioning Title I Uranium Recovery Sites 

Name Location Status 

1 Ambrosia Lake Grants, NM Monitoring 2 Burrell Blairsville, PA Monitoring 3 Canonsburg Canonsburg, PA Monitoring 4 Durango Durango, CO Monitoring 5 Falls City Falls City, TX Monitoring 6 Grand Junction Grand Junction, CO Monitoring 7 Green River Green River, UT Monitoring 8 Gunnison Gunnison, CO Monitoring 9 Lakeview Lakeview, OR Monitoring 10 Lowman Lowman, ID Monitoring 11 Maybell Maybell, CO Monitoring 12 Mexican Hat Mexican Hat, UT Monitoring 13 Monument Valley Monument Valley, AZ Monitoring 14 

Moab Mill Moab, UT 

Active – surface and groundwatremediation 

15 Naturita Naturita, CO Monitoring 16 Rifle Rifle, CO Monitoring 17 Riverton Riverton, WY Monitoring 18 Salt Lake City Salt Lake City, UT Monitoring 
31 

Table 2-4a Decommissioning Title I Uranium Recovery Sites 

19 Shiprock Shiprock, NM Active – groundwater remediatio20 Slick Rock Slick Rock, CO Monitoring 21 Spook Converse Co., WY Monitoring 22 

Tuba City Tuba City, AZ 

Active – groundwater remediatio(currently suspended) 

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 Gas Hills, 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 2022 5 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 2029 Umetco Minerals Corporation East Gas Hills, WY Revised soil plan—4/01 20110 United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock, NM 3/91, Revision 2005 TBD 11 Western Nuclear Inc.—Split Rock Jeffrey City, WY 1997 201TBD 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) Grants, NM 1997 2 Edgemont Edgemont, SD 1996 3 L-Bar Seboyeta, NM 2005 4 Maybell West Maybell, CO 2010 5 Sherwood Wellpinit, WA 2001 6 Shirley Basin South Shirley Basin, WY 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, in accordance with applicable provisions under 10 CFR 70.38; 

and the Honeywell site in Metropolis, IL, in accordance with applicable provisions under 10 CFR 

40.42. The NRC’s public website 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 2016 Activities 

During FY 2016, 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 2016, DUWP staff continued to provide support to FCSE by 

reviewing FSSRs for several survey units. The FSSRs primarily address subsurface layers of 

the North Site area, which include former radiological burial areas and ponds that received 

effluents. Revision 3 to the North Site DP was approved in May 2006. 
35 

3. GUIDANCE AND RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES

In FY 2016, NRC staff worked to increase the effectiveness of the Decommissioning Program 

through a rulemaking effort for reactor decommissioning and updates to decommissioning 

guidance. The Decommissioning Program has also been performing a self-evaluation of dose 

modeling to help it become more effective in the decommissioning of sites. 

Decommissioning Rulemaking 

 

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

requested NRC staff to consider rulemaking to expedite the processing of licensing actions 

necessary to transition power reactors from operation to decommissioning currently 

accomplished through a series of exemptions. In SRM-SECY-14-0118, the Commission 

directed 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 NRC staff. 

NRR, NMSS, and NSIR continued the process for this rulemaking effort in FY 2016. 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 solicited public comments on 

the contemplated action via an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2016. In 2017, NRC 

staff plans to complete the draft regulatory basis and hold a series of public meetings. The 

current timeline to complete the rule is 2019. 

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 NRC 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 
36 

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 

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 2017. 

 
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, including the upgrade of several codes identified as part of a FY 

2015 User’s Need request from NMSS. 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 the Multi-Agency Radiation 

Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) final survey protocols. 

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

the Cementitious 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 2016, RES staff began work on a research program that was created to study the effects 

of changes in properties of mill tailings engineered covers on the emission of radon. The 

purpose of this study is to 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). Two mill 

tailing sites have been visited by the research team: Falls City in Texas and Bluewater in New 

Mexico. A number of pits at each site were excavated into the covers, samples taken for 

permeability measurements, and soil profiles described. Radon flux measurements were made 

at the surface of the radon barrier and at the top of the waste using up to 4 different size flux 

chambers at many locations. The pits have all been backfilled and returned to original 

specifications. Data are now being prepared and interpreted from these sites and an additional 

two sites are being selected for field work in FY 2017. The RES staff also continued direct 

assistance to NMSS efforts through participating in the MARSSIM Interagency Working Group. 
38 

5. INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES 

The NRC participates in multiple international activities to fulfill U.S. commitments to 

international conventions, treaties, and bilateral/multilateral agreements. NRC 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 NRC 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, NRC 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. 

• NRC staff participated in the review and development of IAEA Safety Standards, 

participated in IAEA projects, conferences, and workshops related to decommissioning and 

waste disposal, and advised on the development of other countries’ regulatory programs. 

For example: (1) NRC staff conducted reviews and updates of 23 IAEA standards related to 

decommissioning and low-level waste during the Waste Safety Standards Committee 

(WASSC) 40th and 41st review cycles; (2) NRC staff participated in planning and 

organization of the International Forum of Uranium Legacy Sites for remediation, 

supervision, and regulatory development; (3) NRC staff participated in the update and final 

development of an IAEA safety standard on the “Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants, 

Research Reactors, and other Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities;” (4) NRC staff participated a 

final consultancy meeting on the development of a technical document on the “Regulatory 

Aspects and Practical Experiences in the Application of Entombment Decommissioning 

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

Phase II” applicable to waste management and decommissioning; and (6) NRC staff and 

management participated in an IAEA International Conference on “Advancing the Global 

Implementation of Decommissioning and Environmental Remediation Programs.” 

• NRC staff participated in a technical meetings of the International Forum on Regulatory 

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

delivered a presentation regarding uranium recovery decommissioning and non-military 

radium programs at a workshop in Oslo, Norway. 

• NRC staff supported an IAEA Research Reactor Decommissioning Demonstration Project 

Workshop on Release and Final Status Surveys at the Humboldt Bay site in California. 
39 

• NRC staff supported an IAEA consultancy as a technical expert at a meeting on 

Entombment as a decommissioning option and worked to finalize a position paper that is 

consistent with NRC policy. 

• NRC staff developed and presented a workshop on the management of legacy uranium 

recovery sites for staff of the Brazilian National Nuclear Energy Counsel. 

• 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 decommissioning workshops in the context of bilateral agreements 

with the Republic of Korea and with Taiwan. 

• NRC staff continued its participation in the IAEA Project on the Decommissioning and 

Remediation of Damaged Nuclear Facilities. 

• NRC staff participated in a topical meeting of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent 

Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management in Vienna. 

• NRC staff participated in the 17th Session of the NEA Radioactive Waste Management 

Committee Bureau and contributed to the Annual Report for the Radioactive Waste 

Management Committee. 

• NRC 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. 

• NRC 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; (5) Expert Group on Inventorying and Reporting 

Methodology; and (6) Task Group on Transitioning into Decommissioning After Shutdown. 

• NRC staff co-authored two key reports issued by the NEA Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: (a) “Nuclear Site Remediation and Restoration During 

Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations;” and (b) “Radiological Characterization from a 

Material and Waste End-State Perspective & Evaluation of the Questionnaires by the NEA 

Task Group on Radiological Characterization and Decommissioning.” 

• NRC staff and management coordinated a special panel session with international 

counterparts at Waste Management 2016 Symposia on “International Nuclear Power Plant 

Decommissioning: Time for Awareness and Planning.” The Acting Director of NMSS served 

as a panel member for this session. 

• NRC staff attended the International Workshop on the Use of Robotic Technologies at 

Nuclear Facilities held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

 
40 

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, NMSS staff performed a program 

evaluation of its power reactor decommissioning regulatory function. The power reactor 

decommissioning program evaluation was an outgrowth of NRC 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 that began in FY 2015 continued during FY 2016, 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 soon thereafter, NRC management 

formed the Reactor Decommissioning Transition Working Group (DTWG) in 2013 to make the 

licensing process more efficient for reactors transitioning from operations to decommissioning 

and to address industry issues through 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 shut down power 

reactors as these reactors transition to a decommissioning status. In FY 2016, the DTWG 

completed a lessons learned report, which includes insights from the power reactors that 

transitioned from operations to decommissioning in 2013-2015. The report includes 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 2016, State contacts continued to provide responses to letter STC-15-059, 
41 

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

Sites.” Another annual information request was sent to the State contacts in November 2016 

(STC-16-086). This site information was compiled and placed into a database, which can be 

found on NRC’s public website. Summaries of information on sites regulated by the Agreement 

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

thus enhance public confidence by providing a national perspective on decommissioning. 

Knowledge Management 

Progress continued on knowledge management activities identified by IDIP, as several 

knowledge management seminars were held by managers and senior NRC staff. Seminars 

were held throughout FY 2016 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 NRC staff’s oversight of sites, particularly with the expected 

increase in workload with reactors entering decommissioning.

Uranium Recovery Decommissioning Program Enhancements 

Throughout FY 2016, NRC staff continued interactions with DOE for those sites that are 

generally licensed under 10 CFR 40.27 and 40.28. NRC 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. NRC 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. NRC staff has 

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

pertaining to the sites on the Navajo Reservation. 

In 2016, 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 the Navajo Nation, on a coordinated Five-Year Plan to address uranium 

contamination on the Navajo Reservation from past mining and milling activities. The Five-Year 

Plan represents a coordinated approach by the agencies, and outlines a strategy for gaining a 

better understanding and addressing the problem of uranium contamination on the Navajo 

Reservation from past mining and milling activities. In 2013, the agencies reported to Congress 

on the status of activities outlined under the first Five-Year Plan and committed to continuing the 

work in the future. In 2016, the NRC continued its implementation of the 2014-2019 Five-Year 

Plan, which includes several enhanced outreach activities. 
42 

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 2016 included the following: 

• 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 NRC’s public website. 

These summaries are available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/complex/ 

and http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/ for complex materials sites 

and uranium recovery sites, respectively. 

• Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program reviews that included 

decommissioning were conducted in several Agreement States. 

 

Table 7-1 identifies the decommissioning and uranium recovery sites in the Agreement States. 
43 

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
44 

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
45 

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, revised 5/97 5

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 
46 

8. RESOURCES 

The total Decommissioning Program staff budget for FY 2016 was 75 full-time equivalents 

(FTE); and for FY 2017 the program has requested 68 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 OGC support. These figures also 

include nonsupervisory indirect FTE associated with the Decommissioning Program. 
47 

9. FISCAL YEAR 2017 PLANNED PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES 

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

during FY 2017. Specifically, 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 2017, 

NRC staff will continue to work on these programmatic enhancement tasks. 

In FY 2011, NRC 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 2017, 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 will continue its efforts at identified sites 

with potential contamination, including contacting site owners and addressing contamination at 

these sites, as necessary. NRC staff will also continue its monitoring role at additional military 

MOU sites in FY 2017, as discussed in SECY-14-0082.