Text

NRC-006B - Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Construction Permit Application - Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (Psar), NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 3, Chapters 1 Through 2 (Sep. 2017) (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17257A022 and ML17257A023)
	ML18016B109
Person / Time
Site:	Northwest Medical Isotopes
Issue date:	09/30/2017
From:	; NRC/OGC
To:	; NRC/OCM
	SECY RAS
References
	50-609-CP, Construction Permit Mndtry Hrg, Northwest Medical Isotopes-M 50-609-CP, RAS 54181
	Download: ML18016B109 (183)
	v • d • e

NRC-006B

.........NWMI

. :.~*~ ~* .

. * '. * **

NOllTHWEST MElllCALISOTOPfS AITACHMENT3 Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Docket No. 50-609 Revision 3 of Chapters 1.0 through 18.0 of NWMl-2013-021, Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production (Document No. NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3, September 2017)

Public Version Information is being provided via hard copy

- ~***~ :

. NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 September 2017 Prepared by:

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 815 NW gth Ave, Suite 256 Corvallis, Oregon 97330

This page intentionally left blank.

......;.*..NWMI

~~.* ~ . NORTHWEST MEDtcAL ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Date Published:

September 5, 2017 Document Number. NWMl-2013-021 I Revision Number. 3

Title:

Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility Approved by: Carolyn Haass Signature:

Cwdi~r:.J~

.... ~*~ ; *..

NWMI NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

' ~ ~.~~ : . HOflTMWfSTMUHCAll$0TOPCS This page intentionally left blank.

...........;... NWMI

' ~ ~ *! ' NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility REVISION HISTORY Rev Date Reason for Revision Revised By 0 6/29/2015 Initial Application Not required 1 5/19/2017 Incorporate changes based on responses to NRC C. Haass Requests for Additional Information 2 N/A 3 9/5/2017 Incorporate final comments from NRC Staff and ACRS ; C. Haass full document revision

..;. NWMI

=***

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

'~~~-~!**

NGaTNWUTMEDtCAllSOTOf'(S This page intentionally left blank.

.;.*-...;. NWMI

.... NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

~~ ~~~*,

NORTHWUT MEDICAL ISOTOPES CONTENTS 1.0 THE FACILITY .... ... ........................... .. ....... .. ......................................... .. .... .... .... .... .. ..... .. ... .. ....... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ............ ....... .......... ...................... ............. ...... .... ... .. ..... .... ... ... ................... ....... 1-1 1.2 Summary and Conclusions on Principal Safety Considerations .. ... .... .. .... .......................... 1-2 1.2.1 Radioisotope Production Facility Special Nuclear Material Inventory ................ 1-2 1.2.2 Consequences from the Operation and Use of the Facility .. ... .... .. .. ..................... 1-4 1.2.3 Radioisotope Production Facility Integrated Safety Analysis ...... ..... ... .... .. .... .... .. 1-6 1.2.3.1 Items Relied on for Safety Boundary Definition Package and Technical Specifications Development.. ........... ..... ....................... ... .. . 1-8 1.2.3 .2 Hazard and Accident Analysis .... .... ... .... ............... .. .. .... ... .. ..... ... ......... 1-9 l.2 .3.3 Description of Accident Sequences .... ...... .... ... .... ... ... ......... .. ...... .. ... .. 1-10 1.2.3.4 Characterization of High and Intermediate Consequence Accident Sequences .......... .................................. ................. ............. 1-12 1.2.3.5 Radioisotope Production Facility Items Relied on For Safety .......... 1-13 1.3 General Description of the Facility ..... ............................... ........ ..... ... ... ... .... .. ... ... ... .... ... .. 1-16 1.3.1 Location and Characteristics of the Site ... ....... .... ...... .... ... .... ... ... .... .................... 1-16 l.3 .2 Principal Design Criteria, Operating Characteristics, and Safety Systems ........ 1-26 l.3 .2.1 Principal Design Criteria .... ......... ... ....... ...... .. ... .... .. ... ..... .. ... .. ......... ... 1-27 1.3 .2.2 Operating Characteristics .......... .. ... ....... ..... .. ... .... ... ........ ..... .... ... .... .. . 1-29 1.3.2.3 Facility Ventilation System .............. ................................... .. ...... ... ... 1-32 1.3 .2.4 Biological Shield ......................... .... .................. ..... ........ .. ..... .... ........ 1-32 1.3.3 Engineered Safety Features ................. .. .. ... ...... .. .... .... ... ... .... ... .. ...... ........... .. ...... 1-32 l.3.4 Experimental Facilities and Capabilities ........................... .... .. ... ...... .... .... ... .... ... 1-36 1.4 Shared Facilities and Equipment ......... .... .................... .. .............................. ..................... 1-37 1.5 Comparison with Similar Facilities .... ........................................ ..... .. .... ... .. ... ................. .. 1-37 1.5. l Comparison of Physical Plant and Equipment.. ........................ ......................... 1-37 1.5.2 Comparison of Chemical Processes ............. ... ....... ............ ..................... ........... 1-38 1.5.3 Comparison of Support Systems ....... ..... .. ............ .... .......... ...... .. ... .. ..... .... ... ..... .. 1-38 1.6 Summary ofOperations ................ ........... ........ ............................................. .................... 1-39 1.7 Compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 ..... ....... ............. ... .. ...... .. .... .. ..... 1-39 1.8 Facility Modifications and History ...... ....... .......... ....... .. ... .... ...... .... .. .. ... .. ................... ...... 1-39 1.9 References ............ ...... ....... ................................... .. ............. ..... ........ .... .......... ....... ..... ...... 1-40 1-i

..... ....;*.... NWMI

' ~ *: ! ." NDmfW[ST MEDICAL lSOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility FIGURES Figure 1-1. Radioisotope Processing Facility at 0 to 40 Hours End oflrradiation ....... ..... ................. 1-5 Figure 1-2. Radioisotope Processing Facility at Greater than 40 Hours End of Irradiation ............... 1-5 Figure 1-3. Integrated Safety Analysis Process Flow Diagram ...... ....... .. ...... ..... ........ .... ... ....... ..... .. ... 1-7 Figure 1-4. Radioisotope Production Facility Site Layout .. ................. ....... ..... ... .. .................. .. ....... 1-16 Figure 1-5. Building Model of the Radioisotope Production Facility ........ ........ ............ .. ........ .. ...... 1-17 Figure 1-6. General Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility .... ....................... ................ .. .. 1-18 Figure 1-7. 8 km (5-rni) Radius from the Center of the Facility and Resident Population Distribution - 2015 ..... ...... .......... .......... ................ .. ...... .. .... ...... .. .. ...... ............ ......... ...... 1-19 Figure 1-8. Wind Rose from Automatic Weather Station, Columbia, Missouri, 2007-2012 (Western Regional Climate Center) .. .. ...... ...... .......... ... ... .. .......... .... .. .. .. .... .... ..... ............ 1-23 Figure 1-9. Radioisotope Production Facility Block Flow Diagram ......... .. ... .... ... .... ... .. .. ...... .......... 1-29 Figure 1-10. Irradiating Uranium-235 with Neutrons to Form Molybdenum-99 .............. ........ ......... 1-37 TABLES Table 1-1. Special Nuclear Material Inventory of Target Fabrication Area .. .................. ... .. .... .. .... .. 1-2 Table 1-2. Special Nuclear Material Inventory oflrradiated Material Areas ............ .... .. ..... .... ........ 1-3 Table 1-3. Radionuclide Inventory for Radioisotope Production Facility Process Streams ........ ..... 1-4 Table 1-4. Preliminary Hazard Analysis Nodes ........ .................. ...... ...... .. ... ..... ... ........ .... .... ....... ...... 1-9 Table 1-5 . Radioisotope Production Facility Preliminary Hazard Analysis Accident Sequence Category Designator Definitions .. ........... ....... .... .. .... ... ....... ........................... 1-10 Table 1-6. Crosswalk ofNUREG-1537 Part 1 Interim Staff Guidance Accident Initiating Events versus Radioisotope Production Facility Preliminary Hazards Analysis Top-Level Accident Sequence Categories (2 pages) ...... ...................... ........ ...... .... .. .. ... 1-11 Table 1-7. Crosswalk of Radioisotope Production Facility Preliminary Hazards Analysis Process Nodes and Top-Level Accident Sequence Categories .............. .......... .... ..... ..... 1-12 Table 1-8. Summary of Items Relied on for Safety Identified by Accident Analyses (3 pages) .... ..... ... ......... .. .............. .... .... .. .... ....... ... ... ......... ...... ... ........................ ........ .... .. . 1-13 Table 1-9. Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scales Used to Determine Tornado Intensity .. .. .. .. ... 1-24 Table 1-10. Projected Earthquake Hazards for Boone County ... ... .................... .. .. .. .. ............. .......... 1-26 Table 1-11. List of System and Associated Systems and Construction Permit Application Crosswalk (2 pages) .. ... ........ .... .... ..... .... .......... ..... ...... ... .... ... .. ................ ... .... .. ...... .. ....... 1-28 Table 1-12. Summary of Confinement Engineered Safety Features (2 pages) ... .. .. ....... .. ........ .. ....... 1-3 3 1-ii

.... ~*.-;~.....

.......*. NWMI

. ~ *.* !

NORfHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOP£S NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility TERMS Acronyms and Abbreviations 99Mo mol ybdenum-99 mu uranium-235 238u uranium-238 ADUN acid deficient uranyl nitrate ALARA as low as reasonably achievable BMS building management system CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSA criticality safety analysis Discovery Ridge Discovery Ridge Research Park DOE U.S. Department of Energy EF scale enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale EOI end of irradiation ESF engineered safety feature F scale Fujita tornado intensity scale FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FPC facility process control Hz hydrogen gas HAZOP hazards and operability HEPA high-efficiency particulate air HMTA hexamethylenetetramine HVAC heating ventilation and air conditioning I&C instrumentation and control IBC International Building Code IROFS items relied on for safety ISA integrated safety analysis ISG interim staff guidance IX ion exchange LEU low-enriched uranium MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity Mo molybdenum MU University of Missouri MURR University of Missouri Research Reactor NEP normal electric power NOx nitrogen oxide NMSZ New Madrid Seismic Zone NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NWMI Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC OSTR Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor osu Oregon State University PHA preliminary hazards analysis PUREX plutonium-uranium extraction QRA quantitative risk assessment R&D research and development RPF radioisotope production facility SEP standby electrical power SNM special nuclear material SSC structures, systems, and components TBP tributyl phosphate 1-iii

....; NWMI "f:**:*** NWMl-201 3-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

~ * *! NOITifWUT MEDICAL ISOTOPES TCE trichloroethylene u uranium U.S . United States UN uranyl nitrate UNH uranyl nitrate hexahydrate

[Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

USGS U.S. Geological Survey Units Ci cune cm centimeter ft feet ft 2 square feet g gram gal gallon ha hectare hr hour

m. inch kg kilogram km kilometer L liter lb pound m meter m2 square meter nu mile sec second wt% weight percent 1-iv

....;. NWMI

....**.. . NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3

. ' ! *.* ~

NOffTHWEST MEOICAl ISOTOPES Chapter 1.0 - The Facility 1.0 THE FACILITY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) is applying to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to obtain a license for a production facility under Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Part 50 (10 CFR 50), "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." The 10 CFR 50 license application for the Radioisotope Production Facility (RPF) is being prepared following the guidance in NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non -Power Reactors - Format and Content. The NRC has determined that a radioisotope separation and processing facility, which also conducts separation of special nuclear material (SNM), will be considered a production facility and as such, will be subject to licensing under 10 CFR 50. A significant portion of the NWMI RPF involves the disassembly of irradiated low-enriched uranium (LEU) targets, separation and purification of fission product molybdenum-99 (99 Mo ), and the recycle of LEU that is licensed under 10 CFR 50.

The proposed action is the issuance of an NRC license under 10 CFR 50 that would authorize NWMI to construct and operate a 99 Mo RPF at a site located in Columbia, Missouri . The RPF will:

Receive irradiated LEU targets (from a network of university research or test reactors)

Process irradiated LEU targets for dissolution, recovery, and purification of 99 Mo

Recover and recycle LEU to minimize radioactive, mixed, and hazardous waste generation

Treat/package wastes generated by RPF process steps to enable transport to a disposal site

Provide areas for associated laboratory and other support activities Additional RPF operational activities are subject to other NRC regulations, including 10 CFR 70, "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material," to receive, possess, use, and transfer SNM, and 10 CFR 30, "Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material," to process and transport 99 Mo for medical applications. RPF operations will also include the fabrication of LEU targets, which will be licensed under 10 CFR 70 (applied for under a separate license application submittal). These targets will be shipped to NWMI's network ofresearch or test reactors for irradiation (considered a connected action) and returned to the RPF for processing. The LEU used for production of the LEU target materials will be obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and from LEU reclaimed from processing the irradiated targets. Any byproduct materials produced or extracted in the RPF will be licensed under 10 CFR 30.

The overall proposed RPF activities under all NRC licenses (i.e. , 10 CFR 30, 10 CFR 50, 10 CFR 70) will include:

Receiving LEU from the DOE

Producing LEU target materials and fabrication of targets

Packaging and shipping LEU targets to the university reactor network for irradiation

Returning irradiated LEU targets for dissolution, recovery, and purification of 99 Mo

Recovering and recycling LEU to minimize radioactive, mixed, and hazardous waste generation

Treating/packaging wastes generated by RPF process steps to enable transport to a disposal site The schedule for proposed RPF construction, operation, and decommissioning is as follows :

Start date of site preparation/construction: Second quarter 2018

End date of construction: Second quarter 2019 Start date of facility startup and cold commissioning (pre-operational): Third quarter 2019 Date of hot commissioning and commercial operations: Fourth quarter 2019/first quarter 2020

Date of decommissioning: 2050 1-1

..**.*~ . NWMI

~ -.* ~ ' NOITMWESTMEDICAL ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility 1.2

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS ON PRINCIPAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS This section identifies safety criteria, principal safety considerations, and conclusions for the RPF structures, systems, and components (SSC).

1.2.1 Radioisotope Production Facility Special Nuclear Material Inventory The RPF SNM inventory is summarized below based on material accountability areas. The RPF target fabrication area is governed by 10 CFR 70 and summarized in Table 1-1 . Some locations may contain SNM in multiple forms. For example, the LEU can rack may include some containers of uranium metal pieces, while others may contain LEU target material [Proprietary Information]. The material physical form will affect the SNM mass that may be present in the storage location. The dissolver process enclosure will include uranium metal that is being dissolved to produce uranyl nitrate (UN) solution.

Composition ranges indicate the variation of solution compositions present in different vessels at a particular location.

Table 1-1. Special Nuclear Material Inventory of Target Fabrication Area SNM massb Locationa Form Concentration ..

[Proprietary Solid U-metal pieces/LEU target [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] material in sealed containers Information] Information] Information] Information]

Dissolver process U-metal/UNH [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary enclosure Information] Information] Information] Information]

Recycled uranium UNH [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary process enclosures Information] Information] Information] Information]

ADUN concentration ADUN [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary and storage process Information] Information] Information] Information]

enclosures Wash column and [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary drying tray enclosures Information] Information] Information] Information]

[Proprietary [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]

a All process enclosures and storage systems are located in the target fabrication process area.

b SNM concentration and mass represent total amount of LEU (combined m u and 238 U at ::; I 9.95 wt% m u).

c [Proprietary Information]

d The indicated masses are not additive to describe the total IO CFR 70 area inventory because material is transferred from one location to another during a processing week.

e [Proprietary Information]

ADUN ac id deficient uranyl nitrate. U uranium.

LEU low-enriched uranium. UNH uranyl nitrate hexahydrate.

NIA not app licable. [P roprietary Information]

SNM special nuclear material.

Bounding and nominal SNM inventories are indicated on Table 1-1 and shown in terms of the equivalent mass of uranium, independent of the physical form. The bounding inventory in each location is based on the full vessel capacity and composition of in-process solution. The nominal inventory is based on the assumption that storage areas are generally operated at half capacity to provide a buffer for potential variations in process throughput during normal operation. Summation of the location inventories does not necessarily provide an accurate description of the total target fabrication area inventory due to the batch processing operation. Material from one process location is used as input to a subsequent location so that material cannot be present in all locations at the indicated inventories under normal operating conditions.

1-2

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Irradiated material areas are governed by 10 CFR 50 and summarized in Table 1-2. Equipment and vessels containing SNM will be located in a variety of hot cells within the RPF. Multiple forms are shown for the target di ssolution hot cell because material entering as [Proprietary Information] is dissolved to produce UN solution.

Table 1-2. Special Nuclear Material Inventory oflrradiated Material Areas SNM massa Location Concentration Volume *~w1.1.u*~*M' Target receipt hot cell [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information) Information] Informat ion]

Target disassembly hot cellse [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information) Information) Information)

Target dissolution hot cellse [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Prop ri etary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information] Information)

Mo recovery and purification hot [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information) Information] lnfonnation) Information] Information]

cells Tank hot cell Mo recovery tanks [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information) Information] Information] Information] Information]

Impure U collection tanks [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] In formation] Information] Information] Information]

IX columns and support tanks [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information) Information] Information]

Uranium concentrator # I [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Informat ion] Information] Information] Informati on] Information]

Uranium concentrator #2 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]

U decay tanks [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] In formation] Information] Information] Information]

U IX waste tanks [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information) Infonnation] Information] Information]

High dose liquid accumulation g [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary In format ion] In formation] In format ion] In format ion] Informati on]

Solid waste vesseJsh [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information J Information) Information] Information]

a SNM concentration and mass represent total amount of LEU (combined 235 U and 238 U at :'S 19.95 wt% 235 U).

b [Proprietary Information]

c The indicated masses are not additive to describe the tota l 10 CFR 50 area inventory, as the material is transferred from one location to another during a processing week.

d [Proprietary Information]

e [Proprietary Information]

r [Proprietary Info rmation]

g [Proprietary Informat ion]

h [Proprietary Information]

IX ion exchange. OSTR Oregon State University TRJGA Reactor.

LEU low-enriched uranium. SNM special nucl ear material.

Mo molybdenum. U uranium.

MURR University of Missouri Research Reactor. UNH uranyl nitrate hexahydrate solution.

NIA not applicable. [Proprietary Information]

Bounding and nominal SNM inventories are indicated on Table 1-2 and shown in terms of the equivalent mass of uranium, independent of the physical form. The bounding inventory in each location is based on operation at the weekly maximum system capacity and approximates the condition where most vessels are filled to capacity with material at a composition of the in-process solution.

1-3

..;.*.NWMI

~ *.*!' . NORTHWEST MEDICAl lSOTOPU NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility The nominal inventory in each location is based on operation at the weekly system throughput when processing the dominant annual target load. Multiple locations indicate a range for solution concentrations and volumes describing the variations over bounding and nominal conditions.

Summation of the location inventories does not necessarily provide an accurate description of the total irradiated material area inventory due to the batch processing operation. Material from one process location is used as input to a subsequent location such that material cannot be present in all locations at the indicated inventories under normal operating conditions.

1.2.2 Consequences from the Operation and Use of the Facility The primary consequences resulting from the operation of the RPF operations are radiological. The RPF will produce LEU target material that will then be irradiated in a network of university reactors. After the LEU target material is irradiated, the material will transported back to the RPF and processed in the RPF to extract and purify the 99Mo. Radioactive waste materials will be processed and/or converted to solid wastes for shipment to off-site disposal facilities. The RPF is designed to be a zero radioactive liquid effluent discharge facility.

The anticipated radionuclide inventory in the RPF is based on a weekly throughput of [Proprietary Information]. The maximum radionuclide inventory is based on the accumulation in the various systems dependent on the process material decay times, as noted in Table 1-3 . Table 1-3 provides the calculated radionuclide inventory (curies [Ci]) for the different process streams in the RPF. The radionuclide inventory values are discussed further in the Radiological Hazards subsections (Chapter 4.0, "Radioisotope Production Facility Description," Section 4.3.x. 5) of each RPF process area.

Table 1-3. Radionuclide Inventory for Radioisotope Production Facility Process Streams I Time System Ci (hr EOI)

Target dissolution [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

Mo feed tanks [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

U system [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

Mo system [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

Mo waste tank [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

Offgas system* [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

High-dose waste tanks< [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

Uranium recycled [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

Offgas system radionuc lide inventory is based on NWMI-2013-CALC-O 11 b to account for accumulation of isotope buildup in the offgas system. [Proprietary Information]

b Material decay time is based on the total equilibrium in-process inventory, as described in NWMI-2013-CALC-01 l ,

Source Term Calculations, Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015.

c [Proprietary Information]

ct [Proprietary Information]

EOI end of irradiation. Mo molybdenum.

IX = ion exchange. u uranium.

1-4

.*.NWMI NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

' ~* * ~

NOtmfW£ST MEDICALISOTOPES Figure 1-1 shows the anticipated radionuclide inventory and provides a color key indicating the amount of curies for the different process areas depending on the EOI.

[Proprietary Information]

Figure 1-1. Radioisotope Processing Facility at 0 to 40 Hours End of Irradiation Figure 1-2 shows the anticipated maximum radionuclide inventory in the RPF at the completion of processing [Proprietary Information] at an operation time greater than 40 hr EOI.

[Proprietary Information]

Figure 1-2. Radioisotope Processing Facility at Greater than 40 Hours End of Irradiation 1-5

..;.. NWMI

....... NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

! * *~ . NOtmlWESl MEDICAL ISOTOPES As a result of working with radioactive materials, the RPF workers will receive occupational exposures, and members of the public will receive some exposure from the release and shipment of the produced materials. Doses to workers and the public during normal operation are within the limits of 10 CFR 20.1201, "Occupational Dose Limits for Adults," and 10 CFR 20.1301, "Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public," respectively. In addition, there are potential exposures to the public from postulated accidents. Potential doses to workers and the public from postulated accident are within the limits of 10 CFR 20.1201 and 10 CFR 20.1301, respectively.

1.2.3 Radioisotope Production Facility Integrated Safety Analysis NWMI evaluated the safety of the facility using an integrated safety analysis (ISA) process. The ISA process comprises a preliminary hazards analysis (PHA) and the follow-on development and completion of quantitative risk assessments (QRA) to address events and hazards identified in the PHA as requiring further evaluation.

The ISA process flow diagram is provided Figure 1-3 . The ISA process (being adapted for this application) consists of conducting a PHA of a system using a combination of written process descriptions, process flow diagrams, process and instrumentation diagrams, and supporting calculations to identify events that could lead to adverse consequences. Those adverse consequences are evaluated qualitatively by the ISA team members to identify the likelihood and severity of consequences using guidance on event frequencies and consequence categories consistent with the regulatory guidelines.

Each event with an adverse consequence that involves licensed material or its byproducts is evaluated for risk using a risk matrix that enables the user to identify unacceptable intermediate- and high-consequence risks. For these unacceptable intermediate- and high-consequence risks events, items relied on for safety (IROFS) are developed to prevent or mitigate the consequences of the events, and an event tree analysis is used to demonstrate that the risk can be reduced to acceptable frequencie s through preventative or mitigative IROFS .

Fault trees and failure mode and effects analysis can be used to (1) provide quantitative failure analysis data (failure frequencies) for use in the event tree analysis of the IROFS, as necessary, or (2) quantitatively analyze an event from its basic initiators to demonstrate that the quantitative failure frequency is already highly unlikely under normal standard industrial conditions, thus not needing the application of IROFS .

Once the IROFS are developed, management measures are identified to ensure that the IROFS failure frequency used in the analysis is preserved and the IROFS are able to perform the intended functions when needed.

Additional detailed information is provided in Chapter 13.0, "Accident Analysis" and NWMI-2015-SAFETY-002, Radioisotope Production Facility Integrated Safety Analysis Summary.

1-6

. NWMI NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

, * ~ *.* ~ : NORTHWEST MEDttAl. ISOTOPf.S Design and Design and Safety Engineering NRCReview Functions Functions Develop process Initiate ISA process descriptions, PFDs, by collecting P&IDs preliminary data Identify preliminary hazards and I Perform PHA on facility operations consequences (radiological, Categorize events criticality, chemical, for likelihood, fire, external) using consequence, regulatory guides and risk where applicable Indeter-Develop CSAs, FHA, I minate, N Document and other support high, or ~ identified low-risk documents interm*~~;ate / events (no IROFS) ris / " "

Yes ~

Perform QRA to quantitatively evaluate risk and identify IROFS High or No intermediate Yes Design function Identify "accident Start Phase 1 development of sequence" and development of

,___ _ ____,,__ develop IROFS and IROFS IROFS boundary specifications/

basis for each in definition packages conceptual complete QRA for each IROFS drawings Complete Phase 1 Develop PSAR, ISA development of

'-------1,.... summary, techn ical IROFS boundary specifications definition packages ISA team review and recommendation for approval Management approval of ISA basis ~----------+---------~ NRC review of document ' license submit to NRC application

~ 002_r01 Figure 1-3. Integrated Safety Analysis Process Flow Diagram 1-7

........*.NWMI

.;.*;. NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

!*.* ~ . NORTHWEST 11£0tCAl tSOTOHS 1.2.3.1 Items Relied on for Safety Boundary Definition Package and Technical Specifications Development One of the outcomes of the ISA process is the development ofISA baseline documents that will be used to develop the preliminary safety analysis report, license application, and technical specifications (and following construction, the final safety analysis report). These ISA baseline documents will include process descriptions, process flow diagrams, process and instrumentation diagrams, supporting calculations (e.g. , release consequences, dose consequences, shielding calculations, etc.), PHAs, criticality safety evaluations, fire hazards analysis, QRAs, and other evaluations of specific topics (e.g.,

natural phenomenon strengths, man-made accident frequencies , support structure evaluations, etc.)

supporting conclusions in the ISA not covered in the above documents. Where IROFS are developed from the ISA process, an IROFS boundary definition package will be developed to incorporate relevant information from all of these documents into one place for each IROFS.

These IROFS boundary definition packages are living documents that will be updated throughout the construction phase and operating life of the facility as changes to the implementation ofIROFS and their management measures evolve. Using the IROFS boundary definition package, an ISA team member will prepare the technical specifications and the IROFS summary. During the NRC licensing review, operational readiness review, and periodic NRC inspections, the NRC staff will review the IROFS boundary definition packages to ensure that the IROFS are maintained, reliable, and available when needed.

1.2.3.1.1 Items Relied on for Safety Boundary Definition Package Development As living documents, the IROFS boundary definition packages will be developed in the following phases.

Phase 1: Initial development phase - During initial development of the IROFS during conceptual and preliminary design, the safety function (including safety limits, limiting safety system settings, human factors engineering and human-system interface requirements, design standards, and initial management measures) will be documented. This level of completion will provide the designers with the information needed to create the final design of the IROFS. This level of completion will also provide support for the technical specifications and NRC review of the initial construction license.

Phase 2: Final design phase -All sections of the IROFS boundary definition package will be completed, including drawings approved for construction or fabrication. Exceptions include reference to the actual versions of the training program and procedures. This level of completion is required before construction, fabrication, and testing of passive engineered controls, active engineered controls, and augmented administrative controls-type IROFS. For augmented administrative controls and simple administrative controls-type IROFS, this level is required to proceed with training and procedure completion and approval. At this level of completion, NWMI should have a basis for any license amendments that need to be approved before implementation. NRC license amendments must be approved before initiation of construction, fabrication, and testing.

Phase 3: Implementation phase -Applicable training and procedures (operating and maintenance/

surveillance) will be referenced and logs ofNRC inspection reports, audit findings, and event notifications made against each IROFS will be maintained. This level of completion will support the initial testing and operations of the facility and the NRC operational readiness review.

1-8

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility 1.2.3.1.2 Technical Specification Development The technical specifications will be developed from the IROFS boundary definition packages. The ISA team will review the completed document, and the ISA Manager and RPF Operations Manager will approve the changes to the technical specifications. The NRC must review and approve any changes to the technical specifications.

A PHA was performed to support the RPF Construction Permit Application and is documented in NWMI-2015-SAFETY-OO 1, NWMI Radioisotope Production Facility Preliminary Hazards Analysis.

The following sections summarize the PHA results. Additional detailed information is provided in Chapter 13.0.

1.2.3.2 Hazard and Accident Analysis 1.2.3.2.1 Description of Processes Analyzed Process descriptions used by the PHA are provided Table 1-4. Preliminary Hazard Analysis Nodes in Section 1.3.2.2. The PHA evaluated the system M~@IW System/Process hazards using the eight nodes in Table 1-4 to 1.0.0 Target fabrication process describe the RPF primary processes and systems.

The target fabrication process is represented by 2.0.0 Target dissolution process Node 1.0.0. The target disassembly and target 3.0.0 Mo recovery and purification process dissolution processes are represented by 4.0.0 U recovery and recycle process Nodes 6.0.0 and 2.0.0, respectively. The molybdenum (Mo) recovery and purification 5.0.0 Waste handling system process process is represented by Node 3.0.0, and the 6.0.0 Target disassembly uranium (U) recovery and recycle process is 7.0.0 Ventilation system represented by Node 4.0.0. The waste handling 8.0.0 Natural phenomena, man-made external system process is represented by Node 5.0.0.

events, and other facility operations Ventilation systems are represented by Node 7.0.0.

Node 8.0.0 represents other facility hazards, Mo = molybdenum.

including natural phenomena, man-made external u = uranium.

events, and other facility operations not specifically covered by the process systems.

1.2.3.2.2 Identification of Hazards Initial hazards identified by preliminary reviews included:

High radiation dose to workers and the public from irradiated target material during processing

High radiation dose due to accidental nuclear criticality

Toxic uptake of licensed material by workers or the public during processing or accidents

Fires and explosions associated with chemical reactions and use of combustible materials and flammable gases

Chemical exposures associated with chemicals used in processing the irradiated target material

External events (both natural and man-made) that impact the facility operations The primary nodes shown in Table 1-4 were further subdivided to describe subsystems or subprocess elements and basic design functions for hazards identification. A methodology was selected from the alternate techniques described in Chapter 13 .0 and NWMI-2015-SAFETY-002 for analysis of the hazards at each lower-tier node based on the status of the current design maturity.

1-9

.........;.*.NWMI

! *.* ~ " NOR11fW(ST llEDtCAL lSOlWfl NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility In general, the design status available for the RPF Construction Permit Application basis resulted in selection of what-if, structured what-if, or hazards and operability (HAZOP) analysis methodologies for the identification of hazards and determination of whether a hazard would pose an unacceptable risk.

Hazards that posed an unacceptable risk were used as input to define accident sequences for further evaluation.

1.2.3.3 Description of Accident Sequences Each of the following accident initiating events was included in the PHA.

Criticality accident

Loss of electrical power

External events (meteorological, seismic, fire, flood)

Critical equipment malfunction

Operator error

Facility fire (explosion is included in this category)

Any other event potentially related to unique facility operations The PHA identifies and categorizes accident sequences that require further evaluation. Table 1-5. Radioisotope Production Facility Table 1-5 defines the top-level accident sequence Preliminary Hazard Analysis Accident notation used in the RPF PHA. Sequence Category Designator Definitions PHA top-level accident Table 1-6 provides a crosswalk between the PHA sequence category* Definition top-level accident sequence categories and the NUREG-1537, Part 1 Interim Staff Guidance S.C. Criticality (ISG) accident initiating events (NRC, 2012). As S.F. Fire or explosion noted at the bottom of Table 1-6, PHA accident S.R. Radiological sequences involve one or more of the S.M. Man-made NUREG-1537 Part 1 ISG accident initiating event categories, as noted by ./ in the corresponding S.N. Natural phenomena table cell, but the PHA accident sequences S.CS. Chemical safety themselves are not necessarily initiated by the ISG

The alpha category designator is followed in the PHA by accident initiating event. Table 1-6 shows how a two-digit number " XX" that refers to the specific accident PHA accident sequences correspond with ISG sequence (e.g., S.C.O1, S.F.07).

accident initiating events, and demonstrates that PHA = preliminary hazard analys is.

the PHA considers the full range of accident events identified in the ISG .

1-10

........;.:* NWMI NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

' ~* *~

NORTHWEST MEOtcAl ISOTOH.S Table 1-6. Crosswalk of NUREG-1537 Part 1 Interim Staff Guidance Accident Initiating Events versus Radioisotope Production Facility Preliminary Hazards Analysis Top-Level Accident Sequence Categories (2 pages)

PHA top-level accident sequence categoryb NUREG-15373 Part 1 ISG accident initiating event ' S.R.

category (radiological)

Criticality accident ./

Loss of electrical power ./

External events (meteorological, ./

seismic, fire, flood)

Critical equipment malfunction Operator error Facility fire (explosion is included in this category)

Any other event potentially related to unique facility operations

NUREG-153 7, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors - Format and Content, Part I, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., February 1996.

b PHA accident sequences involve one or more of the NUREG-153 7 Part I ISG accident initiating event categories, as noted by an v' in the corresponding table cell, but the PHA sequences themselves are not necessarily initiated by the ISG accident initiating event.

ISG = Interim Staff Guidance. PHA = preliminary hazard analysis.

Table 1-7 provides a crosswalk that identifies the applicability of RPF PHA top-level accident sequence categories to the primary process nodes. The information in this table is referenceable to Table 1-6 and ultimately shows the relationship between the PHA process nodes and the NUREG-1537 Part 1 ISG accident initiating event categories via the PHA top-level accident scenario categories.

All process system nodes were analyzed, as described in Section 1.2.3 .2.2, with special emphasis on criticality, radiological, and chemical safety hazards. Fire safety issues are addressed in every node and addressed generally in Node 8.0.0. Fire safety issues include the explosive hazard associated with hydrogen gas generation via radiolytic decomposition of water in process solutions and due to certain chemical reactions encountered during dissolution processes. Most hot cell processing areas contain very few combustible materials, both transient and fixed .

The RPF PHA identified adverse events described in NWMI-2015-SAFETY-002, Sections 4.3.1.1 through 4.3 .1.7. Adverse events are identified as:

Standard industrial events that do not involve licensed material

Acceptable accident sequences that satisfy performance criteria by being low consequence and/or low frequency

Unacceptable accident sequences that require further evaluation via the QRA process 1-11

..;.*..*.* NWMI

..... NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

~ -.. ~ ' NOmfWUT llfOICAl lSOTO,U Table 1-7. Crosswalk of Radioisotope Production Facility Preliminary Hazards Analysis Process Nodes and Top-Level Accident Sequence Categories PHA top*level accident sequence category S.N. s.cs.

s.c. S.F. S.R. S.M. (natural (chemical Primary process node (criticality) (fire) (radiological) (man.made) phenomena) safety)

Target fabrication (Node 1.0.0) ./

Target dissolution (Node 2.0.0) ./

Mo recovery and purification ./

(Node 3.0.0)

U recovery and recycle ./

(Node 4.0.0)

Waste handling system ./

(Node 5.0.0)

Target receipt and disassembly ./

(Node 6.0.0)

Ventilation system (Node 7.0.0) ./

Natural phenomena, man-made ./

external events, and other facility operations (Node 8.0.0)

Note: The ./ in a table cell indicates that the accident seq uence category applies to the process node. If it does not, the cell is blank.

Mo = molybdenum. u = uranium.

PHA = preliminary hazards analysis.

An accident sequence number is assigned to each accident initiator that results in the same, or similar, bounding accident sequence results and consequences. The same accident sequence designator can appear in multiple nodes. (Table 1-5 provides definitions of accident sequence category designators.)

1.2.3.4 Characterization of High and Intermediate Consequence Accident Sequences A total of 75 accident sequences identified for further evaluation by the PHA were analyzed for the Construction Permit Application. The accidents are analyzed in nine separate QRAs, including:

NWMI-2015-SAFETY-003, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Chemical Safety Process Upsets

NWMI-20 l 5-SAFETY-004, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Process Upsets Associated with Passive Engineering Controls Leading to Accident Criticality Accident Sequences

NWMI-20 l 5-SAFETY-005, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Criticality Accident Sequences that Involve Uranium Entering a System Not Intended for Uranium Service

NWMI-2015-SAFETY-006, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Criticality Accident Sequences that Involve High Uranium Content in Side Waste Streams

NWMI-20 l 5-SAFETY-007, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Facility Fires and Explosions Leading to Uncontrolled Release of Fissile Material, High and Low Dose Radionuclides

NWMI-20 l 5-SAFETY-008, Quantitative Risk Analysis ofRadiological Accident Sequences in the Confinement Boundaries (Including Ventilation Systems) for the NWMI Radioisotope Production Facility 1-12

..*..**-...;;**.*.***NWMI

' ~ * .* ~

. NOWTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPE.I NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

NWMI-2015-SAFETY-009, Quantitative Risk Analysis ofAdministratively Controlled Enrichment, Mass, Container Volume, and Interaction Limit Process Upsets Leading to Accidental Criticality Accident Sequences

NWMI-2015-SAFETY-O 10, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Receipt and Shipping Events

NWMI-2015-SAFETY-O 11 , Quantitative Risk Analysis of Natural Phenomenon and Man-Made Events on Safety Features and Items Relied on for Safety A summary of the accidents analyzed is provided in in Chapter 13 .0 and includes each accident sequence number, a descriptive title of the accident, and IROFS identified (if needed) to prevent or mitigate the consequences of the accident sequence. The preliminary IROFS selected to meet the performance criteria of 10 CFR 70.61 , "Performance Requirements," are provided in Chapter 13.0 and NWMI-2015-SAFETY-002.

IROFS are identified using the following designator naming convention:

RS-XX Radiation safety IROFS

CS-XX Criticality safety IROFS

FS-XX Facility safety IROFS (protecting from external events)

FP-XX Fire protection IROFS

CE-XX Chemical exposure IROFS 1.2.3.5 Radioisotope Production Facility Items Relied on For Safety Table 1-8 provides a summary of the IROFS identified by the accident analyses in Chapter 13 .0, and a crosswalk to where the IROFS are described in this Construction Permit Application. Chapter 13.0 also provides the associated detailed descriptions. Table 1-8 also identifies whether the IROFS are considered engineered safety feature (ESF) or administrative controls. Additional IROFS may be identified (or the current IROFS modified) during the RPF final design and development of the Operating License Application.

Table 1-8. Summar y of Items Relied on for Safety Identified by Accident Analyses (3 pages)

IROFS Construction Permit Application designator Descriptor ESF AC crosswalk (primary references)

RS-01 Hot cell liquid confinement boundary ./ Chapter 6.0, Sections 6.2 .1.1 - 6.2.1 .6 Chapter 13 .0, Section 13.2.2.8 RS-02 Reserved*

RS-03 Hot cell secondary confinement boundary ./ Chapter 6.0, Sections 6.2.1.1 - 6.2.1.6 Chapter 13 .0, Sections 13 .2.2.8, 13 .2.3.8 RS-04 Hot cell shielding boundary ./ Chapter 6.0, Sections 6.2.1.1 - 6.2.1 .6 Chapter 13.0, Sections 13.2.2.8, 13.2.4.8 RS-05 Reserved*

RS-06 Reserved*

RS-07 Reserved*

RS-08 Sample and analysis of low-dose waste tank Chapter 13 .0, Section 13.2.7.1 dose rate prior to transfer outside the hot cell shielded boundary 1-13

....;*..*... NWMI

~.

~ *.* ~

NORTKWESTMEDICAl.ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Table 1-8. Summary of Items Relied on for Safety Identified by Accident Analyses (3 pages)

IROFS Construction Permit Application designator Descriptor ESF AC crosswalk (primary references)

RS-09 Primary offgas relief system ./ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.1.7 Chapter 13 .0, Section 13 .2.3.8 RS-10 Active radiation monitoring and isolation of ./ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2. I. 7 low-dose waste transfer Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.1 RS-I I Reserved*

RS-I2 Cask containment sampling prior to closure ./ Chapter I3.0, Section 13.2.7.I lid removal RS-13 Cask local ventilation during closure lid ./ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.1.7 removal and docking preparations Chapter I3.0, Section 13 .2.7.1 RS-14 Reserved*

RS-15 Cask docking port enabling sensor Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.1. 7 Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.1 CS-01 Reserved*

CS-02 Mass and batch handling limits for uranium Chapter 13.0, Section 13 .2.7.2 metal , uranium oxides, targets, and laboratory sample outside process systems CS-03 Interaction control spacing provided by ./ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 administrative control CS-04 Interaction control spacing provided by ./ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3 .1.2 passively designed fixtures and workstation Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 placement CS-05 Container batch volume limit ./ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 CS-06 Pencil tank, vessel , or piping safe geometry ./ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3 .1.2 confinement using the diameter of tanks, Chapter 13.0, Section 13 .2.4.8 vessels, or piping CS-07 Pencil tank and vessel spacing control using ./ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3 .1.2 fixed interaction spacing of individual tanks Chapter I 3.0, Section 13.2.2.8 or vessels CS-08 Floor and sump geometry control of slab ./ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1 .2 depth, sump diameter or depth for floor spill Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.2.8 containment berms CS-09 Double-wall piping ./ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.l.7 Chapter 13 .0, Section 13.2.2.8 CS-IO Closed safe geometry heating or cooling loop ./ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1.2 with monitoring and alarm Chapter 13.0, Section 13 .2.4.8 CS-I I Simple overflow to normally empty safe ./ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1.2 geometry tank with level alarm Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 CS-12 Condensing pot or seal pot in ventilation vent ./ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3. l.2 line Chapter 13.0, Section 13 .2.7.2 CS-13 Simple overflow to normally empty safe ./ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1.2 geometry floor with level alarm in the hot Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 cell containment boundary 1-14

.;......;.. NWMI NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

' ~ *.* ~ . NOflTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Table 1-8. Summary ofltems Relied on for Safety Identified by Accident Analyses (3 pages)

IROFS Construction Permit Application designator Descriptor ESF AC crosswalk (primary references)

CS-14 Active discharge monitoring and isolation ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3 .1.2 Chapter 13.0, Section 13 .2.7.2 CS-15 Independent active discharge monitoring and ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1.2 isolation Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 CS-16 Sampling and analysis of uranium mass or ,/ Chapter 13.0, Section 13 .2.7.2 concentration prior to discharge or disposal CS-17 Independent sampling/analysis of uranium ,/ Chapter 13 .0, Section 13.2.7.2 concentration prior to discharge or disposal CS-18 Backflow prevention device ,/ Chapter 6.0, Sections 6.2.1.7 and 6.3 .1.2 Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.4.8 CS-19 Safe-geometry day tanks ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3 .1.2 Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.4.8 CS-20 Evaporator or concentrator condensate ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1 .2 monitoring Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.4.8 CS-21 Visual inspection of accessible surfaces for ,/ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 foreign debris CS-22 Gram estimator survey of accessible surfaces ,/ Chapter 13.0, Section 13 .2.7.2 for gamma activity CS-23 Nondestructive assay of items with ,/ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 inaccessible surfaces CS-24 Independent nondestructive assay of items ,/ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 with inaccessible surfaces CS-25 Target housing weighing prior to disposal ,/ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 CS-26 Processing component safe volume ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1.2 confinement Chapter 13.0, Section 13 .2.7.2 CS-27 Closed heating or cooling loop with ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1.2 monitoring and alarm Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.4.8 FS-01 Enhanced lift procedure ,/ Chapter 13 .0, Section 13 .2.2.8, 13.2.7.1 FS-02 Overhead cranes ,/ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.3 FS-03 Process vessel emergency purge system ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.1.7 Chapter 13.0, Section 13 .2.7.3 FS-04 Irradiated target cask lifting fixture ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.1 .7 Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.6.5 FS-05 Exhaust stack height ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.1.7 Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.3 a Reserved - IROFS designator currently unassigned.

AC administrative control. IROFS items relied on for safety.

ESF = engineered safety feature .

1-15

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility 1.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY 1.3.1 Location and Characteristics of the Site Site location -The proposed 3.0 hectare (ha) (7.4-acre) site of the RPF is situated in Boone County, within the University of Missouri (MU) Discovery Ridge Research Park (Discovery Ridge) in Columbia, Missouri, north of Discovery Ridge Drive. The site is situated in central Missouri approximately 201 kilometers (km) ( 125 miles [mi]) east of Kansas City and 20 1 km ( I 25 mi) west of St. Louis.

The site is 7.2 km (4.5 mi) south of United States (U.S.) Interstate Highway 70 just to the north of U.S. Highway 63 . The Missouri River lies 15 .3 km (9.5 mi) to the west of the site. Figure 1-7 (on page 1-19) provides the 8 km (5-mi) radius from the center of the facility and shows highways, rivers, and other local bodies of water.

Figure 1-4 shows the layout of the NWMI site, including the RPF.

DISCOVERY RIOOE LOT IS PROPERTY LINE FIRE WATER PUMP SKID 7.4ACR£S WASTE MANAGEMENT BUILDING Pl.. CURVE WASTE MANAGEMENT CANOPY U-584.43' AREA FOR MECHANICAL CHlLLER R* IOSB.42' SIDE SBTBACK

IS FEET SPACI! RESERVED FORFIRE WATER.

STORAGE TANK AND RECEIVER TANK GENERATOR HOUSH FUEL TANK BERM SIDE SET BACK

IS FEET PARKING LOT 32 TOTAL PARKING SPACES STEP VAN FR.ONT Sl!TBACK-:3S FEET STEP VAN GUARDHOUSE ADMIN BUILDING FOOTPRINT N P.LCURVE U- 117.15' GUARD HOUSE AND VElllCLB R-74.30' TRAP AREA FRONT SETBACK GATE (TYPICAL) SITE PLAN

JS FEBT PARKING LOT :U TOTAL 0 100' 200' BERM PARKING SPACES P.L.CURVE U-359.84' R* IS42.83 '

Figur e 1-4. Radioisotope Production Facility Site Layout 1-16

ii*;~":" NWMI

...... NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

' ~* * ~ NOmfWlSTMfotCALCSOTOPH Figure 1-5 provides a building model view of the RPF. The building will be divided into material accountability areas that are regulated by 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR 70, as shown in Figure 1-6. The target fabrication area will be governed by 10 CFR 70, and the remainder of the production areas (irradiated target receipt bay, hot cells, waste management, laboratory, and utilities) will be governed by 10 CFR 50.

The administration and support area will provide the main personnel access to the RPF and include personnel support areas such as access control, change rooms, and office spaces.

The first level (excluding the tank pit area) and second levels of the RPF are currently estimated to contain approximately 4,282 square meters (m 2) (46,088 square feet [ft 2]) and 1,569 m 2 (16,884 ft 2) of floor space, respectively. The processing hot cell and waste management temporary storage floor space area is approximately 544 m 2 (5,857 ft 2). The maximum height of the building is 19.8 meter (m) (65 ft),

with a maximum stack height of22.9 m (75 ft). The depth of the processing hot cell below-grade, without footers, is 4.6 m (15 ft) of enclosure height in rooms containing process equipment. The site is enclosed by perimeter fencing to satisfy safeguards and security and other regulatory requirements.

Figure 1-6 is first level general layout of the RPF and presents the seven major areas, including the target fabrication area, irradiated target receipt area, tank hot cell area, laboratory area, waste management area, utility area, and administrative support area Figure 1-5. Building Model of the Radioisotope Production Facility 1-17

~ . NWMI

! * *! . NORTNWUT 11£DtCAL ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Administration and support area area Irradiated target receipt area 10 CFR 70 10 CFR 50 Figure 1-6. General Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility Additional detailed facility information is provided in Chapter 4.0.

Population distribution - Estimates and projections of resident and transient populations around the proposed project site are divided into five distance bands-concentric circles at 0-1 km (0-0.6 mi), 1-2 km (0.6-1.2 mi), 2-4 km (1.2-2 .5 mi), 4-6 km (2.5-3 .7 mi), and 6-8 km (3 .7-5 .0 mi) from the center point of the RPF-and 16 directional sectors (with each direction sector centered on one of the 16 compass points). For each segment formed by the distance bands and directional sectors, the resident population was estimated using U.S. Census Bureau 2010 census data (USCB, 2010). The extrapolated population data for 2014 is also shown on Figure 1-7.

The permanent residences nearest to the proposed RPF site were identified through an examination of aerial photographs and geographic information system data files using ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI, 2011 ). There are two permanent residences located approximately 0.48 km (0.3 mi) from the center point, one to the south and the other to the northeast. These two houses are the closest residences to the center point of the safety-related area.

1-18

.-.;.: * NWMI NWMl-2013-021, Rev . 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

' ! * *~ . NOKTtfWHT MfDtCAl. ISOTOf"fS NNE I

.w. _ _

E 91 ES SE s

Location Map Proposed Location Q 1 km from Site Q 2 km from Site Colet 4 km from Site J erson Cot y Rcs1dcn1 PopuWioo Oisrnl>Uuoa - 2015

,..,._.,. ** _,...,.,.,,,.w_,,.,,_,,,,..., . ~.,,..,

Saint Lo 0

+ 0.5 2

- o**o****c:c:c::::i****M 3 4 11es Q

Q 6 km from Site 8 km from Site Directional Sectors Incorporated Area Figure 1-7. 8 km (5-mi) Radius from the Center of the Facility and Resident Population Distribution - 2015 1-19

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities - An investigation of industrial, transportation and military facilities within 8 km (5 mi) of the proposed site was performed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ' s Envirofacts Database was initially used to identify potential facilities within 8 km (5 mi). The Missouri Emergency Management Agency supplied Tier II chemical inventory reports for all of the facilities in Boone County. The following facilities were identified for further evaluation.

Industrial Facilities Transportation Routes/Facilities

Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories, Inc.

Air

Radii Discovery Ridge University of Missouri Heliport

Gates Power Transmissions Materials Center Boone Hospital Center Heliport

MU South Farm

MU Woman's and Children's Hospital

Land

Ryder Transportation U.S . Highway 63

Truegreen U.S. Interstate 70

Schwan's Home Service State Route 163

Petro Mart #44 State Route 740 State Route 763 Pipelines

Southern Star Central Gas - Natural Gas

Waterways - None Transmission Pipeline

Railroads - COLT Transload

Magellan Pipeline Company - Non-HL V product Military Bases Hazardous Pipeline

Magellan Pipeline Company - Liquid Hazardous

None Pipeline Mining and Quarrying Operations

Ameren Natural Gas - Transmission Pipeline # 1

None

Ameren Natural Gas - Transmission Pipeline #2 Fuel Storage Facilities

Magellan Pipeline Company - Breakout Tank Air Traffic - There are three airports and three helicopter ports located within 16 km (10 mi) of the proposed RPF site. The three airports include :

Columbia Regional Airport (COU) (public) located approximately 10.4 km (6.5 mi) south of the RPF site

Cedar Creek Airport (private) located approximately 10.6 km (6.6 mi) northeast of the RPF site

Sugar Branch Airport (private) located approximately 15.6 km (9.7 mi) northwest of the RPF site The nearest airport to the RPF is COU, which is used by commercial and privately owned aircraft. The airport is situated on approximately 532 ha (1 ,314 acres) and is owned and operated by the City of Columbia. This airport is the only public use airport located in Boone County, Missouri, for which records are kept. For January through December 2016, the airport had 21 ,894 (22,439, including overflights) aircraft operations (Parks, 2017), including:

67.6 percent general aviation

17.7 percent air taxi

9.3 percent military

4.8 percent air carrier Cedar Creek airport is a private, turf landing strip approximately 10.6 km (6.6 mi) northeast of the RPF site. The facility houses two private single engine aircraft. The specific number of flights to and from the facility is not available.

1-20

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility The Sugar Branch airport is a private, turf landing strip approximately 15 .6 km (9.7 mi) northwest of the RPF site. The facility houses one single engine aircraft. The specific number of flights to and from the facility are not available.

Based on the results shown above and NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, COU needs to be further evaluated. The guidance also requires that special consideration be given to facilities sited within the trajectory of a runway of any airport. The RPF site is not located within a trajectory of a runway of the airport.

The impact frequency for each aircraft category for COU is as follows :

General aviation 1.78E-07

Commercial air carrier 1.61 E-11

Air taxis 3.27E-11

Military large l .66E-08 Two helicopter ports are located within 16 km (10 mi) of the RPF site that support hospital operations.

For calendar year 2016 (January through December), the heliports have a total of 654 flights annually, as follows:

University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics located 6 km (3.7 mi) northwest - 308 flights (Jones, 2017)

Boone Hospital Center heliport located 6.3 km (3 .9 mi) northwest - 346 flights (Eidson, 2017)

Because the heliports are closer than 8 km (5 mi) to the RPF site, the frequency of an aircraft crashing into the site needs was evaluated. NUREG-0800, Section 3.5.1.6, "Aircraft Hazards," provides a methodology for determining the probability of an aircraft crash into a facility from airways. However, the approach requires knowledge of the number of flights per year along the airway. Because this information is not available for the flight paths near the RPF , DOE-STD-3014-2006, Accident Analysis for Aircraft Crash into Hazardous Facilities , was used to determine the frequency of crashes.

The effective area for an aircraft was determined by two components: the aircraft crashing into the facility either by skidding or by flying directly into it. The effective area was calculated based on an aircraft skidding or flying into the facility in the direction that produces the largest area (i .e., crashing in a direction perpendicular to the largest diagonal of the building). The calculated crash impact frequency from the heliport is less than the requirement ofNUREG-0800 of being within an order of magnitude of 10-7 per year. Therefore, no further analysis is required.

There are no military airports or training routes located within 16 km ( 10 mi) of the RPF site.

Meteorology - The RPF location places it in the Humid Continental-Warm Summer climatic zone. This type of climate has a characteristic long, warm summer with moderate relative humidity. The winters are cool to cold and mark a period of lower precipitation than during the remainder of the year. Because of its geographical location far inland, the region is subject to significant seasonal and daily temperature variations. Air masses moving over the state during the year include cold continental polar air from Canada, warm and humid maritime tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, and dry eastward flowing air masses from the Rocky Mountains located to the west. Prolonged periods of extreme hot or cold temperatures are unusual (MU, 2006).

Spring, summer, and early fall precipitation occurs in the form of rain and thunderstorms. Severe thunderstorms typically occur during the period from mid- to late-spring through early summer. Hail may be expected as a product of these storms. Wind speeds of up to 97 km/hr (60 mi/hr) or more may be experienced once or twice a year during a severe thunderstorm (MU, 2006).

1-21

.*-.* ..*:.*..NWMI

~**:

~ *.*! . NOllT1fWUT MlDlCAUSOTOHS NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility NUREG-1537, Part 1, Section 2.3.1, states that the snow load should be based on the JOO-year return period snow accumulation. For MU facilities, the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) (IBC, 2012) has been levied as the required building code. The ground snow load is 20 pounds (lb)/ft 2. To modify the snow load to be based on a JOO-year return period, an importance factor of 1.2 is applied to the load determined using the nominal snow load (ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Section C7.3.3). The nominal ice thickness is 2.54 centimeters (cm) (1 inch [in.]) concurrent with a 64.4 km/hr (40-mi/hr), 3-second (sec) wind gust. To modify the ice load based on a 100-year return period, an importance factor of 1.25 is applied to the load determined using the nominal ice load (ASCE 7, Section CI0.4.4).

Wind - Extreme wind speeds are uncommon in central Missouri. Wind that does occur is usually caused by pressure gradients and temperature contrasts present in the mid-latitude cyclones that pass through the state. These cyclones may spawn storms that produce hi gh winds from gust fronts, microbursts, and tornadoes. Non-storm-related extreme winds are rare. Occasionally, cold high-pressure air filling in behind a front will cause high wind, especially in the winter when temperature contrasts are large.

Figure 1-8 shows the wind patterns recorded at the Remote Automatic Weather Station in Columbia.

Wind roses show that the prevailing surface wind direction is from the south, with a total average speed of 14.16 km/hr (8.8 mi/hr). The average frequency of higher speed winds falls into the 24 to 40 km/hr (15 to 25-mi/hr) range.

NUREG-153 7, Part 1, Section 2.3 .1, states that the wind load should be based on the 100-year return period wind speed. For MU facilities , IBC (2012) has been levied as the required building code. The basic wind speed for Category III and IV facilities is 193 .1 km/hr (120 mi/hr). An evaluation of the effective return period for the basic wind speeds for Category III and IV facilities determined that the effective return period is 1,700 years (3 percent in 50 years, or 5.7 percent in 100 years) (ASCE 7, Section C26.5. l). Note that an event with a 100-year return period has a 63 percent chance of occurring at least once in a 100-year period.

1-22

......;.:..*.* NWMI NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

' ~ * ,* ~

NORTHWEST MEDlCAL tSOTOPES co A 110 H l2.. 01 u 1.3 - 4 06"' ,. 4 - e 8 13 13 - 19 19 2 25 - 3 32 - 39 39 - 47 47 +

Hllq. l, 200 c-ub-l.n rial * *inckr..""l

c. Jl, ;!() S r nd 19!.0 0 19!0 J 010ec .

44to5 of .p5_0 u 00 23

- :s ~ tn R_ on C f! C M Figure 1-8. Wind Rose from Automatic Weather Station, Columbia, Missouri, 2007-2012 (Western Regional Climate Center) 1-23

..~ ...*.*.NWMI

..... NWMl-2013-021, Rev . 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

~ *.* ~

NDRTKWISTM£DICAUSOTOP£S Tornado - The heartland of the country has the distinction of also being known as "tornado alley," a non-meteorological term that references the area where 90 percent of tornadoes have occurred as a result of the mixing of cold, dry air from Canada and the Rocky Mountains, with warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico and hot, dry air from the Sonoran Desert. This area typically exhibits atmospheric instability, heavy precipitation, and many intense thunderstorms.

Tomados are extreme wind speed events that are classified according to the Enhanced Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale (EF scale) . The scale matches wind speeds to the severity of damaged caused by a tornado. The process involves determining the degree of damage according to a predefined damage scale of 28 indicators. The observed damage is associated with estimated wind speeds during the storm, and an EF scale number is assigned. Measuring tornadoes from EF-1 to EF-5, the scale uses more specific structural damage guidelines than the original Fujita scale (F scale), which was established in 1971 .

Table 1-9 shows the F and EF scales.

Table 1-9. Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scales Used to Determine Tornado Intensity EF scale 3-sec gust 3-sec gust (mi/hr) 0 64 -116 40-72 72-1 26 45-78 0 105-137 65-85 1 117 - 180 73- 112 127-188 79-117 1 138-177 86-110 2 182- 253 113- 157 189-259 118- 161 2 178-217 111- 135 3 254- 333 158-207 260-336 162-209 3 218-265 136-165 4 334- 418 208- 260 337-420 210- 261 4 266-322 166-200 5 419- 512 261-318 421-510 262-317 5 Over 322 Over 200 EF scale enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale.

F scale Fujita tornado intensity scale.

Flooding - The site is located outside of the 500-year flood plain. The nearest Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone A is along Gans Creek, located to the southeast of the site. The elevation of this zone is 242 m (795 ft). The RPF site elevation is 248 m (815 ft). There are no water impoundments or dams upstream of the RPF site on Gans Creek that could affect the facility.

There are also two ponds located near the RPF site within Discovery Ridge. These ponds include the 7.9 ha (19.6-acre) common grounds stormwater management pond located to the northwest of the site.

The top of the dam for this pond is 246 m (807 ft) , with the spillway at 245 m (804 ft). The second pond, currently approximately 4 ha ( 10 acres), is located to the northeast of the site. The elevation of the dam is approximately 244 m (801 ft). Failure of either of these two ponds would not likely affect the RPF because the elevation of the dams is lower than the elevation of the RPF.

Seismic - The most significant seismological feature in Missouri is the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), located in the southeastern comer of the state and extending into parts of the contiguous states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Illinois. The NMSZ is the most seismically active region in the U.S . east of the Rocky Mountains and is located approximately 483 km (300 mi) southeast of the proposed RPF site. During the winter of 1811- 1812, the NMSZ was the location of some of the highest intensity seismic events ever noted in U.S. history. Hundreds of aftershocks, some severely damaging, continued for years.

1-24

.*:i*;~°:"

....NWM I

~* * ~ NOmfWEST MCDfCAl. ISOTOH.S NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Records show that since 1900, moderately damaging earthquakes have struck the NMSZ every few decades. Prehistoric earthquakes similar in size to those of 1811 - 1812 occurred in the middle 1400s and around 900 A.D. Strong, damaging earthquakes struck the southwestern end of the NMSZ near Marked Tree, Arkansas, in 1843 (magnitude 6.0), and the northeastern end near Charleston, Missouri, in 1895 (magnitude 6.6) (USGS, 201 la) .

The NMSZ is made up of reactivated faults that formed when what is now North America began to split or rift apart approximately 500 million years ago. The resulting rift system died out before an ocean basin was formed, but a deep zone of weakness was created, referred to as the Reel foot rift (USGS, 2011 b).

This fault system extends 241 km (150 mi) southward from Cairo, Illinois, through New Madrid and Caruthersville, Missouri , down through Blytheville, Arkansas, to Marked Tree, Arkansas. The Reelfoot rift dips into Kentucky near Fulton and into Tennessee near Reelfoot Lake, extending southeast into Dyersburg, Tennessee. The rift then crosses five state lines and crosses the Mississippi River in at least three places. The fault system is buried beneath as much as 8 km (5 mi) of sediment for much of the fault length and typically cannot be seen at the surface (USGS, 2011 b ).

Four of the largest faults are recognized as alignments of abundant small earthquakes, and movements along two of these faults dammed rivers and created lakes during the earthquakes of 1811 - 1812. A few more deeply buried faults were detected during oil and gas exploration, and a few small faults are known from geologic mapping (USGS, 2011 b ).

The remainder of the state, including the proposed RPF site located in central Missouri , is typical of the stable midcontinent U.S .

Earthquakes occur on faults within bedrock, usually several miles deep. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), earthquakes in the central and eastern U.S. typically are felt over a much broader region than in the western U.S. East of the Rocky Mountains, an earthquake can be felt over an area ten times larger than a similar magnitude earthquake on the west coast.

According to information from Missouri's State Emergency Management Agency Earthquake Program, some of the earthquakes measure at least 7.6 in magnitude and five of them measured 8.0 or greater. The 1811 -18 12 series changed the course of the Missouri River, and some shocks were felt as far away as Washington D.C. and Boston (MMRPC, 2010). The NMSZ has experienced numerous earthquakes since the 1811 - 1812 series, and at least 35 aftershocks of intensity V or greater that have been recorded in the state of Missouri since 1811. Numerous earthquakes originating outside of the state's boundaries have also affected Missouri.

In 2002, the USGS released the following projected hazards for Boone County, if an earthquake occurred along the NMSZ in the following 50 years (MMRPC, 2010):

25 to 40 percent chance of a magnitude 6.0 and greater earthquake

7 to 10 percent chance ofa magnitude 7.5 to 8.0 earthquake According to the USGS, Boone County is one of the 47 counties in Missouri that would be severely impacted by a 7.6 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter on or near the NMSZ.

According to the Boone County Hazard Mitigation Plan for 2010 (MMRPC, 2010), the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency has made projections of the highest earthquake intensities that would be experienced throughout the state of Missouri if various magnitude earthquakes occur along the NMSZ as measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The pertinent information for Boone County is summarized in Table 1-10.

1-25

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Table 1-10. Projected Earthquake Hazards for Boone County Probability of Intensity in occurrence Boone County (2002- 2052) (MMI) Expected damage 6.7 25-40% VI, strong Felt by all ; many frightened and run outdoors, walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken; books fall off shelves; some heavy furniture moved or overturned; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.

7.6 7- 10% VII, very strong Difficult to stand; significant damage to poorly or badly designed buildings, adobe houses, old walls, spires, and other; damage would be slight to moderate in well-built buildings; numerous broken windows; weak chimneys break at roof lines; cornices from towers and high buildings fall; loose bricks fall from buildings; heavy furniture is overturned and damaged; and some sand and gravel stream banks cave in.

Source: MMRPC, 20 I 0, Boone County Hazard Mitigation Plan , www.mmrpc.org/the-region/boone-county, Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, State of Missouri Emergency Management Agency, Ashland, Missouri, July 15, 2010.

MM! = Modified Mercalli Intensity.

NMSZ ew Madrid Seismic Zone.

Additional detailed site information is provided in Chapter 2.0, "Site Characteristics."

1.3.2 Principal Design Criteria, Operating Characteristics, and Safety Systems NWMI's RPF design is based on applicable standards, guides, codes, and criteria and provides reasonable assurance that the RPF SSCs, incl uding electromec hanical systems:

Are built and will function as designed and required by the analyses in Chapter 13 .0, "Accident Analysis"

Ensure acceptable protection of the public health and safety and environment from radiological risks (e.g., radioactive materials, exposure) resulting from operations Protect agai nst potential hydro logical (water) damage

Protect against seismic damage Provide survei llance activities and techn ical specifications required to respond to or mitigate consequences of seismic damage

Have technical specifications developed to ensure that safety-related functions of electromechanical systems and components will be operable and protect the health and safety of workers, the public, and environment Defense-in-depth is a design philosophy, applied from the outset and through completion of the design that is based on providing successive levels of protection such that health and safety are not wholly dependent on any si ngle element of the design, construction, maintenance, or operation of the facility.

The net effect of incorporating defense-in-depth practices is a conservatively designed faci lity and systems that exhibit hi gher tolerances to failures and external challenges. The risk insights obtained through performance of accident analysis can then be used to supplement the final design by focusing attention on the prevention and mitigation of the higher risk potential accidents.

1-26

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility The design basis and faci lity SSCs for the RPF are based on defense-in-depth practices. Defense-in-depth is a design philosophy, applied from the beginning and through completion of the design , which is based on providing successive levels of protection such that health and safety are not wholly dependent on any single element of the design, construction, maintenance, or operation of the faci lity. The net effect of incorporating defense-in-depth practices is a conservatively designed facility and systems that exhibit a higher tolerance to fail ures and external challenges. The risk insights obtained through the performance of accident analysis can then be used to suppl ement the final design by focusing attention on the prevention and mitigation of the higher risk potential accidents.

1.3.2.1 Principal Design Criteria NWMI addresses the follow ing baseline design criteria for the RPF .

Quality standards and records - Design is being developed and implemented in accordance with management measures to provide adequate assurance that IROFS will be available and reliable to perform the intended functions when needed. Appropriate records of these items must be maintained by or under the control of the li censee throughout the life of the facility.

Natural phenomena hazards - Design wi ll provide for adequate protection against natural phenomena with consideration of the most severe documented hi storical events for the site.

Fire protection - Design will provide for adequate protection against fires and explosions .

Environmental and dynamic effects - Design wi ll provide for adequate protection from environmental conditions and dynamic effects associated with normal operations, maintenance, testing, and postulated accidents that could lead to loss of safety functions .

Chemical protection - Design will provide fo r adequate protection against chemical risks produced from licensed material, faci li ty conditions that affect the safety of li censed material , and hazardous chemicals produced from licensed material.

Emergency capability - Design will provide for emergency capability to maintain control of:

Material and hazardous chemicals produced from licensed material Evacuation of on-site personnel On-site emergency faci lities and services that facilitate the use of avai lable off-site services Utility services - Design wi ll provide for continued operation of essential utility services.

Inspection, testing, and maintenance - Design of IROFS wi ll provide for adequate inspection, testing, and maintenance to ensure availability and reliability to perform intended function when needed.

Criticality control - Design wi ll provide for criticality control, including adherence to the double-contingency principle.

Instrumentation and controls - Design will provide for inclusion of instrumentation and control (I&C) systems to monitor and control the behavior of IROFS .

Facility and system design and facility layout will be based on defense-in-depth practices .

Design will incorporate, to the extent practicable:

Preference for the selection of engineered controls over admini strative controls to increase overall system reliability Features that enhance safety by reducing chall enges to IROFS 1-27

...............;...NWMI

~ *.*! . NotmfWEST M£DtCAL ISOTOHS NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility The principal design criteria for a production facility establish the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and performance requirements for SSCs important to safety (i.e., those that provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of workers and the public). The systems associated with the RPF are identified below, and the associated IROFS are identified in Chapter 6.0, "Engineered Safety Features," and Chapter 13 .0. Requirements are derived from:

Code of Federal Regulations

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Federal regulations, guidelines, and standards

Local government regulations and requirements

Discovery Ridge covenants

MU System requirements

Other codes and standards Table 1-11 lists the RPF systems, and identifies the RPF material accountability area and the Construction Permit Application reference chapter that provides the associated detailed system descriptions.

Table 1-11. List of System and Associated Systems and Construction Permit Application Crosswalk (2 pages)

Construction Permit Application reference Primary structure and associated systems (primary references)

Radioisotope Production Facility (RPF - primary structure) 10 CFR 70*

Target fabrication Chapter 4.0, Sections 4.1 .3. l and 4.4 10 CFR sob Target receipt and disassembly Chapter 4.0, Section 4.1.3 .2, 4.3.2, and 4.3.3 Target dissolution Chapter 4.0, Sections 4.1.3.3 and 4.3.4 Molybdenum recovery and purification Chapter 4.0, Sections 4.1.3.4 and 4.3.5 Uranium recovery and recycle Chapter 4.0, Sections 4.1.3.5 and 4.3 .6 Waste handling Chapter 4.0, Section 4.1.3.6; Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.2 Criticality accident alarm Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.3. 1; Chapter 7.0, Section 7.3 .7 Radiation monitoring Chapter 7 .0, Section 7 .6; Chapter 11.0, Section 11 . l .4 Normal electrical power Chapter 8.0, Section 8.1 Standby electrical power Chapter 8.0, Section 8.2 Process vessel ventilation Chapter9.0, Section 9.1 Facility ventilation Chapter 9.0, Section 9.1 Fire protection Chapter 9.0, Section 9.3 Plant and instrument air Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.l Emergency purge gas Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7. 1 Gas supply Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 Process chilled water Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7. 1 Facility chilled water Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 Facility heated water Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 Process steam Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.l Demineralized water Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 Chemical supply Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.4 1-28

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Table 1-11. List of System and Associated Systems and Construction Permit Application Crosswalk (2 pages)

Construction Permit Application reference Primary structure and associated systems (primary references)

Biological shield Chapter 4.0, Section 4 .2 Facility process control Chapter 7.0, Section 7.2.3

I 0 CFR 70, " Domestic Licensing of Special uclear Material," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

b I 0 CFR SO, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Uti li zation Facilities," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

Detailed design standards and codes for the RPF SSCs are listed in Chapter 3.0, "Design of Structures, Systems, and Components."

1.3.2.2 Operating Characteristics A flow diagram of the primary process to be performed at the RPF is provided in Figure 1-9. The primary purpose of these RPF operations is to provide 99 Mo product in a safe, economic, and environmentally protective manner.

Irradiate Targets in Reactor /"adiated Target Disassembly Target Fabrication and Dissolution Targe1 Cladding to Solid Waste

- - ; r;iai: - Irradiated Handling Targel Shipping Targel 10 Unive<sity Shipping and Reactors Rece!Yf\g Encapsulation 0 :' & :'

Uranium Fresh Blended Recovery and Uranium Purified U Recycle Impute U

SOIUIJOn SOl~n FisslOn Product SOIUIJOn lo Liquid Waste Hand""!I O'fgas Treatmen and Release to Stack via Pnmary Venulatlon Legend Rea ctor Operations Product Cas<

RPF Operat ions Shipmen s co Customer 99Mo Production Figure 1-9. Radioisotope Production Facility Block Flow Diagram 1-29

..NWMI

~- * ~ NOtntfWfSTllllMCAl.lSOTOHS NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Facility operation has the following general process steps (which correspond with Figure 1-9).

Target Fabrication 0 LEU target material is fabricated using a combination of fresh LEU and recycled uranium.

f) Target material is encapsulated using metal cladding to contain the LEU and fission products produced during irradiation.

C) Fabricated targets are packaged and shipped to university reactors for irradiation.

Target Receipt, Disassembly, and Dissolution 0 After irradiation, targets are shipped back to the RPF.

0 Irradiated targets are disassembled and metal cladding is removed.

0 Targets are then dissolved into a solution for processing.

Molybdenum Recovery and Purification

& Dissolved LEU so lution is processed to recover and purify 99 Mo.

~ Purified 99 Mo is packaged in certified shipping containers and shipped to a radiopharmaceutical distributor.

Uranium Recovery and Recycle 0 LEU solution is treated to recover uranium and remove trace contaminants and is recycled back to Step l to be made into new targets via the target fabrication system.

The RPF operati ng and process characteri stics are described in more detail in Chapter 4.0.

1.3.2.2.1 Tar get Fabrication Process Description The target fabrication process will center on the production of LEU target material that is generated through an [Proprietary Information]; the LEU target material will subsequently be loaded into aluminum target elements. The LEU feed for the [Proprietary Information] will be chilled UN and consist of a combination of fresh LEU, recovered LEU, and LEU recovered from the processing of irradiated targets.

[Proprietary Information].

The aluminum target components wi ll be cleaned, and then a target subassembly will be welded and loaded with LEU target material. This target subassembly will subsequently be filled with a helium or air cover gas and sealed by welding on the remaining hardware end cap. The completed targets will be inspected and quality checked using a process simi lar to that performed for commercial nuclear fuel. The targets will then be shipped back to the reactor sites for irradiation.

The target fabrication process will begin with the receipt of fresh uranium from DOE, target hardware, and chemicals associated with LEU target material production and target assembly. The target fabrication process will center on the production of LEU target material that is generated through [Proprietary Information], which will subsequently be loaded into aluminum target elements. The uranium feed for the [Proprietary Information] acid deficient uranyl nitrate (ADUN) solution. This feed wi ll consist of a combination of fresh uranium, off-specification uranium recovered from target fabrication processes, and uranium recovered from the processing of irradiated targets. The fresh uranium, enriched to 19.75 weight percent (wt%) uranium-235 (235 U), will be received as uranium metal and dissolved in nitric acid. The reactant for the [Proprietary Information] will be a chi lled mixture of hexamethylenetetramine (HMT A) and urea, and the uranium [Proprietary Information]. The HMT A will decompose on contact with the heated silicone oil , releasing ammon ia for [Proprietary Information]. The uranium-gel particles will then be filtered, washed, dried, calcined, and reduced to high-density LEU target material.

1-30

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility The target hardware components will be cleaned, and a target subassembly will be welded and loaded

[Proprietary Information] by means of a [Proprietary Information]. This target subassembly will subsequently be filled with helium or air cover gas and sealed by welding on the remaining hardware end cap. The completed targets will then be inspected and quality checked.

1.3.2.2.2 Target Disassembly and Dissolution Process Description The target receipt and disassembly process will be operated in a batch mode, starting with receipt of a batch of targets inside a shipping cask. The targets will be disassembled one at a time, and the irradiated LEU target material will be transferred to a dissolver.

The target dissolution hot cells operations will start with the transfer of the collection containers containing irradiated LEU target material from the target disassembly hot cells. A dissolver basket will then be filled with the contents of the collection container. Multiple containers may be loaded into the dissolver basket. The dissolver Basket will be lowered into place in the dissolver assembly via the open valve. After loading the dissolver basket into the dissolver assembly, the valves will be closed in preparation for the start of dissolution. The LEU target material will be dissolved in hot nitric acid.

The offgas containing the fission product gases will go through a series of cleanup columns. The nitrogen oxide (NOx) will be removed by a reflux condenser and several NOx absorbers, the fission product gases (noble and iodine) will be captured on absorbers, and the remaining gas will be filtered and discharged into the process ventilation header. The dissolver solution will be diluted, cooled, filtered, and pumped to the 99 Mo system feed tank. Only one of the two dissolvers is planned to be actively dissolving LEU target material at a time.

1.3.2.2.3 Molybdenum Recovery and Purification Process Description Acidified dissolver solution from the target dissolution operation will be processed by the Mo recovery and purification system to recover the 99 Mo. The Mo recovery and separation process primarily consists of a series of chemical adjustments and ion exchange (IX) columns to remove unwanted isotopes from the Mo product solution. Product solution will be sampled to verify compliance with acceptance criteria after a final chemical adjustment. The product solution will then be placed into shipping containers that are sequentially loaded into shipping casks for transfer to the customer.

Waste solutions from the IX columns will contain the LEU present in the incoming dissolver solution and will be transferred to the LEU recovery system. The remaining waste solutions will be sent to low-or high-dose waste storage tanks.

1.3.2.2.4 Uranium Recycle and Recovery Process Description The uranium recovery and recycle system will process aqueous LEU solutions generated in the Mo recovery and purification system to separate unwanted radioisotopes from uranium. Uranium will be separated from the unwanted radioisotopes using two cycles of IX. A concentrator will be provided for the uranium-bearing solution as part of each IX cycle to adjust the LEU solution uranium concentration.

Vent gases from process vessels will be treated by the process vessel ventilation system prior to merging with the main facility ventilation system and release to the environment. Recycled uranium product will be an aqueous LEU solution that is transferred to the target fabrication system for use as a source to fabricate new reactor targets. Waste generated by the uranium recovery and recycle system operation will be transferred to the waste handling system for solidification, packaging, and shipping to a disposal site.

1-31

.*NWMI NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3

~* ' ~ .

. NOITNWEST M£DK:Al llOTOnS Chapter 1.0 - The Facility 1.3.2.2.5 Liquid Waste Handling Process Description The waste handling system is divided into three subsystems: (1) liquid waste system, (2) solid waste system, and (3) specialty waste system. The liquid waste disposal system will consist of a group of storage tanks for accumulating waste liquids and adjusting the waste composition. Liquid waste will be split into high-dose and low-dose streams by concentration. The high-dose fraction composition will be adjusted and mixed with adsorbent material. A portion of the low-dose fraction is expected to be suitable for recycle to selected systems as process water. Water that is not recycled will be adjusted and then mixed with an adsorbent material.

The solid waste disposal system will consist of an area for collection, size reduction, and staging of solid wastes. The solids will be placed in a 208 liter (L) (55-gallon [gal]) waste drum and encapsulated by adding a cement material to fill voids remaining within the drum. Encapsulated waste will be stored until the drums are loaded into a shipping cask and transported to a disposal site.

A specialty waste disposal system will address small quantities of unique wastes generated by other processes. The following are examples of these processes:

A reclamation process to recycle organic solvent

[Proprietary Information]

Operation of a trichloroethylene (TCE) reclamation unit The waste streams will be containerized, stabilized as appropriate, and shipped offsite for treatment and disposal.

1.3.2.3 Facility Ventilation System The facility ventilation system, or RPF heating ventilation and air conditioning (HV AC) system, will be divided into four zones (Zone I, Zone II, Zone III, and Zone IV) with airflow directed from lowest to highest potential for contamination. The Zone I ventilation system will be the initial confinement barrier and will include gloveboxes, vessels, tanks, piping, hot cells, and the Zone I exhaust subsystem. The process vessel ventilation system exhausts to the Zone I exhaust subsystem, which will include two 100 percent capacity exhaust fans and filter trains for complete redundancy. Each filter train will consist ofprefilters, two stages of high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters , carbon adsorbers (for iodine removal), and isolation dampers. A separate stack with a monitoring and sampling system will be provided for the Zone I exhaust.

1.3.2.4 Biological Shield The RPF biological shield will provide an integrated system of features that protects workers from the high-dose radiation generated during the radioisotope processing to recover 99 Mo. The primary function of the biological shield will be to reduce the radiation dose rates and accumulated doses in occupied areas to not exceed the limits of 10 CFR 20 and the guidelines of the facility ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) program. The shielding and its components will withstand seismic and other concurrent loads, while maintaining containment and shielding during a design basis event.

1.3.3 Engineered Safety Features ESFs are active or passive features designed to mitigate the consequences of accidents and to keep radiological exposures to workers, the public, and environment within acceptable values. The ESFs associated with confinement of the process radionuclides and hazardous chemicals for the RPF are summarized in Table 1-12, including the accidents mitigated, SSCs used to provide the ESFs, and references to subsequent sections providing a more detailed ESF description.

1-32

i*:~y NWM I

' ~* * ~ NOlfOfWHf MEDtc:Al fSOTOf'U NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Confinement is a general ESF that is credited as being in place as part of the PHA described in Chapter 13 .0. Additional IROFS associated with the confinement system were derived from the accident analyses in Chapter 13.0. The derived IROFS are also listed in Chapter 6.0, Table 6-1 , with reference to more detailed descriptions in Section 6.2. 1.

Table 1-12. Summary of Confinement Engineered Safety Features (2 pages)

Detailed Engineered safety SSCs providing engineered description feature IROFS Accident(s) mitigated safety features section Confinement . Equipment . Confi nement enclosures 6.2.1.1 includes: malfunction and/or incl uding penetration sea ls through

. Hot cell liquid RS-01

. maintenance Hazardous chemi cal Zone I exhaust ventilation system, including ducting, 6.2.1.6 confi nement

. boundary Hot cell RS-03 spill s

. fi lters, and exhaust stack Zone I inl et venti lation system, secondary including ducting, fi lters, and bubble-tight isolation dampers confi nement Ventilation control system

. boundary Hot cell shielding RS-04 Secondary iodine removal bed Berms boundary Confinement IROFS Derived from Accident Analyses and Potential Technical Specifications Primary offgas relief RS-09 Dissolver offgas failure .. Pressure relief device 6.2. 1.7.1 system during dissolution Pressure relief tank operation Active radiation RS-10 Transfer of high-dose Radiation monitoring and isolation 6.2.1.7.2 monitoring and process liquid outside the system for low-dose liquid isolation oflow- hot cell shielding transfers dose waste transfer boundary Cask local RS-1 3 Target cladding leakage Local capture venti lation system 6.2. 1.7.3 ventilation during duri ng shipment over closure lid during lid removal closure lid removal and docking preparations Cask docking port RS-15 Cask not engaged in cask Sensor system controlling cask 6.2.1.7.4 enabler docking port prior to docking port door operation opening docking port door Process vessel FS-03 SSC damage due to Backup bottled nitrogen gas 6.2.1.7.5 emergency purge hydrogen deflagration or supply system detonation Irradiated target FS-04 Dislodging the target . Cask lifting fixture design that 6.2.1.7.6 cask lifting fixture cask shield plug while workers present during . prevents cask tipping Cask lifting fixture design that target unloading prevents lift from toppling activities during a seismic event Exhaust stack height FS-05 . Equipment . Zone I exhaust stack 6.2. 1.7.7 malfunction resulting

. in liquid spill or spray Carbon bed fire 1-33

..;..NWMI NWMl-2013-021, Rev . 3

~ * .* ~

NORTHWt:ST llfDfCAl ISOTOPD Chapter 1.0 - The Facility Table 1-12. Summary of Confinement Engineered Safety Features (2 pages)

Detailed Engineered safety SSCs providing engineered description feature IROFS Accident(s) mitigated safety features section Double-wall piping CS-09 Solution spill in facility Double-wall piping for selected 6.2.1.7.7 area where spill transfer lines containment berm is neither practical nor desirable for personnel chemical protection purposes Backflow CS-18 High worker exposure Backflow prevention devices 6.2 .1.7.9 prevention devices from backflow of high- located on process lines crossing Safe geometry day CS-19 dose solution the hot cell shielding boundary tanks Dissolver offgas

Potential limiting Dissolver offgas iodine removal 6.2.1 .8.2 iodine removal unit* control for operation units (DS-SB-600A/B/C)

Primary iodine control system during normal operation Dissolver offgas

Potential limiting Dissolver offgas primary adsorber 6.2 .1.7.

primary adsorber' control for operation units (DS-SB-620A/B/C)

Primary noble gas control system during normal operation Dissolver offgas

Potential limiting

Dissolver offgas vacuum 6.2.1.8.3 vacuum receiver or control for operation receiver tanks (DS-TK-700A/B) vacuum pump*

Motive force for

Dissolver offgas vacuum pumps dissolver offgas (DS-P-71 OA/B)

" Examples of candidate technical specification rather than engineered safety feature.

IROFS = item relied on for safety. SSC = structures, systems, and components.

The current design approach does not anticipate requiring containment or an emergency cooling system as ESFs, as discussed in Chapter 6.0, Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3.

Nuclear criticality safety and associated controls are discussed in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3. The currently defined criticality safety controls are derived from a combination of preliminary criticality safety evaluations and accident analyses, which are described in Chapter 13 .0. The criticality safety analyses produce a set of features needed to satisfy the double-contingency requirements for nuclear criticality control. These features are evaluated by major systems within the RPF and listed by major system in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1.1, Table 6-6 through Table 6-13 . The accident analyses in Chapter 13 .0 identify IROFS for the prevention of nuclear criticality, which are summarized in Chapter 6.0, Table 6-2, with reference to more detailed descriptions in Section 6.3.1.2.

Instrumentation and Control System The RPF preliminary I&C configuration includes the SNM preparation and handling processes (e.g.,

target fabrication, and uranium recovery and recycle), radioisotope extraction and purification processes (e.g., target receipt and disassembly, target dissolution, Mo recovery and purification, and waste handling), process utility systems, criticality accident alarm system, and systems associated with radiation monitoring.

1-34

~-
- NWM I

...... NWMl-2013-021, Rev . 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

~* * ~ NORTlfW£ST MEOICAl ISOTOPES The SNM processes will be enclosed predominately by hot cells except for the target fabrication area.

The facility process control (FPC) system will provide monitoring and control of the process systems within the RPF. In addition, the FPC system will provide monitoring of safety-related components within the RPF. The process strategy for the RPF involves the use of batch or semi-batch processes with relatively simple control steps.

The building management system (BMS) will monitor the RPF ventilation system and mechanical utility systems. The BMS primary functions will be to monitor the facility ventilation system and monitor and control (tum on and off) the mechanical utility systems.

ESF systems will operate on actuation of an alarm setpoint reached for a specific monitoring instrument/device. For redundancy, this will be in addition to the FPC system or BMS ability to actuate ESF as needed. Each ESF safety function will use hard-wired analog controls/interlocks to protect workers, the public, and environment. The ESF parameters and alarm functions will be integrated into and monitored by the FPC system or BMS .

The fire protection system will report the status of the fire protection equipment to the central alarm station and the RPF control room.

Cooling Water System Cooling water systems are used to control the temperature of process solutions in the RPF from process activities and the heat load resulting from radioactive decay of the fission product inventory. The RPF is located at a separate site, independent from the reactors used to irradiate the targets. Therefore, the RPF cooling system does not influence operation of a reactor primary core cooling system.

Chilled water is used as the primary cooling fluid to process vessels . A central process chilled-water loop is used to cool three secondary loops: one large geometry secondary loop in the hot cell, one criticality-safe geometry secondary loop in the hot cell, and one criticality-safe geometry secondary loop in the target fabrication area. The central process chilled-water loop relies on air-cooled chillers, while the secondary loops are cooled by the central chilled-water system through plate-and-frame heat exchangers.

Selected process demands require cooling at less than the freezing point of water. These demands are met with water-cooled refrigerant chiller packages, cooled by the secondary chilled water loops.

Electrical Power Systems The RPF design uses high-quality, commercially available components and wiring in accordance with applicable code. Electrical power circuits will be isolated sufficiently to avoid electromagnetic interference with safety-related I&C functions. The facility is designed for passive, safe shutdown and to prevent uncontrolled release of radioactive material if normal electric power NEP is interrupted or lost.

Uninterruptable power supplies automatically provide power to systems that support the safety functions protecting workers and the public.

The NEP system is designed to provide reasonable assurance that use or malfunction of electrical power systems could not damage the RPF or prevent safe RPF shutdown. The RPF also has a non-safety standby electrical power (SEP) system to reduce or eliminate process downtime due to electrical outages.

A combination of uninterruptable power supplies and the SEP system will provide emergency electrical power to the RPF.

Other Auxiliary Systems The RPF has the following auxiliary systems:

Fire protection systems

Communication systems 1-35

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

Possession and use of byproduct, source, and SNM

Cover gas control in the closed primary coolant system

Other auxiliary systems, including utility systems, analytical laboratory, and chemical supply Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management The NWMI RPF has a radiation protection program to protect the radiological health and safety of its workers. The program complies with the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 19, "Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers: Inspection and Investigations, 10 CFR 20, and 10 CFR 70. This program includes the elements of an ALARA program, radiation monitoring and surveying, exposure control, dosimetry, contamination control, and environmental monitoring. Additional details are provided in Chapter 11 .0, "Radiation Protection and Waste Management," Section 11.1 .2.

The radiation protection program provides a complete list of expected radiation and radioactive sources, including airborne, liquid, and solid sources. The radiation protection program also requires the development and implementation of procedures, identifies monitoring instrumentation and techniques, and specifies practices to be employed to verify compliance with the radiation dose limits and other applicable requirements. The basis and plans used to develop procedures for assessing and controlling radioactive wastes and the ALARA program are included.

Control of gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive wastes in the RPF is described in Chapter 9.0, "Auxiliary Systems," Sections 9.6 and 9.7. NWMI's waste management program for radioactive wastes resulting from normal operations and maintenance of the RPF, including the required procedures, ensure that radiation exposures and releases of radioactive materials are adequately assessed and controlled. The waste management program addresses the following elements:

Philosophy and approach to waste management

Basis of procedures and technical specifications

Organization, staffing, and associated training

Document control and records management

Review and audit committees for radioactive waste management activities

Plans for shipping, disposal, and long-term waste storage 1.3.4 Experimental Facilities and Capabilities The RPF does not include experimental facility SSCs that require research and development (R&D) to:

Confirm adequacy of the facility design

Identify and describe the R&D program that will completed to resolve any safety questions associated with such SSCs

Schedule the R&D program to show that such safety questions will be resolved at or before the latest date stated in the application for completion of construction of the facility .

NWMI has and will continue to perform testing to validate the acceptable operating conditions for material and target solution compatibility at MURR and the DOE national laboratories prior to completion of RPF construction. Selected materials will be examined following irradiation testing at fluence levels expected in the operation of the target solution vessel for a 30-year lifetime. The testing will include specific work involving irradiation in a corrosive environment to examine the effects on the properties of selected raw materials and welded samples in an as-received and as-fabricated state. This work will be completed no later than December 31 , 201 7.

1-36

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility 1.4 SHARED FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT The NWMI RPF does not share any systems or equipment with faci lities not covered by this Construction Permit Application. The primary structure is the RPF . Three adjacent, separate buildings will be located on the site: an Administrative Building (outside of the protected area), a Waste Staging and Shipping Building for additional Class A waste storage (inside the protected area), and a Diesel Generator Building. These major facilities also receive, store/hold, or process chemicals, oil, diesel fuel , and other hazardous and radioactive materials.

1.5 COMPARISON WITH SIMILAR FACILITIES As stated in Section 1.1, the NWMI RPF will produce 99 Mo through a fission-based process. NWMI has established a network of domestic university research reactors to irradiate LEU targets. Nearly all of the 99 Mo in the supply chain today is produced by irradiating 235 U with neutrons. Referred to as a fission reaction, six percent of collisions result in the formation of 99 Mo, as depicted in Figure 1-10. The process is well understood, reliable, predictable, and once extracted and purified, produces hi gh-specific activity, 99 Mo. Radiopharmaceutical di stributors in the U.S . use U.S . Food and Drug Administration-approved generators for 99 Mo produced by thi s method.

Other On a weekly basis, targets will be loaded around ,K fiSSIOll

~ pioducts the reactor core and irradiated for approximately

[Proprietary Information] . After irradiation, the ~

targets wi ll be mechanically removed from the core and placed in a cask or cooling tank. The targets will then be transported to the RPF using Neuvon U-235 Mo-99 NRC-certified casks. Once the targets are Figure 1-10. Irradiating Uranium-235 with received, the casks wi ll be delidded and the targets Neutrons to Form Molybdenum-99 poured into a nitric acid solution for dissolution.

Any gases produced from the di ssolution step will be trapped and held until no longer an environmental concern and will then be vented through an offgas treatment system. The resulting solution will be separated into liquids containing unused uranium and 99 Mo. During the second stage, the 99 Mo liquid will be passed through several exchange columns to extract purified 99 Mo and rinse out the majority of other by-products.

The RPF is a conventional design, simil ar to the design used in other nuclear processing facilities.

1.5.1 Comparison of Physical Plant and Equipment NWMI has developed extraction and purification chemi stries, is designing and plans to construct an RPF to extract and purify 99 Mo, and intends to sell 99 Mo assuri ng a reliable, securable and domestic suppl y of this critical medical isotope. In addition, NWMI wi ll recover and recycle the LEU.

The RPF will have unit processes for handling irradiated targets (i.e., hot cells, robust venti lation systems) and the ability to perform remote operations and maintenance. Parts of the process will be behind shielding walls, and decontaminated solutions will be processed or analyzed in gloveboxes, enclosures, or hoods. The process equipment is typical of that used in a DOE faci lity, with geometrically favorable tanks, IX columns, centrifugal contactors, evaporators, and batch solidification systems.

1-37

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility 1.5.2 Comparison of Chemical Processes The dissolution of target material uses a standard hot nitric acid process. The offgas treatment unit operations are well known and commercially available. The RPF Mo recovery and purification system will use [Proprietary Information] to selectively adsorb Mo from the irradiated target solution. The Mo purification process is very similar to the Cintichem process developed in the 1950s and 1960s by Union Carbide. Cintichem, lnc. used the process until 1990 as a means of purifying 99 Mo for use as a medical isotope. There are no NRC or DOE licensed facilities currently using this technology.

The uranium recovery process is a modification of a widely used uranium separation and purification process known as plutonium-uranium extraction (PUREX). The PUREX process was developed in the late 1940s and uses tributyl phosphate (TBP) to selectively remove uranium from a nitric acid solution typically containing a host of fission product and other actinide contaminants. The NWMI process uses similar chemistry but instead of a solvent process, the active agent is attached to a solid substrate.

The target fabrication processes and techniques are used in uranium processing and fuel fabrication facilities in the U.S ., with standard nitric acid dissolution, small solvent extraction system, concentrator, and [Proprietary Information], and filling and sealing of the target hardware.

1.5.3 Comparison of Support Systems Supporting systems, including ventilation, cooling water, waste processing, electrical power, and l&C, are conventional and generally require no unique features for the operation of the RPF.

1-38

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility 1.6

SUMMARY

OF OPERA TIO NS The proposed action is the issuance of an NRC license under 10 CFR 50 and provisions of 10 CFR 70 and 10 CFR 30 that would authorize NWMI to construct and operate a 99 Mo RPF at a site located in Columbia, Missouri . RPF process activities will include:

Receiving LEU from the DOE

Producing LEU target materials and fabrication of targets

Packaging and shipping LEU targets to the university reactor network for irradiation

Returning irradiated LEU targets for dissolution, recovery, and purification of 99Mo Recovering and recycling LEU to minimize radioactive, mixed, and hazardous waste generation

Treating/packaging wastes generated by RPF process steps to enable transport to a disposal site .

The process design requirements are identified in NMWI-2013-049, Process System Functional Specification. [Proprietary Information]. The following summarizes key requirements for the RPF and the primary process systems:

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

Control/prevent flammable gas from reaching lower flammability limit conditions of 5 percent hydrogen gas (H2); design for 25 percent of lower flammability limit

Ensure that 235 U processing and storage meet security and criticality safety requirements The RPF operating and process characteristics are provided in more detail in Chapter 4.0.

1.7 COMPLIANCE WITH THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982 The RPF does not produce high-level nuclear wastes or spent nuclear fuel. Therefore, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is not applicable to the RPF.

1.8 FACILITY MODIFICATIONS AND HISTORY This Construction Permit and Operating License Applications are for the construction and operation of the NWMI RPF. There are no existing faci lities at the proposed NWMI Discovery Ridge site, thus, no facilities modifications have occurred. This section is not applicable to the NWMI RPF.

1-39

.*.NWMI NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility

' ~ * .* ~ ' NOfmfWHT MEDtcAl lSOTOffS

1.9 REFERENCES

10 CFR 19, "Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers: Inspection and Investigations," Code of Federal Regu,lations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 20.120 1, "Occupational Dose Limits for Adults," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 20.1301, "Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 30, "Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material," Code of Federal Regu,lations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 50.31 , "Combining Applications," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

I 0 CFR 50.32, "Elimination of Repetition," Code of Federal Regu,lations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 70, "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 70.61, "Performance Requirements," Code ofFederal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2013 .

DOE-STD-3014-2006, Accident Analysis for Aircraft Crash into Hazardous Facilities, U.S . Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. , 2006.

Eidson, B. A., 2017, "FW: Boone Contact Us Form," (email to M. Balazik, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 19), Boone Hospital Center, Columbia, Missouri, 2017.

ESRI, 2011, "ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10," Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, 2011.

IBC, 2012, "International Building Code," International Code Council, Inc., Washington, D.C., 2012 .

Jones, M. R., 2017, " RE: Helicopter Flights University of Missouri Hospital," (email to M. Balazik, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 28), University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics, Columbia, Missouri, 2017.

MMRPC, 2010, Boone County Hazard Mitigation Plan for 2010, http://www.mmrpc.org, State of Missouri Emergency Management Agency, Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, Ashland, Missouri, July 15, 20 I 0.

MU, 2006, Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) Safety Analysis Report, MU Project #000763 ,

University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri , August 18, 2006.

NRC, 2012, Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-153 7, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors," Parts 1 and 2,for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors, Docket Number:

NRC-2011-0135 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., October 30, 2012.

1-40

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 1.0 - The Facility NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, as amended, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,

Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non -Power Reactors - Format and Content, Part 1, U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., February I 996.

NWMI-2013-049, Process System Functional Specification, Rev. C, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015 .

NWMI-2013-CALC-011 , Source Term Calculations, Rev A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015.

NWMI-2015-SAFETY-001, NWMI Radioisotope Production Facility Preliminary Hazards Analysis, Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015.

NWMI-20 l 5-SAFETY-002, Radioisotope Production Facility Integrated Safety Analysis Summary, Rev. 0, Northwest Medical Isotopes, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015.

NWMI-20 I 5-SAFETY-003, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Chemical Safety Process Upsets, Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015.

NWMI-2015-SAFETY-004, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Process Upsets Associated with Passive Engineering Controls Leading to Accident Criticality Accident Sequences, Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015.

NWMI-20 l 5-SAFETY-005 , Quantitative Risk Analysis of Criticality Accident Sequences that Involve Uranium Entering a System Not Intended for Uranium Service, Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015 .

NWMI-20 l 5-SAFETY-006, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Criticality Accident Sequences that In volve High Uranium Content in Side Waste Streams, Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015.

NWMI-20 l 5-SAFETY-007, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Facility Fires and Explosions Leading to Uncontrolled Release of Fissile Material, High and Low Dose Radionuclides, Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015.

NWMI-20 l 5-SAFETY-008, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Radiological Accident Sequences in the Confinement Boundaries (Including Ventilation Systems) , Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015.

NWMI-2015-SAFETY-009, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Administratively Controlled Enrichment, Mass, Container Volume, and Interaction Limit Process Upsets Leading to Accidental Criticality Accident Sequences, Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015.

NWMI-2015-SAFETY-010, Quantitative Risk Analysis of Receipt and Shipping Events, Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015 .

NWMI-2015-SAFETY-O 11 , Quantitative Risk Analysis of Natural Phenomenon and Man-Made Events on Safety Features and Items Relied on for Safety, Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, 20 I 5.

Parks, M., 2017a, "2016 Traffic Summary Columbia Regional Airport," (email to C. Haass, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, June 27), Columbia Regional Airport, Columbia, Missouri, 2017.

USCB, 2010, "U.S. Census 201 O," factfi nder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/

community_ facts.xhtml #none, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. , accessed March 12, 2013.

1-41

~ ..;.

.......* NWMI NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3

~* * ~ NOmfWUT MEDtCAl lSOTOl'U Chapter 1.0 - The Facility USGS, 201 la, "Poster of the New Madrid Earthquake Scenario of 16 May 2011 - Magnitude7.7,"

earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/poster/2011 120110516.php, U.S . Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed July 23, 2013.

USGS, 2011 b, "Putting Down Roots in Earthquake County - Your Handbook for Earthquakes in the Central United States," U.S. Geological Survey, General Information Product 119, Reston, Virginia, 2011 .

1-42

. ** * ** . NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 September 2017 Prepared by:

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 815 NW g th Ave , Suite 256 Corvallis, OR 97330

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics This page intentionally left blank.

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Date Published:

September 5, 2017 Document Number. NWMl-2013-021 I Revision Number. 3

Title:

Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility Approved by: Carolyn Haass Signature:

CUMP'?r-- t.. -j/~

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics This page intentionally left blank.

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics REVISION HISTORY Rev Date Reason for Revision Revised By 0 1/5/2014 Initial Application Not required 1 5/19/2017 Incorporate changes based on responses to NRC C. Haass Requests for Additional Information 2 8/5/2017 Modification based on ACRS comments C. Haass 3 9/5/2017 Incorporate final comments from NRC Staff and ACRS ; C. Haass full document revision

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics This page intentionally left blank.

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics CONTENTS 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS .. ........... ..... .. ... ... .... .... ........... ... ... .... ............... .... ..... .. .. .... .... ..... ..... .... . 2-1

2. 1 Geography and Demography ..... .. .. ........ ............ .... .... .... .......... ............. ...... .. ... ... .. ....... .. .... . 2-1 2.1 .1 Site Location and Description .. .... .... .......... ... ... .. .... .................. .. .. .... .. .... ....... .... ... 2-1 2.1.1.1 Specification and Location .......... .... ... ...... ..................... ... ... .... ... .... ... .. 2-1 2.1.1.2 Boundary and Zone Area Maps ..... .. ........ .... .. .. ............. ... ...... .... ....... .. 2-4 2.1.2 Population Distribution ... .. ... ............................. ....... ..... .... ... ... ... ... ... .. .......... ........ 2-9 2.1.2.1 Resident Population ...................... ..... .... .. ........ ...... ... ... .. ............. ...... 2-10 2.1.2.2 Transient Population .......... ........ ............ .......... .......... .. .. ..... ... ......... .. 2-20 2.1.3 Combined Resident and Transient Population .... ... ..... .. ..... .............. .. .. ....... .. ..... 2-33 2.2 Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilities ........ .............. .. .. ... .. .. .......... .. .. 2-41 2.2.1 Location and Routes .................. .............. ........ .... ... ......... .................... ....... ........ 2-41 2.2.1 .1 Future Facilities .. ........ ............... ............ ...... .... .... ...... ... ......... ........ .... 2-43 2.2 .1.2 Industrial Facilities ...... ... .......... .... ... .. .. .. .................... .. .. ... ........ .... .. ... 2-45 2.2.1.3 Transportation Routes ............... ... .... .. ..... ... .... .. ... ..... .... .... ............... .. 2-45 2.2.1.4 Pipelines ............... ..... ................ ...... ... ....................... ...... .. .. .... ... ... .... 2-46 2.2 .1.5 Fuel Storage .............. .... ..... ........................ ......... ............. ... .......... .... 2-46 2.2 .2 Air Traffic ... .... ... .. ......... ........... ...... .... ........ ... .. ..... ..... .... .. .. ... .......................... .... 2-47 2.2.2 .1 Airports ......... ........... ................... ... ....... ... ... .. .... .. .. .... .... ... ................. 2-47 2.2.2.2 Airways ...... ... ....... ..... .. .......... ...... .......... ... .... ... .. ......... ..... ... .... .... .... .. . 2-52 2.2.2.3 Military Airports and Training Routes ..... .... ...... .... ... .... ..... ....... ........ 2-53 2.2 .2.4 Approach and Holding Patterns ... ............ ... ... .. .. ....... .. ............ .......... 2-53 2.2.2.5 Evaluation of Aircraft Hazard ..... ...... ... ....... .. .... ..... .... ..... .... .... ... ..... .. 2-53 2.2.3 Analysis of Potential Accidents at Facilities ... .. ..... ... ......... ............. ... .. .... ... ..... .. 2-55 2.2.3.1 Determination of Design-Basis Events .. ...... ... .... .... .. ................. ... .. .. 2-55 2.3 Meteorology .......... .. ............. .. ................ ... ... ..... ... ... .... ... ... .... .. .. ... ......... ... .. ... .... .. ..... .. ... ... 2-69 2.3 .1 General and Local Climate ... ... .... .... ... .. ...... ........ ..... ......... .......... ... .. .. .. .............. . 2-69 2.3.1.1 Temperature ......... ...... .... ........... ... ..... ................... .. .. .. ...... ... .... ...... .... 2-70 2.3.1.2 Precipitation ..... .... ..... ............. ... .. ... .... ....... ... .... ......... ... .... ... .... .. ........ 2-71 2.3.1.3 Maximum Probable Snowpack ...... ..... ... .................... .. ... ... .. ..... ...... .. 2-72 2.3.1.4 Humidity ..... ........... .. ...... ......... ......... ....... .... ... .. ......... .... ................ .... 2-73 2.3 .1.5 Wind ........ ... .......... .... .. ... ..... ............ ..... ... ...... ....... ... ... .. ................. ... .. 2-73 2.3 .1.6 100-Year Return Wind Speed ....... .. ... .... .. ... .. .... .. .... ... .. ..... ........... ..... 2-76 2.3.1.7 Extreme Weather.. ....... ....... ... ....... ................. .... .. ... ... ... .... ... ... ......... .. 2-76 2.3.2 Site Meteorology ........ ......... ......................... .. ..... ...... .. ..... .... ........ ..... ... ... ........ ... 2-82 2.4 Hydrology .... ........ ...... .... ....... ..... .................... .......... ... ........ .... ... .. .. .... .. .... ... ... ... ..... ........ .. . 2-83 2.4. l Surface Water ...... ..... .... ........ ... ..... ................. .... .... ... ..... ... ....... ..... ............... ... .... 2-83 2.4.2 Ground Water. ............................. .... .... .. ....... .... ... .... ...... ..... ...... .... .... ..... ..... ........ 2-86 2.4.3 Floods .......... .............. ........... ...... ..... ....... ........ ... ....... .. ... .. .... ................. ..... .. ...... . 2-88 2.5 Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineeri ng ........ .. ...... ... ....... .. .... .. ..... ............. . 2-90 2.5.l Regional Geology .... ... ................ .... .......... .. ................ ..... .. ... .... ........ ... .......... ... . 2-90 2.5.1.1 Geomorphic Provinces .... .. ........ ...... .. .... .... .... .. ..... ..... ... .... ..... .. ...... .. .. 2-90 2.5.1.2 Glacial History .. .. ..... ...... .. ............ ... .............. .. .................. .. .. .......... .. 2-91 2.5.1.3 Local Topography and Soils of Boone County ... .. ... .. .. .... .. ... ... .. .... ... 2-92

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.5.2 Site Geology ......... ....... .......... ... ........ ......................... ........................... ... ...... .. ... 2-92 2.5.2.1 Quaternary Age Holocene Series (Qal) ..... ........ .. ..... ..... ..... .... ....... .... 2-94

2. 5.2.2 Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Marmaton Group (Pm) and Cherokee Group (Pc) ..... ........ ... ... .... .... ..... .. .. ... .... ....... ... .... 2-96 2.5 .2 .3 Mississippian Age Osagean Series Burlington Formation (Mo) ....... 2-96 2.5.2 .4 Mississippian Age Kinderhookian Series Chouteau Limestone (Mk) ............ ......... ....... ... ... .. ........ ............. .. ....................................... 2-97 2.5.2.5 Late to Early Devoni an Limestone (D) ............................ .. ............ ... 2-97 2.5.2.6 Early Ordovician Age Ibexian Series Dolomites (Ojc) .... ... .............. 2-97 2.5.3 On-site Soil Types ............................ .. ....................... .... ... .... ..... .... ...... .. ........... .. 2-97 2.5.4 Seismicity ....... ... ................................................................ ..... ........ ....... .. ...... .. ... 2-98 2.5.5 Maximum Earthquake Potential .. ............. .. ...... ... .......... ..... .. ....... .......... .... ....... 2-103 2.5.6 Vibratory Ground Motion ....................... ............. ...... ... ....... ... ... ......... ....... ...... 2-105 2.5.7 Surface Faulting .... ................ ................. ..... .......... ........ ........................... ........ 2-106 2.5 .8 Liquefaction Potential ..... ............................ ....................................... .. ........ .... 2-108 2.6 References .... ......... ...... .. .... ........ ........ ......... .. ... .. .. ...... ... ....... .... .......... .. ........................... 2- 110 ii

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics FIGURES Figure 2-1 . 200 km (124 mi) Radius with Cities and Roads ... .. .. .... .. ...... ...... .............. .... ..... ........... ... 2-2 Figure 2-2 . Illustration of8 km (5-mi) Radius from the Center of the Facility .......... .. ... ... .... ... ....... .. 2-3 Figure 2-3. Boundaries and Zones Associated with the Facility .... ...... ..... ..... .... ... ....... .... ..... .. .......... . 2-5 Figure 2-4. Prominent Features in Site Area ....... ... ... .. ............. ... ......... .... ................. ................ ......... 2-6 Figure 2-5 . Topography in Site Area ... .. ...... ....... ........ .. .......................... ..... .......... ...... ... .. .... ... .. .... .. ... 2-7 Figure 2-6. The Rural and Urban Zones Surrounding the Radioisotope Production Facility ... .. ... .... 2-8 Figure 2-7. Population Groupings ........................... ...... ... .. .. ... ........ .... ...... ..... ............. .. .... ......... ... .. . 2-11 Figure 2-8 . Resident Population Distribution - 2010 .... ...... .. ...... .. ............. ... ... .... ........ ... .... .. .. ...... .. . 2-13 Figure 2-9. Resident Population Distribution - 2014 .. ................ ....... ....... .. .... .. .... .. ...... ..... .. .. ..... ..... 2-14 Figure 2-10. Resident Population Distribution - 2015 ... ................... ... .... ........ ... .... ... .... .. .. ... .... .... ..... 2-15 Figure 2-11. Resident Population Distribution - 2019 ... .. .. .... .. .. .... ...... .... ..... ... ... .... ....... ... ... ..... .... ..... 2-16 Figure 2-12 . Resident Population Distribution - 2020 ..... .. ..... .. ........ ... ... .... .. .... ....... ..... .... .. ... .. ...... .. .. 2-17 Figure 2-13 . Resident Population Distribution - 2045 ... .. .. ........ ........ ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ................. .... ......... 2-18 Figure 2-14. Resident Population Distribution - 2050 ... ..... .... .. ...... ...... ..... .... .... .. ....... .. ....... ....... ....... 2-19 Figure 2-15 . Transient Population Distribution - 2010 .............. .... .... ... .. .. .. ... .. ....... ...... ... .. ... .. .. ......... 2-26 Figure 2-16. Transient Population Distribution - 2014 ... .. .. ....................... .... .. .. ... ........ ... ......... .. .. ... .. 2-27 Figure 2-17. Transient Population Distribution - 2015 .. ......... ... .. ... ..... .... ........ ... .. .... .. ... .. ....... .... ..... .. 2-28 Figure 2-18. Transient Population Distribution - 20 19 ............... ................... .. ... .. ..... ..... .. .. .......... .. ... 2-29 Figure 2-19. Transient Population Distribution - 2020 .. .. ....... ... ..... ......... ...... ....... .. ... .. ...... ......... ..... .. 2-30 Figure 2-20. Transient Population Distribution - 2045 ...... .. ...... .. ....... .... ......... ..... .. ... .... ....... ...... ... .. .. 2-31 Figure 2-21. Transient Population Distribution - 2050 .............. .. ......... ....... ...... .......... .. ......... ... ... ..... 2-32 Figure 2-22. Combined Population Distribution - 2010 .... .. ...... ... .. ............... .. .................... .... ......... . 2-34 Figure 2-23. Combined Population Distribution - 2014 ......................................... .... ....................... 2-35 Figure 2-24. Combined Population Distribution - 2015 ........ ... ............ .......... ..... ... ...... ... ........ .......... 2-36 Figure 2-25. Combined Population Distribution - 2019 ... .. .. ........... ........ ...... .................... ............. ... 2-37 Figure 2-26. Combined Population Distribution - 2020 ............. ......... ... ........ ... ..... .. ......................... 2-38 Figure 2-27. Combined Population Distribution - 2045 ........ .... ... .. ......... .. ..... ..... ... .............. .. .... .. ... .. 2-39 Figure 2-28 . Combined Population Distribution - 2050 ..... ... ........ ...... ...... ......... ... .. ...... .. ....... .... .. ..... 2-40 Figure 2-29. Industrial and Transportation within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site .... ...... ...... .......... ....... ............... ........... .... .... .. ............. ... ..... ...... ... .... ...... .. .. ... 2-42 Figure 2-30. Industrial and Transportation within 16 km (10 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site Descriptions .......... ... .. ...... ..... ... .. ....... .. ............ .. .... .. .. ...... ........ 2-44 Figure 2-31. Wind Rose from South Farm, 2000-2010 (University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station) ........... ....... .............. .. .. ......... ... ........ .. ... .. ... ...... ......... ............... ... .... 2-74 iii

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev . 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Figure 2-32. Wind Rose from Automatic Weather Station, Columbia, Missouri , 2007-2012 (Western Regional Climate Center) ......... .............. ... ........ .... ............ .. ...... ... .................. 2-75 Figure 2-33. Streams of Southern Boone County, Missouri .... ...................... .................. ..... ...... ....... 2-84 Figure 2-34. Map Showing Bonne Femme Watershed ... ............. .................. .................. .................. 2-85 Figure 2-35. Aquifer Map ............................ ........................ .. ... ........... ... ... ..... ...... ... .... ... .. ..... ............. 2-87 Figure 2-36. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zones Around the Radioisotope Production Facility ........................................................... ... ....... ............. .... ..... ... .......... . 2-89 Figure 2-37 . Geologic Features within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site .. ..... ....... .... .......... ........ ....... ............. .. ..... ..... ...... ...... .................. .................. 2-93 Figure 2-38. Map of Missouri Quaternary Age Geology ............. ..... ........ ..... .................. ..... ...... ....... 2-95 Figure 2-39. Hazard Mitigation Map .............. ....................... ... ..... ........... .. .... .... .. ............ .... ....... ..... 2-104 Figure 2-40. Geologic Faults Map ........................................ ...... ....... ......... .. .. ... .. .... ... .. .... ..... ......... .. 2-107 iv

i*;~":' NWMI

...**... NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics

- *

NllTMWHT llEIMCAI. &SOTOPll TABLES Table 2-1. Closest Permanent Residents Within Each Compass Section Around the Proposed Site ....... ..... .... ............. ....... .... ..... .. ... ....... ...... ...... ... .... ... ...... .. ..... .. .. ... .............. 2-10 Table 2-2. Resident Population Distribution within 8 km (5 mi) of the Proposed Site ................ ... 2-12 Table 2-3. Employers (2 pages) .......... .......... ... ... .................... .. .... .. .. ...... .. ..... .... ........ ................... .. 2-20 Table 2-4. Schools (2 pages) ... ......... .. ...... ............. ................... ..... .......... .................. .. ..... ............. .. 2-22 Table 2-5 . Medical Facility ............... .... ............................................ ........... .... .... ... .... ... ... .. ..... ... .... 2-23 Table 2-6. Lodging Facilities .. ... .... .......... ................ ..... ............... .. ....... ..... ..................................... 2-24 Table 2-7. Weighted Transient Population Estimates by Source .. ... ... .... ... ..... ... ... ...... .. .. ................ 2-25 Table 2-8. Total Project Transient Population ........................ ............. ...... ....... ... ..... ... .. ........... ...... 2-25 Table 2-9. Combined Resident and Transient Population .......................... .... ... ...... .... ................. .. . 2-33 Table 2-10. Significant Industrial Facilities within 16 km (10 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site ....................................... ..... .. .......... .... ... ........ .. .... .................. .. 2-45 Table 2-1 1. Hazardous Chemical Potentially Transported on Highways within an 8 km (5-mi)

Radius of the Radioi sotope Production Facility ............................... ..... ... .. .... ............... 2-46 Table 2-12. Major Pipelines Located within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site .... .... ... ..................................................... .... .... ....... ... .... ... ... .... .... .... ............ 2-46 Table 2-13 . Major Storage Facilities Located within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioi sotope Production Facility Site .... .. ... ...... ..... .. ..................... ...... ....... .......................... .. ... ... ...... . 2-4 7 Table 2-14. 200 D 2 Limits .... .. ....... .. ................. .. .... ..... ...... .... .. .... .... .. .......... .......... .... .... ... ... .. .... ........ 2-48 Table 2-15. Orthonormal Coordinates for Columbia Regional Airport Runways to the Radioisotope Production Facility ............. ........ ......................... .......... .... ... ..... ....... ........ 2-49 Table 2-16. Probabi lity of Crashes from Airport Operations (2 pages) ....... ... ........................... .... ... 2-49 Table 2-17. Affective Area for Helicopter .......... .. ... ...................... ..... ............................ .... .... .......... 2-52 Table 2-18. Federal Designated Airways within 16 km (10 mi) of the Radioi sotope Production Facility Site ......... ............ .................. ....... .... ...... .... ..... ................... ....... ... ... 2-52 Table 2-19. Effective Area Input Values and Calculated Effective Plant Area .......... ..... ..... ... .. .... ... 2-54 Table 2-20. Crash Impact Probabilities .............. .. .. .. .......................................... ..... ... .. .... ................. 2-54 Table 2-21. Distance from the Radioisotope Production Facility where the Peak Incident Pressure is 6.9 kPa (1 lb/in.2) from an Explosion on U.S. Highway 63 ........ ................. 2-57 Table 2-22 . Analysis of Hazardous Chemicals Stored Within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility (2 pages) ........ ... ............... ..................... ... .... .... ......................... ... ... 2-5 8 Table 2-23 . Flammable Vapor Cloud Explosion Analysis for U.S . Highway 63 .. .... .... .. .... ........ ..... 2-62 Table 2-24. Flammable Vapor Clouds and Vapor Cloud Explosions from External Sources (2 pages) ........ .. .. ... ... ......... .. .................. .. ..................... .... ...... .... .. .... .... .... .. ........ .. ........... 2-64 Table 2-25. Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Temperature Summary, 1969-2012 ... ..... .... .............. ........ ......... ............... ..................... 2-70 v

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-26. Columbia, Missouri, Five-Year Temperature Summary, 2008-2012 .... ........ .......... ...... 2-71 Table 2-27. Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Precipitation Summary, 1969- 2012 .. ....... .. ............. ....... ......... ....... ........ ......... .. ..... ..... .. . 2-72 Table 2-28 . 72-Hour Probable Maximum Precipitation ....... ....... ..... ....... .. .. .. ... ...... ... ..... ..... .... ... ... .... 2-72 Table 2-29. Relative Humidity Data for Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012 ...... .... .... .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. ..... 2-73 Table 2-30. Mean Wind Speed for Columbia, Missouri, from 2008- 2012 .................. .. .. .... .. .... .. ..... 2-73 Table 2-31. Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scales Used to Determine Tornado Intensity .... ....... 2-76 Table 2-32 . Seasonal Frequency of Historical Tornadoes in Boone County, Missouri (1954 to 2016) ................................ .. ..... ... ............................. ........ ... ... .... ... ..... .. ... .... .. .... .... ... .. ..... 2-77 Table 2-33. Annual Frequency of Historical Tornadoes in Boone County, Missouri (1954 to 2016) .. ............ .. ....... ..... .. .. .. ........................ ...... .. .. ....... .... ..... .. .. .... .. .. ........... .. ... ....... ....... 2-77 Table 2-34. Boone County Seasonal Thunderstorm Wind Events (8/29/1955 to 5/11/2016) ...... ..... 2-78 Table 2-35 . Boone County Annual Thunderstorm Wind Events (8/29/1955 to 5/11 /2016) .... ......... 2-78 Table 2-36. Boone County Lightning Events (7 /5/1998 to 613012016) .. .. .... .. .. ........ .. .. ....... .......... .... 2-79 Table 2-37. Boone County Seasonal Hail Events 4/23/ 1958 - 511112016 .... ............ .................... ..... 2-79 Table 2-38. Boone County Annual Hail Events 4/23/1958 - 511112016 .... .. ... .. .. ..... ...... ..... ...... .. ...... 2-80 Table 2-39. Boone County Winter Weather Events (11111996 to 6/30/2016) (2 pages) .... .......... ..... 2-80 Table 2-40. Distances from Exhaust Stacks to Fence and Site Boundaries .. .... ........ ...... .. .. .............. 2-82 Table 2-41. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (4 pages) .. .... .. .. .... .... .. .. .... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .... ........... 2-99 Table 2-42. Projected Earthquake Hazards for Boone County .......................... .... .... ... .. ................ 2-103 vi

NWM l-201 3-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics TERMS Acronyms and Abbreviations 82 Rb rubidium-82 ACI American Concrete Institute ALOHA Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres BLEVE boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion CATSO Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHM Children's House Montessori Early Learning Center CONUS Continental United States COU Columbia Regional Airport CUSEC Central United States Earthquake Consortium State Geologists DHSS Department of Health & Senior Services Discovery Ridge Discovery Ridge Research Park DOA Department of Administration EF scale enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute F scale (original) Fujita tornado intensity scale FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards GIS Geographical Information System IBC International Building Code IDLH immediately dangerous to life and health IROFS items relied on for safety ISA integrated safety analysis ISCM Islamjc School of Columbia Missouri LEL lower explosion limit MOE Missouri Department of Education MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity MMRPC Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission MU University of Missouri NAO National Geodetic Survey NCES National Center for Education Statistics NMSZ New Madrid Seismic Zone NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrojssion NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWMI Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC OGP International Association of Oil and Gas Producers RAWS Remote Automatic Weather Station RSAC Radiological Safety Analysis Computer REDI Regional Economic Development, Inc.

RPF radioisotope production faci lity SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Terracon Terracon Consultants, Inc.

TNT trinitrotoluene U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code vii

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics USCB U.S. Census Bureau USGS U.S. Geological Survey Units oc degrees Celsius Of degrees Fahrenheit BTU British thermal unit cm centimeter ft feet ft 2 square feet ft 3 cubic feet g g-force gal gallon ha hectare hr hour

m. inch in. 2 square inch kg kilogram kgal thousand gall ons kip kilopound km kilometer km2 square ki lometers kPa kilopascal kW kilowatt L liter lb pound m meter m2 square meter m3 cubic meter MeV million electron volt Mgal million gallons mi mile mi 2 square mile rem roentgen equivalent in man sec second yd yard yd2 square yard viii

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1.1 Site Location and Description This subsection describes the location and important features of the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) proposed Radioisotope Production Facility (RPF) site.

2.1.1.1 Specification and Location The proposed 3.0 hectares (ha) (7.4-acre) site is situated in Boone County, Missouri, within the University of Missouri (MU) Discovery Ridge Research Park (Discovery Ridge) in Columbia, Missouri, north of Discovery Ridge Drive. The site is situated in central Missouri approximately 201 kilometers (km) (125 miles [mi]) east of Kansas City and 201 km (125 mi) west of St. Louis. The site is 7.2 km (4.5 mi) south of United States (U.S .) Interstate Highway 70 just to the north of U.S. Highway 63. The Missouri River lies 15.3 km (9.5 mi) to the west of the site. The site is located 5.6 km (3 .5 mi) to the southeast of the main MU campus and is shown on the map on Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2 provides the 8 km

( 5-mi) radius from the center of the facility and shows highways, rivers, and other local bodies of water.

The approximate center of the proposed RPF (NAO 83 , 1983) is:

Latitude and Longitude Longitude: 92° 16' 34.63" Latitude: 38° 54' 3 .31" Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates (meters [m])

Northing: 4306031 m Easting: 562755 m Zone: 15S Missouri State Plane Coordinates (U.S. Survey feet [ft])

North: 1116979.02 ft US East: 1704082.07 ft US FIPS Zone: Missouri Central 2402 2-1

.-.;...: NWMI

.*.~**:***

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3

~ *

WOllTffM:ST MEDICAL ISOTQf'H Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics ily K lfOMA RPF ite Major Ri er 0 200km (124 mile) Radiu from RP ite tate Boundarie ity

+ lnte tate Highv ay 0 15 30 60 Figure 2-1.

90 120 Miles Mark Twain 200 km (124 mi) Radius with Cities and Roads ational Fore t 2-2

i*;~:*..NWMI

...*** NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics

- *

N091TMWHl llUICAL llOTOPll Location Ma

RPF ite - Inter tate Highway 0 8 km (5 mile) Radiu from RPF itc - Highway City (J: City Limit Mark T' ain

+

0 0.5 1

--==::11--==-**m:===:m*** Miles 2 3 4 Ml Jefferson City

URI Figure 2-2. Illustration of 8 km (5-mi) Radius from the Center of the Facility 2-3

~*:~:- NWMI

...**... NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics

- *

NllrTffW(IT MEDtCAl JJDTIN'O 2.1.1.2 Boundary and Zone Area Maps Figure 2-3 shows the boundaries and zones applicable to the proposed RPF site. The square area near the center of the site within which all safety-related structures are located gives the rough location and size of the operations boundary in accordance with ANSI/ANS-15.7, Research Reactor Site Evaluation, and ANSI/ANS-15.16, Emergency Planning for Research Reactors. The Emergency Planning Zone is encompassed by the site boundary using the guidance in :

ANSI/ ANS-15.16, Emergency Planning for Research Reactors

Regulatory Guide 2.6, Emergency Planning for Research and Test Reactors

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulation, Part 50.54 ( 10 CFR 50.54), "Conditions of Licenses"

10 CFR 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Appendix E, "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities."

The site boundary is the property line around the perimeter of the RPF site in accordance with ANSI/ANS-15.7 and ANSI/ANS-15.16. The controlled area (also referred to as the exclusion area) is the area within the site boundary in accordance with 10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," Subpart 20.1003, "Definitions," and 10 CFR 70.6 1(t), "Performance Requirements." The area directly under the facility operating license will also be delineated by the site boundary.

Figure 2-4 shows the highways, railways, and waterways within the 8 km (5-rni) radius of the RPF site.

The approximately 3.0 ha (7.4-acre) RPF site is located entirely on property owned by MU. The site presently consists of grass fields . Access to the site is provided from Discovery Drive and Discovery Parkway. The RPF site is primarily relatively flat surfaces at an elevation of 231 m (758 ft). Figure 2-5 shows the topography within the vicinity of the RPF site.

Estimates of population density around the proposed project site included data from the most recent census year (USCB, 2010). Block groups and associated populations were identified within the 8 km (5-rni) radius of the RPF site using ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI, 2011). The associated population was divided by the calculated area (square mile [rni 2]) of each block group. The resulting population density was used to determine if the block group could be classified as either rural or urban. Block groups with a population density of more than 500 people/mi 2 were identified as urban. Block groups with a population density of lesser than 500 people/rni 2 were identified as rural. Urban or rural zones are identified in Figure 2-6.

2-4

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Rough estimate of Operations Boundary and Emergency Planning Zone D Site boundary, area directly under the NRC Facility Operating License, Controlled Area 0 0.03 0.06

-c::::mm:::::::i____ m:=====-----*

0.12 0.18 0.24 Miles Figure 2-3. Boundaries and Zones Associated with the Facility 2-5

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev . 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Location Ma

RP itc - inter tale Highway CJ km (5 mile) Radiu from RPF ite - High' ay (I! it Limit Mark T\ ain ational Fore t

+

0 0.5 1 2

--=::J-*:::i***-====****

3 4 Miles Jehson City

1 UR I Figure 2-4. Prominent Features in Site Area 2-6

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics L~

t J

Location Ma

- Interstate High ays ite

- Highway City t,~;; City Limits

+

Mark Tv ain ational Forest Jefferson City

0 0.5 1 2 3 4 I S UR I

- c:::i**:::i***-== = =* * *

Miles Figure 2-5. Topography in Site Area 2-7

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Location Ma

- Inter late Highways RPF ite

- Highways 0 8 km ( mile) Radius from RPF ite City

- State Routes rban Areas (>500 people/square mile)

Rural Areas (< 500 people/square mile)

Jeffen on City

0 0.5 2 3 4 URI

-..:=---==----=======- - -Miles Figure 2-6. The Rural and Urban Zones Surrounding the Radioisotope Production Facility 2-8

_ _J

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.1.2 Population Distribution This subsection describes the population distribution within 8 km (5.0 mi) of the center point of the safety-related area at the proposed site. The information includes estimates of the resident and transient populations for the most recent census year (2010) and projections of the resident and transient populations for the following future years:

Year submitting Construction Permit Application (2015)

Year of submitting Operating License Application (2018)

Five years after submitting Construction Permit Application (2020)

Five years after submitting Operating License Application (2023)

Approximate expected end of Operating License period (2050)

Five years after approximate expected end of Operating License period (2055)

Estimates and projections of resident and transient populations around the proposed project site are divided into five distance bands-concentric circles at 0-1 km (0-0.6 mi), 1-2 km (0.6-1.2 mi), 2-4 km (1.2-2.5 mi), 4-6 km (2 .5-3.7 mi), and 6-8 km (3 .7-5 .0 mi) from the center point of the RPF-and 16 directional sectors (with each direction sector centered on one of the 16 compass points). For each segment formed by the di stance bands and directional sectors, the resident population was estimated using U.S . Census Bureau 2010 census data, and the transient population was estimated usi ng the best available data for major employers, schools, medical facilities , and lodging facilities. Collected transient population data is intended to represent 2010 population levels.

The future resident and transient population growth in each distance/direction segment was projected using specific growth rates that depend on whether the segment is located in the city of Columbia or in Boone County. The specific growth rates used in these areas are explained in the following paragraphs.

The City of Columbia comprehensive land use plan (City of Columbia, 2013), presents projections on the city' s future population calculated using several possible population growth rates. The plan states that the Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization (CATSO) model projects a greater rate of population growth and is considered the most reasonable and conservative basis for estimating the city's future population. According to the plan, the CATSO model growth rate was calculated by using historic population data and land use trends, which are then projected forward to estimate future growth. Based on these projections, the CATSO model estimated that the rate of population growth (growth rate) is 1.5 percent annually. This growth rate was used to project future populations for areas within the analysis area that are within the Columbia city limits. The 2010 estimated resident and transient population in each distance/direction segment that is located partially or entirely within the city boundaries was increased by 1.5 percent each year from 2011 to 2050.

The Missouri Department of Administration (DOA) provides state and county population projections that were developed using the cohort-component method (DOA, 2008). The cohort-component method reviews recent hi storical patterns to determine age- and sex-specific rates of fertility, mortality, and migration. The DOA used the 2000 Census as a base for population counts. The base count is then advanced at five-year intervals to the year 2030 by using projected survival rates and net migration rates by age and sex. The DOA projections show that the population of Boone County is expected to increase by 7.9 percent for the five-year period from 2010 to 2015, by 7.2 percent from 2015 to 2020, by 6.2 percent from 2020 to 2025, and by 5.0 percent for the period from 2025 to 2030. For each five-year period, the percent growth was divided by five to give the estimated annual growth rate within that period. The annual growth rates were used to project future populations for the areas around the project site that are entirely outside the boundaries of the city of Columbia. The estimated 20 I 0 resident and transient population in each distance/direction segment that is located entirely outside of the city boundaries was increased by 1.58 percent each year from 2011to2015, by 1.44 percent from 2016 to 2020, by 1.24 percent from 2021 to 2025, and by 1.0 percent from 2026 to 2030. The growth rate of 1.0 percent was used for the period from 2031 to 2050.

2-9

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Ch aracteristics The following subsections described the resident and transient population distribution surrounding the proposed RPF site.

2.1.2.1 Resident Population The permanent residences nearest to the proposed RPF site were identified through an examination of aerial photographs and geographic information system (GIS) data files using ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI, 2011 ).

There are two permanent residences located approximately 0.48 km (0.3 mi) from the center point, one to the south and the other to the northeast. These two houses are the closest residences to the center point of the safety-related area.

Figure 2-7 shows places of significant population Table 2-1. Closest Permanent Residents groupings (incorporated cities and unincorporated Within Each Com pass Section Arou nd the villages) within 8 km (5 .0 mi) of the center point Proposed Site of the safety-related area. The map includes Nearest resident concentric circles drawn at distances of 1 km (0.6 mi), 2 km (1.2 mi), 4 km (2.5 mi), 6 km Quadrant (3.7 mi), and 8 km (5 mi) from the center point, North to North-Northeast 1.4 0.86 and is divided into 16 directional sectors, with North-Northeast to Northeast 0.6 0.36 each directional sector consisting of 22.5 degrees centered on one of the 16 compass points. Northeast to East-Northeast 2.0 1.22 Table 2-1 shows the closest permanent resident East-Northeast to East 1.1 0.7 within each of the 16 sectors.

East to East-Southeast 1.8 1.1 The 2010 resident population within the 1 km East-Southeast to Southeast 2.0 1.24 (0.6 mi) and 2 km (1.2 mi) concentric circles was estimated based on the number of occupied houses Southeast to South-Southeast 0.9 0.55 (as identified through an examination of aerial South-Southeast to South 0.8 0.48 photographs) and the average number of people South to South-Southwest 0.4 0.27 per household (as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau). U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that South-Southwest to Southwest 1.4 0.89 Boone County has an average of 2.36 people per Southwest to West-Southwest 1.4 0.87 household (USCB, 2013).

West-Southwest to West 2.0 1.23 West to West-Northwest 0.9 0.58 West-Northwest to Northwest 1.0 0.65 Northwest to North-Northwest 1.7 1.04 North-Northwest to North 1.4 0.86 2-10

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics ESE SE s

Lo ation Map Proposed Location Q 1 km from Site Q 2 km from Site 4 km from Site J

Populat100 imonCrty Groupin~ s Saint Lo 0

+ 0.5 2 3 4 IMC::JIMC::J1***-====:::11**** Mites Q

Q 6 km from Site 8 km from Site Directional Sectors Incorporated Area Figure 2-7. Population Groupings 2-11

NWMl-2013-021, Rev . 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics The 2010 resident population estimate was derived by multiplying the number of occupied houses by 2.36 people per house and rounding to the nearest whole number. The total resident population estimated in this manner for 2010 is 205 people at a distance of 0-1 km (0-0.6 mi) from the proposed site, and 1,862 people at a distance of 1-2 km (0.6-1.2 mi). These population estimates are shown in Table 2-2, along with estimates for other distances. Figure 2-8 shows the population estimates divided into the distance/direction sections.

Table 2-2. Resident Population Distribution within 8 km (5 mi) of the Proposed Site I . ..

Year Total 0-8 2010 205 1,862 7,070 16,919 21,508 47,564 2014 218 1,974 7,495 17,936 22,801 50,423 2015 221 2,004 7,608 18,205 23,143 51,181 2019 234 2,124 8,063 19,296 24,530 54,247 2020 238 2,156 8,184 19,585 24,897 55,060 2045 291 2,628 9,991 23,948 30,428 67,287 2050 313 2,820 10,727 25,728 32,683 72,271 The U.S. Census Bureau 2010 census block and tract data (USCB, 2012) was used to estimate the resident population within the 4 km (2 .5 mi), 6 km (3 .7 mi), and 8 km (5.0 mi) distance bands. For each segment formed by the distance bands and directional sectors, the percentage of each census tract 's land area that falls , either partially or entirely, within that segment was calculated using ArcMap 10 GIS software (ESRI, 2011 ). The equivalent proportion of each census tract's population was then assigned to that segment. If portions of two or more census tracts fall within the same segment, the proportional population estimates for the census tracts were summed to obtain the population estimate for that segment.

Table 2-2 shows total 2010 population estimates within the 4 km (2.5 mi), 6 km (3.7 mi), and 8 km (5.0 mi) distance bands, and Figure 2-8 shows the population estimates divided into the distance/direction sections.

Using the methodologies described above, the 2010 resident population estimates within the distance bands and directional sectors were extrapolated to the years 2014, 2015 , 2019, 2020, 2045, and 2050.

Table 2-2 shows that total projected resident population for these years within the distance bands, and Figure 2-9 to Figure 2-14 show the projections for these years divided into the distance/direction sections.

2-12

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics

---~.

E E

84 ESE Lo ati n Map Proposed Location 0 1 km from Site 0 2 km from Site 4 km from Site Saint Lo 0 6 km from Site 0 8 km from Site Directional Sectors 0 0.5 2 3 4 RcsKlmt Pop 1oa omnbutlOD . _010

&.-* *.,.INl# 1**h**r.hwn.-.lu,_.,

IMm::::Jl*m::::J1***-====:::11**** Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-8. Resident Population Distribution - 2010 2-13

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics E I.

89 E

E Lo ation Map Proposed Locallon Q 1 km from Site 0 2 km from Site 4 km from Site J enonC1ty Saint Lo 0 6 km from Site 0 8 km from Site Directional Sectors 0 0.5 2 3 4

,.,.,..<<-Pop ..

~Nian lllOll Dtslr1bu1100 - 2014

~ ,.,.,.,.~~ ~",..,...,

IMK:::JIWK:::Jl***-====::11**** Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-9. Resident Population Distribution - 2014 2-14

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics I

E

---~

E 91 E

E n Map Proposed Locabon 0 1 km from Site 0 2 km from Site

'0 0 4 km from Site 6 km from Site Saint Lo J ersonCity 0 8 km from Site Direct1onal Sectors 0 0.5 2 3 4 Incorporated Area Resident Popul0l100 D1.s1nbu1100 - _o t 5 IMIC::JIMIC::J1***1C= = =::11**** Miles

,,.,..,,_ * ._..,..,,.,.,._ '#** ~--* ~urw*

Figure 2-10. Resident Population Distribution - 2015 2-15

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics EN 96 ESE SE Location Map Proposed Location Q 1 km from Sile 0 2 km from Site 4 km from Site on City Saint Lo 0 6 km from Site 0 8 km from Site Directional Sectors 0 0.5 2 3 4 Rcs1dcn1 Pop 11100 l>lstn 1100 - 2019

,....,_.,,....,.,.,.jJM f*M#A11111tr'-tta-1urw.- 1*m::::i**:::i* ***c===*****Mi1es Incorporated Area Figure 2-11. Resident Population Distribution - 2019 2-16

~*;~*:*..NWM I

...*** NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics

- *

INOflllfWUT llHMCAL llOTOftl E

E' 97 E E E

s Lo ation Map Proposed Location Q 1 km from Site 0 2 km from Site c Ct 4 km from Site J l!fl;onC y Saint Lo 0 6 km from Site 0 8 km from Site Directional Sectors 0 05 2 3 4 R* adcn1 Populauoa Dlsln uoa . 20-0 llllllC:::JlllllC:::JlllllllllllC:=:=:=:::Jlllllllll* M i ~s Incorporated Area

,,....,,_ *c,..*.1.,., ..il# 111., At..c* ~~ ,,,,,__

Figure 2-12. Resident Population Distribution - 2020 2-17

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics E

11 2 ESE SE s

Lo ation Map Proposed Location 0 1 km from Site 0 2 km from Site

'D 0 4 km from Site 6 km from Site Saint Lo 0 8 km from Site Directional Sectors 0 0.5 2 3 4 IMK::::JMK::::J****===::::i**** Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-13. Resident Population Distribution - 2045 2-18

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics N E )

~

a E'

117 159 211 ES 117 i E

s Lo ation Map Proposed Locabon 0 1 km from Site 0 2 km from Site c Ct 4 km from Site Saint Lo 0 6 km from Site J ~onC rty 0 8 km from Site Directional Sectors 0 0.5 2 3 4

- C:::JIWC:::Jl***-====:::11**** Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-14. Resident Population Distribution - 2050 2-19

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.1.2.2 Transient Population In the addition to permanent residents around the proposed RPF site, there are people who enter this area temporarily for activities such as employment, education, medical care, and lodging. Although, some residents may not leave the safety-related area for any of these above activities, it is assumed that the estimated transient population estimates represent the population that is using the area temporarily. These transient populations were estimated based on data obtained from local officials, tourist boards, and government agency websites for major employers, schools, medical facilities (hospitals and nursing homes), and lodging facilities (hotels and motels) within 8 km (5.0 mi) of the center point. Transient populations using recreation sites were not used as part of the estimate because data could not be obtained for facility daily use.

Table 2-3 lists the major employers identified within 8 km (5.0 mi) of the proposed site, the directional sector and distance band within which each employer is located, and the best available estimate of the total number of people employed at that location. Data from Regional Economic Development, Inc. was used to estimate the number of employee per major employers within the safety-related area (REDI, 2011).

Table 2-3. Employers (2 pages)

Directional Distance Facility sector band {km) Employment ABC Laboratories, Inc. w 0 to 1 348 Discovery Office Park (2016) w 0 to 1 250 3 Columbia School District - New Havenb NW 1 to 2 23 Boone County Public Works SSE 1to2 74 Central Regional Conservation Office (2013) SW 1 to 2 40 3 KOMO SE 1to2 6f Magellan Pipeline SSE 1 to 2 15 3 Columbia Auto Mart SE 1to2 3*

Columbia School District - Cedar Ridgeb N 2 to 4 15 Jones Honda SSE 2 to 4 3*

MBS Textbook Exchange NW 2 to 4 1,084 State Farm Insurance Companies WNW 2 to 4 1,043 U.S. Postal Service 341 c NW 2 to 4 43 Woodhaven WNW 2 to 4 220 Meeks Lumber SSE 2 to 4 1o*

MFA, Inc. NW 2 to 4 250 Equine Medical Services SSE 4 to 6 6*

University of Missourid NW 4 to 6 3,162 University of Missourid WNW 4 to 6 611 University of Missourid NNW 4 to 6 2 Columbia School District - Gentry Middle Schoolb w 4 to 6 64 Columbia School District - Rock Bridgeb WSW 4 to 6 40 Columbia School District - Rock Bridge High Schoolb w 4 to 6 107 Columbia School District - Sheppard Boulevardb NNW 4 to 6 30 Boyce and Bynum Pathology Laboratories, P.C. N 4 to 6 369 U.S. Postal Servicec w 4 to 6 43 Boone County National Bank0 WNW 4 to 6 16 Boone County National Bank° NNW 4 to 6 16 2-20

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-3. Employers (2 pages)

Directional Distance Facility sector band (km) Employment Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance NNW 4 to 6 201 University of Missourid NW 6 to 8 3,273 University of Missourid WNW 6 to 8 1,581 University Hospital and Clinics - Women's and N 6 to 8 1,412 Children's Hospitalr University Hospital and Clinicsr NW 6 to 8 2,867 Columbia School District - Bentonb NNW 6 to 8 23 Columbia School District - Douglass High Schoolb NW 6 to 8 15 Columbia School District - Grantb NW 6 to 8 23 Columbia School District - Jefferson Junior Highb NW 6 to 8 65 Columbia School District - Leeb NW 6 to 8 21 Boone Hospital Center NW 6 to 8 1,647 City of Columbia NW 6 to 8 1,286 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs NW 6 to 8 1,250 Columbia College NW 6 to 8 490 Boone County Government NW 6 to 8 291 U.S. Postal Servicec NW 6 to 8 43 CenturyLink NW 6 to 8 230 U.S. Department of Agriculture NW 6 to 8 258 Boone County National Banke w 6 to 8 16 Boone County National Bank0 NW 6 to 8 16 Boone County National Banke NW 6 to 8 16 Boone County National Bank* NNW 6 to 8 16 Boone County National Bank* NNE 6 to 8 16 Total: 22,615 Sources :

DHSS, 201 3, " DHSS Community Data Profil es - Hospital Revenu es fro m 2010-201 2,"

http://health.mo.gov/data/Co mmunityDataProfi les/i ndex.htmJ, Misso uri Department of Health & Senior Services, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed September 5, 2013.

MOE, 201 3, " District Student Staff Ratios - Columbia 93 ," Missouri Department of Educati on, Jefferson City, Missouri .

REDI , 2011 , "20 11 Fact Book Columbia/Boone Co unty Missouri," http://www.columbiaredi .com/wp-content/uploads/20 11 /04/REDI -Fact-Book-11.pdf, Regional Economi c Development, Inc., Columbia, Missouri.

Estimated.

b Empl oyee esti mates are based on school-to-student and administrator-to-student ratios. These are th e estimated personnel who are most likely to be onsite 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> (hr)/day, 5 days/week.

c The total number of post office employees (3 41 ) were di vided by the total number of branches (8) located within the Columbia metropolitan area and di stributed accordingly.

d The total number of Uni versity of Missouri employees (8,630) is proportional to th e area of the University of Missouri that lies within the di stance/direction sector based on the area.

e The total number of Boone Coun ty National Bank empl oyees (275) were di vided by th e total number of branches (1 7) and di stributed accordingly.

r The total number of University Hospital and Clinics employees (4,279) is proportional to the number of licensed beds at the Uni versity Hospital and Clinics and the Women' s and Children's Hospital.

2-21

NW Ml-20 13-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2. 0 - Site Characteristics MU is located in several of the distance/direction sections. For the employee estimate, the percentage of the university's area that falls, either partially or entirely, within that segment was calculated using ArcMap 10 GIS software (ESRI, 2011). The equivalent proportion of university's employment was then assigned to that segment. To estimate the percentage of employees for the Columbia School District within the safety-related area, the distance/direction section for each school was noted, and the number of employees at each school was estimated using teacher-to-student and administrator-to-student ratios provided by the Missouri Department of Education (MDE, 2013). The University Hospital and Clinics operates several facilities within the safety-related area. The majority of facilities are located near MU in one distance/direction section; however, the Women's and Children ' s Hospital is separate from these facilities. The number of licensed rooms that are managed by the University Hospital and Clinics was used to estimate the proportion of employees at the Women's and Children's Hospital (DHSS, 2013). For the population estimate for the U.S. Postal Service and Boone County National Bank, the total number of employees was divided by the total number of branches in Boone County and then assigned to the appropriate branches within the safety-related area.

Table 2-4 lists the schools identified within 8.0 km (5 mi) of the proposed site, the directional sector and distance band within which each school is located, and the best available estimate of the total number of students at that location. MU is located in several of the distance/direction sections. For the enrollment estimate, the percentage of the university's area that falls , either partially or entirely, within that segment was calculated using ArcMap 10 GIS software (ESRI, 2011). The equivalent proportion of university's enrollment was then assigned to that segment.

Table 2-4. Schools (2 pages)

Distance Facility Directional sector band (km) Enrollment Fr. Tolton Catholic High School (2013) WSW 1 to 2 233 New Haven NW 1to2 329 Bryan University NW 2 to 4 331 Cedar Ridge N 2 to 4 196 William Woods University NW 2 to 4 1,036 Christian Chapel Academy WNW 4 to 6 153 Columbia Career Center w 4 to 6 43 Country Day School WSW 4 to 6 150 Gentry Middle School w 4 to 6 787 Rock Bridge WSW 4 to 6 524 Rock Bridge High School w 4 to 6 1,820 Sheppard Boulevard NNW 4 to 6 504 University of Missouri* NW 4 to 6 12,731 University of Missouri* WNW 4 to 6 2,458 University of Missouri* NNW 4 to 6 8 Benton NNW 6 to 8 244 Children's House of Columbia NW 6 to 8 80 Columbia College NW 6 to 8 2,614 Columbia Independent NW 6 to 8 230 Columbia Independent School NW 6 to 8 117 Douglass High School NW 6 to 8 144 Field NNW 6 to 8 257 2-22

NW Ml-20 13-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-4. Schools (2 pages)

Distance Facility Directional sector band (km) Enrollment Grant NW 6 to 8 304 Islamic School of Columbia NW 6 to 8 54 Jefferson Junior High NW 6 to 8 812 Lee NW 6 to 8 305 Stephens College NNW 6 to 8 1,029 Stephens College Children's School NNW 6 to 8 93 University of Missouri* NW 6 to 8 13,180 University of Missouri* WNW 6 to 8 6,368 Total 46,751 Sources: CHM, 2013 ; Columbia College, 2013; JSCM, 2013 ; MDE, 2013 ; Movoto, 2013 ; MU, 2013 ; NCES, 2013 ; New America Foundation, 2013 ; School Digger, 2013 ; and US News, 2013 .

The total University of Missouri enrollment (34,748) is proportional to the area of the University of Missouri that lies within the distance/direction sector based on the area.

Table 2-5 lists the medical facilities (hospitals and nursing homes) identified within 8 km (5 .0 mi) of the proposed RPF site, the directional sector and distance band within which each facility is located, and the best available estimate of the total in-patient capacity (number of licensed beds) at that location. Medical facilities that do not have licensed beds (out-patient facilities) for patients to reside for more than one day were not included in the transient population estimate because visitations for these facilities are temporary (less than 8 hr/day).

Table 2-5. Medica l Facility i

Lenoir Manor Facility Directional sector WNW ltlrl1I 1 to 2 Licensed beds 84 Tiger Place NW 2 to 4 112 Lenoir Health Care Center NW 2 to 4 122 The Bluffs NW 2 to 4 132 Columbia Manor Care WNW 2 to 4 52 Bluff Creek Terrace NW 2 to 4 52 Neighborhoods Rehabilitation and Skilled Nursing NW 2 to 4 120 Boone Hospital Center NNW 6 to 8 400 Landmark Hospital NNW 6 to 8 42 University Hospital and Clinics NW 6 to 8 383 Women's and Children's Hospital* N 6 to 8 190 Daybreak Residential Treatment Center NW 6 to 8 14 Harambee House, Inc. NW 6 to 8 15 Columbia Healthcare Center NNW 6 to 8 97 Harry S Truman Memorial Veterans NW 6 to 8 126 Source: DHSS, 2013, " DHSS Community Data Profiles - Hospital Revenues from 20I0-2012,"

http://health.mo.gov/data/CornrnunityDataProfiles/index.html , Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed September 5, 2013.

In 2010, Columbia Regional Hospital became Women 's and Children' s Hospital.

2-23

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-6 lists lodging facilities (hotels and motels) identified within 8 km (5 .0 mi) of the proposed site, the directional sector and distance band within which each facility is located, and the best available estimate of the lodging capacity (number of rooms) at that location.

Table 2-6. Lodging Facilities Directional Distance I Facility sector band (km) Room Courtyard by Marriott NW 2 to 4 125 Hampton Inn & Suites NW 4 to 6 134 Stoney Creek Inn & Conference Center WNW 4 to 6 181 Candlewood Suites N 6 to 8 81 Baymont Inn & Suites N 6 to 8 65 Country Inn & Suites N 6 to 8 85 Fairfield Inn & Suites N 6 to 8 91 Hampton Inn N 6 to 8 120 Holiday Inn East NNE 6 to 8 126 Ramada Inn & Suites NNW 6 to 8 89 Residence Inn N 6 to 8 80 Staybridge N 6 to 8 82 Super 8 N 6 to 8 75 Super 8 East NNE 6 to 8 56 The Gathering Place NW 6 to 8 5 The Tiger Hotel NW 6 to 8 62 University Ave Bed & Breakfast NW 6 to 8 4 Wingate N 6 to 8 81 Sources:

Columbia Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2013, " Where to stay- Hotels, Inns, and Motels,"

http://www.visitcolumbiamo.com/section/stay/, Columbia, Missouri, accessed September 9, 2013.

Cvent, 2013 , "Hotels near Columbia MO," http://www.cvent.com/RFPNenues.aspx?ist=6&ma= 97&csn= l &vtt= l#page-6&so-1, Cvent Supplier Network, Tysons Comer, Virginia, accessed September 9, 2013.

The estimates provided in Table 2-7 represent the total number of people expected to be at each facility for any part of the day, with no consideration of the length of time they are likely to be there. The anticipated growth of Discovery Ridge may be underestimated using the above methodology. Developers are planning for an additional 1,000 employees supporting research at the park over the next 20 years (MMRPC, 2015). To account for this potential grow, an additional 30 new transient personnel are assumed to be employed near Discovery Ridge each year starting in 2020. This increase is spread equally between sectors over the estimating period.

To more accurately represent the transient population around the proposed site, the values in Table 2-7 were weighted according to the length of time people could be expected to stay at each facility, assuming typical use patterns for that type of faci lity. The estimates for employers and schools were multiplied by a weighting factor of 0.27, which assumes that each employee or student is present at the facility 9 hr/day, 5 days/week. The estimates for medical facilities were multiplied by a weighting factor that was determined by the specific use. For hospitals/clinics, the known occupation rate for each facility was multiplied by the number of licensed beds, which assumes at any one time a percentage of the beds are in use (DHSS, 2013).

2-24

i*;~:* NWM I

...**... NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics

- *

WOlllTMWUT MEDtCAI. llOTIIPll Nursing homes were not multiplied by any weighting factor, effecti vely assuming that each available room is occupied 24 hr/day and 7 days/week. The estimates fo r lodging faci lities in the city of Columbia were multiplied by the average occupancy rate (60 percent) (Reed, 20 I 0).

Table 2-7. Weighted Transient Population Estimates by Source Medical facilities Distance band Major (hospitals and Lodging (hotels (km) employers 3 Schoolsa assisted living) and motels) 0-I 162 0 0 0 162 1-2 45 152 84 0 281 2 -4 722 423 590 75 1,8 10 4-6 1,260 5,184 0 189 6,633 6-8 4,011 6,982 804 661 12,458 0 -8 (Total) 6,200 12,741 1,478 925 21,344

Updated to include new employers and schools as of June 20 17.

The weighted 20 10 transient population estimates calculated for each type of facility in each di stance band area summarized in Table 2-7. Figure 2-1 5 shows the weighted 20 10 transient population estimates divided into the distance/direction segments.

Using the same population proj ecti on methodol ogies used for resident populations, the 2010 transient population estimates within the di stance bands and directional sectors were extrapolated to the years 2014, 201 5, 20 19, 2020, 2045, and 2050. Table 2-8 shows the total projected transient population for these years within the distance bands, and Figure 2-1 5 through Figure 2-2 1 show the population proj ections for these years divided into the di stance/direction segments.

Table 2-8. Total Project Transient Population 20 10 94 207 1,807 6,633 12,452 21 ,193 2014 100 395 1,912 7,033 13,207 22,647 20 15 101 397 1,944 7, 140 13,406 22,988 2019 107 486 2,060 7,566 14,2 10 24,429 2020 117 494 2,091 7,680 14,424 24,798 2045 341 657 2,562 9,426 17,669 30,447 2050 39 1 7 14 2,755 10,125 18,995 32,732

Includes Fr. Tolton Catholic High School and the Central Regional Conservati on Office starti ng in 201 3.

b Includes Discovery Office Park starting in 20 16.

c Includes employmen t growth at Discovery Ridge Research Park startin g 2020.

2-25

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed Location Location Map

'- I l;i::i C) 1 km from site C) 2 km from site 4 km from site 6 km from site Ml ~o*t I C) 8 km from site Transient Population Distribution - 2010 Directional Sectors J>opur.fan u ma.. ;a,., t.belod in<M 6sit1""'6iwcfanill 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 29 , ,,..

- o*c:**-===**-==:=J' Miles Incorporated Area F igure 2-15. Transient Population Distribution - 2010 2-26

_J

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed Location Locati on Map

~ IUttt..

C) 1 km from site C) 2 km from site

4 km from site 6 km from site Jd l I 1\1 1 s ll i I y C) 8 l<m from site Transient Population Distribution - 2014 - Directional Sectors 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 PopuYIOIJ .st.w il's.,. lobfied., ti>> 4'sanc.dlrw:10nol 309 .,,..

1*0*-=***===-**c:::::=::J1 Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-16. Transient Population Distribution - 2014 2-27

NWMl-20 13-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed Location Location Map C:> 1 km from site w *I l*

C:> 2 km from site Ml ~or 1 C:>

4 km from site

6 km from site 8 km from site Transient Population Distribution - 2015 Directional Sectors Popi.Um Htilalos.,. ~.,II>> disan<>>or.cionll 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 99m* IS *m::i*c***===-**c:=:::J1Miles Incorporated Area F igure 2-17. Transient Population Distribution - 2015 2-28

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed L ocation Location Map C=> 1 km from site C=> 2 km from site

4 km from site

6 km from site Ml ._!. HI I C=> 6 km from site Transient Population Distribution - 2019 Directiona l Sectors F'opuNllOll H t111** s .i. aJ>>/<> <fmne.<f~llOlllll 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5

""ll"'*""' **o*c**-===**-==:::::JiMiles Incorporated A rea Figure 2-18. Transient Population Distribution - 2019 2-29
NWMl-2013-02 1, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed Location Location Map C:::> 1 km from site C:::> 2 km from site
4 km from site 6 km from site 1\1 1 Ul l I C:::> 8 km from site Transient Population Distrib ution - 2020 Directional Sectors Popuilion Hl.ont~iH ar. at>>/.,S II II>> dis*111>> dl~a/ 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 ll9 .,,.,
D*CJ**-===i**-==::JI Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-19. Transient Population Distribution - 2020 2-30
_J
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed Location Location Map
~ 1 km from site
-* I L* 1
~ 2 km from site
4 km from site Ml otllH J II I
ty
<.~
Transient Population Distribution - 2045 Poplhllon *S1111*ios 11P W>>/.-1., IM disianc.dlrte6ofu1I
""9 .,,..
Figure 2-20.
+ -
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 1*0*-=**-===**-==::::::i1 Miles 5
Transient Population Distribution - 2045 6 km from site
~ 8 km from site
- Directiona l Sectors Incorporated Area 2-31
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed Location Location Map
- IUI [,
C=:> 1 km from site C=:> 2 km from site
4 km from site l\t l . , Ol l I
~---~
I' I
6 km from site C=:> 8 km from site Transient Population Distribution - 2050 Directiona l Sectors Poptbton *stRAIH.,. /al>>/<<! .. ti>> dlsant>>6~a/ 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
~ *nis 1*u*-=***===-**r===i1Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-21. Transient Population Distribution - 2050 2-32
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.1.3 Combined Resident and Transient Population The estimated 20 I 0 and projected future resident and transient population values were summed to obtain an indication of the effective total population around the project site. Table 2-9 summarizes the combined resident and transient population values for all the years within the di stance bands, and Figure 2-22 through Figure 2-28 show that combined populations for all years divided into the distance/directional segments.
Table 2-9. Combined Resident and Transient Population 2010 299 2,069 8,877 23 ,553 33,968 68,766 2014 318 2,367 9,402 24,969 36,008 73,064 2015 322 2,40 1 9,552 25,345 36,549 74,169 2019 341 2,610 10,122 26,862 38,740 78,675 2020 355 2,650 10,275 27,265 39,321 79,858 2045 632 3,282 12,553 33,374 48,097 97,730 2050 704 3,534 13,482 35,853 51 ,679 105,004 2-33
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed Location Location Map I 1t..1..1 C:) 1 km from site C:) 2 km from site
4 km from site
6 km from site J !kl Ml ._ (Ill I - ty C:) 8 km from site Combined Population Distribution - 2010 Directional Sectors Populafan .slinJu.,. Mt.l..S 11>> disa1JC>>dit..:fanlll 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 99 .,,..
m:::i*c***===-**c:=:::J'Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-22. Combined Population Distribution - 2010 2-34
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev . 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed Location Location Map C) 1 km from site C) 2 km from site
- 4 km from site 6 km from site f\1 1 lltl I C) 8 km from site Combined Population Distribution - 2014 Directional Sectors PopuSl>on ~lines m. labti~., U.. dista~dir*ciion.r 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
>>pmMis
o*c**-===**-===:: Ji Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-23. Combined Population Distribution - 2014 2-35
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed Location Location Map C=:> 1 km from site C=:> 2 km from site
4 km from site 6 km from site M l !>OU I C=:> 8 km from site Combined Population Distribution - 2015 Directional Sectors Popu/11/on .stiultoc .v. /;Jbel~ in ti>> disflln<>>di~al 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 5Pgm*ms
o*u**-==::::i**-==:: : :i1 Miles Incorporat ed Area Figure 2-24. Combined Population Distribution - 2015 2-36
i*;~°:" NWM I NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3
*
ltll'TIM'lSl MEDtCAl IS8TOPD Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Propose<! Location Location Map
'- ..... j, c:> 1 km from site c:> 2 km from site
4 km from site Ml lff I J II I
11y
~ I c:>
6 km from site 8 km from site Combined Population Distribution - 2019 Directiona l Sectors Popu&lion *stn ....s v. /ial>>l.,i., tM dimnoedt1"Clionlll 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 31P9m*nt:s
CJ*m::***===-**c=:::Ji Mil es I ncorporate<l A rea Figure 2-25. Combined Population Distribution - 2019 2-37
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed Location Location Map
<.. lum lJu c=> 1 km from site c=> 2 km from site
_j ____
4 km from site Ml HI I Combined Population Distribution - 2020
- -r 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 c=>
6 km from site 8 km from site Directional Sectors Popula iian *si.t!l *111$ atP -I~ ., II>> dist.,,.,. ditKiian~
3091nnls
o*c:**-===**-==::::J1 Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-26. Combined Population Distribution - 2020 2-38
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed Location Locati on Map c:::> 1 km from site
-* I lo c:::> 2 km from site
4 km from site 1\1 1 o.i I J __ ' c:::>
6 km from site B km from site Combined Population Distribution - 2045 Directional Sectors Populaion *.>liua>s - al>>lwl .. m. ~no.o..c1101,.1I 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 ll!l**ms
o*-=**-===**-==::::J1 Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-27. Combined Population Distribution - 2045 2-39
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Proposed Location Location Map
~ luml.t C=:> 1 km from site C=:> 2 km from site
4 km from site 1\1 1 1.i I Je ll I it y C=:>
' 6 km from site 8 km from site Combined Population Distribution - 2050 Directional Sectors P.,,,..fon .stim illts ;mo - 1..i in ti>> tisiance diJWCton al 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
119m*nls
o*-=**-===**-====i1Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-28. Combined Population Distribution - 2050 2-40
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES This section identifies and evaluates present and projected future industrial, transportation, and military installations and operations in the area within 8 km (5 mi) of the RPF site. In addition, fac ilities and activities at a greater distance than 8 km (5 mi) are also considered as appropriate to their significance.
2.2.1 Location and Routes Access to the proposed RPF site is from Discovery Ridge Drive. The site is situated in central Missouri, approximately 20 I km ( 125 mi) east of Kansas City and 20 I km (125 mi) west of St. Louis. The site is 7.2 km (4.5 mi) south of U.S. Interstate 70,just north of U.S. Highway 63 . The Missouri River lies 15.3 km (9.5 mi) west of the site. The site is located 5.6 km (3.5 mi) southeast of the main MU campus.
An investigation of industrial , transportation and military facilities within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site was performed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ' s Envirofacts Database was initially used to identify potential facilities within 8 km (5 mi). The Missouri Emergency Management Agency suppli ed Tier II chemical inventory reports for all of the facilities in Boone County. The following facilities were identified for further evaluation.
Industrial Facilities Transportation Routes/Facilities
Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories, Inc.
Heliports
Radii Discovery Ridge University of Missouri heliport
Gates Power Transmissions Materials Center Boone Hospital Center heliport
MU South Farm
MU Woman ' s and Children's Hospital
Land
Ryder Transportation U.S. Highway 63
Truegreen U.S. Interstate 70
Schwan's Home Service State Route 163
Petro Mart #44 State Route 740 State Route 763 Pipelines
Southern Star Central Gas - Natural Gas
Waterways - None Transmission Pipeline
Railroads - COLT Trans load
Magellan Pipeline Company - Non-HL V product Hazardous Pipeline Military Bases
Magellan Pipeline Company - Liquid Hazardous
None Pipeline
Ameren Natural Gas - Transmission Pipeline # 1 Mining and Quarryi ng Operations
Ameren Natural Gas - Transmission Pipeline #2
None Fuel Storage Facilities
Magellan Pipeline Company - Breakout Tank Figure 2-29 shows the location of the transportation and industrial facilities identified within 8 km (5 mi) of the proposed RPF site.
2-41
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics I.
1., *
"r.
I j
RPf Stl.C' lrid""nalfaclliaos foobl s-0 I km (S milt) Ratls111 r,_ llPf 11<
All>l)"11Cal lltoch<au~ l.abono4n~~e oOSSSA~~
~~- l:ncnlacth b..-a\'s~~
~~Ga Po*'<< Trm..-UIGD.S. !lattulJ Center~~
~~;.n;~~
~~So1&H'""~~
~~sa.r... ** Home '"""~~
- - ffilb*'tV*
~~;.n; * \\"amm'1 >nd Cbldnn*1 Hoop1al~~
==== S.*c Routn
':J CU* Lunou Hcbpor11 COLT T....,ilo>d Railrood
~~i.rt ,.,._ s ......i for...~~
~~.Amc:rra Naturll Gu Traumu11oe Plpdm.t~~
l Loutlon Map ti""' Am<r<11 NO!Utal c .. Tr11111n!1. .o Pipdinr*l ti""' Soudi<r0 Suir C-..1 c .. Pipduir loc Nxwll Gu Ttan.,..11100 l'lpdtn*
City - ~b&dl* Pipdin* Compmv l.>q**d ltu*dou1 l'lptliot
, bJdlm l'lpdlD< C.mpm l"on*H\'l. Pntdua lta:*dous Popd1ot
~~~b&dlm l'ip<lme Compmv ll<eakout 1'llnlc 0 OS~~
~~- =--==----====---*M*es 2 3~~
~~Figure 2-29. Industrial and Transportation within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site 2-42~~
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics An investigation of industrial, military, and transportation facilities from 8 km to 16 km was also conducted and identified the following transportation fac ilities for further evaluation. Figure 2-30 shows the airports, jet routes, and airway routes within 16 km (I 0 mi) of the proposed RPF site.
Industrial Facilities Airports
~~3M Company - Columbia~~
~~Sugar Branch Airport~~
~~AT&T, Inc.~~
~~Cedar Creek Airport~~
~~Columbia Municipal Power~~
~~Columbia Regional Airport~~
~~MPC #93 Fuel Storage Facilities Major Waterways~~
~~Midway Auto Truck plaza~~
~~Missouri River~~
~~Ballenger Propane, Inc.~~
~~Ferrellgas Pipelines~~
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company-Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline 2.2.1.1 Future Facilities A review was conducted to identify potential future facilities and transportation routes (e.g., industrial growth) that if established or constructed, could have an adverse effect on the RPF. These future faci lities/routes were identified through several sources. The initial lists of local projects were identified using the City of Columbia comprehensive land use plan (City of Columbia, 20 13). State and county planning documents were also reviewed, and potential projects were di scussed with Regional Economic Development, Inc., to identify potential private facilities . The majority of projects identified in the City of Columbia comprehensive land use plan are infrastructure-type projects of a nature that would exclude potential accidents that could affect the RPF.
~~Two new projects were identified that may be constructed near the Discovery Ridge, inc luding:~~
Global PET Imaging Facility - The proposed facility is being designed and constructed to process rubidium-82 (82 Rb) using a 70-million electron vo lt (MeV) cyclotron. This facility, along with any other potential faci lities that mi ght be constructed within the Di scovery Ridge, are assumed to be similar in nature to the existing fac ilities and RFP with similar potential hazards.
~~As such, accidents associated with future faci lities are assumed to be simi lar to those currentl y at Discovery Ridge and are bounded within the current accident analysis.~~
Odles' Discovery Park (residential/commercial development) - Proposed development would be located approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) west of Discovery Ridge. The development is currently planned as a housing development intermixed with commercial shops and businesses. These commercial faci lities are not anticipated to store large quantities of hazardous or flammable materials and would not likely pose a hazard to the RPF.
2-43
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics c( -----A.
~
I I
I
\
ladG.taul f Ktlcatl ur .. FKNyXat
~~l.l: *s.Gr-16 1<m (10 - ) flOm RPf s.. <l)> J!l.IC-- *C*lll-* * ).l,; . . . . . . . . . . a****Hotp111 4' AT.tr~~
~~P'l'b9l.t.i ..u:~~
~~- lnltt1UltH1jbw"t)"l~~
a..w Alit).1.1ull.-4-.1qyLlbon***
- - "'P.-.yt
-===- SU.it a_.,..
+c.r-... ~-opal,.... Pl** l'l,'*tT~$'"
~~Sek*. - s ~,..~~
~~t*:D,,SA~~
o.:up.,,....,rn-_._. nabC.**
+ :...c*9l Ttuf"'C MillO\*U R.....
Fwl Stons* l.ICUHt Q C'cyL*tD P.al!19-.St F.c:Uy .***
~~MM. T**o!:.....ar ..,.~~
.,...SU 0 ....,* ..._,r.
- COLT Tttttlaad t muu.o.u L<<1tlon Mop -l.'*oahct6c:
0 ~Q)'Ao*TN< rt ...
IW>po...
City Am<<a *IKtl:S..111 Gn t,._._ "~ *l
, - Amtrm s--al Ou Tr*-*... Aprlm< ~
~ PaM. . tE.aMtn1'J4*tC. ~-.'llCatn...;.,... ~
,.s..e.a. SmCesual Oat J\pdlM )K N-4 G* r,........ "~ .. ,
..- MA&dl* Pipd1M c..,.,.i....- ~ .....
- ).f.aC~* P\,,.t*t C..,*v NM-H\t. Ptt4.a tw:ar4 ..s . . . . .
~~).lladl* l\pd.u C..p*r Bruk* nu 0 125 25 5 75 10 "~~
. .c::..m::::::m. . . . . . . . =========-........ ~ues Figure 2-30. Industrial and Transportation within 16 km (10 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site Descriptions 2-44
NWMl-20 13-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.2.1.2 Industrial Facilities Descriptions of the industrial and transportation facilities identified within the 8 km (5 -mi) radius of the RPF are provided below. For those facilities identified for future investigation, the Tier II reports were evaluated to determine if the facility used or stored large amounts of hazardous materials that could have a potential impact on the RPF. Of the facilities identified in Figure 2-29, Table 2-10 provides a description of those facilities that were identified as having potentially hazardous materials onsite that could potentially affect the RPF . Table 2-10 provides a listing of these facilities , including their primary functions and major products, and the hazardous materials onsite. A detailed analysis was conducted of the potential accidents at these facilities and potential hazards and impacts to the proposed RPF .
Table 2-10. Significant Industrial Facilities within 16 km (10 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site Facility Product km mi Direction Hazardous material Gates Power Vehicle and 2.4 1.5 Northwest .. [Proprietary Information]
Transmissions Materials machinery [Proprietary Information]
Center drive belts MU South Farm Agriculture 1.6 Northwest .. [Proprietary Information]
.. [Proprietary Information]
[Proprietary Information]
[Proprietary Information]
Ryder Transportation Rental trucks 2.4 1.5 South . [Proprietary Information]
3M Company Electronic 12.9 8 North . [Proprietary Information]
components Schwan's Home Service Food service 6.8 2.4 South . [Proprietary Information]
MU = University of Missouri. RPF Radioisotope Production Facility 2.2.1.3 Transportation Routes U.S. Highway 63 runs approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) south of the RPF site. U.S. Highway 63 proceeds north and intersects U.S. Interstate 70 approximately 7.64 km (4.75 mi) to the north. U.S. Highway 63 continues to Jefferson City, Missouri, approximately 50 km (31 mi) to the south.
Other highways within the 8 km (5-mi) radius of the proposed RPF site include State Highway 63 that intersects U.S. Highway 63 3.2 km (2 mi) south of the RPF and routes north approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) west of the RPF . State Highway 740 intersects U.S. Highway 63 approximately 3.7 km (2.3 mi) north of the RPF, and routes west. State Highway 763 intersects State Highway 740 5.3 km (3 .3 mi) north of the RPF and routes north to U.S. Interstate 70.
Information is not available about the materials transported on the roads in the vicinity ofRPF site. To better understand the materials that could be transported over these roads, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III, Tier II reports for industrial facilitie s within 8 km (5 mi.) of the RPF site were consulted.
The Missouri's Commercial Vehicle Regulations (MoDOT, 2013) provided the maximum gross vehicle weight of 36,290 kilogram (kg) (80,000 pounds [lb]). Using the assumption that an average truck and trailer combination weighs 13,600 kg (30,000 lb), the allowable weight that a truck could carry on the highways would be 22,690 kg (50,000 lb).
2-45
~~i*:~:* NWM I~~
~~...**... NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics~~
*
llDITMWHT M£lltCAL llOTOf'U For analysis, all materi als were assumed to travel Table 2-11. Hazardous Chemical Potentially on State Highway 63, 0.4 km (.25 mi) south of the Transported on Highways within an 8 km (5-mi)
RPF. Table 2-11 summarizes the chemicals and Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility anticipated amounts that are present at the industrial facilities that could pose a hazard when transported.
Ammonia 22,680 50,000 2.2.1.4 Pipelines Ammonium nitrate 22,680 50,000 Several natural gas distribution pipelines are located Chlorine 408 900 within 8 km (5 mi) of the proposed RPF site, as Diesel 22,680 50,000 depicted in Figure 2-29. Available information Gasoline 22,680 50,000 about these pipelines is included in Table 2-12 .
Glycol ether PM 22,680 50,000 Ameren Missouri operates a natural gas Hydrofluorosilicic acid 22,680 50,000 transmission line approximately 6.0 km (4 mi) and Hydrogen 1,497 3,300 a pipeline installed in 20 16 approximately 0.64 km (0.4 mi) north of the proposed RPF site. Southern JP-4 aviation fuel 22,680 50,000 Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. operates a natural Methyl ethyl ketone 22,680 50,000 gas transmission pipeline located approximately Oil 22,680 50,000 1.6 km (1 mi) south of the proposed site. Pentaerythritol distearate 22,680 50,000 Magellan Midstream Partners, LP operates two pipelines within 8 km (5 mi) of the site, including Petroleum naphtha 22,680 50,000 a pipeline 2.0 km ( 1.25 mi) to the north , which Propane 22,680 50,000 carries refined petroleum products. The company Sulfur dioxide 22,680 50,000 also maintains a recently reopened line Toluene (32-8413) 22,680 50,000 approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) south of the proposed Zetpol (all types) 22,680 50,000 RPF site.
Table 2-12. Major Pipelines Located within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site i*l@iu!§i§M Pressure (max) Distance from RPF Pipeline company Product Bllllll,@iliffN- *
Ameren Missouri Natura1 gas (#1) [Proprietary Information] North Ameren Missouri Natural gas (#2) [Proprietary Information] North Southern Star Central Natural gas [Proprietary Information] South Gas Pipeline, Inc.
Magellan Midstream Refined [Proprietary Information] North Partners, LP petroleum Magellan Midstream Refined [Proprietary Information] South/east Partners, LP petroleum RPF = Radioisotope Production Facility.
2.2.1.5 Fuel Storage Two major fuel storage faci lities are located within the 8 km (5 -mi) radius of the proposed RPF site, and include the Magellan Pipeline Company Breakout Tank and the Ferrellgas facility. Information of each of these faci lities is provided in Table 2-1 3.
2-46
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-13. Major Storage Facilities Located within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site Volume Storage facility Product (gal) km mi Direction Magellan Pipeline Company [Proprietary [Proprietary 1.6 Southeast Breakout Tanks Information] Information]
Ferrellgas [Proprietary [Proprietary 8 5 North Information] Information]
RPF Radioisotope Production Facility.
2.2.2 Air Traffic 2.2.2.l Airports There are three airports and three helicopter ports located within 16 km ( 10 mi) of the proposed RPF site.
The three airports include:
~~Columbia Regional Airport (COU) (public) located approximately 10.4 km (6.5 mi) south of the RPF site~~
~~Cedar Creek Airport (private) located approximately 10.6 km (6.6 mi) northeast of the RPF site~~
~~Sugar Branch Airport (private) located approximately 15.6 km (9.7 mi) northwest of the RPF site These airports are identified in Figure 2-30 (Section 2.2.1.1 ).~~
The nearest airport to the RPF is COU, which is used by commercial and privately owned aircraft. The airport is situated on approximately 532 ha (1 ,314 acres) and is owned and operated by the City of Columbia. This airport is the only public use airport located in Boone County, Missouri, for which records are kept. For January through December 2016, the airport had 21 ,894 (22,439, including overflights) aircraft operations (Parks, 2017a), including:
~~67.6 percent general aviation~~
~~17.7 percent air taxi~~
~~9.3 percent military~~
4.8 percent air carrier Cedar Creek airport is a private, turflanding strip approximately 10.6 km (6.6 mi) northeast of the RPF site. The facility houses two private single engine aircraft. The specific number of flights to and from the faci lity is not available.
The Sugar Branch airport is a private, turf landing strip approximately 15.6 km (9.7 mi) northwest of the RPF site. The faci lity houses one single engine aircraft. The specific number of flights to and from the facility are not available.
Two helicopter ports are located within 16 km (10 mi) of the RPF site that support hospital operations.
For calendar year 2016 (January through December), the heliports have a total of 654 flights annually, as follows:
~~University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics located 6 km (3.7 mi) northwest - 308 flights (Jones, 2017)~~
~~Boone Hospital Center heliport located 6.3 km (3.9 mi) northwest - 346 flights (Eidson, 2017) 2-47~~
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Based on NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing ofNon-Power Reactors - Format and Content, sites located between 8 km (5 mi) and 16 km (10 mi) from an existing or projected commercial or military airport with more than approximately 200 d2 (where dis the distance in kilometers from the airport to the RPF site) commercial or military aircraft movements per year, the probability of aircraft accidents is considered less than an order of magnitude of 10-7 per year.
The number of operations at the Cedar Creek and Sugar Branch airports are not available. However, daily operations were assumed based on the aircraft housed, including two operations per day from Cedar Creek (730 operations/year) and one operation per day from Sugar Branch (365 operations/year). Based on the results presented in Table 2-14, all three airports are under the 200 d2 limits.
Table 2-14. 200 D2 Limits Distance Airport km (mi) Flights per year 200 d2 limits 3 Columbia Regional Airport 10-4 (6.5 mi) 21,894 21,632 Cedar Creek 10.6 (6.6 mi) 730 22,472 Sugar Branch 15.6 (9.7 mi) 365 48,672
~~d is the distance in kilometers from the airport to the RPF site (200 x distance squared).~~
RPF = radioisotope production facility.
Based on the results shown above and NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan fo r the Review ofSafety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, COU needs to be further evaluated. The guidance also requires that special consideration be given to facilities sited within the trajectory of a runway of any airport. The RPF site is not located within a trajectory of a runway of the airport.
NUREG-0800, Section 3.5.1 .6, provides a methodology for determining the probability of an aircraft crash into a facility from airports. The probability of an aircraft crashing into the RPF site is estimated using the following equation.
L M Pa= II i=l j=l cj NijAj Where:
M Number of different types of aircraft using the airport L Number of flight trajectories affecting the airport Cj Probability per square mile of a crash per aircraft movement for the jth aircraft Nij Number (per year) of operations by the jth aircraft along the ith flight path Aj Effective area (in square miles) for the jth aircraft The different aircraft using COU include those categorized as air carrier, air taxi , military, and general aviation. Military aircraft are further divided into large (bombers, cargo aircraft, and tankers) and small (fighters, attack aircraft, and trainers).
The effective area for each aircraft associated with the RPF was calculated in EDF-3124-0015, Evaluation ofAircraft Hazards . Because the probability per square mile of a crash per aircraft movement (Cj) is not available in NUREG-0800, for most aircraft at distances greater than 5 mi , the probability was calculated using DOE-STD-3014-2006, Accident Analysis for Aircraft Crash into Hazardous Facilities .
2-48
NWM l-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics This methodology uses the orthonormal distance from the RPF measured as the closest point to the center of each runway at COU [f(x,y)]. The aircraft crash probability is obtained from Tables B-2 through B-13 of DOE-STD-3014-2006. If the orthonormal distance is outside the boundaries of the tables, the f(x,y) is assumed to be zero. For military aircraft, the "pattern" side of the runways needs to be identified. For COU, the pattern side is left (AirNav, 2017). Table 2-15 provides the orthonormal coordinates for each runway.
Table 2-15. Orthonormal Coordinates for Columbia Regional Airport Runways to the Radioisotope Production Facility Runway Distance (mi) Bearing to RFP Runway bearing 20 6.69 333.17 133.17 2.27945 6.28969 2 6.69 329.23 309.23 -1.43955 6.53328 13 6.32 329.23 199.23 1.63167 6.10574 31 6.32 329.23 19.23 -5.86812 2.34682 RPF radioisotope production facility.
Since the exact number oflandings and takeoffs is not known for each aircraft, half of the operations are considered to be takeoff and half landings. This is conservative because total operations include activities such as an aircraft contacting the tower for a change of vector. In addition, the City of Columbia has an annual airshow on Memorial weekend, this activity is included in the Columbia Regional Airport annual flights per year.
COU has two runways: 13-31 and 2-20. It is assumed that 95 percent of all aircraft currently use runway 2-20 because runway 13 -31 is a crosswind runway. In addition, large aircraft currently cannot use runway 13-31. COU is currently expanding and upgrading the airport, and by 2019, runway 13-31 will be usable for large aircraft. The number of operations per year was distributed between the two runways by this percentage. Probabilities of a crash for each aircraft was calculated for each bearing associated with each runway ( 130, 310, 200, and 20).
The probability crash rates for each type of aircraft category is obtained from DOE-STD-3014-2006, Table B-1. The impact frequency is then calculated by multiplying the f(x ,y) value by the crash rate and affective area. Table 2-16 provides the results.
Table 2-16. Probability of Crashes from Airport Operations (2 pages) 20 Runway/Type of operations
~~11111111 II .~~
General aviation takeoff 7,025 -2.27945 6.289691 0 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+OO General aviation landing 7,025 -2.27945 6.289691 0 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+OO Commercial air carrier takeoff 503 -2.27945 6.289691 0 4.00E-07 0.018606226 O.OOE+OO Commercial air carrier landing 503 -2 .27945 6.289691 0 4.00E-07 0.018606226 O.OOE+OO Air taxis takeoff 1,839 -2.27945 6.289691 0 1.00E-06 0.015346798 O.OOE+OO Air Taxis landing 1,839 -2.27945 6.289691 0 1.00E-06 0.015346798 O.OOE+OO Military large takeoff 760 -2.27945 6.289691 0 2.00E-07 0.020269746 O.OOE+OO Military large landing 760 -2.27945 6.289691 2.90£-03 2.00E-07 0.020269746 8.93E-09 2-49
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-16. Probability of Crashes from Airport Operations (2 pages) 2 Runway/Type of operations General aviation takeoff General aviation landing 7,025 7,025
-1.43956 6.533282
-1.43956 6.533282 0
0 II 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+oO 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+OO Commercial air carrier takeoff 503 -1.43956 6.533282 0 4.00E-07 0.018606226 O.OOE+OO Commercial air carrier landi ng 503 -1.43956 6.533282 0 4.00E-07 0.018606226 O.OOE+OO Air taxis takeoff 1,839 -1.43956 6.533282 0 l.OOE-06 0.015346798 O.OOE+OO Air Taxis landing 1,839 -I .43956 6.533282 0 l .OOE-06 0.0 I 5346798 O.OOE+OO Military large takeoff 760 -1.43956 6.533282 0 2.00E-07 0.020269746 O.OOE+OO Military large landing 760 -1.43956 6.533282 2.30E-03 2.00E-07 0.020269746 7.08E-09 13 General aviation takeoff 370 1.631671 -6.10574 0 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+OO General aviation landing 370 1.631671 -6.10574 0 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+OO Commercial air carrier takeoff 26 1.631671 -6.10574 1.1 OE-05 4.00E-07 0.018606226 2.17E-12 Commercial air carrier landing 26 1.631671 -6.10574 0 4.00E-07 0.018606226 O.OOE+oO Air taxis takeoff 194 1.631671 -6.10574 I. I OE-05 I .OOE-06 0.015346798 3.27E-I I Air Taxis landing 97 1.631671 -6. 10574 0 l.OOE-06 0.015346798 O.OOE+OO Military large takeoff 40 1.631671 -6.10574 0 2.00E-07 0.020269746 O.OOE+OO Military large landing 40 1.631671 -6.10574 l.OOE-05 2.00E-07 0.020269746 l.62E-12 31 General aviation takeoff 370 -5.86812 2.346824 0 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+OO General aviation landing 370 -5.868 12 2.346824 5.00E-04 2.00E-04 0.00482234 I .78E-07 Commercial air carrier takeoff 26 -5 .86812 2.346824 0 4.00E-07 0.018606226 O.OOE+OO Commercial air carrier landing 26 -5.8681 2 2.346824 7. I OE-05 4.00E-07 0.018606226 l.40E-I I Air taxis takeoff 194 -5 .86812 2.346824 0 l.OOE-06 0.0 I 5346798 O.OOE+OO Air Taxis landing 97 -5.86812 2.346824 7.IOE-05 l .OOE-06 0.0 15346798 1.05E-I 0 Military large takeoff 40 -5 .86812 2.346824 0 2.00E-07 0.020269746 O.OOE+oO Military large landing 40 -5.86812 2.346824 3.40E-03 2.00E-07 0.020269746 5.51E-IO The impact frequency for each aircraft category is as follows;
~~General aviation I .78E-07~~
~~Commercial air carrier 1.6 I E-11~~
~~Air taxis 3.27E-ll~~
Military large l.66E-08 Because the three heliports are closer than 8 km (5 mi) to the RPF site, the frequency of an aircraft crashing into the site needs to be evaluated. NUREG-0800, Section 3.5.1.6, "Aircraft Hazards," provides a methodology for determining the probability of an aircraft crash into a facility from airways. However, the approach requires knowledge of the number of flights per year along the airway.
~~2-50~~
~~~*;~*:* NWM I NW Ml-2013-021, Rev. 3~~
*
NOffTMWEST MEOICAI. ISOTIM'U Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Because this information is not available for the flight paths near the RPF, DOE-STD-3014-2006 was used to determine the frequency of crashes. The following equation is used.
Fh = Nh x Ph x fh(x,y) x Ah Where:
Crash impact frequency Flight per year Probability of a crash Probability, given a crash, that the crash occurs in a 2.6 km 2 (1-rni 2) area surrounding the facility Effective plant area The effective area for an aircraft was determined by two components: the aircraft crashing into the facility either by skidding or by flying directly into it. The effective area was calculated based on an aircraft skidding or flying into the facility in the direction that produces the largest area (i .e., crashing in a direction perpendicular to the largest diagonal of the building).
The following formula was used to calculating the skid and fly in areas of an aircraft crashing into the facility.
Where:
(2 x L x W x WS)
At = (WS + R) x H x cot</J + R +L x W and:
As = (WS + R) x S Where:
Ar Effective fly-in area As Effective skid area ws Aircraft wingspan R Length of the diagonal of the facility = ..JL2 + W 2 H Facility height, facility-specific cot<!> Mean of the cotangent of the aircraft impact angle L Length of facility, facility-specific w Width of facility, facility-specific s Aircraft skid distance (mean value).
DOE-STD-3014-2006 notes that in calculating an effective area, the analyst needs to be cognizant of the "critical areas" of the facility. The critical areas are locations in a fac ility that contain hazardous material and/or locations that, once impacted by a crash, can lead to cascading failures (e.g., a fire, collapse, and/or explosion that would impact the hazardous material). The critical areas of the RPF are considered to be the hot cell and waste management areas.
The critical areas dimensions are estimated at 30.5 x 24 m (100 x 80 ft) , which provides a diagonal (R) of 39 m (128 ft) . The facility height (H) of 22.9 m (75 ft) was used. DOE-STD-3014-2006 provides estimates for aircraft wingspan, mean of the cotangent of the aircraft impact angle, and skid distance for five different aircraft types. For helicopters, the cot<l> value is 0.58 and the skid length is typically assumed to be 0. The effective area is calculated in Table 2-19.
2-5 1
NW Ml-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2 .0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-17. Affective Area for Helicopter
- Helicopter Wing spana ws (ft) 50 cot<l>a 0.58 Skid distancea s (ft) 0 Effective plant area Ah (mi 2 )
0.00079 a DOE-STD-3014-2006, Accident Analysis for Aircraft Crash into Hazardous Facilities , U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1996 (R2006).
For a helicopter, fh(x,y) is estimated based on half the average length of a flight with the lateral variations in crash locations assumed to be 0.4 km (0.25 mi) on the average from the centerline of the flight path, or 2/L. The probability Ph (2 .50E-05) is taken from DOE-STD-3014-2006, Appendix B, Table B-1 . The total number of flights from the three helipads is estimated at 1,825 per year. A conservation estimate is that 5 percent of these helicopters overfly the facility. In addition, a conservative estimate of total flight path is the distance to the closest helipad or 6 km (3.7 mi).
Based on these assumptions, the helicopter impact frequency is calculated as follows:
2 Fh = 91 x 2.5£- 05 x - x 7.9£- 04 3.7 Fh = 9.7£-07 The calculated crash impact frequency from the heliport is less than the requirement ofNUREG-0800 of being within an order of magnitude of 10-7 per year.
2.2.2.2 Airways There are seven federal airways located within 16 km (10 mi) of the RPF site. NUREG-1537 calls for the evaluation of frequency and type of aircraft movement, flight patterns, local meteorology, and topography. NUREG-0800, Section 3.5.1.6, was used to evaluate airways near the RPF site.
NUREG-0800 indicates that an evaluation is not required when the nearest edge of the airway is greater than 3.2 km (2 mi) from the facility. Four of the seven airways (J24, 11 81, Vl 2, and V63) fall within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the proposed RPF site (Table 2-18).
Table 2-18. Federal Designated Airways within 16 km (10 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site 124 17.3 10.75 Not specified Not specified Within Within J181 4.8 3 Not specified Not specified Within Within V12 6.8 4.25 14.8 9.2 Within Within V44 11.2 7 14.8 9.2 3.8 2.4 V63 0.40 0.25 14.8 9.2 Within Within Vl75 19.3 12 14.8 9.2 11.9 7.4 V178N239 11.2 7 14.8 9.2 3.8 2.4 RPF = radioisotope production facility.
The hazards associated with these airways are evaluated in Section 2.2.2 .5. Figure 2-30 identifies the centerline of federal airways within 10 mi ( 16 km) of the RPF site.
2-52
NWM l-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.2.2.3 Military Airports and Training Routes There are no military airports or training routes located within 16 km ( 10 mi) of the RPF site.
2.2.2.4 Approach and Holding Patterns According to air traffic control at COU, the controllers do not typical hold any traffic. However, if traffic is held, the aircraft are typically within their designated airspace, 8 km (5 mi) (Figure 2-29). The hazards associated with these airways are evaluated in Section 2.2.2.5 .
2.2.2.5 Evaluation of Aircraft Hazard NUREG-0800, Section 3.5.1.6, provides a methodology for determining the probability of an aircraft crash into a facility from airways. However, the approach requires knowledge of the number of flights per year along the airway. Because this information is not available for the flight paths near the RPF, DOE-STD-3014-2006 was used.
This method uses crash rates for non-airport operations. The following formula from the DOE standard was used.
Where:
Fi Crash impact frequency J Each type of aircraft suggested in DOE-STD-3014-2006 NjPi Expected number of in-flight crashes per year fj(x,y) Probability, given a crash, that the crash occurs in a l-mi 2 area surrounding the facility Effective plant area.
DOE-STD-3014-2006 provides estimated NjPjfj(x,y) values for general and commercial aviation, and the average continental U.S. (CONUS) values were used. The effective area, Aj, for each aircraft category is determined by two components; the aircraft crashing into the facility either by skidding or by flying directly into it. The effective area is calculated based on an aircraft skidding or flying into the facility in the direction that produces the largest area (i.e. , crashing in a direction perpendicular to the largest diagonal of the building). The following formula was used to calculating the skid and fly-in areas of an aircraft crashing into the facility.
Where:
(2 x l x W x WS)
Ar = (WS + R) x H x cot¢ + R +l x w and:
A 5 = (WS + R) xS Where:
Ar Effective fly-in area As Effective skid area WS Aircraft wingspan R Length of the diagonal of the fac ility = ..JL2 + W 2 H Facility height, facility-specific cot<l> Mean of the cotangent of the aircraft impact angle 2-53
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev . 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics L Length of facility, facility-specific w Width of facility, facility-specific s Aircraft skid distance (mean value).
DOE-STD-3014-2006 notes that in calcul ating an effective area, the analyst needs to be cognizant of the "critical areas" of the facility. The critical areas are locations in a facility that contain hazardous material and/or locations that, once impacted by a crash, can lead to cascading failures (e.g., a fire, collapse, and/or explosion that would impact the hazardous material). The critical areas of the RPF are considered to be the hot cell and waste management areas.
The RPF critical areas dimensions are estimated at 30.5 x 24 m ( I 00 x 80 ft), which provides a diagonal (R) of39 m (128 ft). The height (H) is 13 .7 m (45 ft). DOE-STD-3014-2006 provides estimates for aircraft wingspan, mean of the cotangent of the aircraft impact angle, and skid di stance for five different aircraft types. The most conservative values were used in cases where there were more than one available for the specific aircraft. These values, along with the calculated effective plant area, are summarized in Table 2-19.
Table 2-19. Effective Area Input Values and Calculated Effective Plant Area II -
Average CONUS Effective plant Non-airport crash values area Ai frequency Aircraft NJPJfJ(x,y)* ,. (mi 2) Fi Air carrier 4E-7 98 10.2 1440 0.0186 1 7.4E-09 Air taxi 1E-6 59 10.2 1440 0.01535 l.5E-08 Large military 2E-7 223 9.7 b780 0.02027 4. l E-09 Small military 4E-6 78 10.4 c447 0.00971 3.9E-08 General aviation 2E-4 73 8.2 60 0.00482 9.6E-07 airplanes Source: EDF-3124-00 15, Evaluation ofAircraft Hazards, Rev. 2, Portage, Inc. , Idaho Falls, Idaho, 201 7.
~~DOE-STD-30 14-2006, Accident Analysis for Aircraft Crash into Hazardous Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 2006.~~
b Takeoff c Landing CONUS = continental United States.
The crash impact probabilities from airways, airport operations, and helicopter overflights are summed together to determine the overall probability for small and large aircraft. The resulti ng probability is l .88E-06 (Table 2-20).
Table 2-20. Crash Impact Probabilities Airport operations Overflights Total General Aviation I. 78E-07 6.77E-07 8.5 5E-07 Commercial Air Carrier l.61E-ll 6.27E-09 6.29E-09 Air Taxis 3.27E-l l l .30E-08 1.3 0E-08 Military Large l.66E-08 3.12E-09 l.97E-08 Military Small O.OOE+OO 2.82E-08 2.82E-08 Helicopters 9.70E-07 9.70E-07 Total l .89E-06 2-54
~~i*;~*:* NWMI~~
~~...**... NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics~~
*
~~NOfl'TllW(IT MlOIW. ISOTOPU NUREG-1537 does not provide acceptance criteria to be used to evaluate the aircraft accident probability.~~
However, NUREG-0800 does provide criteria for assessment of aircraft accidents. For aircraft accidents, NUREG-0800, Section 3.5 .1.6, states that "Aircraft accidents that could lead to radiological consequences in excess of the exposure guidelines of 10 CFR 100 with a probability of occurrence greater than an order of magnitude of 10-7 per year should be considered in the design of the plant." The calculated crash impact probabilities from airways for all five aircraft types is slightly larger than an order of magnitude of 10-7 per year. Therefore, a general aviation crash will be evaluated as part of the integrated safety analysis (ISA) external event analysis and included in the Operating License Application.
2.2.3 Analysis of Potential Accidents at Facilities On the basis of the information provided in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, the potential accidents to be considered as design-basis events and the potential effects of those accidents on the facility, in terms of design parameters (e.g., overpressure, missile energies) or physical phenomena (e.g., impact, flammable or toxic clouds), were identified in accordance with:
~~10 CFR 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation"~~
~~10 CFR 50.34, "Contents of Applications; Technical Information"~~
~~Regulatory Guide 1.78, Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release~~
~~Regulatory Guide 1.91 , Evaluations of Explosions Postulated to Occur at Nearby Facilities and on Transportation Routes Near Nuclear Power Plants~~
~~Regulatory Guide 1.206, Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants~~
~~Regulatory Guide 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations~~
~~NUREG-153 7, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors - Format and Content.~~
~~NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants~~
~~Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures (FEMA, 1989)~~
~~NUREG-1520, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Fuel Cy cle Facility~~
~~NUREG-1805, Fire Dy namics Tools (FDI') - Quantitative Fire Hazard Analysis Methods for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fire Protection Inspection Program~~
~~NUREG/CR-6624, Recommendations for Revision of Regulatory Guide 1. 78 The events are discussed in the following subsections.~~
2.2.3.1 Determination of Design-Basis Events NUREG-1520, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Fuel Cy cle Facility, defines an external event as being not credible "if the event has a frequency of occurrence that can conservatively be estimated as less than once in a million years (10- 6)." Design-basis events external to the NWMI RPF are defined as those accidents that have a probability of radiological release to the public 1x1 o- 6 year, or greater, with the potential consequences serious enough to affect the safety of the plant to the extent that the guidelines in 10 CFR 50.34 could be exceeded.
2-55
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics The following accident categories were considered in selecting design-basis events: explosions, flammable vapor clouds (delayed ignition), toxic chemicals, and fires. The postulated accidents that would result in a chemical release were analyzed at the following locations :
~~Nearby transportation routes such as U.S. Highway 63 and nearby natural gas pipelines~~
~~Nearby chemical and fuel storage faci lities .~~
2.2.3.1.1 Explosions The impacts associated with accidents that involve high explosives, munitions, chemical s, and liquid or gaseous fuels stored or used by fac ilities near the proposed RPF were evaluated to analyze the structural response to blast pressures. This analysis included the evaluation of explosions from nearby railways, highways, or facilities and the resulting blast pressure on critical plant structures to ensure that such an explosion would not adversely affect operation or safe shutdown of the RPF.
The Regulatory Guide 1.91 and its recommended 6.9 kilopascal (kPa) (1 pound per square inch [lb/in 2])
value of peak positive incident overpressure was used to provide guidance in defining the allowable (i.e.,
standoff) and actual distances of hazardous chemicals transported or stored. Analyses that result in pressure below 6.9 kPa (1 lb/in 2) are not expected to result in significant damage. The guide defines this standoff distance by the correlation ofR > kWl/3 , where R is the di stance in feet from an explosion comprised of W pounds of trinitrotoluene (TNT), and a constant value k. NUREG-1805 was used to define the TNT mass equivalent (W). This guide compares the heat of combustion of the chemical is to the heat of combustion of TNT.
In some cases, the result using the NUREG-1805 methods returned standoff distances greater than the actual distance of the analyzed incident to the RPF. In those cases, a probabilistic analysis was used to show that the rate of exposure to the overpressure in excess of 6.9 kPa (1 lb/in 2) is less than 1 x 106 per year using conservative assumptions.
The conservative assumptions included an explosion yield factor, the estimation of the available combustion energy released during an explosion, of 100 percent. This accounts for an in-vessel confined explosion and is considered to be conservative because a 100 percent yield factor is not achievable.
Another conservative assumption used was that for liquids at atmospheric conditions, the storage tank was assumed to contain vapors at the upper explosive limit. Because the upper explosive limit produces the maximum explosive mass and liquid vapor explodes, not the liquid, this is considered conservative.
These assumptions are consistent with NUREG-1805, Chapter 15 .
The analysis performed does not bound an explosion of the total inventory of nearby facilities. The analysis uses the largest tank for two identified facilities to determine the effect on RPF operations or safe shutdown. It was determined to be highly unlikely for the total inventory from both facilities to be involved in the explosion scenario due to the following :
~~MU South Farm (the closest facility) - The total inventory of propane is in multiple disperse locations~~
~~Magellan Pipeline facility - An accidental explosion of multiple tanks at one time adding to the pressure wave is also highly unlikely.~~
For compressed or liquefied gases (i.e., propane, hydrogen), the entire contents of the storage vessel were assumed to be between the upper and lower explosive limits. An instantaneous depressurization of the vessel would result in vapor concentrations all within the explosive range at varying pressures and temperatures some of which would be below explosive limits. Therefore, assuming the entire contents are within the explosive limits is considered conservative.
2-56
.*:~*;~*:*
.*..NWM I
' ~* *! NO<<TMWUT ll(OICAL llOTilf'fS NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics For unconfined explosions of propane, methane, or hydrogen, the yield factor of 3 percent from the Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures (FEMA, 1989) was used.
Pipelines A stationary pipeline explosion is bounded by the delayed ignition explosion of that pipeline due to the wind is assumed to blow the release towards the RPF with a constant mass release rate from the pipeline that results in a much larger total explosive mass. Thus, the distance from the point of the explosion to the NWMI RPF is therefore much smaller for flammable vapor clouds than for pipeline exp losions at the release point.
Waterway Traffic There are no navigable waterways within 8 km (5 mi) of the RPF.
Highways Hazardous materials with explosive potential that may possibly be transported on U.S . Highway 63 is shown in Table 2-2 1 (EDF-3124-0016, Analysis of Potential Accidents at Facilities) include [Proprietary Information]. The remaining chemicals identified in Table 2-21 are nonexplosive. The maximum quantity of the identified chemicals assumed to be transported on the highway was 22,679 kg (50,000 lb) per Regulatory Guide 1.91. The volume of hydrogen was assumed to be 1,496 kg (3,300 lb) on a single truck per 49 CFR 173.318, "Cryogenic Liquids in Cargo Tanks."
Table 2-2 I provides the results of the analysis using the TNT equivalency methodologies described in within this section. For all chemicals analyzed, the minimum separation distances (i .e., safe standoff distances) are less than the shortest distance (0.4 km [0.25 mi]) to a safety-related RPF structure from any point on U.S. Highway 63 . The peak incident pressure is 6.9 kPa (I lb/in. 2) at a distance greater than the shortest distance from U.S. Highway 63 to a safety-related RPF structure of 0.4 km (0.25 mi).
Table 2-21. Distance from the Radioisotope Production Facility where the Peak Incident Pressure is 6.9 kPa (l lb/in. 2) from an Explosion on U.S. Highway 63 Ammonia 22,680 50,000 0.27 0.17 Diesel 22,680 50,000 0.1 0.06 Gasoline 22 ,680 50,000 0.1 0.06 Glycol ether PM 22,680 50,000 0.1 0.06 Hydrogen 1,497 3,300 0.21 0.13 JP-4 aviation fuel 22,680 50,000 0.1 0.06 Methyl ethyl ketone 22 ,680 50,000 0.1 0.06 Petroleum naphtha 22,680 50,000 0.1 0.06 Propane 22 ,680 50,000 0.34 0.2 1 Toluene (32-8413) 22,680 50,000 0.1 0.06 Source: EDF-3124-00 16, Analysis of Potential Accidents at Facilities, Rev. 2, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, 2017.
2-57
NWM l-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2. 0 - Site Characteristics A boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE) is an explosion caused by the rupture of a vessel containing a pressurized liquid above its boiling point (Roberts, 2000). A BLEVE overpressure for the propane tank was analyzed in detail. The 22,680 kg (50,000 lb) propane tank, i.e., 45 ,425 liter (L)
(12-thousand gall on [kgal]), was assumed to fai l at 55 degrees Celsius ( 0 C) (320 lb/in. 2 absolute). The entire contents of the tank (e.g., gas and liquid) were assumed to be involved in the BLEVE. The acceptable distance to 6.9 kPa (1 lb/in.2) overpressure is 0.21 km (0.13 mi). The shortest distance to a safety-related RPF structure from any point on U.S. Highway 63 is 0.4 km (0.25 mi).
A BLEVE overpressure for the hydrogen tank was also analyzed in detail. The 1,497 kg (3 ,300 lb) propane tank (i .e., 45 ,425 L [ 12 kgal]) was assumed to fai l at -240°C (183 lb/in .2 absolute), the point before the hydrogen becomes supercritical. The entire contents of the tank (e.g., gas and liquid) were assumed to be involved in the BLEVE. The acceptable distance to 6.9 kPa (1 lb/in.2) overpressure is 0.08 km (0.05 mi). The shortest distance to a safety-related RPF structure from any point on U.S. Highway 63 is 0.4 km (0.25 mi).
Based on the above, an explosion involving potentially transported hazardous materials on U.S.
Highway 63, would not adversely affect operation of the RPF. The results of the highway explosion analyses are provided in Table 2-21 (EDF-3124-0016).
2.2.3.1.2 Nearby Facilities Analysis identified six off-site facilities that have explosive chemicals that are identified as the bounding instances of explosion analysis. The hazardous materials stored at nearby facilities that were identified for further analysis with regard to explosive potential are identified in Table 2-22 .
Table 2-22. Analysis of Hazar dous C hemicals Stored W it hin 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility (2 pages) 3M Company [Proprietary >8 >5 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Schwan's Home [Proprietary 3.2 2 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Service Inc. Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Gates Power [Proprietary 2.4 1.5 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Transmissions Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Materials Center Gates Power [Proprietary 2.4 1.5 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Transmissions Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Materials Center MU South Farm [Proprietary 1.6 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
MU South Farm [Proprietary 1.6 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
MU South Farm [Proprietary 1.6 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Ryder Transportation [Proprietary 2.4 1.5 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Magellan Pipeline [Proprietary 1.7 1.1 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Company Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
2-58
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-22. Analysis of Hazardous Chemicals Stored Within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility (2 pages)
Magellan Pipeline [Proprietary 1.7 1.l [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Company Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Source: EDF-3124-0016, Analysis of Potential Accidents at Facilities, Rev. 2, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, 2017.
~~Actual tank mass provided by owner was used.~~
b [Proprietary Information]
c [Proprietary Information]
d [Proprietary Information]
e [Proprietary Information]
MU = University of Missouri A conservative analysis using TNT equivalency methods, as described in Section 2.2.3 .1, was used to determine standoff distances for the storage of the identified hazardous materials. Table 2-22 provides the results of the analysis (EDF-3124-0016). The analysis showed that a [Proprietary Information]. The nearest tank of propane is approximately [Proprietary Information]. However, the propane at this location is stored in multiple tanks, the largest of which is [Proprietary Information].
The results using this methodology indicate that the minimum separation distances (i .e., safe standoff distances) are less than the shortest distance from an RPF safety-related area to the storage location of the identified chemicals. Therefore, an explosion of any of these chemicals would not adversely affect operation of the RPF.
Railways The only railroad within the 8 km (5 mi) radius of the RPF is the COLT Transload, which provides service for the Columbia Municipal Power Plant and a commercial lumber facility to the north of downtown Columbia. This rail line dead-ends approximately 7.2 km (4.5 mi) from the RPF. A review of the Tier II facilities did not identify any facilities with potentially hazardous chemicals near the rail line within 8 km (5 mi) radius of the RPF.
Explosion-Related Impacts Affecting Design Regulatory Guide 1.91 cites 6.9 kPa (1 lb/in.2) is considered a conservative value of peak positive incident overpressure, below which no significant damage would be expected. Thus, facility is acceptable when the calculated rate of occurrence of severe consequences from any external accident is less than 1 x 1o- 6 occurrences per year, and reasonable qualitative arguments can demonstrate that the realistic probability is lower. The RPF safety-related areas are designed to withstand a peak positive overpressure of at least 6.9 kPa (1 lb/in. 2) without loss of function/significant damage, as shown in Table 2-21 and Table 2-22. As a result, postulated explosion event scenarios will not result in severe consequences.
2-59
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics On-Site Diesel Fuel Tank The RPF will have a 3, 785 L (1-kgal) tank of diesel fuel within 9.1 m (30 ft) of the building. A tank containing 3,785 L (1 kgal) of diesel fuel is acceptable at a distance of 49.1 m (161 ft). Therefore, the on-site diesel explosion is analyzed using a probabilistic analysis. The total probability of a significant explosion is estimated using the probability of a spill and the conditional probability of an explosion given a spill.
The probability of a large release from a single-walled stationary tank at a fixed facility is 1 x 10-5 spills per year, and the probability of a spill from a double-walled stationary tank is 1 x 1o-6 spills per year (FEMA, 1989). The rate of explosions per spill from diesel tanks is very low. A report on ignition probabilities for oil and gas (OGP, 2010) states that for releases of"combustible liquids stored at ambient pressure and at temperatures below their flash point from onshore outdoor storage area" tanks, the ignition probability is at most 0.24 percent. Combined with the single-walled tank spill probability, the frequency of an ignition is 2.4 x I o-s ignitions per year, significantly less than the acceptance criteria.
2.2.3.1.3 Flammable Vapor Clouds (Delayed Ignition)
When a flammable chemical (e.g., liquid or gaseous state) is released into the atmosphere and forms a vapor cloud, the chemical disperses as it travels downwind. The portions of the vapor cloud where the concentration is within the flammable range, between the lower and upper flammability limits, may bum ifthe cloud encounters an ignition source. Deflagration or a detonation of the vapor cloud is determined by the pace of the flame through the vapor cloud. If the cloud bums fast enough to create a detonation, an explosive force is generated.
Chemicals were evaluated to ascertain which hazardous materials had the potential to form a flammable vapor cloud or vapor cloud explosion. The chemicals identified within flammability range, the Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA) air dispersion computer model was used (ALOHA, 2008).
ALOHA was used to:
Determine the distances where the vapor cloud may exist between the upper explosion limit and the lower explosion limit (LEL), presenting the possibility of ignition and potential thermal radiation effects .
Model the worst-case accidental vapor cloud explosion, including the standoff distances and overpressure effects at the nearest RPF safety-related area. The worst-case scenario was assumed to be ignition by detonation was chosen for the ignition source with the standoff distance measured as the distance from the spill site to the location where the pressure wave is at 6.9 kPa (1 lb/in.2) overpressure.
Conservative assumptions were used in both ALOHA analyses with regard to meteorological inputs and identified scenarios. The following meteorological assumptions were used as inputs to the ALOHA model:
~~Pasquill Stability Class F (stable), with a wind speed of 1 meter per second (m/sec) (3.3 ft/sec)~~
~~Ambient temperature of 27°C (81 degrees Fahrenheit [°F])~~
~~Relative humidity 50 percent~~
~~Cloud cover 50 percent~~
~~Atmospheric pressure of 1 atmosphere .~~
2-60
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Pasquill Stability Class F was selected based on local weather data. Class F represents the 5 percent worst-case weather conditions at the RPF site. For each of the identified liquid chemicals, the entire contents of the vessel were conservatively assumed to have leaked, forming a 1 centimeter (cm) (0.4-inch
[in.]) thick puddle. For gaseous chemicals, the entire contents were released instantaneously as a gas.
This provides a significant surface area to maximize evaporation and the formation of a vapor cloud in the case of liquid releases, and maximizes the peak concentration in the case of gas releases.
Pipelines There are three natural gas transmission pipelines within 8 km (5 mi) of the proposed RPF. These pipelines include the Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. located 1.6 km (1 mi), Ameren natural gas transmission pipeline # I located approximately 0.64 km (0.40 mi), and Ameren natural gas transmission pipeline #2 located approximately 6.0 km (3 .75 mi) from the RPF site.
Transmission pipelines are made of steel and generally operate at pressures ranging from 344 kPa (500 lb/in. 2) to 9,652 kPa (1 ,400 lb/in.2) gauge. Pipelines can measure anywhere from 15.25 cm (6 in.) to 122 cm (48 in.) in diameter (ANL/EVS/TM/08-5 , Natural Gas Pipeline Technology Overview).
Each natural gas pipeline was modeled as a complete break, with a constant source of natural gas available to break. An analysis was performed using the ALOHA model. A summary of the results is provided below, and the calculations are provided in EDF-3124-001 6):
~~Southern Star Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline:~~
[Proprietary Information]
Highest typical transmission pipeline pressure of9,652 kPa (1400 lb/in.2) was assumed Distance to the LEL is [Proprietary Information] , which is less than the distance of
[Proprietary Information] to the RPF Results: Due to the concentration of natural gas being below the LEL at the RPF, a delayed flammable vapor cloud ignition cannot occur at the faci lity, and therefore, there will be no explosive overpressure.
~~Ameren Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline # 1:~~
[Proprietary Information]
Highest typical transmission pipeline pressure of 2,000 kPa (290 lb/in. 2) was assumed Distance to the LEL is [Proprietary Information], which is much less than the [Proprietary Information] distance to the RPF Results: Due to the concentration of natural gas being below the LEL at the RPF, a delayed flammable vapor cloud ignition cannot occur at the faci lity; therefore, there will be no resulting explosive overpressure.
Ameren Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline #2:
[Proprietary Information]
Highest typical transmission pipe Iine pressure of 9,652 kPa ( 1,400 lb/in. 2)
Distance to the LEL from the Ameren natural gas pipeline is [Proprietary Information], which is less than the distance of [Proprietary Information] to the RPF site Results: Due to the concentration of natural gas being below the LEL at the RPF, a delayed fl ammable vapor cloud ignition cannot occur at the facility , and therefore, there will be no explosive overpressure.
2-61
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Waterway Traffic There are no navi gable waterways within 8 km (5 mi) of the RPF.
Highways The hazardous materials potentially transported on U.S. Highway 63 that were identified for further analysis are diesel, gasoline, JP-4, petroleum naphtha, toluene, glycol ether PM, methyl ethyl ketone, hydrogen, propane, and ammonia. The remaining chemicals are nonexplosive. The closest RPF safety-related area is located approximately 0.40 km (0.25 mi) from U.S. Highway 63.
Consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.91, the tanker trucks are conservatively estimated, at most, to carry and release 22,680 kg (50,000 lb) of the identified chemical. The analyzed effects of flammab le vapor clouds and vapor cloud explosions from external sources are summarized in Table 2-23 (EDF-3124-0016).
Table 2-23. Flammable Vapor Cloud Explosion Analysis for U.S. Highway 63 Acceptable distance Hazardous material 22,680 22,680 22,680 Quantity 50,000 50,000 50,000
-- 0.93 0.35 0.35 (LEL) 0.58 0.22 0.22 Probabilitya 22,680 50,000 0.06 0.04 1,497 3,300 1.24 0.77 3.0 x 10-7 22,680 50,000 0.35 0.22 Methyl ethyl ketone 22,680 50,000 0.19 0.12 Petroleum naphtha 22,680 50,000 0.3 5 0.22 Propane 22,680 50,000 1.37 0.85 > 1 x 10-6 Toluene (32-8413) 22,680 50,000 0.13 0.08 Source: EDF-3124-0016, Analysis of Potential Accidents at Facilities, Rev. 2, Portage, Inc. , Idaho Falls, Idaho, 2017.
~~Probability only calculated for chemicals with acceptable distances greater than 0.4 km (0.25 mi) .~~
LEL = lower explosion limit.
To determine the probability of an accident affecting the RPF, the number of transports per year needs to be known. The number of trucks hauling hazardous materials on U.S. Highway 63 is not available. To determine the probability that an explosion could affect the RPF, estimates of truck shipments were made based on the major uses of these materials within 8 km (5 mi) of the RPF.
All releases of an accident affecting the RPF (i.e., hydrogen, chlorine, ammonia) from a truck on U.S.
Highway 63 were analyzed using a probabilistic analysis and are provided below. The assumptions used in all analysis include:
~~Accident frequency used was 2 x 1o- 6 accidents per truck mi le, where 20 percent of accidents result in a spill~~
~~When a spill occurs, 20 percent of the spills are between 10 and 30 percent of the contents, and 20 percent of spills are complete release~~
~~Accident data were taken from NUREG/CR-6624, Recommendations for Revision ofRegulatory Guide 1.78, and FEMA (1989).~~
~~2-62~~
~~~*:~°:' NWMI~~
~~...**... NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics~~
*
NCllllTHWUT llEIMCAt llOTOf'fS Hydrogen The largest amount of hydrogen on a truck that was analyzed was 1,496 kg (3 ,300 lb) . The accident analysis showed that a 30 percent release of hydrogen resulted in a distance to the LEL of 0. 79 km (0.49 mi). In addition, the analysis showed that a I 0 percent release of hydrogen resulted in a distance to the LEL of 0.53 km (0.33 mi) (EDF-3124-0016). The probability of an explosion from a hydrogen truck accident is 1.6 x 1o- 8 per truck mile (e.g., 2 x 1o-6 accidents per truck mile x 0.2 spills/accident x 0.2 spills greater than 10 percent/spill x 0.2 ignition probability). The accident probability within 1.24 km (0.77 mi) of the RPF (i.e. , 0.96 km [1.54 mi] total for U.S . Highway 63) would be 2.5 x l0-8 per truck release scenario to meet the LEL.
The Colombia Municipal Power Plant is the major user of hydrogen with 1,497 kg (3,300 lb) being stored within 8 km (5 mi) radius of the RPF. This hydrogen is assumed to be used for generator cooling. The annual usage is not available; however, an assumption is made that hydrogen makeup requires the tank to be refilled monthly. This would result in 12 shipments of hydrogen potentially passing the RPF annually, and change the probability to 3.0 x 10-7 per year. No additional analysis are required for hydrogen.
Propane The accident analysis showed that a 30 percent release of propane resulted in a distance to the LEL of 0.87 km (0.54 mi). In addition, the analysis showed that a 10 percent release of propane resulted in a distance to the LEL of 0.58 km (0.36 mi). The probability of an explosion from a propane truck accident is 1.6 x 1o-8 per truck mile (e.g., 2 x I o- 6 accidents per truck mile x 0.2 spills/accident x 0.2 spills greater than 10 percent/spill x 0.2 ignition probability). The accident probability within 1.4 km (0.85 mi) of the RPF (e.g., 2.7 km [1.7 mi] total for U.S. Highway 63) would be 2.7 x 10-8 per truck release scenario to meet the LEL There are three propane distributers in the Columbia, Missouri area: MFA Oil Company, Ballenger's Propane Inc., and Ferrellgas. The MFA Oil Company is located north of the RPF on U.S. Highway 63 ,
while Ballenger' s Propane Company and Ferrellgas are located north of Interstate 70. The distribution centers can receive their propane via rail and tanker trucks from terminals located in Kearney or Moberly, Missouri , along the Mid-American Pipeline, or Jefferson City along the Gold Line pipeline.
The majority of bulk propane transported to these faci lities is assumed to be transported via Interstate 70 and does not bypass the RPF. However, propane could also be transported via U.S. Highway 63 from the terminal in Jefferson City to supply the distribution centers north of the RPF. The exact number of trucks transporting propane past the RFP is not known and could result in a probability exceeding I o-6 ;
therefore, this event will be evaluated as part of the ISA external event analysis and included in the Operating License Application.
Ammonia The accident analysis showed that a 30 percent release of ammonia resulted in a distance to the LEL of 0.6 km (0.37 mi). In addition, the analysis showed that a 10 percent release of ammonia resulted in a distance to the LEL of 0.4 km (0.25 mi). The probability of an explosion from a propane truck accident is 1.6 x 1o-8 per truck mile (e.g., 2 x 1o- 6 accidents per truck mile x 0.2 spills/accident x 0.2 spills greater than 10 percent/spill x 0.2 ignition probability). The accident probability within 0.93 km (0.58 mi) of the RPF (e.g., 1.9 km [ 1.2 mi] total for U.S . Highway 63) would be 1.9 x 1o-8 per truck release scenario to meet the LEL.
2-63
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Kraft Foods stores 22,680 kg ( 50,000 lb) of ammonia, which is assumed to be used for refrigeration and potentially for heat pumps. In both cases, the losses and required makeup is expected to be small . A very conservative estimate of makeup would be to replace the entire 22,680 kg ( 50,000 lb) of ammonia monthly, or 12 shipments passing the RPF annually, and change the probability to 2 .2 x 10-7 per year. No additional analysis are required for ammonia.
Nearby Facilities There are eight off-site facilities that have explosive chemicals identified as the bounding instances of explosion analysis . The hazardous materials stored at nearby facilities that were identified for further analysis with regard to explosive potential are identified in Table 2-24. The methodology presented previously in this section was used for determining the standoff distance for vapor cloud ignition and delayed vapor cloud explosion . A conservative analysis using TNT equivalency methods , as described earlier in this section, was used to determine standoff distances for the storage of the identified hazardous materials.
Table 2-24. Flammable Vapor Clouds and Vapor Cloud Explosions from External Sources (2 pages)
Plasma Motor Fuels [Proprietary 1.6 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary LLC Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
3M Company [Proprietary >8 >5 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Schwan' s Home [Proprietary 3.2 2 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Service Inc. Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Gates Power [Proprietary 2.4 1.5 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Transmissions Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Materials Center Gates Power [Proprietary 2.4 1.5 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Transmissions Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Materials Center MU South Farm [Proprietary 1.6 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
MU South Farm [Proprietary 1.6 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
MU South Farm [Proprietary 1.6 1 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Ryder [Proprietary 2.4 1.5 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Transportation Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Magellan Pipeline [Proprietary 1.7 1.1 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Company Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
2-64
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-24. Flammable Vapor Clouds and Vapor Cloud Explosions from External Sources (2 pages)
Magellan Pipeline [Proprietary 1.7 1.1 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Company Information] Information] Information] Information] Information]
Source: EDF-3124-0016, Analysis of Potential Accidents at Facilities, Rev. 2, Portage, lnc. , Idaho Falls, Idaho, 20 17.
~~Actu al tank mass used.~~
b The maximum area of a spill in ALOHA is 3 1,400 square meters (m 2) - the inventory exceeds this va lu e from a spill -
th erefore, 3 1,400 m2 was used.
c [Proprietary Information]
d [Proprietary Information]
e [Proprietary Information]
ALOHA Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres. MU University of Missouri .
LEL = lower explosion limit.
The distance to the LEL for the propane tank containing [Proprietary Information] of propane corresponds to more than [Proprietary Information]. The nearest tank of propane is approximately [Proprietary Information] from the RPF. However, the propane at thi s location is stored in multiple tanks, the largest of which is [Proprietary Information]. The maximum content of a propane tank to meet the LEL at
[Proprietary Information]. Flammable vapor clouds and vapor cloud explosions from external sources are summarized in Table 2-24 (EDF-3124-0016).
Flammable Vapor Cloud (Delayed Ignition) Related Impacts Affecting the Design Regulatory Guide 1.91 cites 6.9 kPa (l lb/in. 2) is considered a conservative value of peak positive incident overpressure, below which no significant damage would be expected. Thus, facility is acceptable when the calculated rate of occurrence of severe consequences from any external accident is less than I x 10-6 occurrences per year, and reasonable qualitative arguments can demonstrate that the realistic probability is lower. The RPF safety-related areas are designed to withstand a peak positive overpressure of at least 6.9 kPa ( 1 lb/in. 2) without loss of function/significant damage, as shown in Table 2-21 and Table 2-22. As a result, postulated explosion event scenarios wi ll not result in severe consequences.
2.2.3.1.4 Toxic Chemicals Impacts Affecting Design Accidents involving the release of toxic chemicals from nearby mobile and stationary sources were considered. Toxic chemicals known to be present in the vicinity of the proposed RPF site or to be frequently transported in the vicinity were evaluated.
The potential hazardous materials transported on U.S. Highway 63 were eval uated to ascertain which hazardous materials should be analyzed with respect to their potential to form a toxic vapor cloud following an accidental release. The ALOHA air dispersion model was used to predict the concentrations of toxic chemical clouds as they disperse downwind for all facilities and sources.
2-65
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics The maximum distance a cloud can travel before it disperses enough to fall below the immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH) concentration in the vapor cloud was determined using ALOHA.
The ALOHA model was also used to predict the concentration of the chemical in the control room following a chemical release to ensure that, under worst-case scenarios, control room operators will have sufficient time to take appropriate action.
The IDLH is defined by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health as a situation that poses a threat of exposure that is likely to cause death or immediate or delayed permanent adverse health effects, or one that could prevent escape from such an environment. The IDLHs determined by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health are established such that workers are able to escape such environments without suffering permanent health damage.
Conservative meteorological assumptions were used: F (stable) stability class with a wind speed of 1 m/sec, ambient temperature of 25°C, relative humidity of 50 percent, cloud cover of 50 percent, and atmospheric pressure of one atmosphere. A Pasquill stability category "F" and a wind speed of 1 m/sec typically represent the worst 5 percent of meteorological conditions observed at a majority of nuclear plant sites. For each of the identified chemicals, the entire contents of the vessel are conservatively assumed to have leaked, forming a one-centimeter-thick puddle.
Review of the chemicals at nearby facilities did not contain any toxic materials that would be greater than those located on U.S. Highway 63; therefore, only toxic chemicals on U.S. Highway 63 were considered in the analysis. The toxic chemicals considered in the analysis were ammonia, chlorine, and sulfur dioxide.
The distance to the IDHL for an ammonia release from a truck on U.S. Highway 63 is 9.7 km (6 mi). This is greater than the distance from U.S. Highway 63 to the RPF of0.40 km (0.25 mi) .
~~The distance to the IDHL for a chlorine release from a truck on U.S. Highway 63 is 1.8 km (1.1 mi) .~~
~~This is greater than the distance from U.S. Highway 63 to the RPF of 0.40 km (0.25 mi).~~
~~The distance to the IDHL for a sulfur dioxide release from a truck on U.S . Highway 63 is 3.1 km~~
( 1.9 mi). This is greater than the distance from U.S. Highway 63 to the RPF of 0.40 km (0.25 mi).
All releases (i.e., ammonia, chlorine, sulfur dioxide) from a truck on U.S. Highway 63 were analyzed using a probabilistic analysis. The analysis for these release are provided below. The assumptions used in all analysis include:
~~Accident frequency used was 2 x 1o- 6 accidents per truck mile, where 20 percent of accidents result in a spill~~
~~When a spill occurs, 20 percent of the spills are between 10 and 30 percent of the contents, and 20 percent of spills are complete release~~
~~Accident data were taken from NUREG/CR-6624 and FEMA (1989) .~~
Ammonia The accident analysis showed that a 30 percent release of ammonia resulted in a distance to the IDHL of 5.3 km (3.3 mi). In addition, the analysis showed that a 10 percent release of ammonia resulted in a distance to the IDHL of 3.1 km (1.9 mi). The probability of a spill from an ammonia truck accident is 8 x 10-s per truck mile (e.g., 2 x 10-6 accidents per truck mile x 0.2 spills/accident x 0.2 spills greater than 10 percent/spill). The accident probability within 9.7 km (6 mi) of the NWMI RPF (i.e., 19 km [12 mi]
total for U.S. Highway 63) would be 9.6 x 10-7 per truck release scenario to meet the IDLH (EDF-3124-0016). The annual probability (i .e., when multiplied by 12 ammonia trucks annually) is greater than 1 x 1o-6 per year; therefore, this event will be evaluated as part of the ISA external event analysis and included in the Operating License Application.
2-66
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Chlorine The accident analysis showed that a 30 percent release of chlorine resulted in a distance to the IDHL of 1.2 km (0. 73 mi). In addition, the accident analysis showed that a 10 percent release of chlorine resulted in a distance to the IDHL of 0.8 km (0.52 mj). The probability of a spill from a chlorine truck accident is 8 x 10-s per truck mile (e.g., 2 x 10-6 accidents per truck mile x 0.2 spills/accident x 0.2 spills greater than I 0 percent/spill). The accident probability within 1.8 km (1.1 mi) of the RPF (i.e., 3.6 km [2.2 mi] total for U.S. Highway 63) would be 1. 76 x 10-7 per truck release scenario to meet the IDLH (EDF-3124-0016). The annual probability (i.e. , when multiplied by only six trucks annually) is greater than I x 10-6 per year; therefore, this event will be evaluated as part of the ISA external event analysis and included in the Operating License Application.
Sulfur Dioxide The accident analysis showed that a 30 percent release of sulfur dioxide resulted in a distance to the IDHL of 1.8 km ( 1.1 mi). In addition, the analysis showed that a I 0 percent release of sulfur dioxide resulted in a distance to the IDHL of 1.1 km (0 .66 mi). The probability of a spill from a chlorine truck accident is 8 x 10-s per truck mile (e.g., 2 x 10-6 accidents per truck mile x 0.2 spills/accident x 0.2 spills greater than 10 percent/spill). The accident probability within 3.1 km ( 1.9 mi) of the RPF (i.e., 6.2 km [3.8 mi] total for U.S. Highway 63) would be 3.0 x 10-7 per truck release scenario to meet the IDLH. The annual probability (i .e. , when multiplied by only four trucks annually) is greater than 1 x I o-6 per year; therefore, this event will be evaluated as part of the ISA external event analysis and included in the Operating License Appli cation .
2.2.3.1.5 Fires Fires in adjacent industrial plants and storage facilities, oi l and gas pipelines, and fires from transportation accidents were evaluated as events that could lead to high-heat fluxes. Three types of fires are analyzed for hjgh-heat flux :
~~BLEVE firebal ls - Occurs when a tank containing a flammable liquefied gas bursts (e.g., simil ar to a BLEVE overpressure, the liquefied gas flashes which has a short duration)~~
~~Pool fires - Occurs when a chemical that is liquid at standard conditions spills and catches fire~~
Jet fires - Occurs when a pipeline ruptures or pressurized tank has a hole causing the continuous release of flammable gas The limiting BLEVE fireball for the RPF is the rupture of a propane truck that contains 22,679 kg (50,000 lb) ofliquefied propane and is 0.4 km (0.25 mi) from the RPF. ALOHA was used to calculate the heat flux and duration of the fireball. The results show that the heat flux on the RPF is 8.36 kilowatt (kW)/m 2 (2,650 British thermal units [BTU]/hr* square foot [ft2]) and the duration of the fireball is 11 sec.
The American Concrete Institute has specified standards for short-term maximum bulk concrete temperatures of l 77°C (350°F) following accidents (ACI 349-06, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures (AC! 349-06) and Commentary). NUREG/CR-3330, Vulnerability of Nuclear Power Plant Structures to Large External Fires, provides incident heat flux (kW/m 2) values and exposure times (hr) necessary for concrete to reach a temperature of l 77°C (350°F). A heat flux of 15 kW /m 2 requires 11.6 hr of exposure for concrete to reach a temperature of l 77°C (350°F), while a heat flux of 450 kW/m 2 requires 1.5 hr of exposure. Therefore, the heat flux from the propane BLEVE fireball will not impact the integrity of the RPF concrete structures (EDF-3124-0016).
2-67
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics The limiting pool fire would come from a gasoline truck on U.S. Highway 63. The truck contains 22,680 kg (50,000 lb) of gasoline and is 0.4 km (0.25 mi) from the RPF. The ALOHA model was used to calculate the heat flux for the pool fire. The results show that the maximum heat flux is 1.36 kW /m 2 (431.1 BTU/hr ft 2) and the duration of the fireball is 60 sec. ACI 349-06 has specified standards for short-term maximum bulk concrete temperatures of l 77°C (350°F) following accidents. Based on the NUREG/CR-3330 incident heat flux (kW/m 2) values and exposure times (hr) necessary for concrete to reach a temperature of l 77°C (350°F) discussed above, the heat flux from the gasoline pool fire will not impact the integrity of the RPF concrete structures.
The Magellan pipelines were assumed to contain [Proprietary Information]. A conservative analysis was performed using the ALOHA model. The pipelines were assumed to be breached and spill the liquid contents in the soil, resulting in a liquid puddle that is [Proprietary Information].
The duration of the evaporating release was I hr. The total release of [Proprietary Information]. Based on the guidance used by the state of California (URS, 2007), which is a liquid fl ow rate of 2.13 m/sec (7 ft/sec) and the known pipeline diameter of [Proprietary Information] . URS (2007) also provides guidance for the time of release, which is 15 min. The Iiquid flow rate, along with the 15-min release duration, would result in a total release of [Proprietary Information]. Therefore, a conservative release of
[Proprietary Information] was modeled in ALOHA based on the size of the release pool.
The distance to the LEL from the Magellan pipeline is 0.52 km (0.32 mi), which is less than the distance of 2.0 km (1 .25 mi) to the proposed RPF site. Because the concentration of gasoline is below the LEL at the RPF, a delayed flammable vapor cloud ignition cannot occur at the facility and there will be no explosive overpressure.
The three natural gas transmission pipelines within 8 km (5 mi) of the RPF are identified in Table 2-12.
Transmission pipelines are made of steel and generally operate at pressures ranging from 344 kPa (500 lb/in. 2) to 9,652 kPa (1 ,400 lb/in .2) gauge. Pipelines can measure anywhere from 15.25 cm (6 in.) to 122 cm (48 in.) in diameter (ANL/EVS/TM/08-5 ). A summary of the jet fire analysis that was performed using the ALOHA model (EDF-3124-0016) is provided below. The pipeline was modeled as a complete break, with a constant source of natural gas available to the break.
~~Southern Star Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline:~~
[Proprietary Information]
Highest typical transmission pipeline pressure of 9,652 kPa (1400 lb/in.2) was assumed Distance to the LEL is [Proprietary Information] , which is less than the distance of
[Proprietary Information] to the RPF Results: (1) Maximum heat flux is [Proprietary Information] ; heat flux is negligible compared with the solar heat flux of approximately I kW/m2 (0.088 BTU/ft 2), and (2) pipeline jet fire is not considered a threat to the RPF.
~~Ameren Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline # I :~~
Pipeline diameter is [Proprietary Information]
Highest typical transmission pipeline pressure of 2,000 kPa (290 lb/in.2) was assumed Distance to LEL is at [Proprietary Information] , which is much less than the [Proprietary Information] distance to the RPF Results: (I) Maximum heat flux is [Proprietary Information] at the RPF; heat flux is negligible compared with the solar heat flux of approximately I kW/m 2 (0. 088 BTU/ft 2) , and (2) pipeline jet fire is not considered a threat to the RPF .
2-68
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics
~~Ameren Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline #2:~~
Pipeline diameter is [Proprietary Information]
Highest typical transmission pipeline pressure of9,652 kPa (1,400 lb/in.2)
Distance to the LEL from the Ameren natural gas pipeline is [Proprietary Information], which is less than the distance of[Proprietary Information] to the RPF site Results: (1) Maximum heat flux is [Proprietary Information]; heat flux is negligible compared with the solar heat flux of approximately 1 kW/m2 (0.088 BTU/ft 2) , and (2) pipeline jet fire is not considered a threat to the RPF.
2.3 METEOROLOGY 2.3.1 General and Local Climate The purpose of this climate analysis is to provide the information that supports the dispersion analysis of airborne releases from the proposed RPF site. Local dispersion climatology includes consideration of airflow and atmospheric turbulence. The following subsections address local topography, the source of local meteorological data, wind roses, and atmospheric stability distribution.
The proposed RPF site is located in central Missouri . The purpose of conducting a climate analysis is to understand the climate (a statistical description of weather) at the local project site within the context of the climate of the broader surrounding area.
Geomorphic, or physiographic, regions are broad-scale subdivisions of the nation that are based on terrain texture, rock type, geologic structure, and history. There are eight regions, subdivided into 25 provinces, and further subdivided to 85 sections within the U.S . (Fenneman, 1946). The characteristics and locations of these landforms influence local and regional climate and weather patterns.
The RPF site lies at the southern edge of the Central Lowlands physiographic province, within a few miles of the adjacent Ozark Plateau province, both of which lie within the larger Interior Plains physiographic region. The Central Lowlands includes most of the Com Belt and lies within the heartland of America.
The RPF location places it in the Humid Continental-Warm Summer climatic zone. This type of climate has a characteristic long, warm summer with moderate relative humidity. The winters are cool to cold and mark a period of lower precipitation than during the remainder of the year. Because of its geographical location far inland, the region is subject to significant seasonal and daily temperature variations. Air masses moving over the state during the year include cold continental polar air from Canada, warm and humid maritime tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, and dry eastward flowing air masses from the Rocky Mountains located to the west. Prolonged periods of extreme hot or cold temperatures are unusual (MU, 2006).
The general geostrophic airflow pattern and the prevailing jet stream track shuttle precipitation-producing mid-latitude cyclones (lows) across the state from west-to-east throughout the year. Consequently, precipitation events in all seasons move through from a westerly direction (MU, 2006).
Spring, summer, and early fall precipitation occurs in the form of rain and thunderstorms . Severe thunderstorms typically occur during the period from mid- to late-spring through early summer. Hail may be expected as a product of these storms. Wind speeds of up to 97 km/hr (60 mi/hr) or more may be experienced once or twice a year during a severe thunderstorm (MU, 2006).
2-69
NWM l-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Winter precipitation is generally light to moderate and occurs in the form of rain or snow, or a mixture of both, with an occasional, though infrequent, thunderstorm. Occasional heavy snowfall episodes do occur, but not often, and the accumulation does not last for any significant duration. Surface temperature conditions sometimes produce freezing rain or drizzle, although normally not more than a couple times each season.
The historical climate data within thi s section primarily came from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) High Plains Regional Climate Center's historical climate data summaries for Columbia reporting stations 231790 and 231791. MU also has a weather station at South Farm, less than 1.6 km (1 mi) away from the proposed site and approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) from Columbia. The weather station is used in conjunction with the school's agricultural program, and the weather data is available on the MU website. Simple searches and averages can be obtained through this database.
Other sources, as needed, were used to augment NOAA data, particularly to better understand the immediate area around the proposed RPF site.
2.3.1.1 Temperature Though temperatures reached a record high in 2012 of 41.7°C (107°F), in general, temperatures rarely exceed 38°C (100°F) in the summer and rarely fall below -18°C (0°F) in the winter. The mean maximum temperatures in Columbia, collected from the reporting station at the Columbia Regional Airport (Station 231791) over a 43-year period ranged from 2.8°C (37.2°F) in January to 3 l .4°C (88.5°F) in July. Daily temperatures during that period showed a wider variance, from -28 .8°C (-20°F) in December to 44°C (111 °F) in July. A summary of average and extreme temperature data for 1969 through 2012 is provided in Table 2-25 (WRCC, 2013a).
Table 2-25. Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Temperature Summary, 1969-2012 Measurement Average max. oc nmmmmmmmmmm1mH*'.11m*
2.9 6.1 12.7 18.9 23.6 28 .5 31.4 30.7 26.0 19.6 12.0 5.1 18. 1 temperature Of 37.2 43.0 54.9 66. 1 74.4 83.3 88.5 87.3 78.8 67.2 53.6 41.2 64.6 Average min. oc -6.8 -4.3 1.2 6.8 12.1 17.0 19.6 18.4 13 .7 7.4 1.5 -4.3 6.8 temperature Of 34.2 67.2 65.2 56.7 45.3 34.7 24.2 44.3 19.7 24.2 44.3 53 .7 62.6 Dail y extreme oc 23.3 27.8 29.4 32.2 33.3 *89 43.9 43.3 38.3 34.4 28.3 24.4 43.9 high Of 74.0 82 .0 85 .0 90.0 92 .0 "107 111.0 11 0.0 101.0 94.0 83.0 76.0 11 1. 0 Daily extreme oc -28.3 -26. 1 -20.6 -7.2 -1.7 4.4 8.9 5.6 0.0 -5.6 -17.8 -28.9 -28.9 low OF -15.0 -5.0 40.0 48.0 42.0 32.0 22.0 0.0 -20.0 -20.0
-19.0 19.0 29.0 Average mean oc -1.9 0.9 6.9 12.9 17.8 22.8 25.4 24.6 19.9 13.5 6.7 0.4 12.5 Of 28 .5 33.6 44.5 55.2 64.1 73.0 77.8 76.3 67.8 56.3 44.1 32.7 54.5 Source: WRCC, 20 I 3a, "Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature, 1969 to 20 12, Station 231791 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl?mo 179 1, Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed August 2013.
~~Occurred during 2008-2012 time period.~~
Average temperature data for the Columbia Missouri weather station was reviewed for the most recent five years that data were available (2008 to 2012). The lowest average temperature was -4. l °C (24.65°F),
recorded in January 2010, and the highest average temperature was 29.5°C (85 .06°F), recorded in July 2012. The five-year annual average temperature was 13 . l °C (55.58°F). A five-year temperature summary is presented in Table 2-26 (WRCC, 2013b).
2-70
~~NWM I~~
~~*~~~!*~~
NO!fTIIMITM£DICAl.llOJWU NWMl-20 13-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-26. Columbia, Missouri, Five-Year Temperature Summary, 2008-2012 m1;1.**n*mmmmammmm11:m*t,o.11m1 oc -0.6 -0.9 6.1 11.6 17. 1 23 .3 24.7 22.8 19.0 16.0 2.4 -I. I 12.2 2008 Of 31.0 30.3 42.9 52 .9 62.8 73 .9 76.4 73.0 66.3 60.9 36.3 30.1 54.0 oc -3. I 2.4 8.1 I 1.7 17.9 23 .3 22.5 21.9 18.6 10.2 9.8 -1.1 11.8 2009 Of 26.5 36.3 46.5 53.1 64.2 73.9 72.5 71.4 65.5 50.3 49.6 30.0 53 .3 oc -4. 1 -2.7 7.4 16.1 18.0 24.6 25.6 25 .5 19.8 14.8 7.6 -1.6 12.6 2010 Of 24.7 27 .l 45.3 60.9 64.4 76.2 78.0 77.9 67.6 58.6 45 .7 29.1 54.6 oc -3.9 -0.l 6.6 14.0 16.9 24.0 27.5 24.9 17.6 14.2 8.9 3.1 12.8 2011 Of 24.9 31.9 43 .9 57.2 62.5 75.1 81.6 76.7 63.7 57.5 48 .1 37.5 55.0 oc 1.7 4.3 14.9 15.0 21.6 25.0 29.5 25.8 19.6 12.0 7.7 7.5 16.1 2012 Of 35.0 39.7 58.8 59.0 70.9 77.1 85.1 78.5 67.3 53.6 45 .8 45 .5 61.0 oc -2.0 0.6 8.6 13.7 18.3 24.0 25.9 24.2 18.9 12.8 8.5 -0.2 13.1 Mean Of 28.4 33.1 47.5 56.6 64.9 75.3 78.7 75 .5 66.1 55 .0 47.3 31.7 55.6 Source: WRCC, 2013b, "Station Monthly Time Series, Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012, Station 23 179 1 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/wea_ mnsimts.pl?laKCOU, Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed August 2013 .
The five-year average temperature, for the same time period, reported at the MU South Farm weather station was 12.3°C (54.2°F). The average minimum temperature was 6.9°C (44.5°F) and the average maximum temperature was l 7.9°C (64.3 °F) (MU, 2013).
2.3.1.2 Precipitation According to the historical data from Station 231791 , precipitation in the Columbia, Missouri area averages approximately 103 .1 cm (40.6 in.) per year. Of that amount, the mean snowfall is 57.7 cm (22.7 in.) per year. The city has measurable amounts of precipitation 111 days/year. The maximum annual precipitation of 159 cm (62.49 in.) was measured in 1993, and the minimum annual precipitation of 60 cm (23.66 in.) was measured in 1980. On a monthly basis, rainfall amounts range from a high of 12.4 cm (4.89 in.) in May to a low of 4.62 cm (1.82 in.) in January (WRCC, 2013a). The maximum probably precipitation in a one-hour period is 3.14 in./hr (NOAA Atlas 14, Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States).
According to the historical data from Station 231791 , snow falls from November through April. During that period, a high of 16 cm (6.3 in.) was recorded in February 2011, and a low of 1.5 cm (0.6 in.) was recorded in 1980. A summary of average and extreme precipitation data for 1969 through 2012 is provided in Table 2-27 (WRCC, 2013a).
A recent five-year precipitation summary of the station data was obtained and reviewed. For each month during this time period, approximately 15 to 30 percent of the data was missing. Precipitation data from the MU South Farm weather station was also reviewed; however, the averages shown on the site were different than the Columbia weather station by a factor of five . Thus, the Columbia, Missouri weather station historical summary serves as the more complete picture of precipitation at the proposed RPF site.
2-7 1
NWM l-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-27. Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Precipitation Summary, 1969-2012 Measurement lllBllE!IEmllllml!IDIBIE!llBllEll*4*'*11;11 Average cm 4.62 5.44 8.10 11.23 12.42 10.24 9.58 10.06 9.53 8.28 7.72 6.02 103.12 total precipitation m 1.82 2.14 3.19 4.42 4.89 4.03 3.77 3.96 3.75 3.26 3.04 2.37 40.60 cm 15.09 15.70 25.63 29.69 31.27 26.11 30.84 25.88 30.63 *21.9 26.47 17.68 158.72 High in 5.94 6.18 10.09 11.69 12.31 10.28 12.14 10.19 12.06 *10.99 10.42 6.96 62.49 cm 0.13 0.28 1.98 2.26 *3 .33 0.89 0.61 0.53 1.14 *o.91 1.07 1.22 60.10 Low in 0.05 0.11 0.78 0.89 *1.3 1 0.35 0.24 0.21 0.45 *o.36 0.42 0.48 23.66 cm 4.47 6.10 9.98 11.43 12.14 8.15 15.09 10.85 7.11 12.40 7.04 6.88 15.09 I-day max in 1.76 2.40 3.93 4.50 4.78 3.21 5.94 4.27 2.80 4.88 2.77 2.7 1 5.94 Average cm 15.75 *16.00 7.37 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.57 12.70 57.66 total snowfall in 6.20 '6 .3 2.90 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 5.00 22.70 High cm 59.69 59.18 54.86 18.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 21.08 45.2 1 134.11 snowfall in 23 .50 23 .30 21.60 7.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.10 8.30 17.80 52.80 Source: WRCC, 2013a, " Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature, 1969 to 2012, Station 231791 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl?mo l 791 , Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed August 2013.
~~Occurred during 2008- 2012 time period.~~
Hydrometeorological Report No 51 , Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States East of the 105th Meridian (NOAA, 1978) provides probable maximum precipitation data for the U.S. east of the Rocky Mountains. Probable maximum precipitation values for a specific location are provided in Table 2-28 over ranges of time ( 6 to 72 hr) or ranges of geographic area (10 mi 2 to 20,000 mi 2).
Table 2-28. 72-Hour Probable Maximum Precipitation 10 mi2 28 33 37 38.5 40 200 rni 2 20 24.5 26 29.5 33 1,000 mi 2 15 18.5 20.5 24 25.5 5,000 rni 2 9 12 14 17 19 10,000 rni 2 7 9.5 11.5 15 16.5 20,000 rni 2 5.1 7.5 9.5 12.5 14 2.3.1.3 Maximum Probable Snowpack NUREG-1537, Part 1, Section 2.3 .1, states that the snow load should be based on the 100-year return period snow accumulation. For MU facilities, the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) (IBC, 2012) has been levied as the required building code. The ground snow load is 20 lb/ft 2
To modify the snow load to be based on a 100-year return period, an importance factor of 1.2 is applied to the load determined using the nominal snow load (ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Section C7 .3.3). The nominal ice thickness is 2.54 cm (1 in.) concurrent with a 64.4 km/hr (40-rni/hr),
3-sec wind gust. To modify the ice load to be based on a 100-year return period, an importance factor of 0.82 is applied to the load determined using the nominal ice load (ASCE 7-10, Section Cl0.4.4).
2-72
~~i*;~:* NWM I NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3~~
*
lilOllffWHl llEDtCAl JSOTOf'U Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.3.1.4 Humidity Average relative humidity data for the Columbia, Missouri weather station was reviewed for 2008 to 2012. The lowest average relative humidity was 51 .89 percent, recorded in August 20 12, and the hi ghest average relative humidity was 82 .13 percent, recorded in September 2008 . The five-year annual average was 69.18 percent. The five-year relative humidity data is summarized in Table 2-29 (WRCC, 2013b).
2008 2009 60.51 64.95 Table 2-29.
72.02 63.73 Relative Humidity Data for Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012 66.68 63 .28 66.52 64.85 69.49 71.40 74.38 78 .87 82 .13 77.52 65 .87 68.42 73.66 74.46 76.90 75.92 76.62 68.08
. ~
71.48 72.33 7 1.18 70.41 2010 75 .69 73.42 70.33 6 1.24 74.7 1 76.64 79. 19 75.19 76.17 58.65 64.86 72.85 71.58 2011 71.86 71.51 71.26 64.73 74.61 72.69 76.29 75.19 70.82 59.46 71.92 74.84 71.27 2012 64.05 63.72 63 .58 65.03 61.33 54.89 52.96 51.89 69.64 66.76 62 .25 70.91 61.46 Mean 67.41 68.88 67 .03 64.47 69.71 69.86 71.46 71.61 74.94 65.37 66.78 72.88 69.18 Source: WRCC, 20 I 3b, " Station Monthly Time Series, Columbia, Missouri, 2008-20 12, Station 23 179 1 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.ed u/cgi-bin/wea_ mnsimts. pl ?laKCOU, Western Regional Climate Center, Reno , Nevada, accessed August 201 3.
2.3.1.5 Wind Extreme wind speeds are uncommon in central Missouri. Wind that does occur is usually caused by pressure gradients and temperature contrasts present in the mid-latitude cyclones that pass through the state. These cyclones may spawn storms that produce high winds from gust fronts, microbursts, and tornadoes. Non-storm-related extreme winds are rare. Occasionally, cold high-pressure air filling in behind a front will cause high wind, especially in the winter when temperature contrasts are large.
Average wind speed data for the Columbia, Missouri weather station was reviewed for 2008 to 20 12. The lowest mean wind speed was 8.8 km/hr (5.47 mi/hr) in August 2008 and the highest was 19.1 km/hr (11.87 mi/hr) recorded in December 2008 . The five-year annual average was 14.25 km/hr (8.86 mi/hr).
The five-year mean wind speed data is summarized in Table 2-30.
Table 2-30. Mean Wind Speed for Columbia, Missouri, from 2008-2012 IZ!ll@Ml!llmllllllmlll*l'l.Mll!llifiil.IBIBlllllElllJ*'*fill (km/hr) 18.85 17.03 16.96 17.53 15.76 13 .97 11 .28 8.80 10.01 11.59 14.32 19.10 14.93 2008 (mi/hr) 11.7 1 10.58 10.54 10.89 9.79 8.68 7.01 5.47 6.22 7.20 8.90 11 .87 9.28 (km/hr) 15.24 17.96 18.31 17.99 12.38 12.47 10.32 11 .91 10.40 14.58 14.71 17.03 14.44 2009 (mi/hr) 9.47 11.16 11.38 11.1 8 7.69 7.75 6.41 7.40 6.46 9.06 9.14 10.58 8.97 (km/hr) 13 .74 13.73 15.96 17.06 12.79 11.43 10.06 9.88 12.17 16.30 14.73 13.41 13.10 2010 (mi/hr) 8.54 8.53 9.92 10.60 7.95 7.10 6.25 6. 14 7.56 10.13 9. 15 8.33 8.14 (km/hr) 13.63 16.87 17.08 18.49 15.14 14.45 10.09 10.38 11.89 13.66 18.88 14.15 14.56 201 1 (mi/hr) 8.47 10.48 10.61 11.49 9.41 8.98 6.27 6.45 7.39 8.49 11.73 8.79 9.05 (km/hr) 16.98 15.64 16.53 15.19 13.42 13.68 10.56 11.35 11.57 13.79 14.97 14.1 8 13.97 2012 (mi/hr) 10.55 9.72 10.27 9.44 8.34 8. 50 6.56 7.05 7.19 8.57 9.30 8.81 8.68 (km/hr) 15.69 16.24 16.96 17.25 13.90 13.20 10.46 10.46 11 .20 14.08 15.92 16.25 14.26 Mean (mi/hr) 9.75 10.09 10.54 10.72 8.64 8.20 6.50 6.50 6.96 8.75 9.89 10.10 8.86 Source: WRCC, 20 I 3b, "Station Monthly Time Series, Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012, Station 23179 1 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri .edu/cgi-bin/wea_mnsimts.pl?JaKCOU, Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed August 2013.
2-73
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Wind data from the MU South Farm weather station was also reviewed. The average shown on the site was different than the Columbia weather station by a factor of two. Thus, the Columbia weather station data serves as the more complete picture of wind activity at the proposed RPF site.
Two wind roses are presented to show the general historic wind flow patterns in the immediate area and the study area. Figure 2-31 shows the wind pattern as measured at MU South Farm, located immediately north of the proposed RPF site. This data is collected by MU. Figure 2-32 shows the wind patterns recorded at the Remote Automatic Weather Station (RAWS) in Columbia.
WI OSPEEO (mptl )
0
~~5.0-200~~
~~00 - 1 0 O s D~~
~~o Figure 2-31. Wind Rose from South Farm, 2000-2010 (University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station) 2-74~~
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics I A J10 H 0 .. ti 1 .3 - 4 06 , . 4 - 8 18% 8 - 13 13 - 19 19 - 2 5 - 3 32 - 3 39 - 7 47 +
Figure 2-32. Wind Rose from Automatic Weather Station, Columbia, Missouri, 2007-2012 (Western Regional Climate Center)
Both wind roses show that the prevailing surface wind direction is from the south. The MU South Farm wind rose shows a total average wind speed of 11.3 km/hr (7 mi/hr), while the Columbia wind rose shows a total average speed of 14.16 km/hr (8 .8 mi/hr) . Both wind roses show that the average frequency of higher speed winds falls into the 24 to 40 km/hr (15 to 25-mi/hr) range.
2-75
NWM l-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.3.1.6 100-Year Return Wind Speed NUREG-1537, Part 1, Section 2.3.1, states that the wind load should be based on the 100-year return period wind speed. For MU facilities , IBC (2012) has been levied as the required building code. The basic wind speed for Category III and lV facilities is 193.1 km/hr (120 mi/hr). An evaluation of the effective return period for the basic wind speeds for Category III and lV facilities determined that the effective return period is 1,700 years (3 percent in 50 years, or 5.7 percent in 100 years) (ASCE 7-10, Section C26.5 . l ). Note that an event with a 100-year return period has a 63 percent chance of occurring at least once in a 100-year period.
2.3.1.7 Extreme Weather The heartland of the country has the distinction of also being known as "tornado alley," a non-meteorological term that references the area where 90 percent of tornadoes have occurred as a result of the mixing of cold, dry air from Canada and the Rocky Mountains, with warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico and hot, dry air from the Sonoran Desert. This area exhibits a lot of atmospheric instability, heavy precipitation, and many intense thunderstorms.
Tornados are extreme wind speed events that are classified according to the Enhanced Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale (EF scale). The scale matches wind speeds to the severity of damaged caused by a tornado. The process involves determining the degree of damage according to a predefined damage scale of 28 indicators. The observed damage is associated with estimated wind speeds during the storm, and an EF scale number is assigned. Measuring tornadoes from EF-1 to EF-5 , the scale uses more specific structural damage guidelines than the original Fujita scale (F scale), which was established in 1971.
Table 2-31 shows the F and EF scales.
Table 2-31. Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scales Used to Determine Tornado Intensity F scale EF scale Fastest 1/4-mi 3-sec gust 3-sec gust 0
1mm**nmim*11mm1.wu;jli, 64 -116 40- 72 72-126 45- 78 0 11mjli*
105-13 7 (mi/hr) 65-85 117-180 73-112 127-188 79-117 138-177 86-110 2 182- 253 113-157 189-259 118- 161 2 178-217 111- 135 3 254-333 158-207 260-336 162-209 3 218-265 136-165 4 334- 418 208- 260 337-420 210- 261 4 266-322 166-200 5 419- 512 261-318 421 -510 262-317 5 Over 322 Over 200 EF scale enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale.
F scale Fujita tornado intensity scale.
The seasonal and annual frequencies of tornadoes, thunderstorms, lighting, and hail are provided in Table 2-32 through Table 2-38.
2-76
.**...NWM I
.**:~*;~°;"
*
~~NOllTlfWHT MBMCAl llOTOl'U NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-32. Seasonal Frequency of Historical Tornadoes in Boone County, Missouri (1954 to 2016)~~
Magnitude (Fujita Scale)
Month January February March 2 April 2 5 May 1 2 June 1 I July 2 1 August September 2 October 2 November 3 December Source: NOAA, 20 16, "Storm Events Database," www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents, National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. , accessed ovember 20 16.
Table 2-33. Annual Frequency of Historical Tornadoes in Boone County, Missouri (1954 to 2016)
., t I ..
Year Total 1954 3 3 1956 I 1959 2 3 1965 1966 1972 1 1973 3 1980 1982 1 2 1984 3 3 1985 1987 1 1990 2 2 1992 1 2 1995 1 1 1998 1 1999 2 2 2000 2 2001 1 Source: OAA, 20 16, "Storm Events Database," www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents, National Centers for Environmental Information, Nat ional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., accessed November 2016.
2-77
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-34. Boone County Seasonal Thunderstorm Wind Events (8/29/1955 to 5/11/2016)
Wind Velocity (mph)
Month ii*fiMMjpii:i*j:(ll:fj:PIWlifdlfffPllN*IHll"fj@llll1ll@I January 2 February March 8 3 2 April 12 5 2 2 1 May 13 7 9 3 2 1 2 June 20 3 6 3 2 July 12 8 10 6 1 2 2 August 18 6 2 3 September 4 3 October November December 2 Source: NOAA, 20 16, "Storm Events Database," www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents, National Centers fo r Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. , accessed November 20 16.
Table 2-35. Boone County Ann ual Thunderstorm Wind Events (8/29/1955 to 5/1112016)
Year M@§.!tW~M4@MW~Mfl§.ltW Year *M4M*
1956 1971 1987 2 2002 6 1957 1972 1988 2 2003 1958 3 1973 1989 2004 8 1959 1974 1990 3 2005 7 1960 1975 1991 1 2006 11 1961 3 1977 1992 1 2007 8 1962 1978 1993 2008 6 1963 2 1979 1994 2 2009 6 1964 1980 1995 5 2010 6 1965 1981 7 1996 2 2011 15 1966 2 1982 16 1997 1 2012 1967 3 1983 1 1998 9 2013 1968 1984 3 1999 2014 5 1969 1985 2000 17 2015 4 1970 1986 3 2001 6 2016 2 Source: NOAA, 20 16, "Storm Events Database," www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents, National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. , accessed November 20 16.
2-78
NWMl-201 3-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-36. Boone County Lightning Events (7/5/1998 to 6/30/2016)
Location IE!m Description Columbia 7/5/ 1998 Lightning strike was blamed for a fire at a residence in southwest Columbia.
Firefighters arrived to find flames shooting through a hole in the roof.
Columbia 5/22/2002 A fire started by lightning destroyed 50 percent of a home in Columbia.
Columbia 8/25/2004 Lighting strike melted power lines at Providence and Green Meadows roads. About 5,000 people were affected by the resulting power outage, including New Haven Elementary School.
Columbia 8/25/2004 Lightning strike started a house fire.
Columbia 61612005 Lightning strike started a house fire .
Columbia 8/26/2006 Five radio stations were knocked off the air when lightning struck a Cumulus Broadcasting transmitter tower. Control boards in the studios, computers, and magnetic door locks in the building were also damaged by the strike.
Columbia 7/ 19/2007 Lightning strike started a fire at a photography studio.
Sapp 4/23/2008 Lightning strike started a house fire .
Columbia 5/30/2008 Lightning strike started a house fire.
COU Memorial 6/ 13/2008 Lightning strike started a house fire.
Airport Browns 6/ 17/2009 Lightning strike killed woman in an open field at Rocky Fork Lakes Conservation Area.
Harg 7/3/2011 Lightning strike started a house fire.
Columbia 7/23/2011 Lightning struck cell phone being used by woman in Cosmo Park.
Source: NOAA, 2016, "Storm Events Database," www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents, National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrati on, Washington, D.C., accessed November 20 16.
Table 2-37. Boone County Seasonal Hail Events 4/23/1958 - 5/11/2016 Diameter (in.)
Location mll!ElmllBllmllDmlmlmllE!lmil. 9 January 2 3 February February 1 March 18 4 20 2 3 11 61 April 21 6 18 4 3 15 2 3 72 May 33 21 21 2 3 22 105 June 15 8 9 3 12 49 July 5 3 2 11 August 1 1 2 1 6 September 8 2 4 3 19 October November 2 5 3 2 13 December 2 2 5 Source: NOAA, 2016, "Storm Events Database," www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents, National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., accessed November 20 16.
2-79
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-38. Boone County Annual Hail Events 4/23/1958 - 5/11/2016 Year l@§.l?W-l@§*l?W-1@§.!?W Year *@§.!?*
1958 I 1972 1987 1 2002 13 1959 1973 3 1988 5 2003 13 1960 1974 6 1989 2004 1959 1975 1990 4 2005 36 1961 1976 2 1991 5 2006 49 1962 2 1977 1992 7 2007 5 1963 1978 1993 4 2008 19 1964 1979 1994 3 2009 11 1965 1980 1995 10 2010 7 1966 2 1981 4 1996 5 2011 21 1967 1 1982 15 1997 2012 8 1968 3 1983 1 1998 3 2013 8 1969 1 1984 15 1999 7 2014 9 1970 2 1985 2 2000 13 2015 3 1971 1986 2 2001 10 2016 2 Source: OAA, 2016, "Stonn Events Database," www.ncdc. noaa.gov/stonnevents, ational Centers for Environmenta l lnfonnation, ational Oceani c and Atmospheric Administrati on, Washington, D.C., accessed Nove mber 2016 .
Winter weather events since 1996 in Boone County, Missouri, are provided in Tabl e 2-39. These events include snowstorms, ice storms, and extreme cold events. The RPF is being designed to ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, to withstand expected meteorological events.
This information will be factored in the design requirements of Section 3.2.5, "Rain, Snow, and Ice Loading, for the RPF.
.. - 112196 113196 Table 2-39. Boone County Winter Weather Events (11111996 to 6/30/2016) (2 pages)
Storm type Winter storm Winter storm mmmm 2
1 6-9 inches of snow in region 2-4 inches of snow in region Description 11 /25/96 Ice storm 1 Numerous traffic accidents 1/8/97 Winter storm 2 5-7 inches of snow, strong winds, very cold temperatures 1115/97 Winter storm 2 Freezing rain and sleet with lf.i to Yi in. of ice accumulation followed by 3 to 8 in. of snow in the region 1/27/97 Winter storm 1 Freezing rain with Yi to 1 in. of ice accumulation 411 0197 Winter storm 2 to 6 in. of snow in the region 12/8/97 Winter storm 2 to 4 in. of snow in region 1/12/98 Winter storm 1 Freezing drizzle resulting in thin glaze of ice on roads 3/8/98 Winter storm 2 4 to 6 in. of snow in region 12/21198 Winter storm 2 Light freezing drizzle, sleet, and snow left a thin coating of ice on roads 1/ 1/99 Winter storm 2 6 to 10 in. of snow across region with about an inch of freezing rain and sleet; very cold temperatures 2-80
NW Ml-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-39. Boone County Winter Weather Events (1/1/1996 to 6/30/2016) (2 pages)
- 1127/00 3/ 11100 12/ 13/00 Storm type Winter storm Winter storm Heavy snow rmmmm llmlJll 3
1 4 to 5 in. across region 4 to 7 in. of snow 6 to 12 in . across region Description 12/ 16/00 Extreme 2 Wind chills from -20°F to -40°F cold/wind chill 1129/02 Ice storm 2 1\l.i to Y2 in. of ice accumulation; power outages 312102 Winter storm 1 Yi in. of sleet followed by 4 to 6 in. of snow; winds of 20 to 30 mi/hr 3/25/02 Winter storm 2 Sleet followed by snow; 3- to 4-in. accumulation of the mix 12/4/02 Winter storm 2 to 5 in. of snow across region 12/24/02 Winter storm 4 to 8 in. of snow across region 111/03 Winter storm 2 Sleet accumulation up to I in. followed by 6 to 8 in. of snow across the region 2123103 Winter storm 2 3 to 6 in. of snow across the region 12/9/03 Winter storm 2 3 to 5 in. of snow across the region 12/ 13/03 Winter storm 3 to 6 in. of snow across the region 1/25/04 Winter storm Freezing rain followed by l to 2 in. of sleet and then 1 to 2 in.
of snow 11 /24/04 Winter storm I 4 to 6 in . of snow across region 12/8/05 Winter storm 1 2 in. of snow 11129/06 Winter storm 3 Over a foot of snow in some areas 1112/07 Ice storm 3 Up to 1.5 in. of sleet and \l.i to Yi in. of ice accumulation in region 12/8/2007 Ice storm 4 Up to a Yi in. of ice accumulated along with up to 1 in. of sleet 113112011 Winter storm 2 Up to 20 in. of snow fell along with winds gusting over 40 mi/hr.
12/2112013 Ice storm Average ice accumulation on trees and other overhead surfaces was from 0.25 to 0.30 in; about Y2 inch of sleet also fell in some locations 115/2014 Winter storm 6 to 9 in. of snow across with strong northerly winds produced snow drifts of 2 to 5 ft 2/4/2014 Winter storm 6 to 13 in. of snow across the region Source: NOAA, 2016, "Storm Events Database," www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents, National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., accessed November 2016 .
2-81
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.3.2 Site Meteorology Conservative assumptions were used, in both the Radiological Safety Analysis Computer (RSAC) code to support 10 CFR I 00. 11 , "Determination of Exclusion Area, Low Population Zone, and Population Center Distance," analyses and the ALOHA air dispersion model to support the preliminary safety analysis report with regard to meteorological inputs and identified scenarios.
The RSAC code, Version 6.2, was used to determine ifthe dose rate requirements in 10 CFR 100.11 would drive the required size of the exclusion area boundary (controlled area) for the NWMI RPF.
I 0 CFR I 00.11 requires that an exclusion area be sized so that an individual located at any point on its boundary for 2 hr immediately following onset of the postulated fission product release would not receive a total radiation dose to the whole body in excess of 25 roentgen equivalent in man (rem).
In the preliminary safety analysis report, design-basis events and the potential effects of those accidents on the faci lity, in terms of design parameters (e.g., overpressure, missile energies) or physical phenomena (e.g. , impact, flammable or toxic clouds) were identified in accordance with 10 CFR 20, 10 CFR 50.34, Regulatory Guide 1.78, Regulatory Guide 1.91, Regulatory Guide 1.206, Regulatory Guide 4 .7, and NUREG-1537 .
Design-basis events, external to the proposed RPF, are defined as those accidents that have a probability of radiological release to the public on the order of magnitude of 1E-07 per year, or greater, with the potential consequences serious enough to affect the safety of the plant to the extent that the guidelines in 10 CFR 50.34 could be exceeded.
Ta ble 2-40. Distances from Exhaust Stacks to Chemicals were evaluated to ascertain which Fence and Site Boundaries hazardous materials had the potential to form a flammable vapor cloud or vapor cloud explosion.
For those chemicals with an identified flammability range, the ALOHA air dispersion model was used to determine the distances where the vapor cloud may exist between the upper Compass North direction North Northeast Fence line 29 70 231 76 76
1-Site boundary 250 250 explosion limit and the LEL, presenting the Northeast 82 269 86 281 possibility of ignition and potential thermal East Northeast 103 338 110 363 radiation effects (ALOHA, 2008). East 76 250 84 275 Conservative meteorological assumptions were East Southeast 65 213 69 225 used in both the RSAC and ALOHA analyses. Southeast 65 213 69 225 Conservative Pasqui ll stability classes, including F South Southeast 72 238 76 250 and G, along with a wind speeds of I to 2 m/sec South 110 118 363 388 were assumed for the analyses. Site-specific meteorological measurements were not necessary South Southwest 95 313 156 513 to comp lete these bounding analyses. Southwest 80 263 149 488 West Southwest 42 138 112 369 Table 2-40 provides a tabulation of the distance West 23 75 65 213 from the exhaust stacks where airborne releases might be expected to points on the fence and site West Northwest 19 63 57 188 boundaries in each of the 16 compass directions to Northwest 19 63 57 188 support dispersion analyses of airborne releases. North Northwest 19 63 76 250 2-82
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Regional Data Sources Meteorological measurements would be avai lable for use in responding to accidental radiological releases, other emergencies, and any other routine purposes that require access to meteorological information during the licensing period. That meteorological information would be obtained for local govern ment weather monitoring stations that observe wind and other surface meteorological parameters on an hourly basis.
When needed during an emergency, real-time hourly surface meteorological measurements of wind direction, wind speed, air temperature, and weather type would be accessed by NWMI through Government data sources. Access would be attempted during the emergency in the following sequence, until reliable data is obtained, as follows:
~~1. Internet access to hourly surface weather observations recorded at Station 231791, Columbia Regional Airport (wl .weather.gov/data/obhistory/KCOU.html).~~
~~2. Telephone access to an automated voice recording at (573) 499-1400 of the most recent hourly surface observations recorded at the Columbia Regional Airport.~~
3. If weather observations are not avai lable from the station at the Columbia Regional Airport, weather information from another station with hourl y meteorological data in the site climate region would be used. The foJlowing Mi ssouri stations would be used as listed in order of increasing distance from Columbi a:
~~a. Jefferson City Memorial Airport: wl.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KJEF.html~~
~~b. Kansas City International Airport: w l .weather.gov/data/obhistory/KMCI.html~~
~~c. Sedalia Memorial Ai rport: w l .weather.gov/data/obhi story/KDMO.html~~
d. Spirit of St. Louis Airport: w l .weather.gov/data/obhi story/KSUS.html During normal operations, data would be obtained by internet access to hourly surface weather observations recorded at the Columbia Regional Airport at wl.weather.gov/data/obhjstory/KCOU.html.
2.4 HYDROLOGY 2.4.1 Surface Water Surface waters in central and southern Boone County drain into the Missouri River through a number of tributaries, includjng Bonne Femme, Cedar, Little Cedar, Hinkson, Jemerson, and Perche Creeks (Figure 2-33). The other major drainage feature in the county is a system of karst topography west and south of Columbia. Numerous sinkholes, some fiJled with water, overlie a complex network of caves and springs. Gans Creek, which drains Discovery Ridge and the proposed RPF site, is located within the Bonne Femme Watershed.
Bonne Femme Watershed The Bonne Femme Watershed is comprised of two major sub-watersheds: the Bonne Femme and the Little Bonne Femme. Topographical contours of the land define the Bonne Femme Watershed, which encompasses approximately 241 square kjlometers (km 2) (93 rlli 2) , approximately 15 percent of Boone County, including the proposed RPF site (BFSC, 2007). The RPF site is located within the northern portion of this watershed (Little Bonne Femme sub-watershed) and is approximately 0.4 km (0.25 rm) north of Gans Creek (Figure 2-34).
2-83
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics
~ treams D km (5 mile) Radiu from RP ice
- Inter tate Highway Highway Lake
+
0 0.5
\ll>alOI.?
2
-JOJJlut.J,.,,._,.,",....,_..-'/,M,.,
3
.I.,-:
~J4 City Limit 4
Miles (dliJiLll . . 11\i' *
__,_,dllpmhlM~ _ (~ebl*
MO 101! '<<""- \O\il ~ I alt'. Jlpltft Figure 2-33. Streams of Southern Boone County, Missouri 2-84
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Bonne Femme reek
~~ub\\ atershed RP F ite~~
'a me 0 km (5 mile Radiu from RP F ite Bonne l*cmmc red Callahan Cn.-ck- Pcrche Creek
- Inter tat Highway Fowler reel- edar reek
- - Highway Litt k Bonne Femme reek-Mi o uri Ri, cr Little edar Creek
+
0 0.5 2 ity Limit 3 4 Lower 11 inkson reek Middle II ink on Cn..-ck Millers reek- cdar reek
~~--==:11*1c:=----======:::::11--* Miles Rocky Fork CrL-ck Figure 2-34. Map Showing Bonne Femme Watershed 2-85~~
i*;~:*
NWM I WDRTHWftT MBMCAL ISOTill'U NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Both the Bonne Femme and Little Bonne Femme creeks flow from east to west in a dendritic alignment into the Missouri River and are interconnected by the Devil ' s Icebox Cave Branch. Where Gans Creek meets Clear Creek, the Little Bonne Femme begins and flows south toward the Mayhan Branch. The Little Bonne Femme enters the Missouri River approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south of this confluence.
To the south, the Bonne Femme meets with the Fox Hollow Branch and then flows into the Missouri River (BFSC, 2007).
The most distinctive characteristic of the Bonne Femme Watershed is its karst topography. Within the karst terrain , the hydrology becomes complex because of losing and gaining sections of streams. Rough estimates show approximately 33 stream segments comprising approximately 37 km (23 mi) of losing streams (143 km [89 mi] of gaining stream) within the watershed. There are two main recharge areas tied to these losing and gaining sections of stream, including Devil ' s Ice Box recharge zone (3 ,397 ha
[8,394 acres] of drainage), and Hunter' s Cave recharge zone (3 ,330 ha [8,228 acres] of drainage) (BFSC, 2007).
A mixture of land uses occurs within the Bonne Femme watershed. The predominant land use accounting for 61 .5 percent of the watershed is agricultural activities, including row crop productions, pasture, and range lands. Forested areas make up nearly one-third of the watershed, mainly within the central and western portion of the watershed. These forested areas also encompass most of the publicly owned lands, including Rock Bridge Memorial State Park and Three Creeks Conservation Area (BFSC, 2007).
2.4.2 Ground Water Groundwater is the source of 74 percent of all rural domestic self-supplied water, 75 percent of all irrigation water, and 39 percent of all industrial self-supplied water, excluding water for thermoelectric power generation. The six principal aquifers in Missouri include:
~~Major river valleys~~
~~Alluvial (in southeastern Missouri)~~
~~Wilcox and Claiborne~~
~~McNairy~~
~~Ozark~~
~~Mississippian Aquifer (Kimmswick-Potosi)~~
The groundwater aquifer beneath the proposed RPF site is the Mississippian aquifer (also referred to as the Kimmswick-Potosi aquifer). Figure 2-35 is a map of the aquifer.
The Mississippian aquifer is the principal aquifer supplying groundwater to Boone County. The Mississippian aquifer consists of consolidated dolomite, limestone, and some sandstone beds that are generally confined. The Keokuk limestone and Burlington limestone are the principal water-yielding formations within this aquifer. Both formations consist of crystalline limestone and yield water primarily from solution cavities. In most places, the aquifer is overlain by a confining unit of Pennsylvanian shale and sandstone and glacial till. The aquifer is typically underlain by a confining unit of Mississippian shale. Recharge occurs primarily from precipitation infiltrating overlying aquifers. The top of this aquifer is approximately 548.6 m (1 ,800 ft) below-ground surface and is a primary source of water in seven counties north of the Missouri River (Miller and Appel , 1997).
In accordance with drillers' reports generated from 1987 to 2005, the estimated static water level in the area near the proposed site was approximately 198 m (650 ft) below-ground surface (MDNR, 2006).
During previous investigations at Discovery Ridge, groundwater was observed at depths ranging from approximately 3.7-5 .6 m (12- 18.5 ft) below-ground surface.
2-86
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics
/
\_
1-**-**-**.....
1**1:*-.1 .._.
I.I i ~
~~-"'r I**-.,;~~
~~11 1 t l 63 I: ~~~
~~........._.-.__ .......:i~~
~~l-**.~~
~ "--*-*-----
I ;.
l~ l
~~1..1 i--*-*-**-..!~~
j
\
<--,,___,, Static Water Level RPF ite N 0 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site
+
0 0.5 2 3 4
- - Highway Inter tate Highway
~~c:: i* *o****===::11**** Miles Ml>'1t ~~~
~~1~11ldttal (in,.,,,..Au1trt np ll~*H#ll'W#IOfl IJtrJ/k-f'i Rqtt<n* /9fi7.:00t~~
~~t4tliwtlll00Utlcdat.r-bt*n.s ~ .ua_~'fi~~
(:; City Limits
\10 b.106 L.._...1tn Jknoo. ~lq\
Figure 2-35. Aquifer Map 2-87
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.4.3 Floods This subsection identifies the effects of potential floods on the proposed RPF site. Figure 2-36 provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map of the area around the proposed RPF site. The site is located outside of the 500-year flood plain. The nearest FEMA flood zone A is located along Gans Creek located to the southeast of the site. The elevation of this zone is 242 m (795 ft). The RPF site elevation is 248 m (815 ft). There are no water impoundments or dams upstream of the RPF site on Gans Creek that could affect the facility.
There are also two ponds located near the RPF site within Discovery Ridge. These ponds include the 7.9 ha (19.6-acre) common grounds stormwater management pond located to the northwest of the site.
The top of the dam for this pond is 246 m (807 ft) , with the spillway at 245 m (804 ft) . The second pond, currently approximately 4 ha (10 acres), is located to the northeast of the site. The elevation of the dam is approximately 244 m (801 ft). Failure of either of these two ponds would not likely affect the RPF because the elevation of the dams is lower than the elevation of the RPF.
2-88
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev . 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics FEMA Flood Zones 0 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site ZO E
- Interstate High ays Zone A
- Higbwa s ZoneAE ZoneX Zone X500
+
0 0.5 2 3 4
~~c::11*-==----=====:::11___ Miles Figure 2-36. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zones Around the Radioisotope Production Facility 2-89~~
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.5 GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING This subsection provides summary descriptions of geomorphic provinces and their tectonic development, and the glacial history responsible for surface topography features found today in the state of Missouri.
The descriptions are based on a review of relevant, readily available published reports and maps, and where available, records and unpublished reports from federal and state agencies. Information on the site characteristics has been acquired from these same sources and from site-specific investigations, including geotechnical field studies.
2.5.1 Regional Geology 2.5.1.1 Geomorphic Provinces The state of Missouri is divided into three geomorphic provinces:
~~Interior Plains Province, also referred to as the Central Lowland Province (northern Missouri, north of the Missouri River)~~
~~Interior Highlands (central Missouri, south of the Missouri River)~~
~~Atlantic Plains, also referred to as the Coastal Plains Province (the "boot heel" or southeastern comer of Missouri).~~
The proposed RPF site is located north of the Missouri River within the Interior Plains province. The Interior Plains are defined by the general texture of the surface terrain, rock type, and geologic structure.
They are characterized by moderately dissected, glaciated, flat to rolling plains that slope gently toward the Missouri and Mississippi River valleys. Local relief is 6.1-50.3 m (20-165 ft). Drainage is dendritic, current geomorphic processes are fluvial erosion, transport and deposition, and minor mass wasting.
Elevations range from 183-457 m (600-1,500 ft) above mean sea level, with the proposed RPF site averaging 245 m (805 ft) above mean sea level (USGS, 20 l 3a).
2.5.1.1.1 Interior Plains Province The Interior Plains Province is a vast region spread across the stable core (craton) of North America. This area formed when several small continents collided and welded together over a billion years ago, during the Precambrian Era. Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks now form the basement of the Interior Plains and make up the stable core of North America. Throughout the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras, the low lying Interior Plains remained relatively unaffected by mountain building and tectonic collisions in the western and eastern margins of the continent.
During the Mesozoic Era, the majority of the North American continental interior was above sea level, with two notable exceptions. The first occurring during the Jurassic Era (208-144 million years ago),
when rising seas flooded the low-lying areas of the continent and most of the Interior Plains were eventually submerged beneath the shallow Sundance Sea. The second exception occurred during the Cretaceous Period, when record high sea levels flooded the continental interior with shallow seas. During this time, the Interior Plains continued to receive deposits from the eroding Rocky Mountains to the west and Appalachian and Ouachita-Ozark Mountains to the east and south throughout the most recent Cenozoic Era. The flatness of the Interior Plains is a reflection of the platform of mostly flat-lying marine and stream deposits laid down in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras. The overlying sedimentary rocks are composed mostly of limestone, sandstone, and shales (USGS, 2013a).
2-90
~~i*;~:- NWMI NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics~~
*
MllnMW'EIT MEDICAL tslnarH 2.5.1.1.2 Interior Highlands Province The southern portion of Missouri , south of the Missouri River, is located within the Interior Highlands Province. The Interior Highlands includes the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains of southern Missouri ,
Arkansas, and eastern Oklahoma. The rocky outcrops that make of the core of the Interior Highlands are Paleozoic age carbonates and other sedimentary rocks that were originally deposited on the sea floor. In the Ouachita Mountains, these ancient marine rocks are now contorted by folds and faults. The ancient, eroded mountains of the Interior Highlands stand surrounded by nearly flat-lying sedimentary rocks and deposits of the Interior and Atlantic Plains provinces.
The Interior Highlands consist of thick bedrock units of sandstone and shale, with lesser amounts of chert and novaculite (a fine-grained silica rock, like flint) , deposited in a deep sea that covered the area from Late Cambrian through Early Pennsylvanian time. The area was then folded and faulted in such a manner that resistant beds of sandstone, chert, and novaculite now form long, sinuous mountain ridges that tower 152-457 m (500-1 ,500 ft) above adjacent valleys formed in easily eroded shale (USGS, 2013a).
2.5.l.1.3 Atlantic Plains Province The Atlantic Plain Province is the flattest of all the provinces and stretches over 3,540 km (2,200 mi) in length from Cape Cod to the border of Mexico and southward another 1,609 km (1 ,000 mi) to the Yucatan Peninsula. The Atlantic Plains slope gently seaward from the Interior Highlands in a series of terraces. The gentle sloping continues far into the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, forming the continental shelf.
Eroded sediments from the Interior Highlands were carried east and southward by streams and gradually covered the faulted continental margin, burying it under a wedge of layered sedimentary and volcanic debris thousands of feet thick. The sedimentary rock layers that lie beneath much of the coastal plain and fringing continental shelfremain nearly horizontal or tilt gently toward the sea (USGS, 20 l 3b).
2.5.1.2 Glacial History "Recent studies of ice cores, stalagmites, and other temperature dating methods have concluded that there have been 30 sustained periods offrigid temperatures in the last 3 million years. Of the classical glacial periods, only two: pre-Illinoian (Nebraskan-Kansan) and Illinoian are now recognized as having left glacial deposits in the State of Missouri. The pre-Illinoian was the most severe. Amongst its legacy was the changing of the course of the Missouri River to its present location, the scouring and filling of Northern Missouri topography, and extensive outwash gravels left to the south of the present Missouri River.
Although the Ozarks were not glaciated in the recent past, a cover of Pleistocene loess of varying thicknesses extends over all of the state except for the highest parts of the Ozark Mountains. Residuum, otherwise known as soil, clay, and rockfragments degrade from exposed and subsurface bedrock. Gravity and streams move this residuum, depositing it in sometimes graded layers." (MDNR, 2013a)
In Boone County, the glacial till averages over 43 m (140 ft) thick in the northeastern portion of the county, and the loess material reaches a maximum depth of 6.1 m (20 ft) along the Missouri River Bluffs (Boone County, 2013).
2-91
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.5.1.3 Local Topography and Soils of Boone County The topography of Boone County ranges from highly dissected hills to flat floodplains and nearly flat uplands. Elevations range from approximately 274.3 km (900 ft) above mean sea level along the northern boundary of Boone County to about 164.6 m (540 ft) above mean sea level in the southern tip of the county. Several areas of the county contain well developed cave and sinkhole formations .
Ordovician to middle Pennsylvania-aged dolomite, limestone, sandstone, coal, and shale deposits are visible throughout Boone County in geologic outcrops and roadcuts. The Mississippian-aged Burlington limestone is easily weathered by acidic groundwater and contains some unique natural resources of Boone County, including the most famous- Devil's Ice Box cave system, which is located approximately 2.4 km ( 1.5 mi) southwest of the proposed RPF site. There are numerous caves in Boone County and 418 documented sinkholes (Boone County, 2013)
Pennsylvanian aged deposits are overlaid by glacial till and loess. The soils of Boone County are included in parts of two major land resource areas: the Central Claypan Area and Central Mississippi Valley Wooded Slopes.
Central Claypan Area - The Central Claypan Area soils were formed in glacial till and cover the northeastern and east-central portions of Boone County. Claypan soils display extreme variability within the soil profile and across the landscape; therefore, plant growth within these soils must contend with distinctively contrasting physical, chemical, and hydrologic properties at different soil depths. The depth to the claypan soils varies from approximately 10 cm (3.9 in.) on ridge tops up to 100 cm (39.4 in.) on backslopes. The soil horizons preceding the claypan are depleted of clay minerals, cations, and have a very low pH. The claypan horizon typically has an abrupt upper boundary with 100 percent more clay than the preceding horizon, and very low permeability.
~~Central Mississippi Valley Wooded Slopes - This major land resource area consists of a dissected glacial till plain comprising rolling narrow ridge tops and hilly-to-steep ridge slopes.~~
The small streams in this area have narrow valleys with steep gradients. The major rivers have nearly level broad floodplains , and the valley floors are tens of meters below the adjoining hilltops. Most of the soils within the central Mississippi valley wooded slopes area are found in silty loess or glacial till, are moderately to fine-grained in texture with a mixed mineralogy, and are well drained to moderately well-drained. These soils are typically observed on ridge tops and support forest flora (Boone County, 2013).
The proposed RPF site is located in a tectonically stable Interior Plains Province.
2.5.2 Site Geology The stratigraphy of the geologic units that underlie the proposed RPF site and/or properties within a five-mile radius from the project site (Figure 2-37), are listed below from youngest to oldest:
~~Quaternary Age Holocene Series (Qal)~~
~~Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Marmaton Group (Pm)~~
~~Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Cherokee Group (Pc)~~
~~Mississippian Age Osagean Series Burlington Formation (Mo)~~
~~Mississippian Age Kinderhookian Series (Mk)~~
~~Late to Early Devonian aged (D)~~
~~Early Ordovician Age Ibexian Series (Ojc) 2-92~~
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Ojc al RPF ite eolog ic Feature D km (5 mile) Radiu from RPF ite Label. Rock Type I. Rock T pc 2 D, lime tone. and tone
- Inter late Highway Mk , lime tone. ilt tone
- Highway Mo, lime tone. chert f~~~ City Limit Ojc. dolo tone (dolomite). and tone 0 0.5 1 2
~~--==*--==---c:::::====---~~
3 4 Miles
+ Pc. hale. and tone Pm. lime tone, hale Qal. cla or mud. ilt Figure 2-37. Geologic Features within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site 2-93
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.5.2.1 Quaternary Age Holocene Series (Qal)
The surface topography of the proposed RPF site and surrounding properties consists of Quaternary age bedrock overburden characterized by upland areas covered by a thin loess blanket and glacial drift.
Previous investigations of Discovery Ridge noted that "Highly plastic clays that exhibit volume change with variations in moisture are commonly encountered near the ground surface" (Terracon, 2011 ).
Figure 2-38 depicts the Quaternary age bedrock overburden at the proposed RPF site as clay loam till (No. 27). Clay loam till is also depicted on all adjacent properties to the north, east, south, and west.
Additional Quaternary age deposits located within an 8 km (5-mi) radius of the proposed RPF site include alluvium (No. JO), loess (No. 18), sandy clay (No. 40), and thin, cherty clay solution residuum (No. 41).
The typical Quaternary age groundcover found in Boone County consists of alluvial (stream-deposited) clays, sand, and gravels (with a few poorly consolidated sandstones); glacial tills (sand and well-sorted gravels); and eolian (windblown) clays and loess (an extremely fine "rock flour," which forms solid masses) (MDNR, 2013b) .
These glacial deposits mantle the upland areas and consist of a heterogeneous mixture of clay, sand, and pebbles of diverse rock types. The deposits vary greatly in thickness and are as much as 42.7 m (140 ft) thick in the northern portion of Boone County. This material is relatively impermeable and supplies very little water to wells (MU, 2006).
A site-specific geotechnical investigation of the RPF site will be conducted to identify specific soil characteristics. If highly plastic clays are identified at the site, the design will include excavation of the clays and then backfill with structural fill. The RPF structural design will be completed during the final design and will be included as part of the Operating License Application.
2-94
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 10
'1 f Mi uri D 5mil ) Radiu from RPF ite 10 - llu ium
- Highwa
_7 - la loam till
- Inter tate Highwa I - Loe
.,.,- it Limit 40 - and lay 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles 41 - Thin chert cla olution re iduum 1996 lCm>I) > sbp~1p Figure 2-38. Map of Missouri Quaternary Age Geology 2-95
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.5.2.2 Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Marmaton Group (Pm) and Cherokee Group (Pc)
Pennsylvanian age strata (both Marmaton and Cherokee Groups) consists largely of clay and shale, with minor accounts of coal and thin, impure limestone beds. The total thickness may be as much as 33.5 m (110 ft). These beds produce only small quantities of water and are not used in this area as a source of supply. The water found in this unit is usually high in iron and sulfur content (MU, 2006).
Limestone and shale beds are generally thin and very widespread lateral units. Pennsylvanian deposits are quite extensive across Missouri , and they usually form thin- to medium-bedded layers of distinctive composition, called cyclothems. A cyclothem results when a sea transgresses and regresses very rapidly along a coastal area, and in a repeating pattern. Often, this pattern consists of a sandstone (beach), silty shale or siltstone (tidal), freshwater limestone (lagoon), underclay (terrestrial), coal (terrestrial swampy forest), shale (near shore tidal), limestone (shallow marine), and black shale (deep marine). This sequence can then repeat itself as the sea first regresses from the land, and then transgresses again (MDNR, 2013c).
2.5.2.3 Mississippian Age Osagean Series Burlington Formation (Mo)
The Mississippian age Burlington Formation stratum is the most extensively studied Mississippian age strata in Missouri . This crystalline, extremely fossiliferous limestone covers most of the state and extends into Iowa and Arkansas. Typical characteristics include white-to-gray, medium-to-coarsely grained layers of chert nodules, and a coarse-grained sedimentary structure called " styolites" formed from pressure solution. The pores in the styolites are often filled with chert or quartz deposits (MDNR, 20 l 3d).
Burlington limestone is the principal limestone exposed in quarries, creek banks, and roadcuts near and around Columbia. Thi s limestone is approximately 49 m ( 160 ft) thick in the Columbia area (but the thickness can vary) and may contain minor amounts of pyrite and limonite. Burlington limestone has historically been economjcally important as a limestone resource where exposed and as host rock for lead and zinc deposits in the presently inactive Tri-State mining district of Missouri , Kansas, and Oklahoma (MU, 2006).
Burlington limestone contains many shallow-drilled wells and yields sufficient quantities ofrelatively hard water for rural domestic suppli es. The limestone is quite soluble and contains many caverns and solutions passages. Solution features, including caves and sinkholes, are commonly present in this formation (MU, 2006). Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) reported the following:
No caves or sinkholes are known to exist, or are published to exist within approximately I mi of the Discovery Ridge Research Park. However, several areas of known karst activity are present west and southwest of this project area and are in various stages of development.
Site grading and drainage may alter site conditions and could possibly cause sinkholes in areas that have no history of this activity. (Terracon, 2011)
No sinkholes have occurred at the RPF site since the Terracon preliminary report was issued in 2011.
The most recent study (Boone County, 2015) shows that the project site is northeast of the nearest areas considered to have the potential for sinkholes. The most recent sinkhole occurred in May 2014 and was located on East Gans Creek Road, approximately 1.17 km (0.73 mi) to the southwest of the RPF site.
2-96
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics A site-specific geotechnical investigation of the RPF site will be conducted to ensure that the area does not have the potential for sinkholes. If the investigation does identify the potential for sinkholes, the RPF final design would incorporate one of the following alternatives: (1) excavate site both vertically and horizontally to remove that potential and backfill with structural fill, or (2) install piers to bedrock to support the substructure if a sinkhole was to occur.
If one of these alternatives needs to be implemented, the approach will be determined after the geotechnical investigation is complete, incorporated in the final RPF design, and included in the Operating License Application.
2.5.2.4 Mississippian Age Kinderhookian Series Chouteau Limestone (Mk)
The Mississippian age Chouteau Limestone stratum is a very fine-grained carbonate and, for the most part, is an evenly bedded bluish gray limestone. The upper part is somewhat massive and high in magnesium. Chouteau limestone is relatively impermeable due to its fine texture, restricting the movement of water to joints and small fissures. This unit is a poor source of water but yields small quantities to a few wells (MU, 2006).
2.5.2.5 Late to Early Devonian Limestone (D)
Devonian limestone strata deposits greatly vary in lithology, and range from very fine-grained to coarsely textured beds. Some of the beds are slightly sandy. In some areas of Columbia, Missouri , the Devonian limestone beds are approximately 9 m (30 ft) thick; in other well locations, this limestone bed is completely absent. Devonian limestone is not a valuable water producer (MU, 2006).
2.5.2.6 Early Ordovician Age lbexian Series Dolomites (Ojc)
Ordovician age deposits found in the Columbia area include the following, from youngest to oldest (MU, 2006):
St. Peter Sandstone - This formation, which is a very important aquifer in eastern and northern Missouri, has no importance in the Columbia area. It is present only as localized masses in the depressions of older rocks.
Jefferson City Formation - This predominantly dolomite formation averages approximately 122 m (400 ft) in thickness in the Columbia area, and wells drilled into it produce moderate quantities of relatively hard water. The formation probably has more rural domestic wells terminating in it than any other formation is this area.
~~Roubidoux Formation - This formation consists of alternating sandstone and dolomite beds and averages approximately 30.5 m (100 ft) in thickness. The formation is a very dependable water producer.~~
Gasconade Formation - This unit consists of mostly light-gray dolomite with sandstone (Gunter) at the base. The thickness is approximately 85 .3 m (280 ft). This dolomite unit is very cavernous and contains many interconnected solution passages. The sandstone is approximately 4.6 m (15 ft) thick, is very permeable, has a wide aerial extent, and is a good source of water.
2.5.3 On-site Soil Types The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic database for Boone County (NRCS, 2012) lists the soil type beneath the proposed RPF site as the Mexico Silt Loam.
2-97
~~.****. NWM I~~
~~i*:~y NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3~~
* * """11W(IT .attM lll1WU Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics In 2011, Terracon completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Discovery Ridge Certified Site Program, which included Lot 2 and Lots 5 through 18 of Discovery Ridge (Terracon, 2011 ). The proposed RPF site (Lot 15) is within the investigation area. The purpose of the investigation was to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, and pavements for Discovery Ridge properties.
As part of the study, nine soil borings (B-1 through B-9) were installed to depths ranging from 4-6 m (13- 20 ft) below-ground surface to determine shallow subsurface soil geotechnical properties and shallow groundwater depth . Soil boring B-5 is nearest to the proposed RPF site, along the eastern boundary between Lots 14 and 15.
Discovery Ridge surface soils from 0.6-0. 15 m (0.2-0.5 ft) below-ground surface were fo und to be brown, friable topsoil with significant amounts of organi c matter. Subsurface soils from approximately 0.9- 3.6 m (3- 12 ft) below-ground surface were lean clay, lean-to-fat clay, and fat clay with moderate-to-high plasticity. Material beneath 3.6 m ( 12 ft) is listed only as limestone. Plasticity and liquid limit tests were completed for soils encountered from only four soil borings.
At the time of drilling, some of the soils displayed moisture levels greater their measured plastic limits.
"Soils with moisture levels above their measured plastic limits may be prone to rutting and can develop unstable subgrade conditions during general construction operations" (Terracon, 20 I I). Moderate to high plasticity clays were observed at the site. Such soils are commonly referred to as "expansive" or "swelling" soils because they expand or swell as their moisture content increases. These soils in tum, contract or shrink as the moisture content decreases. Footings, floor slabs, and pavements supported on expansive soils often shift upward or downward causing possible distortion, cracking, or structural damage.
A site-specific geotechni cal investigation of the RPF site will be conducted to identify the site-specific soil characteristics. I f highly plastic clays are identified at the site, the design will include excavation of the clays and then backfill with structural fill. The structural details will be developed in the final RPF design and included in the Operating License Application.
2.5.4 Seismicity The most significant seismological feature in Missouri is the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), located in the southeastern comer of the state and extending into parts of the contiguous states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Illinois. The NMSZ is the most seismically active region in the U.S. east of the Rocky Mountains and is located approximately 483 km (300 mi) southeast of the proposed RPF site.
During the winter of 1811 - 1812, the NMSZ was the location of some of the highest intensity seismic events ever noted in U.S. history. Hundreds of aftershocks, some severely damaging, continued for years.
Records show that since 1900, moderately damaging earthquakes have struck the NMSZ every few decades. Prehistoric earthquakes similar in size to those of 1811 - 1812 occurred in the middle 1400s and around 900 A.D. Strongly damaging earthquakes struck the southwestern end of the NMSZ near Marked Tree, Arkansas, in 1843 (magnitude 6.0), and the northeastern end near Charleston, Missouri, in 1895 (magnitude 6.6) (USGS, 201 la).
The NMSZ is made up of reactivated fau lts that formed when what is now North America began to sp lit or rift apart approximately 500 million years ago. The resulting rift system died out before an ocean basin was formed, but a deep zone of weakness was created, referred to as the Reel foot rift (USGS, 201 1b).
This fau lt system extends 241 km ( 150 mi) southward from Cairo, Illinois, through New Madrid and Caruthersville, Missouri , down through Blytheville, Arkansas, to Marked Tree, Arkansas. The Reelfoot rift dips into Kentucky near Fulton and into Tennessee near Reelfoot Lake, extending southeast into Dyersburg, Tennessee. The rift then crosses five state lines and crosses the Mississippi River in at least three places. The fault system is buried beneath as much as 8 km ( 5 mi) of sediment for much of the fault length and typically cannot be seen at the surface (USGS, 2011 b).
2-98
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Four of the largest faults are recognized as alignments of abundant small earthquakes, and movements along two of these faults dammed rivers and created lakes during the earthquakes of 1811 - 1812. A few more deeply buried faults were detected during oil and gas exploration, and a few small faults are known from geologic mapping (USGS, 201 lb).
The remainder of the state, including the proposed RPF site located in central Missouri, is typical of the stable midcontinent U.S.
Earthquakes occur on faults within bedrock, usually several miles deep. According to the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), earthquakes in the central and eastern U.S. typically are felt over a much broader region than in the western U.S. East of the Rocky Mountains, an earthquake can be felt over an area ten times larger than a similar magnitude earthquake on the west coast.
According to information from Missouri's State Emergency Management Agency Earthquake Program, some of the earthquakes measure at least 7.6 in magnitude and five of them measured 8.0 or greater. The 1811-1812 series changed the course of the Missouri River, and some shocks were felt as far away as Washington D.C. and Boston (MMRPC, 2010). The NMSZ has experienced numerous earthquakes since the 1811-1812 series, and at least 35 aftershocks of intensity V or greater that have been recorded in the Missouri since 1811. Numerous earthquakes originating outside of the state' s boundaries have also affected Missouri. Table 2-41 summarizes the historical earthquakes that have affected the state of Missouri.
Table 2-41. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (4 pages)
Date Location Magnitude Recorded damage 12116/ 1811 New Madrid 7. 7 Generated great waves on the Mississippi River causing (1811 - 1812 Region, Missouri major flooding, high river back cave-ins. Topographic series) changes affected an area of 78,000 to 130,000 km 2 (30, 116 to 50, 193 mi 2). Later geologic evidence indicated that the epicenter was likely in northeast Arkansas. The main shocks were felt over an area covering at least 5, 180,000 km 2 (2,000,000 mi 2). Chimneys were knocked down in Cincinnati, Ohio, and bricks were reported to have fallen from chimneys in Georgia and South Carolina. The first shock was felt distinctively in Washington, D.C., 1,127 km (700 mi) away.
12/23/1812 New Madrid, 7.5 Second major shock more violent than the first.
(1811-1812 Missouri series) 2/7/ 1812 New Madrid, 7.7 Three main shocks reaching MMI of XII, the maximum on (1811-1812 Missouri scale. Aftershocks continued to be felt for several years after series) the initial tremor. Historical accounts and later evidence indicate that the epicenter was close to the town of New Madrid, Missouri. This quake produced the largest liquefactions fields in the world.
1/4/1843 New Madrid, Not listed Cracked chimneys and walls in Memphis, Tennessee, and Missouri reportedly collapsed one building. The earth sank in some places near the town of New Madrid, Missouri, and an unverified report indicated that two hunters were drowned during the formation of a lake. The total felt area included at least 1,036,000 km2 ( 400,000 rni 2).
2-99
~~.;;..NWMI~~
*:.~~~;...
~~Nl"'TifWHTM£DICALISOTOf'U NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-41. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (4 pages)~~
Date Location Magnitude Recorded damage 4/24/ 1867 Eastern Kansas Not listed Reports indicated that an earthquake occurred in eastern Kansas and was felt as far eastward as Chicago, Illinois. It may have been noticeable in Columbia.
8/31/1886 Charleston, South Not listed An MMI of II earthquake recorded in St. Louis, Missouri, Carolina and was felt as far westward as Columbia. There were no reports of structural damage.
10/3111895 Charleston, 6.6 Largest earthquake to occur in the central Mississippi River Missouri valley since the 1811-1812 series. Structural damage and liquefaction phenomena were reported along a line from Bertrand, Missouri, in the west to Cairo, Illinois, to the east.
Sand blows were observed in an area southwest of Charleston, Puxico, and Taylor, Missouri ; Alton, and Cario, Illinois; Princeton, Indiana; and Paducah, Kentucky. The earthquake caused extensive damage (including downed chimneys, cracked walls, shattered windows, and broken plaster) to schools, churches, and private residences. Every building in the commercial area of Charleston was damaged. Cairo, Illinois, and Memphis, Tennessee, suffered significant damage. Near Charleston, 1.6 ha (4 acres) of ground sank and a lake formed. The shock was felt over all or portions of 24 states and in Canada. Ground shaking was recorded along the Ohio River Valley.
1903 New Madrid, 5.1 No information given.
Missouri 4/9/ 1917 St. Genevieve/ St. Not listed A sharp disturbance at St. Genevieve and St. Mary' s, Mary's Area, Missouri. According to the Daily Missourian, No. 187, dated Missouri April 9, 1917, the earthquake was not felt in Columbia.
However, on the following day several people reported feeling the shock and attributed it to an explosion. No damage was reported in Columbia. Reportedly felt over a 518,000 km 2 (200,000 mi 2 ) area from Kansas to Ohio and Wisconsin to Mississippi.
5/1/1920 Missouri or Not listed This earthquake reportedly shook buildings across St. Louis.
Illinois Two shocks were felt in Mt. Vernon, Illinois, and three were felt in Centralia, Illinois. The epicenter of this earthquake is unknown and is thought to have originated east of Columbia in Illinois. In the Evening Missourian, No. 207, dated May 1, 1920, the U.S. Weather Bureau reported that the shock was not felt in Columbia. However, in a later investigation a few people reported feeling a slight tremor.
2-100
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-41. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (4 pages)
Date Location Magnitude Recorded damage 8/19/ 1934 Rodney, Mi ssouri Listed as At nearby Charleston, windows were broken and chimneys strong collapsed or were damaged. Simi lar effects were observed in Cairo, Mounds, and Mounds City, Illinois, and at Wickliffe, Kentucky. The area of destructive intensity included more than 596 km 2 (230 mi 2) 11123/ 1939 Western Illinois Not listed An earthquake occurred near Red Bud, Illinois, and a reported MMI of II was recorded in Columbia, Missouri.
The approximately distance from the epicenter to Columbia was 213 km (132 mi).
3/3/ 1963 Near Not listed MMI of III was recorded in Columbia. The approximately Menorkanut, distance from the epicenter to Columbia was 317 km Mi ssouri (197 mi).
10/21/1965 Eastern Missouri Not listed MMI ofV in Columbia. The approximate distance from the epicenter to Columbia was 163 km) (101 mi).
11/9/1968 Wabash Valley 5.4 Strongest magnitude in central U.S. since the 1895 Seismic Zone, earthquake. Moderate damage to chimneys and walls at southern Illinois Hermann, St. Charles, St. Loui s, and Sikeston, Missouri .
Shaking was felt. Areas include all or portions of 23 states from Minnesota to Georgia and from Pennsylvania to Kansas, and in multi-story buildings in Boston, Massachusetts and southernmost Ontario, Canada.
1987 Wabash Valley 5.0 Chimneys and bricks fell, underground pipes were damaged, Seismic Zone, and sidewalks and streets cracked in at least four cities in near Olney, Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky. Shaking was felt in Richland County, 17 states, from Pennsylvania to Kansas and from Alabama to SE Illinois Minnesota and southernmost Ontario, Canada.
2002 Wabash Valley 4.6 Moderate earthquake caused chimney damage and cracked Seismic Zone, windows in and near Evansville, Indiana. Shaking was Posey County, reported in seven states, including Mi ssouri.
SW Indiana 8/16/2003 20kmWNWof 3.7 Minor quake, no damage reported Alton, Missouri 511812005 Missouri 3.3 Minor quake, no damage reported 7/31/2005 Missouri 3.3 Minor quake, no damage reported 6/7/2011 18 km NNW of 3.9 Minor quake, no damage reported Potosi, Missouri 912212011 22 km NNE of 3.6 Minor quake, no damage reported Doniphan, Missouri 2-101
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Table 2-41. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (4 pages)
Date Location Magnitude Recorded damage 1/16/2015 15kmNof 3.5 Minor quake, no damage reported Doniphan, Missouri 10116/2015 14 km NNW of 3.2 Minor quake, no damage reported Doniphan, Missouri 7/5/2016 6 km SW of 3.0 Minor quake, no damage reported Caruthersville, Missouri Sources:
USGS, 2013c, "Three Centuries of Earthquakes Poster," pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-2812/i-28 12.jpg, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed Jul y 23 , 2013.
USGS, 2002, "Earthquakes in the Central United States 1699-2002," pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-28 I 2/i-28 12.jpg, U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, June 18, 2002.
MU, 2006, Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) Safety Analysis Report, MU Project# 000763, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, August 18, 2006.
USGS, 2016, "Search Earthquake Catalog," http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/, U.S. Geo logical Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed October 7, 20 16.
MMI = Modified Mercalli Intensity.
2-102
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.5.5 Maximum Earthquake Potential In 2002, the USGS released the following projected hazards for Boone County, if an earthquake occurred along the NMSZ in the following 50 years (MMRPC, 2012):
~~25 to 40 percent chance of a magnitude 6.0 and greater earthquake~~
~~7 to I 0 percent chance of a magnitude 7.5 to 8.0 earthquake .~~
According to the USGS, Boone County is one of the 47 counties in Missouri that would be severely impacted by a 7.6 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter on or near the NMSZ.
According to the Boone County Hazard Mitigation Plan for 2010 (MMRPC, 2010), the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency has made projections of the highest earthquake intensities that would be experienced throughout the state of Missouri if various magnitude earthquakes occur along the NMSZ (Figure 2-39, on the next page), as measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. The pertinent information for Boone County is summarized in Table 2-42.
Table 2-42. Projected Earthquake Hazards for Boone County Probability of Intensity in occurrence Boone County (2002-2052) (MMI) Expected damage 6.7 25-40% VI, strong Felt by all ; many frightened and run outdoors, walk unsteadily. Windows, di shes, glassware broken; books fall off shelves; some heavy furniture moved or over-turned; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage sli ght.
7.6 7-10% VII, very strong Difficult to stand; significant damage to poorly or badly designed buildings, adobe houses, old walls, spires, and other; damage would be slight to moderate in well-built buildings; numerous broken windows; weak chimneys break at roof lines; cornices from towers and high buildings fall; loose bricks fall from buildings; heavy furniture is overturned and damaged; and some sand and gravel streambanks cave in.
Source: MMRPC, 20 I 0, Boone County Hazard Mitigation Plan , www.mmrpc.org/the-region/boone-county, Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, State of Missouri Emergency Management Agency, Ashland, Missouri , July 15, 2010.
MM! = Modified Mercalli Intensity. NMSZ = New Madrid Seismic Zone.
The USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps display earthquake ground motions for various probability levels across the U.S. and are applied in seismic provisions of building codes, insurance rate structures, risk assessments, and other public policy. Updates to these maps incorporate new findings on earthquake ground shaking, faults, seismicity, and geodesy. The resulting maps are derived from seismic hazard curves calculated on a grid of sites across the U.S. that describe the frequency of exceeding a set of ground motions. In accordance with the 2008 USGS Scientific Investigation Map (No. 3195)
(USGS, 2008), the proposed RPF site is within the third lowest earthquake hazard area with peak acceleration potentials of 2- 3 (Petersen et al., 2011 ). This category indicates an estimated horizontal ground-shaking level between 8-in-100 to 16-in-100 chance of being exceeded in a 50-year period.
2-103
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics RP ite D km 5 mile Radiu from RPF itc Modified Mercalli lnten ity cale tat Boundari - Rather tr ng
+
- Highway I - trong ounty Boundaric II - ery trong it 111 - De tru ti e 0 20 40 80 120 160 Miles - Ruinou
-lt*u<<l> \ tap eoo.c c_.., 2012 ~ ' *...,.h 11.x:.JJrJ "~'""' rl.M . 111
- Di a trou Figure 2-39. Hazard Mitigation Map 2-104
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics According to MMRPC (2010), the entire county is at risk for effects of an earthquake along the NMSZ.
Areas near the Missouri River could be particularly vulnerable due to the soil or alluvium along river channels being susceptible to liquefaction from amplification waves.
2.5.6 Vibratory Ground Motion NUREG-1537, Part 1, Section 3.4 requires that seismic design for non-power reactors should, at a minimum, be consistent with local building codes and other applicable standards. For MU facilities, the 2012 IBC has been levied as the required building code. Therefore, seismic design parameters for the proposed project are discussed in terms of the 2012 IBC and associated standards.
Seismic provisions in 2012 IBC, Chapter I 6, Section 13, "Earthquake Loads," and ASCE 7-10, Chapter 11, are based on 5 percent damped spectral accelerations for a maximum-considered earthquake with a return period of2,475 years (equivalent to a ground motion with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years). Spectral acceleration values for the maximum considered earthquake are for soil Site Class B (rock). The short- (Ss) and long- (S1) period spectral accelerations for rock sites are provided by Boone County and are based on USGS (2009) data.
In the 2012 IBC, Site Class B soil conditions require modification for other soil site classes by the application of the site coefficients Fa (site coefficient for 0.2-sec period) and Fv (site coefficient for 1-sec period). Soil-modified Ss becomes SMs (maximum-considered earthquake spectral response for 0.2 sec modified for soil Site Class) and soil-modified S1 become SM1 (maximum-considered earthquake spectral response for 1-sec period modified for soil Site Class) where SMs = Ss x Fa and SM1 = S1 x Fv (Equations 16-36 and 16-37 in IBC, 2012). Boone County, Missouri indicates Ss and Sl values of 0.213 g-force (g) and 0.093 g, respectively (Fa and Fv = 1) for the site.
The Boone County site is classified as soil Site Class C, which is defined as soils predominately of very dense glacial tills, sands, and gravels, and soil sites with very shallow rock often qualify.
NWMI has committed to using the NRC Regulatory Guide I .60, Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, for the final seismic design. The estimated maximum ground acceleration at the RPF site will meet Regulatory Guide 1.60 free-field response spectrum anchored to a peak ground acceleration of0.20 g. The Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum eliminates the need for soil classifications used as part of the IBC methodology.
In addition, Chapter 3.0, Sections 3.4 and 3.5 provide design criteria and the analysi s methodology for seismic events, including a safe shutdown earthquake. The seismic design of the RPF and associated items relied on for safety (IROFS) will ensure the functionality and/or integrity of structures, systems, and components required to prevent radiological release below the performance requirements of 10 CFR 70 .61 . Additional information on the seismic requirements and evaluations of the RPF and associated IROFS will be provided in the Operating License Application.
2-105
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.5.7 Surface Faulting There is one major fault zone located within a five-mile radius of the proposed RPF site (Figure 2-40).
The Fox Hallow Fault is located approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) southeast of the proposed RPF site. The Fox Hollow Fault is a small fault, striking northeast, and fades into a monocline at its two ends. The fault is reportedly a normal fault with a throw of approximately 37 m (120 ft) down to the southwest, and shows Mississippian-aged Chouteau limestone beds fau lted against Ordovician-aged Jefferson Dolomite (Union Electric Company, 2008).
During the Union Electric Company study, the Fox Hollow fault was investigated at six waypoints where visual observations of the fault were made. These, pl us other road cuts in the local area, were investigated for evidence of offsets and shears. No new roads have been cut or significant new development has occurred recently in the area.
At Waypoint 1, which is in Fox Hollow where the val ley runs normal to the Fox Hollow Fault, the valley is heavily vegetated and reworked for agriculture. An outcrop of Jefferson Dolomite, about 91 m (300 ft) long, was observed on the north side of the valley. The Jefferson is dipping about 5 degrees to the west on the west flank or down-dipping of a monocline.
At the other waypoints along the fault alignment, the vegetation was heavy and the ground surface had been reworked for agriculture. No evidence of the fault was observed in any road cuts in the area, and no surface manifestation of the fault was observed at any of the waypoints.
The field investigation was expanded to the east of the fault along State Highway 63, which runs sub-parallel to the main feature and reportedly on the up-thrown side. Depending on the location, State Highway 63 runs about 4.8 to 5.6 km (3 to 3.5 mi) to the east of the feature. All road cuts along State Highway 63 , and the east-west roads running from the fau lt to State Highway 63 , were examined for offsets, abrupt changes in dip, and evidence of shearing. In each case, questionable features were linked to non-tectonic causes, primarily erosion or slumping associated with the road itself. Based on the Union Electric Company investigation, the fault was inactive at the time of their study.
2-106
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Fault tructure AM
................. Bonne Femme r ek graben
-*--*- Fox Hollow fault and mono line app monocline
\toO'R 2010 MO 2010T<<10nte huh ructur"t'I ( llP)
P Jd<~tal do11J r.p mlid* m* **><du.poi>
ph)>'Ul MO lOIO T<1or11< huh """" slip- np Figure 2-40. Geologic Faults Map 2-107
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics 2.5.8 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts as a fluid when exposed to strong seismic shaking. The shaking causes the grains to lose grain-to-grain contact, so the sediment tends to flow. Liquefaction most likely occurs in loose sandy soil with a shallow water table (which is common for areas around floodplains or bays). Liquefaction often leads to overpressured fluids that can erupt to the surface, forming features known as sand blows.
The 1811-1812 earthquakes caused ground subsidence by soil liquefaction across the Mississippi River flood plain and along tributaries to the Mississippi River over at least 15,000 km 2
Liquefaction along the Mississippi River Valley during the 1811-1812 earthquakes created one of the world's largest sand blown fields . According to the USGS, recent sand blows dot the landscape surrounding New Madrid, Missouri (USGS, 201 lb).
The Association of Central United States Earthquake Consortium State Geologists (CUSEC) established regional maps identifying areas of higher and lower potential for amplification of earthquake ground motion by soils or liquefaction of the soils. The areas were defined on the basis of the geology of the upper 15 m (50 ft) . Their map identifies the RPF area as an area of having lower potential for amplifying earthquake ground motions or liquefaction (CUSEC, 1999).
The Terracon (2011) preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Discovery Ridge Certified Site Program included Lot 2 and Lots 5 through 18 of the Discovery Ridge Research Park. The proposed RPF site (Lot 15) is located within Terracon's project area. As part of their study, Terracon installed nine soil borings (B-1 through B-9) to depths ranging from 4 to 6 m ( 13 to 20 ft) below-ground surface. Soil boring B-5 was drilled nearest to the proposed RPF site and was installed along the eastern boundary between Lots 14 and 15.
Soils - Terracon described the subsurface soils in soil boring B-5 as listed below:
6-9 .1 cm (0.2-0.3 ft) below-ground surface; brown, friable topsoil with significant amounts of organic matter 9.1-91 cm (0.3 -3.0 ft) below-ground surface; lean clay (CL), brown, stiff, water content 24 percent, dry unit weight 98 lb/ft3, and unconfined strength 4,000 kilopounds per square foot (kip/ft 2)
~~0.9-2.4 m (3.0-8.0 ft) below-ground surface; fat clay (CH), gray with red, stiff, water content 31 percent, dry unit weight 91 lb/ft 3 , and unconfined strength 4,000 kip/ft 2~~
2.4-3.7 m (8.0-12 .0 ft) below-ground surface; fat clay (CH), reddish brown and light gray, trace sand and gravel, possible cobbles, stiff (glacial drift), water content 16 percent, dry unit weight 116 lb/ft 3 , and unconfined strength 7,000 kip/ft 2
3.7-5.2 m (12.0-17 ft) below-ground surface; sandy lean to fat clay (CL-CH), reddish brown with light gray, trace gravel, possible cobbles, stiff (glacial drift), water content 21 percent, and unconfined strength 4,000 kip/ft 2 .
~~5.2-6.1 m (17-20 ft) below-ground surface; fat clay (CH), reddish brown and light gray, trace sand and gravel, possible cobbles, very stiff (glacial drift), standard penetration test blow count =~~
~~19, water content 18 percent, and unconfined strength 7,500 kip/ft 2~~
Laboratory testing indicated that the lean clay tested from soil boring B-5, 0.3-0.91 m ( 1-3 ft) below-ground surface, had a liquid limit of 31 percent, a plastic limit of 21 percent, and a plasticity index of 10 percent.
2-108
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Groundwater level - Shallow groundwater encountered at the time of drilling in soil boring B-5 was at 5 m (16.5 ft) below-ground surface and the static water level stabi lized at 3.7 m (12 .0 ft) below-ground surface. Shallow groundwater was not encountered in soi l boring B-6 (located on Lot I 0) during the drilling operation, but later stabilized at 5.6 m (18.5 ft) below-ground surface.
Liquefaction potential - Based on the preliminary geotechnical study conducted by Terracon (20 11 ),
liquefaction of soils at the proposed RPF site cannot be determi ned. Contradictory information is listed below:
In accordance with liquefaction potential screening techniques, cohesive soils with fines content greater than 30 percent and fines that are either classified as clays based on the Unified Soil Classification System or have a plasticity index greater than 30 percent with natural water contents lower than 90 percent, can be consi dered nonliquefiable. Soils logged in soi l boring B-5 are listed as clays under the Unified Soil Classifi cation System; however, the plasticity index is only I 0 percent, with water contents ranging from 16 to 31 percent.
~~Depth below-ground surface - A soil layer within 50 ft of the ground surface is more likely to liquefy than deeper layers.~~
Soil penetration resistance - Soil layers with a normalized standard penetration test blow count Jess than 22 have been known to liquefy. The standard penetration test blow count listed for soil boring B-5 is 19. In accordance with the statement above, this would depict soi ls susceptible to Iiquefaction.
Additional geotechnical analysis will be conducted at the RPF site to determi ne the liquefaction potential of the soils onsite and included in the Operating License Application.
2-109
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics
~~2.6 REFERENCES~~
10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.
I 0 CFR 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.
10 CFR 50.34, "Contents of Applications; Technical Information," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.
10 CFR 50.54, "Conditions of Licenses," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.
10 CFR 70.61, "Performance Requirements," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.
10 CFR I 00, "Reactor Site Criteria, Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.
I 0 CFR 100.11 , "Determination of Exclusion Area, Low Population Zone, and Population Center Distance," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.
49 CFR 173 .318, "Cryogenic Liquids in Cargo Tanks, Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.
ACI 349-06, 2007, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures (AC! 349-06) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2007.
AirNav, 2017, "Columbia Regional Airport, FAA Information Effective June 22, 2017,
https://www.aimav.com/airport/KCOU, AirNav, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, 2017.
ALOHA, 2008, "Computer Program: Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres, Version 5.4.1, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. , 2008 .
ANL/EVS/TM/08-5, 2007, Natural Gas Pipeline Technology Overview, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, November 2007 .
ANSVANS -15 .7, 1977, Research Reactor Site Evaluation, Withdrawn 1996, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 1977.
ANSVANS -15 .16, 1982, Emergency Planning for Research Reactor, Withdrawn 2008 , American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 1982.
ASCE 7-10, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures , American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2010.
BFSC, 2007, Bonne Femme Watershed Plan, www.cavewatershed.org/plan.asp, Bonne Femme Stakeholder Committee, Boone County Planning and Building Department, Columbia, Missouri, February 2007.
Boone County, 2010, Boone County Hazard Mitigation Plan , Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, July 15, 2010.
Boone County, 2013, "Boone County Stormwater Management Program,
www.showmeboone.com/stormwater, accessed July 16, 2013 .
Boone County, 2015, "Boone County Hazards Mitigation Plan 2015, Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, July 20, 2015 .
2-110
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics CHM, 2013, "About Children's House," http://www.comomontessori.com/about.php# l , Children's House of Columbia, Montessori Early Leaming Center, Columbia, Missouri, accessed September 9, 2013 .
City of Columbia, 2013 , "Columbia Imagined, The Plan for How We Live & Grow," Public Hearing draft dated June 17, 2013, http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/community_development/comprehensive_plan/
documents/ColumbiaimaginedPublicHearing.pdf, accessed August 25, 2013.
Columbia College, 2013, "Quick Facts," https ://web.ccis.edu/en/Offices/InstitutionalResearch/facts/
~/medi a/Files/In stitutional %20Research/F acts/Enrollment/ l 2F A 1%20Enrolled%20Student%20D emographics.pdf, Columbia, Missouri , accessed August 25 , 2013 .
Columbia Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2013 , "Where to stay- Hotels, Inns, and Motels,"
http://www.visitcolumbiamo.com/section/stay/, Columbia, Missouri , accessed September 9, 2013 .
CUSEC, 1999, "Soil Amplification/Liquefaction Potential Map," Association of Central United States Earthquake Consortium State Geologists, Memphis, Tennessee, 1999.
Cvent, 2013, "Hotels near Columbia MO," http://www.cvent.com/RFPN enues.aspx?ist=6&ma=
97&csn= 1&vtt= 1#page-6&so- l , Cvent Supplier Network, Tysons Comer, Virginia, accessed September 9, 2013.
DHSS, 2013, "DHSS Community Data Profiles - Hospital Revenues from 2010-2012,"
http://health.mo.gov/data/CommunityDataProfiles/index.html , Missouri Department of Health &
Senior Services, Jefferson City, Missouri , accessed September 5, 2013.
DOA, 2008, "Population Projections by Age, Missouri Counties: 2000 through 2030, March 2008,"
content.oa.mo.gov/budget-planning/demographic-information/population-projections/2000-2030-projections, Missouri Department of Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri , accessed September 6, 2013.
DOE-STD-3014-2006, Accident Analysis for Aircraft Crash into Hazardous Facilities , U.S . Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1996 (R2006).
EDF-3124-0015, Evaluation of Aircraft Hazards, Rev. 2, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, 2017 .
EDF-3124-001 6, Analysis of Potential Accidents at Facilities , Rev. 2, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, 2017 .
Eidson, B. A., 2017, "FW: Boone Contact Us Form," (email to M. Balazik, U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 19), Boone Hospital Center, Columbia, Missouri , 2017 .
ESRI, 2011 , "ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10," Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, 2011 .
FEMA, 1989, Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures, 1989-626-095-10575, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.
Fenneman, N. M., 1946, Physiographic Divisions of the Conterminous U.S., Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 1946.
IBC, 2012, "International Building Code," International Code Council, Inc., Washington, D.C ., 2012 .
ISCM, 2013 , "Islamic School of Columbia Missouri," http://www.theiscm.org/, Columbia, Missouri, accessed August 25 , 2013 .
2-111
NWMl-2013-021, Rev . 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Jones, M . R. , 2017, "RE: Helicopter Flights University of Missouri Hospital," (email to M. Balazik, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 28), University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics, Columbi a, Missouri , 2017 .
MDE, 2013 , "District Student Staff Ratios - Columbia 93," http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/guidedinquiry/
District%20and%20Building%20Education%20Staff>/o20Indicators/District% 20Student%20Staff
%20Ratios.aspx?rp: District=Ol0093&rp:Schoo1Year=2013&rp:Schoo1Year=2012&rp:Schoo1Yea r=201 l&rp :Schoo1Year=2010, Missouri Department of Education, Jefferson City, Mi ssouri ,
2013.
MDNR, 2006, "Groundwater Elevation, From Driller Reports 1987-2005," ftp: //msdis.missouri.edu/pub/
inland_ water_resources/MO_ 2006 _Groundwater_ Elevation_ shp.zip, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri , 2006.
MDNR, 2013a, "The Geology of Missouri," members.socket.net/-joschaper/geo.htrnl , Mi ssouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed July 16, 2013 .
MDNR, 2013b, "Tertiary/Quaternary Period," members.socket.net/- joschaper/terquat.html, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri , accessed July 10, 2013 .
MDNR, 2013c, "Pennsylvanian Period," members.socket.net/- joschaper/penn.htrnl , Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri , accessed July 10, 2013 .
MDNR, 20 l 3d, "Mississippian Period," members. socket.net/-joschaper/misp.html , Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri , accessed July 11 , 2013 .
Miller, J. A., and C. L. Appel , 1997, Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska HA 730-D, pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_d/, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed July 2013 .
MMRPC, 2010, Boone County Hazard Mitigation Plan, http://www.mmrpc.org, State of Missouri Emergency Management Agency, Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, Ashland, Missouri, July 15, 2010.
MMRPC, 2015 , "Discovery Ridge Research Park Development," http://www.midmorpc.org/2015/02/
discovery-ridge-research-park-development/, Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, Ashland, Missouri , February 20, 2015.
MoDOT, 2013 , "Missouri Commercial Vehicle Regulations," Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, Mi ssouri , 2013.
Movoto 2013 , " School Features for Christian Chapel Academy," http://www.movoto.com/schools/
columbia-mo/christian-chapel-academy-a9502571 /, Columbia, Missouri, accessed September 9, 2013.
MU, 2006, Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) Safety Analysis Report, MU Project #000763 ,
University of Mi ssouri , Columbia, Missouri, August 18, 2006.
MU, 2013, "MU Facts," http: //missouri .edu/about/facts.php , Columbia, Missouri , accessed September 9, 2013 .
NAD 83 , 1983, "North American Datum of 1983," National Geodetic Survey, Silver Spring, Maryland, as amended.
NCES , 2013 , "College Navigator - Bryan University," http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/
?q=bryan+university&s=all&id=475583#fedloans, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., accessed September 9, 2013 .
2-112
NWMl-2013-021, Rev . 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics New America Foundation, 2013, "Federal Education Budget Project- Columbia Area Career Center,
http://febp .newamerica.net/higher-ed/M0/2289200, Washington, D.C., accessed September 9, 2013.
NOAA, 1978, Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States East of the 105th Meridian ,
Hydrometeorological Report No 51, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D .C., 1978.
NOAA, 2016, "Storm Events Database, www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents, National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D .C., accessed November 2016.
NOAA Atlas 14, Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the Un ited States, Volume 8, Version 2.0: Midwestern States, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryl and, 2013.
NRCS, 20 12, "Soil Data Mart," websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., accessed July 16, 2013.
NUREG-0800, 2010, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 4, U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,
Washington, D .C., March 2010.
NUREG-1520, 2010, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility, Rev. 1, U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, D .C., May 2010.
NUREG-1537, 1996, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors - Format and Content, Part 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., February 1996.
NUREG-1805 , 2004, Fire Dynamics Tools (FDT') - Quantitative Fire Hazard Analysis Methods for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fire Protection Inspection Program, U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.,
December 2004.
NUREG/CR-3330, 1983, Vulnerability of Nuclear Power Plant Structures to Large External Fires, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion, Office of Regulatory Research, Washington , D .C.,
August 1983 .
NUREG/CR-6624, 1999, Recommendations for Revision of Regulatory Guide 1. 78, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Regulatory Research, Washington, D .C., November 1999.
OGP, 20 10, OGP Risk Assessment Data Directory: Ignition Probabilities, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Report No. 434-6.1, March 2010.
Parks, M. , 2017a, "20 16 Traffic Summary Columbia Regional Airport, (email to C. Haass, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, June 27), Columbia Regional Airport, Columbia, Missouri , 2017.
Parks, M. , 2017b, "20 14 COU" and "2015 Traffic Summary" (emails to C. Haass, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, June 28), Columbia Regional Airport, Columbia, Missouri, 2017.
Petersen, M . D ., A. D. Frankel , S. C. Harmsen, C. S. Mueller, K . M. Haller, R. L. Wheeler, R . L. Wesson, Y . Zeng, 0. S. Boyd, D . M . Perkins, N . Luco, E. H . Field, C. J. Wills, and K. S. Rukstales, 2011 ,
Seismic Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States, 2008 Peak Horizontal Acceleration with 10 Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years, USGS Scientific Investigation Map No. 3195 , 6 sheets [digital data] , geohazards.usgs.gov, accessed July 11 , 2013.
2-113
NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics REDI, 2011, "2011 Fact Book Columbia/Boone County Missouri ," http://www.columbiaredi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/REDI-Fact-Book-l l.pdf, Regional Economic Development, Inc.,
Columbia, Missouri, 2011.
Reed, D., 2010, "Columbia Hotel Market Rebounds," Columbia Business Times ,
http://columbiabusinesstimes.com/9227/2010/1010 l /columbia-hotel-market-rebounds/, Columbia, Missouri , accessed September 9, 2013.
Regulatory Guide 1.60, Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., July 2014.
Regulatory Guide 1.78 , Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., December 2001.
Regulatory Guide 1.91, Evaluations of Explosions Postulated to Occur at Nearby Facilities and on Transportation Routes Near Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regul atory Commission, Washington, D.C., April 2013 .
Regulatory Guide 1.206, Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 0, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., June 2007.
Regulatory Guide 2.6, Emergency Planning/or Research and Test Reactors, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 1983 .
Regulatory Guide 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., April 1998.
Roberts, M.W ., 2000, "Analysis of Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion (BLEVE) Events at DOE Sites," Safety Analysis Workshop 2000, (http://www.efcog.org/wg/sa/docs/minutes/archive/2000 Conference/papers_pdf/roberts.pdf), EQE International, Inc. , Knoxville, Tennessee, accessed September 2014.
School Digger, 2013, "Stephens College Children's School - Overview," http://www.schooldigger.com/
go/MO/schools/9999916496/school.aspx, Columbia, Missouri, accessed September 9, 2013.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1980, 2 U.S.C. 11001 et seq., Public Law 99-499.
Terracon, 2011, Preliminary Geo technical Engineering Report Discovery Ridge-Certified Site Program Lots 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, JO, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Trabue, Hansen & Hinshaw, Inc. and Terracon Project No. 09105094.1 , February 11 , 2011.
Union Electric Company, 2008, Combined License Application, Part 11 G: Site Area Paleoliquefaction and Surface Faulting Investigation Program, Rev. 1, pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0833/ML083360118.pdf, St. Louis, Missouri, November, 2008.
URS, 2007, Guidance Protocol for School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis: Vo lume 2 - Background Technical Information and Appendices," http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/protocol07 .asp, prepared for the California Department of Education, Sacramento, California, by URS Corporation, Austin, Texas, February 2007.
U.S. News, 2013 , "Rankings and Reviews, William Woods University, Quick Facts," at http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-coll eges/william-woods-university-2525, Fulton, Missouri, accessed September 9, 2013.
USCB, 2010, "2010 Census Interactive Population Search," www.census.gov/201 Ocensus/
popmap/ipmtext.php, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., accessed July 20 13.
USCB, 2012, "2010 Census Summary File l ,"U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., September, 2012.
2-114
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics USCB, 2013, "State and County Quick Facts - Boone County, Missouri," http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/
states/29/29019.html, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. , accessed September 9, 2013.
USGS, 2002, "Earthquakes in the Central United States 1699-2002, pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-2812/i -
2812.jpg, U.S . Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, June 18, 2002.
USGS, 2008, "2008 United States National Seismic Hazard Map No. 3195,
earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston , Virginia accessed July 29, 2013.
USGS, 2009, "Earthquake Hazard in the New Madrid Seismic Zone Remains a Concern, Fact Sheet 2009-3071, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 2009.
USGS, 201 la, Poster of the New Madrid Earthquake Scenario of 16 May 2011 - Magnitude 7.7,"
earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/poster/2011 /20110516.php, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed July 23, 2013.
USGS, 2011 b, "Putting Down Roots in Earthquake County - Your Handbook for Earthquakes in the Central United States," U.S. Geological Survey, General Information Product 119, Reston, Virginia, 2011.
USGS, 2013a, "Geologic Provinces of the United States: Interior Plain Province,"
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/province/intplain.html , U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed July 12, 2013 .
USGS, 2013b, "Geologic Provinces of the United States: Atlantic Plain Province,"
http: //geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/province/atlantpl.html U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed July 23 , 2013 .
USGS, 20 l 3c, "Three Centuries of Earthquakes Poster, pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-2812/i-28 l 2.jpg, U.S . Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed July 23 , 2013 .
USGS, 2016, "Search Earthquake Catalog," http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/, U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed October 7, 2016.
WRCC, 2013a, "Period ofRecord General Climate Summary-Temperature, 1969 to 2012, Station 231791 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl?mol 791 , Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed August 2013.
WRCC, 20 l 3b, "Station Monthly Time Series, Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012, Station 231791 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri .edu/cgi-bin/wea_rnnsimts.pl ?laKCOU, Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed August 2013.
2-115
NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 3 Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics This page intentionally left blank 2-116

ML18016B109

Text

Title:

1.1 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

1.9 REFERENCES

Title:

2.6 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

Search