ML18025B172

Official Exhibit - NRC-006I-MA-CM01 - Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Construction Permit Application - PSAR, NWMI-2013-021, Rev. Oa, Chapter 19,19-131 Through End (Jun. 2015)

ML18025B172
Person / Time
Site:	Northwest Medical Isotopes
Issue date:	06/30/2015
From:	NRC/OGC
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
50-609-CP, Construction Permit Mndtry Hrg, RAS 54184
Download: ML18025B172 (258)

Text

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of: NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, LLC (Medical Radioisotope Production Facility)

NRC-006I Commission Mandatory Hearing Docket #: 05000609 Chptr1WWMI01-21 ev. Q EUVYChapter Exhibit #: NRC-006I-MA-CM01 Identified: 1/23/2018 9.0 -Environmental Review Admitted: 1/23/2018 Withdrawn:

Rejected: Stricken:

Other:

19.3.5 Ecological Resources This section describes the terrestrial and aquatic communities within the ROI (8 km [5-mi] radius from the proposed RPF) and provides a baseline characterization of the site ecology prior to any disturbances associated with the construction and operation of the proposed facility. Prior environmental disturbances not associated with the proposed facility are considered when describing the baseline condition.

Consultations with the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were initiated for information regarding ecological resources within the ROI (Haass, 200 14a, Haass, 2014b). The consultation process was used to obtain agency input regarding threatened and endangered species, sensitive habitats, commercial and recreational species, and other ecological characteristics of the ROI. Ecological resources described herein are based on recorded information from resource agencies.

19.3.5.1 Wetlands Wetlands are classified by the EPA as "areas where water covers the soil, or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season. Water saturation (hydrology) largely determines how the soil develops and the types of plant and animal communities living in and on the soil. Wetlands may support both aquatic and terrestrial species.

The prolonged presence of water creates conditions that favor the growth of specially adapted plants (hydrophytes) and promote development of characteristic wetland (hydric) soils" (EPA, 2013a).

According to MDNR Water Resources Report No. 39 (Epperson, 1992), the amount of wetland loss in Missouri has exceeded the national average, and 87 percent of the state's original 1.9 million ha (4.8 million acres) of wetlands have been destroyed. Of the original 9.7 million ha (2.4 million acres) of forested wetlands in southeast Missouri, less than 24,281 ha (60,000 acres) or 2 percent remain intact.

Statewide, 13 percent of the original wetland resources remain. These remaining wetlands account for 1.4 percent of the land surface.

Detailed discussions of natural wetland types and locations within the ROI are discussed in Sections 19.3.5.3 and 19.3.5.5.

1 9.3.5.1.1 Surface Water Runoff Protection Wetlands have important filtering capabilities for intercepting surface water runoff from higher dry land before the runoff reaches open water. As the runoff passes through, the wetlands retain excess nutrients and some pollutants, and reduce sediment loads that would otherwise deposit and clog waterways, affecting fish and amphibian egg development. "In performing this filtering function, some wetlands maintain stream flow during dry periods, and many replenish groundwater supplies" (EPA, 2013a).

19.3.5.1.2 Flood Water Protection According to the EPA, "Wetlands function as natural sponges that trap and slowly release surface water, rain, snowmelt, groundwater, and flood waters. Trees, root mates, and other wetland vegetation also slow the speed of flood waters and distributes them more slowly over the floodplain. This combined water storage and braking action lowers flood heights and reduces erosion" (EPA, 2013a).

Wetlands within and downstream of urban areas are particularly valuable, counteracting the greatly increased rate and volume of surface water runoff from impervious surfaces. In addition, the holding capacity of wetlands helps control floods and prevents water-logging of crops.

19-131/

• ~*NWKRI Evil MEDICAL

• =.°"NOEITAWEST ISOTOPES Chapter 19.0NWM,-2013-021,

-Environmental Rev.

Review 0

19.3.5.1.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat More than one-third of the U.S. threatened and endangered species live only in wetlands. EPA states the following:

For many animals and plants, like wood ducks, muskrat, cattails, and swamp rose, inland (non-tidal) wetlands are the only places they can live. Many of the U.S. breeding bird populations including ducks, geese, woodpeckers, hawks, wading birds, and many song-birds feed. nest, and raise their young in wetlands. Migrator.waterfowl use coastal and inland wetlands as resting, feeding, breeding, or nesting grounds for at least part of the year.

An. internationalagreement to protect wetlands of intern7ational importance was developed because some species of migratory birds are completely dependent on certain wetlands and would become extinct if those wetlands were destroyed. (EPA, 201 3a) 19.3.5.2 Offsite Areas The EPA has established a spatial network of ecoregions for the research and monitoring of ecosystems.

Ecoregions are areas of relatively uniform ecological systems that have similar vegetation, climate, geology, and physiology. Missouri is divided into seven Level III Ecoregions, of which two occur in the ROI. Ecoregions within the ROI are the Central Irregular Plains and Interior River Valleys and Hills.

These Level III Ecoregions are further subdivided into Level IV Ecoregions or subregions. The subregions that occur in the ROT are the Claypan Prairie and River Hills. Figure 19-38 illustrates the location of the ROT in relation to the ecoregions and subregions. Descriptions by Chapman et al. (2002) for each of the subregions are used to evaluate the current ecological condition of the ROT.

The subregion Claypan Prairie of the Central Irregular Plains Ecoregion is characterized by well-developed claypan soils located on gently rolling topography (Chapman et al., 2002). Vegetation communities that are common to this subregion include white oak dry woodland, hardpan prairies lowland flatwoods, and ephemeral marshes. Historically, the region was mostly tall grass prairies with seasonally inundated wetlands (Nigh and Schroeder, 2002). After European settlement, the region experienced a conversion to cropland and pasture because of the gently rolling topography and soil with little natural vegetation remaining (Chapman et al., 2002; Nigh and Schroeder, 2002). The Claypan Prairie subregion covers approximately 52 percent of the ROT.

The subregion River Hills of the Interior River Valleys and Hills Ecoregion is characterized by forested river side-slopes and bluffs, some loess-covered hills, and areas with karst features located on a smooth to moderately dissected topography. This subregion lies along the Missouri River and is a transition zone between the flatter plains to the north and the Ozark Highlands to the south (Chapman et al., 2002). The Missouri River is not located within the ROT. Vegetation communities that are common to this subregion include white oak forests, oak savannas, and sugar maple mesic forests. Historically, this region was covered in timber with glades and sinkhole ponds (Nigh and Schroeder, 2002). After European settlement, many areas remained forests, especially rugged areas, with some of the mixed hardwood forests converted to pasture (Chapman et al., 2002). The River Hills subregion covers approximately 48 percent of the ROT.19-132

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA

~. ., NRTWESMEIC$TP$ Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Ak RPF Site Level IV Ecoregion O* 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site smsInterstate Highways Claypan Prairie

--- Highways

'?City Limits Name River Hills Prairie Ozark Border o 0.45 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 N

, , Mile Ciato: EPAIB 2010 Level IV Ecoregions of Mitsourl (digital data]: fplntp/fpepa gowedtecoregions,/molmo~eco13.

.zp Figure 19-38. Region of Influence in Relation to Ecoregions and Subregions 19-1 33

l...v.......... Chpe9.0 -Environmental Review 19.3.5.3 Onsite Areas The proposed RPF site is located within a 3 ha (7.4-acre) parcel in Discovery Ridge. Because of continuous land disturbance associated with agricultural practices, the site is devoid of natural landscapes such as forests, prairies, and other natural plant communities. Within the 2.99 ha (7.4-acre) parcel there are no ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams and associated riparian zones.

Land cover within the ROI is discussed in detail in Section 19.3.1.1, and is illustrated in Figure 19-15.

Urban development accounts for approximately 5,059 ha (12,500 acres), or 25 percent, of the ROI.

Developed lands include lands mapped as open spaces, low intensity, medium intensity, and high intensity.

Agricultural pasture land and cultivated crops account for approximately 8,013 ha (19,800 acres), or 39 percent, of the ROI. Pasture land within the ROI consists of property that is used for the raising of livestock or hay production. Cultivated crops consist of soybeans, corn, wheat, and sorghum.

Forested habitats account for approximately 6,758 ha (16,700 acres), or 33 percent, of the ROI. This land consists of deciduous forests, evergreen forests, and mixed forests. The majority of this land is the deciduous forests that account for 31 percent of the ROI. These deciduous forests are comprised of white oak forests, oak dry woodlands, and black oak woodlands. These forests are located in the river side-slopes and bluffs and mixed throughout the developed areas.

Wetlands within the ROI were mapped using the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory data (USFWS, 2010) and are discussed in detail in Section 19.3.5.1. Figure 19-39 shows known wetlands and water bodies located in the ROI. Based on the inventory data, wetlands make up approximately 168 ha (415 acres), or less than 1 percent, of the total ROI. Forest/shrub wetlands and freshwater emergent wetlands make up the mapped wetlands. A total of 306 ha (755 acres), or 1.5 percent, were mapped as open water. Grassland resources account for 140 ha (345 acres), or less than 1 percent, of the ROI. Scrub and barren lands account for less than 1 percent of the ROI.

19-1 34

..,...NWMI.

• .- f*

"NONThWS MWtA SOTOpEs NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review A RPF Site Wetlands 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site Type Interstate thighways Frc~

shwatcr Emergent Wetland

- Iighw~ays Fre~qshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

, iy Limits cr.L t (31 Fre,,shwatcr Pond 0

o5 1 2 :3 4 Lak [C v v Riv,trine CalMS UUWtS2010 s5TA.W1*CONUS .MMsyfTA' Figure 19-39.

Wetlands Map 19-1 35

• • • NW

""..: NORTMWEST MI OTPESChapter EI ALiTOE 19.0NWMI-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev.

Review GA 19.3.5.4 History As discussed in Section 3.1.1, the ROI is located in the Claypan Prairie and River Hills subregions of the Central Irregular Plains and the Interior River Valleys and Hills ecoregions, respectively. Before European settlement, these areas consisted of tall grass prairies, seasonally inundated wetlands, and oak woodlands. The encroachment of forests into native grasslands would have been limited by fire, grazing, and periodic ponding water (Nigh and Schroeder, 2002). After European settlement, much of the natural vegetation in the tall grass prairies and oak savannas were cleared for agricultural and urban development.

Oak woodlands in rugged areas located in drainages were mostly left intact. Few remnant tall grass prairies and oak savannas remain as the rest has been developed. As part of agricultural development, many of the existing wetlands were drained and surface water was channelized. The proposed RPF site is zoned for agricultural use, indicating that the site has been used for the cultivation of crops and pasture land.

19.3.5.5 Places and Entities of Special Interest This section provides information relative to ecological resources of special interest within the ROI.

Ecological resources of special interest include (1) identified natural ecological communities, (2) sensitive or susceptible areas, and (3) important ecological systems. These resources are discussed in the following subsections.

19.3 .5.5.1 Ecological Communities The Missouri Heritage Program identifies and tracks high-quality terrestrial natural communities because they provide diverse assemblages of native species. High-quality communities include those that are intact and represent the least distressed examples of ecosystems that existed prior to European settlement.

Terrestrial natural communities that are ranked as critically imperiled, imperiled, or vulnerable are considered to be communities of conservation concern (MDC, 2013). The "Missouri Electronic Field Office Technical Guide" was used to identify communities of conservation concern within the ROI (USDA, 2013b). There are four listed terrestrial and aquatic natural communities within the ROI:

White oak forests - The white oak forest communities have been classified as imperiled by the Missouri Heritage Program. These forest communities usually occur on relatively steep slopes above river corridors and extend from the valley bottoms to ridge tops. These areas have a well-developed forest canopy and subcanopy dominated by a mixture of white oak (Qutercus alba),

sugar maple (Acer saccharum), pawpaw (Asimina triloba), and other hardwoods (USDA, 2013b).

Common shrubs and forbs include fragrant sumac (Rims aromatic), wild blue phlox (Phlox divaricata), and woodnettle (Laportea canadensis) (USDA, 2013b). Common wildlife species include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus),

and ringed salamander (Anmbystomna annulatum) (MDC, 2010).

• Mixed oak loess/glacial till woodlands - The mixed oak loess/glacial till woodland communities have been classified as imperiled by the Missouri Heritage Program. These woodland communities usually occur adjacent to the Missouri River floodplains on upland summit crests (USDA, 2013b). They have a well-developed forest canopy that consists of white oak (quercus alba), black oak (Quercu.s i'elutina), and post oak (Qumercus stellata). Common shrubs and forbs include American hazelnut (Corvlus Americana), elm-leafed goldenrod (Solidago ulmifolia), and smooth blue aster (Aster laevis) (USDA, 2013b). Common wildlife species include wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus),and tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) (MDC, 2010).19-136

NW MIMEICL SOOPSChapter 19.0 WM-030,Rev.

- Environmental Review Loess/glacial till prairies - The loess/glacial till prairie communities have been classified as imperiled and critically imperiled by the Missouri Heritage Program. These prairie communities usually occur in areas of low relief with low slope gradients and narrow drainages (USDA, 2013b). They are characterized by tall grass prairies that area dominated by little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Indian grass (Sorghastrum~r nutans), and sideoats grama (Boiuteloua curtipendula). Post oak (Quercus stellata), American hazelnut (Corvlus Americana), and prairie willow (Salix humilis) occasionally occur in small groves. Common shrubs and forbs include lead plant (Amorpha canescens) and purple prairie clover (Dalea purpurea). Common wildlife species include white-tailed deer (Odocoileuis virginianus), upland sandpiper (Bartramia lon gicauda), and western slender glass lizard (Ophisaiurus attemnuates) (USDA, 2013b).

• Emergent wetlands and shrub swamps - As stated in Section 19.3.5.1, the majority of designated wetlands within the ROI are freshwater ponds, lakes, and rivers. Approximately 168 ha (415 acres) of the ROI consist of emergent wetlands (marshes and fens) and forested/shrub wetlands (shrub swaps). Emergent wetlands have standing water for long periods during the growing season. Plant species include cattails (Typhaceae latifolia), bulrushes (Schoenopiectus spp), and sedges (Cyperaceae spp). Wildlife species that are common to emergent wetlands include bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus), pied-billed grebes (podilymbus podiceps), and muskrats (Ondatra zibethicu.s). Shrub swamps are wetland thickets with buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and willows (Salix spp). Common wildlife species include yellow warblers (Dendroicapetechia) and green herons (Butorides i'irescens)

(Leahy, 2010).

Due to the urban and agricultural development in the ROT, these listed communities and their remnants are likely to occur in protected areas such as parks and conservation areas.

There are three State and Federally protected areas within the ROT: Rock Bridge State Park, Three River Conservation Area, and the northwest corner of the Mark Twain National Forest. The Rock Bridge State Memorial Park is an 858 ha (2,120-acre) park managed by the MDNR that consists of karsts, grasslands, and oak woodlands and forests. This state park also contains the Gans Creek Wild Area. The Three River Conservation Area is a 607 ha (1,500-acre) natural preserve managed by MDC that consists of mostly of oak forests and woodlands, with similar plant and wildlife species as described for those communities. A small portion of the Mark Twain National Forest, Cedar Creek Ranger District, is also located within the ROT. The forest consists of tall grass prairies and shortleaf pine-oak woodlands, with plants and wildlife species as described for those communities.

Given the current conditions of the proposed site, the area appears to have been prairie habitat before its conversion to agriculture. However, because the site has been used for agriculture and other developed uses for many years, none of the habitat types discussed in this section are present on the proposed RPF site or immediately adjacent to the site.

1 9.3 .5.5.2 Other Sensitive or Susceptible Areas There are several parks, natural areas, and nature trails within the city limits of Columbia, Missouri. The Grindstone Natural Area and Waters Moss Memorial Wildlife Area are Colombia city park and recreation areas in the southeastern part of the city and consist mostly of white oak forests and woodlands with common plants and wildlife species as described for those communities. Philips Park and Gans Creek Recreation Area lie directly to the west of the proposed site and consist of mix oak woodlands, tall grass prairies, and a lake. Wildlife and plant species that occur in these communities are similar to the described communities in Section 19.3.5.5.1, in addition to fish species such as channel catfish (lctalurus punctatus) and black bass (Micropterus spp). Nature trails include MKT Trail and Hinkson Creek Trail.

These trails are located in terrestrial communities similar to the Grindstone Natural Area.

19-1 37

lviChptr NOSIWEIMEIASTPSChpe1 9.0NWMI-2013-O21,

-Environmental Rev. OA Review 19.3 .5.5.3 Important Ecological Systems The ROI is located along the Mississippi flyway (USFWS, 2013a). Natural habitats (e.g., wetlands, creeks, lakes, and tall grass prairies) within the ROI are useful to migrating birds for resting, feeding, and foraging. These natural areas are used by neotropical birds during migration and as potential habitats for nesting and nursery areas. Habitats of the proposed site are dominated by agricultural and developed uses and are not considered high value for migrating birds. There are several areas adjacent to the proposed site that include surface water (e.g., lakes, stormwater discharge areas) and other surface water locations that could be used by migrating birds.

19.3.5.6 Aquatic Communities and Potentially Affected Water Bodies There are no aquatic resources or water bodies present on the proposed RPF site. The water bodies in the ROI are within the Bonne Femme and Hinkson Creek watersheds. These areas contain several water bodies, including Philips Lake, Gans Creek, Hinkson Creek, Clear Creek, and several others. Specific information on water bodies within the ROI is provided in Section 19.3.4.

Based on topographic maps of the proposed site, the majority of site runoff flows into designated stormwater management areas. These areas are not expected to provide ideal habitat for many aquatic species because the water is intermittent.

Water bodies within the ROI are not expected to contain Federally listed threatened or endangered fish species. However, perennial streams have a diverse mix of invertebrate and vertebrate species.

Invertebrate species include mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, beetles, small crustaceans, and snails. Based on stream monitoring surveys, 18 to 27 invertebrate species are estimated to inhabit streams within the Bonne Femme Watershed. The estimated number of fish species within the Bonne Femme Watershed ranges from 11 to 17 species of shiners, suckers, redhorse, sunfish, bass, darters, and stonerollers. An indicator of good aquatic community health is strong diversity of species or high species richness. Previous sampling events conducted by MDNR at streams and other water bodies near the proposed site were at least partially biologically supporting (i.e., contained sufficient species to indicate good water quality) (BFSC, 2007).

The closest water body to the proposed RPF site is Gans Creek, which is located approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) to the south. Gans Creek, like most of the streams within the ROI, contains a rocky substrate free of sediment. The MDNR has listed Gans Creek as an impaired water body. Specific information on Gans Creek is provided in Section 19.3.4. No Federally listed threatened or endangered fish species is known to exist in Gans Creek, but the creek has a diverse mix of invertebrate and vertebrate species (BFSC, 2007). Because of the existing stormwater management system near the proposed site, impacts on Gans Creek from construction or operational activities are not anticipated.

Wetlands are transitional ecosystems between aquatic and terrestrial systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water (Cowardin et al., 1979). Wetlands vary widely because of regional and local differences in soils, topography, climate, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and other factors, including human disturbance. The CWA defines a wetland as

"...those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." Based in the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory data, there are no recognized wetlands within the proposed site (USFWS, 2010). Figure 19-39 shows the locations for wetlands near the proposed RPF site.19-138

I': Chptr1MWI-0I-21 ev. Q ChapterI19.0 -Environmental Review 19.3.5.7 Terrestrial Communities This section provides a description and characterization of terrestrial communities identified at the proposed RPF site and within the ROI.

19.3.5.7.1 Plant Communities The proposed site is located in a developed industrial park that was historically used as cultivated cropland and pasture. The current vegetation at the site consists of mostly grasses reminiscent of open pastureland. Potential native plant species that may occur within the proposed site include those associated with tall grass hardpan prairie (Nigh and Schroeder, 2002). These prairies are dominated by medium-tall grasses and forbs with scattered shrubs and forbs (Faber-Lagendoen, 2001). Representative plant species include little bluestem (Schizaclhyrium scopariurn), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), winter bentgrass (Agrostis hyemnalis), and Atlantic camas (Camassiascilloides) (Nigh and Schroeder, 2002; Faber-Lagendoen, 2001).

As discussed here and in Section 19.3.1.1, the land cover types found in proximity to the site are mainly urban developed species, cultivated crops, and pastureland. There are several areas within the ROI that are covered with deciduous forests, evergreen forests, and mixed forests. Most forested areas are protected in parks and conservation areas.

19.3.5.8 Wildlife The following subsections discuss mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile species that may occur within or near the proposed RPF site. The potential for these species to occur within or near the site is based on resources available to the wildlife species. Representative mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile species are discussed in relation to potential habitat within ecological communities that occur in the ROI.

Ecological communities are defined in Section 19.3.5.5.1.

19.3 .5.8.1 Mammals Mammal species are not anticipated to be present at the proposed RPF site because of agricultural and urban development. Available resources (i.e., food, water, and cover) are not present year-round at this location. Mammal occurrence on the site is likely driven by the presence and life stage of the surrounding agricultural crops. Typical mammal species that have the potential to occur include species that are typical for wildland/urban interface. These species include the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus i'irginiaus),

eastern cottontail (Syh'ilagusfloridanu.s), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), raccoon (Procyon lotor),

and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) (Pitts and McGuire, 2000). No protected mammal species are known to occur at the proposed RPF site.

In the area surrounding the proposed RPF site (within the 8 km [5-mi] radius ROL), opportunities for mammal occurrence is similar to the proposed site because the land cover is comprised of mostly agricultural and urban development. However, some areas have deciduous forests, evergreen forests, and mixed forests that provide suitable habitat for mammal species. These areas are located in Rock Bridge State Memorial Park, Three Rivers Conservation Area, and several other parks and protected areas.

These areas are used for recreational hunting, especially for white-tailed deer and squirrel. Mammal species that occur in these areas include the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiaus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), and several species of bats, including the gray bat (Myotis grisescens) and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalist)

(MDC, 2013; Pitts and McGuire, 2000). The gray bat and Indiana bat are listed as endangered by the USFWS and Missouri (USFWS, 2013b; MDC, 2013). Listed species are discussed in Section 19.3.5.9.19-139

NW,'tChapter

- e.- NODTEEWEST lviie..,.-Chptr19.0-MEDICAL ISOTOPES NWMI-2013-021, Environmental Rev. 0A Review 19.3 .5.8.2 Birds The bird species observed at the proposed RPF site are anticipated to be transients because of the lack of permanent cover and other important resources. Typical bird species that may occur at the RPF site include:

° Game species - Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), wild turkey (Meleagris gaIlopaivo)

• Migratory waterbirds - Sora (Porzana Carolina), common snipe (Gallinagogallinago), Virginia rail (Rallus limicola)

° Migratory birds - American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), sedge wren (Cistothorusplatensis),

horned lark (Eremophilia alpestris), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella mnagna), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas)

" Overwintering birds - Short-eared owl (Asioflammeus), Le Conte's sparrow (Ammodrarnus leconteii) (USDA, 2013b).

The American bittern is listed as a State endangered species (MDC, 2013). Listed species are discussed in Section 19.3.5.9.

In the area surrounding the proposed RPF site (within the 8 km [5-mi] radius RO!), opportunities for bird species to inhabit the area are similar to the proposed site because the land cover is mostly agricultural and urban development. Bird species are known to inhabit these areas and will become habituated to urban and agricultural activities. Some areas have deciduous forests, evergreen forests, and mixed forests that provide suitable habitat for bird species. Bird species associated with these forested areas include the indigo bunting (Passerinacyanea), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes ervthrocephalus),eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), northern bobwhite ( Colinus i'irginianus),eastern wood-pewee (Contopus v'irens),

broad-winged hawk (Buteo platvpterius), great-crested flycatcher (Alyiarchu~s crinitus), summer tanager (Pirangarubra), and red-eyed vireo ( Vireo oh'aceus) (USDA, 2013b). As stated in Section 19.3.5.5.3, the proposed RPF site is located in the Mississippi Flyway. With open surface water within the ROI, Canada geese and other migratory waterfowl are expected to use these areas for a temporary stopover location. There are no documented rookeries near the proposed site or ROI.

19.3 .5.8.3 Amphibians and Reptiles Potential amphibians and reptiles that may occur near the proposed RPF site are those typically found in upland prairie/tall grass prairie habitats. These species include the eastern tiger salamander (Amby stoma tigrinum tigrinum), western chorns frog (Pseudacris triseriatatriseriata),northern crawfish frog (Rana areolatacirculosa), ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornate ornate), western slender glass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuates attenuates), eastern yellow-bellied racer (Coluber constrictorflavi'entris), prairie ring-necked snake (Diadophispunctatus arnyi), and bullsnake (Pituophis catenifer sayi) (USDA, 2013b). These species are typically found in prairie habitats with nearby ponds/pools, which the stormwater drainage ponds would provide at the proposed RPF site (USDA, 2013b).

Potential amphibian and reptile species that may occur outside of the proposed site are those typically found in oak woodlands and forests. These species include the eastern tiger salamander (Amnbystoma tigrinum tigrinumn), ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornate ornate), northern fence lizard (Sceloporus unmdulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), broad-headed skink (Eumneces laticeps), flat-headed snake (Tantilla gracilus), and rough earth snake (Virginia striatula) (USDA, 201 3b).

None of the potential amphibian or reptile species are Federal or State listed species (MDC, 2013).

1 9.3.5.8.4 Invasive Species Nonnative species, as defined by Executive Order 13112 (1999), are species "whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." Also defined in the Order, nonnative species include alien species that are defined as species that are not native to a particular ecosystem and include ant seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species.19-140

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA NWI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Per Executive Order 13112, Federal agencies are mandated to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and control populations, monitor invasive species populations, and restore native species in ecosystems that have been invaded.

Because there are no ponds, streams, or other water bodies on the proposed RPF site, aquatic invasive species are not present. Terrestrial invasive species that have the potential to occur on the site include tall fescue ( Festuca arundinacea),Canada thistle ( Cirsium arvense), crown vetch (Securigera varia), and feral hogs (Sus Scrofa). The MDC has recommendations for managing these invasive species.

19.3 .5.8.5 Procedures and Protocols The proposed RPF site has been used for agricultural development for several decades. As such, the site has a history of frequent ground disturbance and herbicide applications to maximize row crop production.

There are no ecological procedures or management plans for the proposed site.

19.3.5.8.6 Studies and Monitoring The MDNR maintains a water quality monitoring program that conducts aquatic biological and water quality assessments throughout Missouri. The biological assessments are evaluations of the condition of water bodies using surveys and other direct measurements of macroinvertebrates, fish, and plants. Near the ROI, Cedar Creek is regularly sampled as part of the MDNR biological assessments (MDNR, 2011).

Cedar Creek is located along the border of eastern Boone County and northwestern Callaway County, east of the ROI. Section 19.3.4 provides additional information on water quality studies within the ROI.

19.3.5.9 Protected Species and Habitats Federal and State listed species within Boone County that are endangered, threatened, or are of special concern are listed in Table 19-44. There are no designated critical habitats within the ROI. The 10 plant, fish, bird, and mammal species that are Federal or State listed are discussed in the following subsections.

Table 19-44. Federal and State Listed Endangered/Threatened, or Species of Special Concern Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Endangered Endangered Running buffalo clover Trifolium stoloniferum Endangered Endangered Gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered Plains spotted skunk Spilogale putorius interrupta Endangered Thr!

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Endangered Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Proposed endangered a USFWS, 2013b, "Missouri: County Distribution of Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species," www.fws.gov/midwestlendangered/lists/missouri-cty.html, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, Missouri, updated August 2013.

b MDC, 2013, Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation Concern Checklist, p. 52, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, January 2013.19-141

.N W

, NORTHWEET MEDICAL "Catr1NWMI-21-2,Rev.

lviChptr ISOTOPES O

9.0 -Environmental Review 19.3 .5.9.1 Pallid Sturgeon The habitat of the pallid sturgeon includes large, free-flowing rivers that contain warm water and high turbidity. Within these river systems, pallid sturgeons use areas of chutes, backwaters, islands, sandbars, floodplains, and main-channel waters as macrohabitats. Historically, the Missouri River, where pallid sturgeons can be found, was an ideal habitat for this species because of the constant state of change (MDC, 2000a). Due to human development, the Missouri River and other suitable rivers are less dynamic and provide less suitable habitat. The pallid sturgeon is limited to the Missouri River, which is not located within the ROI and, therefore, is not likely to occur within the ROI.

19.3.5.9.2 Topeka Shiner The habitat of the Topeka shiner includes small prairie streams (or in areas of former prairies). Within these streams, Topeka shiners inhabit pools of clean water in little to no turbidity (MDC, 2000b). The preferred substrates are sand or clean rock and gravel. Most of the streams inhabited by this species flow year-round, but some may not. These streams must be supplied enough groundwater seepage for the fish to survive. There is a potential for this species to occur in several of the streams within the ROL.

Topeka shiner populations are adversely affected by increased sedimentation and turbidity entering waterways caused by the removal of riparian and upland vegetation. This species is reliant on good water quality and habitat. Pollution runoff from adjacent lands into streams containing the Topeka shiner reduces the viability of this species. The Topeka shiner is an excellent indicator species for water quality because of its sensitivity to habitat changes (MDC, 2000b).

19.3.5.9.3 Running Buffalo Clover Running buffalo clover habitat includes moderately moist areas with some sunlight, where moderate disturbances such as grazing or mowing takes place periodically (MDC, 2000c). Historically, this species was often found in prairie/forest ecotones. Running buffalo clover is thought to have once been dependent on large grazing animals (e.g., elk, deer, or bison) for the dispersal of seeds and disturbance to the soil. This species has the potential to occur within the ROI in areas of open woodlands and stream banks that experience moderate disturbance (e.g., mowing, trampling, or grazing).

The loss of bison and other large ungulates has contributed to the population decline of running buffalo clover because these animals provided seed dispersal and soil scarification. Other potential causes for the population decline include competition from invasive species, reduced fire frequency, and excessive grazing (MDC, 2000c). Limited used of herbicides near potential clover habitat and mowing during the period of sexual reproduction help maintain suitable habitat for running buffalo clover.

19.3.5.9.4 Indiana Bat Indiana bats use two types of habitat depending on the season. During summer months, their habitat consists of wooded or semi-wooded areas, often along streams, floodplains, or riparian areas where they forage on insects (MDC, 2000d). During this time, female bats form maternity colonies to bear their offspring in hollow trees or under loose bark of living or dead trees. During the winter months, Indiana bats hibernate in caves, karsts, or mines. These areas are chosen depending on the microclimate inside the cavity. These species require very low and stable temperatures during hibernation to conserve body fat (MDC, 2000d). Both of these types of habitat occur within the ROI; therefore, the Indiana bat has the potential to be found in the area. Due to the urban and agricultural development throughout the ROI, the Indiana bat is anticipated to be limited to the protected areas in oak woodlands and forests.19-142

ISIJIAPES M:.:E,,D:ICALlI ChapterI NWM,-2013-021, Rev. 0A

.. f.:............. Ihptr 9.0- Environmental Review Human disturbance during hibernation adversely affects this species. When hibernating bats are disturbed, their metabolism increases and they use valuable fat reserves that must last them through the entire winter. This often causes disturbed bats to leave hibernation sites too soon, which can result in the death of the bat. Interaction with humans can make the bats susceptible to white nose syndrome, a disease that can cause mortality among bat species. Another limiting factor is the decline of habitat due to deforestation and channelization within the bats' range. Forested riparian areas are foraging areas for this species and may also be roost areas in the summer (MDC, 2000d).

19.3 .5.9.5 Gray Bat Gray bats are cave-dependent species that use caves for roosting throughout the year (MDC, 2000e).

Gray bat colonies migrate between winter caves and summer caves. Winter caves tend to be deep caves that are almost vertical and trap cold air. These caves provide very low and stable temperatures in which the cold helps to conserve body fat, and the bats are able to hibernate. Summer caves typically have domed ceilings or restricted rooms so that the combined body heat of the colony is trapped in the cave.

Summer caves are typically used as roosting sites for maternity colonies. Summer caves are generally located near riparian areas with aquatic insects (MDC, 2000e). Potential summer caves exist within the ROI, but gray bats are anticipated to be limited to the protected areas with riparian areas.

Human disturbance, disturbance to cave habitat, deforestation between caves and rivers, and pesticides are factors limiting this species. Human disturbance during hibernation adversely affects this species.

When hibernating bats are disturbed, their metabolism increases and they use valuable fat reserves that must last them through the entire winter. This often causes disturbed bats to leave hibernation sites too soon, which can result in the death of the bat. Interaction with humans can also make these bats susceptible to white nose syndrome. The use of pesticides and insecticides reduces the food supply and has the potential to poison the food chain (MDC, 2000e).

19.3 .5.9.6 Northern Long-Eared Bat Northern long-eared bats are similar to the Indiana bat except that they typically roost in smaller numbers, prefer a cooler microclimate, and are more flexible for ideal roost tree features. The Northern long-eared bat uses underground caves and cave-like structures for winter habitat, while during the summer these bats roost in cavities, crevices, underneath bark, or hollows of both live and dead trees and/or snags. This species of bat appears to be opportunistic in selecting roosting sites; however, the bats prefer cooler places with high humidity. Potential summer roost sites and winter hibernation exist within the analysis area, but these bats are anticipated to be limited to areas with ideal habitat conditions, namely cave-like structures or suitable sized trees.

The only immediate threat to the northern long-eared bat is white-nose syndrome (USFWS, 2014). Since the first symptoms of the disease were observed in 2006, the overall population of this bat has declined (USFWS, 2014). Other threats to this bat include disturbance of the species while in hibernaculum, which can cause the bats to leave hibernation too soon, which usually results in the death of the bat, and removing suitable forest summer habitat.

19.3.5.9.7 Black-Tailed Jackrabbit The black-tailed jackrabbit is a State-listed endangered species that resides in open plains, pastures, hay fields, and cultivated areas (MDC, 2000f). Jackrabbits are dependent on vegetation and eat herbaceous plants and grasses, twigs, roots, and bark. Potential jackrabbit habitat is found throughout the ROI.

Human disturbance and habitat loss are factors limiting this species. The loss of native tall grass prairies and agricultural development has caused a decrease in jackrabbit populations. Furthermore, humans have historically eliminated jackrabbits when they occur near cropland.19-143

"NORTHWEST lviChptr MEDICAL ISOTOPES ChaperI1NWM,-2013-021, 9.0 -Environmental Rev.

Review 0A 19.3 .5.9.8 Plains Spotted Skunk The plains spotted skunk is a State-listed endangered species found in open grasslands, shrublands, and cultivated areas (MDC, 2000g). These skunks are omnivorous and eat insects, mice, rats, birds, and vegetation. They create dens belowground in grassy banks, rocky crevices, or aboveground in hay stacks, woodpiles, or hollow trees. This potential habitat is found throughout the ROI.

Declines to the spotted skunk population can be attributed to agricultural development that removed habitat and cover. The use of pesticides has also limited the amount of available food resources for these skunks.

1 9.3 .5.9.9 Bald Eagle Bald eagles are a riparian-dependent species. They are frequently found in or near riparian areas where they forage on waterfowl and fish (MDC, 2012). Some eagles will inhabit terrestrial environments and feed on small game. Nesting bald eagles are predominantly associated with lakes or rivers. Missouri has estimated winter populations in the state to be approximately 2,660 eagles, with a summer population of approximately 600 eagles. Only two eagle nests have been identified within Boone County (MDC, 2012). Bald eagles have the potential to be found within the ROT, but are unlikely to be permanent residents.

The most limiting factor to this species is loss of habitat. Increased development and the modification of wildland have had a cumulative adverse impact on this species. Human disturbance, in the form of direct mortality, application of pesticides, and removal of nesting sites, has also had a limiting factor on the population.

19.3.5.9.10 American Bittern The American bittern is a State-listed species primarily found in wetland and riparian areas with tall emergent vegetation from spring to late fall. These birds will nest in thick vegetation several inches above water. American bitterns typically prey on large insects, small fish, mammals, amphibians, and crayfish (MDC, 2000h). The American bittern is likely to occur in wetlands within the ROI, but for only a short period of time during nesting.

The loss of wetland habitat is the main limiting factor on American bittern populations, along with chemical contamination.

19.3.5.9.1 1 Northern Harrier The Northern Harrier is a State-listed species primarily found in undisturbed marshes, prairies, and pastures with low shrubby vegetation, tall weeds, or reeds. These birds prefer to nest on elevated ground in colonies late in the spring. Northern Harrier prey on small mammals, birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians (MDC, 2000i). The Northern Harrier is likely to occur within the ROT during the spring and fall, in areas that will provide ideal nesting and foraging habitat. Due to the developed nature of the ROT, the northern harrier is anticipated to be found in the less populated undisturbed parts of the area.

19.3.6 Historical and Cultural Resources The ROT for historic, archaeological, and cultural resources was established as the spatial area used to assess the potential direct and indirect impacts in which a proposed project could alter characteristics of a historic, archaeological, or cultural resource. The ROT for the proposed RPF is defined as portions of Lot 15 identified for ground disturbance activities at Discovery Ridge and areas immediately adjacent to this area. Various methods were used to assess potential resources within the ROT.19-144

N MISOOE IUVVChapter19.0 hpe NWI212,Rev.

- Environmental Review O

The cultural resource analysis was performed for the proposed RPF site in compliance with NRC-201 1-0 135 (NRC, 2012a) guidance. Construction and decommissioning activities would largely occur within the area of Lot 15.

19.3.6.1 Cultural Setting The proposed RPF site is located in the Central Missouri Drainage Basin. The Environmental Research Center of Missouri conducted cultural research in 2012 for a communications project in this basin (ERC, 2012). Because the proposed site lies within the same drainage basin, the cultural setting information for the basin is summarized in this report to describe the historical cultural setting for the site.

19.3.6.1.1 Prehistoric Populations The occupation of Missouri by prehistoric populations has been generally established to include nine traditions (Chapman, 1975 and 1980). These traditions apply in varying degree to the entire state, with some traditions often not accounted for in specific drainages. These traditions are incorporated in what is called the cultural sequence, which is a major factor used in the interpretation of cultural data, particularly regarding National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) significance. The following traditions are summarized below in the sequence provided by Chapman (1975, 1980):

• Paleo-Indian (.12000-8000 B.C.)

• Dalton (8000-7000 B.C.)

• Early Archaic (7000-5000 B.C.)

• Middle Archaic (5000-3000 B.C.)

• Late Archaic (3000-1000 B.C.)

• Early Woodland (1000-500 B.C.)

• Middle Woodland (500 B.C. to A.D. 400)

• Late Woodland (A.D. 400 to 900)

• Mississippian (A.D. 900 to 1400)

Paleo-lndian - The Paleo-Indian period is generally accepted as marking the earliest known human occupation of Missouri. The specialized hunters of this period lived in small nomadic bands or family groups and left some traces of their transitory settlement pattern in the forms of hunting camps, kill sites, quarry sites, and possibly small base camps. The major diagnostic materials associated with the occupation include the Clovis and Folsom fluted spear/knife points. Most fluted point finds have been located along major river valleys (e.g., Missouri River), although some have been recovered along streams such as the Moreau River. These finds suggest that the nomadic hunters and gatherers followed these streams in their movement through the Midwest area.

Dalton - The Dalton period is characterized as a time of transition from Paleo-Indian big game hunting to the hunting-foraging subsistence strategy of the following Archaic period. All known Dalton sites in Missouri are small camps, and all apparently represent short-term utilization. The basic Paleo-Indian tool kit was still in use during Dalton times, although tools associated with plant food processing were added.

Point types with long flutes were replaced by types with basal thinning and/or short flutes. The major diagnostic includes the Dalton Serrated and perhaps the Dalton Adze. Population distribution roughly parallels that of the Paleo-Indian occupation.

Early Archaic - The transition to a subsistence pattern of occupation based on foraging was well underway by the time of the Early Archaic period. Hunting and gathering continued as the major economic activities, but emphasis was placed on aquatic resources and vegetal foods. Although nomadic wandering was being replaced by specific base campsites that were returned to at regular intervals, the typical Early Archaic site continued to be a small hunting and/or collecting camp.

19-1 45

.. NW M

......... lvii. ChpeI Chpe9.0- NWM,.2013.o21 Environmental Rev.

Review 0A These sites are found in a variety of environmental settings throughout Missouri, including upland ridges near small ephemeral streams, upland bluff edges, rock shelters, and the margins of high bottomland terraces. Diagnostics of Early Archaic include Graham Cave Notched points that have been recovered in the general area. Hardin Barbed points are also generally associated with Early Archaic occupation.

Middle Archaic - This period was basically a continuation and expansion of a forager tradition begun in the Dalton and Early Archaic periods. A drying climate forced greater reliance on collecting vegetal foods and small animals as opposed to wet environment subsistence. Sites continued to be small, exhibiting semi-nomadic or seasonal occupation. The tool kit continued to expand, depending on the extraction activity in the specific niche. The drying climate was reflected in the marked tendency for Middle Archaic sites to be located almost exclusively in or very near bottomland settings.

Late Archaic - This period is better known than earlier traditions as a result of the greater population apparently represented, which resulted in more expansive and numerous occupations. This period generally lacks the small dart point of the earlier traditions, which suggests that hunting had become less important for subsistence. Tool kit function also appears to have expanded, suggesting reliance on a much larger variety of potential foods requiring varied extraction and processing techniques. The Late Archaic period began toward the climax of a warming trend that reached its height around 2000 B.C.,

with a resultant diminishing of the faunal and floral forest species. The Late Archaic population had to adapt to new ecological niches with the associated changes in subsistence-related artifacts. Late Archaic occupations are one of the more commonly identified traditions in the drainage.

Early Woodland - This period is identified by the presence of Black Sand Incised pottery and is poorly represented throughout most of Missouri. In spite of intensive surveys in various areas of the state, only a few unquestionable Early Woodland sites have been identified.

Middle Woodland - The occupation during this period in northern Missouri is focused on three related regional centers: Havana in the Lower Illinois River Valley and adjacent Mississippi River Valley in the northeast, Kansas City Hopewell on the Missouri River, and Big Bend on the Missouri River. Analyses of pottery from the three centers indicate there was an intrusion of people into the Big Bend and Kansas City Hopewell centers from the Havana center to the east. Although the initial intrusion appears to have been related to subsistence and/or political stress in the Havana center, contacts among the three centers was maintained throughout the Middle Woodland period. Evidence for a Middle Woodland occupation is sparse outside of the areas noted. Some rock shelters and open habitation sites in the general area have produced Middle Woodland diagnostics and Chapman (1980) identified south Boone County as a major Middle Woodland center. However, there has been no corroborating evidence to support that identification through field investigations.

Late Woodland - This period exhibits the most numerous defined components (elements) within prehistoric sites in the general basin area. The occupation in this portion of Missouri has sometimes been defined as a regression from the preceding traditions, in that emphasis on horticulture developed earlier in the Woodland was supplanted by earlier hunting subsistence reliance. This pattern is seen in the increase in small temporary camps, along with use of a bow and arrow. Diagnostics include grit- and limestone-tempered pottery, arrow points, burial mounds, and shallow side-notched points. Several Late Woodland sites have been identified in Boone County, including open habitation sites and burial mounds.

Mississippian - This period is not well-documented in the general area of the proposed site. Diagnostics for this period include small triangular arrow points and shell-tempered ceramics. Early Mississippian Steed-Kisker people apparently abandoned the Kansas City area around A.D. 1250, and around A.D. 1350, the Oneota cultural tradition appeared suddenly in the Big Bend area near the junction of the Grand, Chariton, and Missouri Rivers. The most prominent Oneota village in the Big Bend area is the Utz site in Saline County, and it was there that the Utz phase, which documents the Oneota culture of the area, was defined.

19-1 46

liE NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Catr1NvvM,-2013-021, Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Rev. 0A Review The Utz phase, and the Oneota occupation, began at about A.D. 1350 and lasted to the end of the Mississippian period (A.D. 1700), when Oneota blends into what is recognized as the Historic Missouri Indian tribe.

19.3.6.1.2 Historic Period During the period from 1730 to 1790, the Missouri tribe was being depleted by smallpox and its power was continually being tested by its enemies to the north. By the 1780s, the Missouri tribe became heavily dependent on their allies the Osage for protection; however, the Sac and Fox tribes conquered and dispersed the Missouri tribe in the 1790s. Those who were not killed joined the Osage, Kansas, and Oto tribes. The great smallpox epidemic of 1823 reduced the Missouri tribe numbers to less than 100, and the Missouri as a distinct cultural entity became extinct. The last full-blood Missouri Indian died on the Oto reservation in 1907.

The land in which the proposed RPF site lies was but a tiny portion of North American territory claimed by France until 1762, when the land was transferred to Spain by secret treaty. Spain retroceded the land to France in 1801, and France ended up selling it to the U.S. in 1803 as the Louisiana Purchase. The U.S. Congress created the Territory of Missouri in 1812, and in 1821, Missouri was recognized as the 21 st state.

In general, the post-1800 history of central Missouri reflects both the general patterns of agricultural developments in the Midwest and specific influences that shaped the region. The process of early settlement and the struggle to produce beyond a meager subsistence, the expansion of the agricultural and commercial activities and creation of a stable society, followed by an era in which regional concerns were shaped by state and national trends, are all recognized as part of the evolution of the Midwest. In the case of northern Missouri, an understanding of its Euro-American past requires recognition of the influence of the settlers themselves and of the land that they occupied. The early settlers came primarily from the upper south, especially Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Prior to the Civil War, tobacco and corn played an important role in the agricultural economy of the region. The first permanent settlers began entering the area in the early 1800s, a process that primarily started after the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory.

The rapid development from uncharted wilderness to statehood stemmed directly from the massive westward movement of population during the early nineteenth century. Most of the settlers who came to mid-Missouri were attracted to the land. A rich, friable loam predominated, with substantial stands of timber that provided building materials and generally reminded the immigrants of the lands that they had left behind. The background of the settlers made them receptive to cultivating a crop that would reproduce the agricultural patterns of their native states. Most of the early settlers came from the upper south, which included slave-holding states. Major crops included hemp and tobacco; these crops, particularly tobacco, demand intensive labor for productivity. Tobacco was generally favored as a cash crop in that tobacco produced a greater value in proportion to bulk when compared to grain crops.

While not well-documented, agricultural pursuits were almost entirely geared toward corn and wheat by the time of the Civil War. Slave holding had also begun to drop at a relatively high rate prior to the Civil War. The land and its location then became major shaping forces of the economic system of the area, altering the previous patterns established in the southeast and brought to the Midwest. The coming of the railroad in the 1850s through the 1870s opened the interior to greater trade and agricultural products, which have been the major source of livelihood in the general area since.19-147

lviChptr MEIA STPSCatr1NWMI-0321Re.O 9.0 -Environmental Review 19.3.6.1.3 Recent History - Columbia From its beginnings, the economy of Columbia, Missouri, has rested on education. Columbia also benefited from being a stagecoach stop of the Santa Fe and Oregon Trails, and later from the Missouri Kansas Texas Railroad. Columbia was incorporated in 1826, five years after Missouri became the 2 4 th state. The city's progress can be traced through the development of its institutions. In 1824, Columbia was the site of a new courthouse; in 1830, the first newspaper was published; in 1832, the first Missouri theater was opened in Columbia; and in 1834, a school system began to serve its 700 citizens.

Missouri's first agricultural fair was held in Columbia in 1835. A school for girls was opened in 1833, and an institution called Columbia College (unrelated to the present school) was opened in 1834.

One of the finest U.S. portrait artists, George Caleb Bingham, opened a studio in Columbia in 1834. In 184 1, MU was built in Columbia after Boone County outdid several competing counties in raising money and setting land aside. In 1851, Christian Female College was established. The college became a coed school in the 1970s and changed its name to Columbia College. In 1855, Baptist Female College, now known as Stephens College, was established. By 1839, the population and wealth of Boone County, with 13,000 citizens, was exceeded only by that of St. Louis County.

Slavery was a largely accepted practice in Columbia in its early days, and the slave population had reached more than 5,000 by the beginning of the Civil War. Before the Civil War, many Columbians were very nationalistic and supported the Missouri Compromise. That agreement admitted Missouri into the Union as a slave state, but placated northerners with the admission of Maine as a free state and the establishment of the rest of the Louisiana Purchase (north and west of Missouri's southern border) as free territory. Early in the Civil War, Union forces secured the area and enforced a mandatory draft into the local militia. Although Missouri was officially a Union state, residents were in reality sharply divided and supported both sides with supplies and men.

Since the turmoil of the Civil War and Reconstruction, Columbia's history is marked by steady and quiet growth and prosperity, based on its roots in education, along with health care and insurance. The health care business can be said to have started in 1822, when Dr. William Jewell set up a hospital in his own home. Today, Columbia is among the top cities in the nation for medical facilities per capita. The insurance industry also has its roots in Columbia's early days, when pragmatic local businessmen started a fund to aid one another in case of fire.

19.3.6.2 Recent History - Discovery Ridge The Phase I environmental site assessment for Discovery Ridge (Terracon, 201 Ia) included results of record searches and interviews with personnel associated with the site to document its most recent history.

Findings resulting from those efforts are summarized in the following sections.

Based on review of the historical information, the Discovery Ridge site has predominately been vacant farmland consisting of both row crop production and livestock pasture from at least 1934 to 2006. The western portion of the site has been used as a developing research park from approximately 2006 to present. The eastern portion of the site has always been used as farmland and livestock pastureland. The northern portion of the site is currently used as the MU plant genetic research farm. A residential structure was located at the genetics farm on the northern portion of the site, from approximately 1945 to 2001, at which time the residential structure was demolished. Multiple small, machine-shed structures have been located at the genetics farm (on the northern portion of the site) from at least 1956 to the mid-2000s, with two small machine-shed structures still present. A large, machine shed structure located at the genetics farm was added in approximately 2007. A Quonset hut structure used by the USDA has been in place on the western portion of the site from approximately 1965 to present. A residential structure was located on the western portion of the site, east of the current Quonset hut, from approximately 1945 to the 1980s. A small, log cabin-type structure was located on the central portion of the site from approximately 1945 to 1980.

19-1 48

NW MI :

"""...,..  : Chpe Capter19.0 -wM,_2Ol3-O2l, Environmental Rev. OA Review 19.3.6.3 Previous Investigations Cultural resources are comprised of both historic properties and archaeological artifacts. In accordance with Section 108 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.), a cultural resource assessment (Section 106 review) of the site was conducted by the MDNR State Historic Preservation Office for 15 lots, including Lot 15 (Terracon, 2011l a). That assessment reported that, "the Section 106 Review form, signed by Mark Miles, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, dated March 7, 2011, states that 'an adequate cultural resource survey of the project area has been previously conducted. It has been determined that for the proposed undertaking there will be no historic properties affected"'" (Terracon, 2011la).

19.3.6.4 Recent Cultural Resources Surveys NWMI conducted an investigation in October 2013 to inventory and evaluate cultural resources within the designated project zone through the use of currently accepted Phase I survey techniques and review of records and literature. The study was initiated to carry out Federally mandated Section 106 compliance regulations. The scope of work placed emphasis on identification of cultural resources within the project area, along with recovery of sufficient data to allow the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to make an informed determination of possible significance of those resources. The investigation included (1) a pre-field evaluation of pertinent literature and records from which the field survey techniques and site designation criteria were developed, (2) an intensive pedestrian survey of the project area, (3) an attempt to recover sufficient data for site designation and evaluation in terms of NRHP eligibility requirements, (4) notation of locational information regarding site provenience and physiographic setting, (5) post-field activities involving data analysis, and (6) report preparation.

19.3.6.5 Literature Review A review of relevant publications and records prior to the field component of the study was important in establishing an understanding of the sequence and types of cultural resources that might be expected to occur. The process began with review of cultural resource management reports that have been produced for the areas near the RPF project zone. These reports are housed in MDNR SHPO, Jefferson City, Missouri, and are catalogued by county and author. The repository also includes historic architecture site forms for the State, NRHP forms for Missouri, and correspondence regarding the proposed project.

Archaeological Survey of Missouri records located at the SHPO were also reviewed.

The Archaeological Survey of Missouri files for reported Missouri archaeological sites contain data that has been gathered for over 70 years. The data is catalogued by county and section, township, and range, and the Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates. The SHPO Geographical Information System (GIS) data includes overlays illustrating recorded archaeology sites and areas that have been the subject of previous cultural resource surveys. Other consulted resources with important data include the State library and State archives in Jefferson City, local historic societies when available, and the Missouri historic society in Columbia. Other archaeologists and architectural historians, particularly those employed by Missouri who are involved with Section 106 procedures, were consulted regarding their knowledge of significant cultural resources in the project area.

There are no previously recorded prehistoric archaeology sites within the proposed project boundaries (Figure 19-40). [Proprietary Information]. The proposed RPF site contains no recorded historic architecture or possibly significant historic events. Review of 19th' and 20 th century plat maps and 20 th century USGS topographic quadrangles found no evidence of structures within the project area. The 1967/81 USGS topographic quadrangle does not illustrate any structures on the proposed RPF site.19-149

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA o..*.¢OTWESME!CJ N IOO Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review

[Proprietary Information]

Figure 19-40. Archeology and Survey Layers Map in Relation to the Radioisotope Production Facility Site 19-150

MEIA STPSCatr1NWMI-0i-21 I-....V............ Chpe ev.

9.0- Environmental ReviewO 19.3.6.6 Pedestrian Survey 19.3.6.6.1 Methodology The archaeological field component of the investigation involved pedestrian coverage of the defined RPF site. The transect width used ranged from 5-15 m (16-49 ft), depending on visibility and the potential for the presence of prehistoric features based on terrain, streams, and other factors that have been shown to correlate with site presence or absence (e.g., presettlement prairie or woodland setting). All vegetation-free zones were observed for the presence of prehistoric cultural materials. Throughout most of Missouri, these cultural finds can include lithic debitage (.chert flakes and shatter), fire-cracked rock, pottery shards, occasional bone and shell fragments, and features such as fire hearths and burial mounds.

Where vegetation covered the surface for over 10 m (33 ft), shovel tests were conducted. This effort involved removal of an area of sod of approximately 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20-in.) and then controlled removal of the subsurface soil matrix to depths of up to 50 cm (20 in.) below-ground surface. Soils were carefully observed to determine the presence or absence of cultural evidence. Where soil conditions allowed, soils were screened through a portable 1/4A-in, screen. Shovel testing that did not include screening of the soil matrix was conducted where larger numbers of shovel tests were necessary and surface visibility conditions were poor. In this instance, the soil matrix was removed by shovel and carefully scraped with a trowel to look for prehistoric and early historic evidence.

While subjective, the archeologist has developed a set of criteria for determining the presence of an archaeological resource, which is currently accepted by the SHPO as appropriate. These criteria are not presented as appropriate for all situations, but as the general practice followed by the archeologist in making decisions regarding the presence or absence of archaeological resources for cultural resource compliance purposes. One extreme records a site where any evidence of cultural activity occurs. The other extreme requires a significant cultural resource to be present to record the site. The present approach attempts to find a middle ground, which allows further consideration for both the cultural resource and the proposed project action prior to threat to either.

An archaeology site is designated when evidence of prehistoric and/or early historic land use is present and at least one of the following specific criteria is met:

• A prehistoric feature is present

• Two or more artifacts are identified within a 10 x 10 m (33 x 33-ft) (or smaller) area

• A shovel test recovers two or more artifacts Where a site is identified and when the landowner grants permission, materials recovered by the field investigation are placed in collection bags marked with field site numbers. If permission is not attained, materials are observed and potential diagnostics and tools area measured, photographed, and left in place or given to the landowner (when requested). When a permanent site number is assigned, retained materials are curated with the site designation. Where material density at a site is obviously high, only a representative sample is retained. Historic architecture resources include structures and features. Where there are structures over 45 years old or that exhibit some form of possible exceptional significance, the structures are photographed and a description of the architectural features is prepared, with preliminary evaluation of NRHP eligibility when located within a direct impact project zone.

Historic structures are not recorded where obvious that the structures are less than 45 years old and not otherwise significant. Where an "area of potential effect" has been established beyond the physical area of potential effect, architectural resources obviously 45 years or older are photographed and located on report maps.

19-1 51

'l..vi...........ihpe ChptrWWII03-2,Rev. O 19.0- Environmental Review The significance of cultural resources is interpreted from the following NRHP eligibility criteria:

The qu~alitv, of significance in American history, architecture,archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrit, of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,feeling and association, and.

A. That are associatedwith events that have made a significanmt contribution to the broad patterns of our histor3,; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristicsof t. pe, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artisticvalu~es, or that represent a significant distinguishingen tity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, inforniation important in prehistomy or history. (36 CFR 60.6, "Nominations by the State Historic Preservation Officer under Approved State Historic Preservation Programs")

Cultural resources that are identified during a Phase I survey are evaluated in terms of meeting one or more of the 36 CFR 60.6 criteria. In general, archaeological sites most often are evaluated with reference to Criterion D. A statewide planning document was prepared by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Program that allows minimal means for evaluation of potential significance of cultural resources (Weichman and Weston, 1986). The statewide plan includes information regarding traditions, types of traditions expected, forms of data that may be important, and research questions that can be incorporated in the interpretation of cultural resource significance where available.

A cultural resource is generally evaluated on the (1) basis of types of materials recovered (uniqueness, affiliation, type), (2) resource integrity (degree of disturbance), and (3) material/feature density (density and quantity of artifacts, and the presence and number of potentially extant features such as hearths, house sites, and burial tumuli). If an archaeological site exhibits sub-plow zone integrity and produces diagnostic artifacts or features, the site is usually interpreted as significant if considered likely to contain sufficient data to contribute to the understanding of the cultural history of the area and meet NRHP eligibility Criterion D. The consultant makes recommendations regarding NRHP eligibility. The determination of eligibility process requires consultation with the SHPO and the Federal agency involved in the project.

19.3.6.6.2 Findings The Phase I field investigation was carried out under generally mixed to poor surface visibility conditions, averaging less than 20 percent in a grass/hay setting. Shovel tests were used to interpret the presence or absence of cultural resources, as described in Section 19.3.6.6.1. The presence of erosion cuts and paths, along with shovel tests, allowed for a sample of the subsurface soil matrix for interpretation of the potential for the presence or absence of buried cultural resources.

No evidence of prehistoric occupation of the area was found. Such evidence typically includes the presence of chert debitage, fire-cracked rock, lithic artifacts, and occasionally ceramics. No prehistoric sites were recorded.

Historic resources include recently constructed roads that do not meet the investigators' historic site designation criteria. No historic sites were recorded. The survey concluded that Lot 15 in the Discovery Ridge development contains no possibly significant cultural resources.

19-1 52

NW MIiCatr1NM-132,Re.A Chpe9.0 - Environmental Review 19.3.6.7 Previously Recorded Historic Structures and Districts Historic and archaeological resources that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the NRHP are protected by Federal law, primarily the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations, specifically 36 CFR 800, "Protection of Historic Properties." Under the authority of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Federal agencies must take into account the potential effects an undertaking may have on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP.

The NRHP was consulted to identify historic and architectural structures. There are 50 NRHP sites in Boone County (Table 19-45), with the vast majority of them located in and around Columbia. There are no historic or architectural resources located within the ROI.

The closest site to the ROI is the Maplewood House, which was built in 1877 by Slater Ensor Lenoir and his wife Margaret Bradford Lenoir. The original farmstead included 173 ha (427 acres) surrounding the house to the east and west. A large pond was situated south of the house. In addition to the family home, buildings on the property included the separate summer kitchen (which later served as a cottage for family serving staff), a four-bay carriage house with storage and living quarters above, a utility house, a hay barn, and a large animal barn. Only four people lived in the home: the Lenoirs, their daughter Lavinia, and later Lavinia' s husband, Dr. Frank G. Nifong. In 1970, the City of Columbia bought 24 ha (60 acres) of the original farm with the house, the remaining furnishings, and the adjacent farm buildings. The animal barn was converted to a summer theater playhouse after the property was purchased by the city of Columbia. The building was lost to fire in 2011 and rebuilt and dedicated in 2012. The area was named the Frank G. Nifong Memorial Park and today is called Historic Nifong Park in recognition of the work of historic preservation undertaken by the Columbia Parks and Recreation Department and the Boone County Historical Society (Boone County Historical Society, 2013). Table 19-45 lists Boone County NRHP listings.

Table 19-45. Boone County Listings on the National Register of Historic Places (3 pages) 1 Ballenger Building 27-29 S 9 th St., Columbia 1/21/04 3 John W. Boone ("Blind") House 4th St. between E Broadway and Walnut, 9/4/80 Columbia 4 11 4- 0 Eas . ... d Wa, Co .......... Q5 ..

5 Albert Bishop Chance House and 319 E Sneed St., Centralia 7/3/79 Gardens 7 Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Building 10 Hitt St., Columbia 2/14/06 9 Columbia National Guard Armory 701 E Ash St., Columbia 3/25/93 11 Fred Douglass School 310 N Providence Rd., Columbia 9/4/80 19-1 53

NWMI~ NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Table 19-45. Boone County Listings on the National Register of Historic Places (3 pages) 13 Downtown Columbia Historic 1019, 1020, 1023, and 1025-33 E. Walnut 5/8/08 District St., Columbia 15 Eighth Broadway Historic District 800-810 E Broadway Blvd., Columbia 4/22/03 17 First Christian Church 101 N 10th St., Columbia 10/29/91 19 Frederick Apartments 1001 University Ave., Columbia 4/16/13 21 Gordon Tract Archaeological Site Address restricted 3/16/72 23 David Guitar House 2815 Oakland Gravel Rd., Columbia 9/9/9 3 25 Hamilton-Brown Shoe Factory 1123 Wilkes Blvd., Columbia 7/19/02 27 Kress Building 1025 E. Broadway, Columbia 3/9/05 29 McCain Furniture Store 916 E. Walnut, Columbia 8/17/05 31 Missouri State Teachers 407 S 6th St., Columbia 9/4/80 Association 33 Missouri United Methodist Church 204 S 9th St., Columbia 9/4/80 35 North Ninth Street Historic District 5-36 North Ninth St., Columbia 1/21/04 19-154

NWMI NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-45. Boone County Listings on the National Register of Historic Places (3 pages) l . - - 3.* S1*

37 Pierce Pennant Motor Hotel 1406 Old Hwy. 40 W, Columbia 9/2/82 (Candlelight Lodge) 39 St. Paul's African Methodist 501 Park St., Columbia 9/4/80 Episcopal Church 41 Second Baptist Church 407 E. Broadway 9/4/80 41Nb st..Co, mi 43 Senior Hall Stephens College Campus, Columbia 8/2/77 45 John N. and Elizabeth Taylor House House, 716 West Broadway, Columbia 5/25/0 1 46~i 23 S 81 S.,Quml 47 Virginia Building 111 S 9t* St., Columbia 3/13/02 49 West Broadway Historic District 300-922 W. Broadway (except 800, 808, 4/27/10 812), Columbia Source:

Missouri MDNR, of Department 2013i, "~Boone Natural County Jefferson Resources, National City, Register Listings,"

Missouri, www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/Boone.htm, accessed September 2013.

19.3.6.8 Native American and State Agency Consultation NWMI initiated consultation with six tribes that are Federally recognized in Missouri. Copies of the consultation letters are provided in Appendix A. No responses have been received.

NWMI forwarded the cultural resource investigation for Lot 15 of the Discovery Ridge property to the Missouri State Historical Preservation office on October 7, 2013 (ERC, 2013). NWMI received notification from the Missouri State Historical Preservation office on October 10, 2013, stating that the office concurred that the cultural resources survey was thorough and adequate and that there would be no historical properties affected by the proposed RPF project (DNR, 2013).

19.3.7 Socioeconomics This section describes the social and economic characteristics of the ROI, defined as Boone County for the socioeconomic resource. Information is provided about population, including minority and low-income areas, economic trends, housing, and community services in the areas of education, health, public safety, and transportation. The primary labor market for the proposed project is assumed to come from Boone County.

19-1 55

NWM' NORhW~EST lviChptr MEOICAL ISOTOPES ChpeI 9.0NWMI-2013-021,

-Environmental Rev.

Review 0A The proposed RPF site is located in Boone County, Missouri, as shown on Figure 19-5, which shows the 8 km (5-mi) area surrounding the proposed site. The figure also shows the city of Columbia, Missouri.

Boone County was selected as the primary ROI, and the locations where impacts could occur were identified with the project being located in Boone County. An assumption is also made that the primary labor market for the project would likely come from this county.

19.3.7.1 Boone County 19.3.7.1.1 History Boone County was organized in 1820 from a portion of the territorial Howard County and named for Daniel Boone. Boone County was settled primarily from the upper south states of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. The settlers brought slaves and slaveholding with them, and quickly started cultivating crops similar to those in middle Tennessee and Kentucky, namely hemp and tobacco. Boone County was one of several counties settled by southerners to the north and south of the Missouri River (Moser, 2013).

19.3. 7.1.2 Census-Based Population/Demographic Information Boone County has a total area of 1,790.5 km 2 (691 mi2), of which 1,775.3 km 2 (685 mi2) is land and 15.2 km 2 (5.88 mi2 ) is water. The estimated population density, based on the 2010 Census, is 91 people per km 2 (237 people per mi2) (USCB, 2010c).

In the 2010 Census, there were 162,642 people making up 69,551 households residing in the county.

There were 64,077 housing units. The racial makeup of the county includes 82.8 percent White, 9.3 percent Black or African American, 3 percent Hispanic or Latino, 0.4 percent Native American, 3.8 percent Asian, 0.06 percent Pacific Islander, 0.9 percent from other races, and 2.8 percent from two or more races.

The 2010 Census documents 64,077 households, out of which:

• 27.0 percent had children under the age of 18

• 42.1 percent were married couples living together

• 10.7 percent had a female household with no husband present

• 3.8 percent had a male household with no wife present

• 43.3 percent were nonfamilies.

A total of 28.7 percent of all households were made up of individuals, and 6.6 percent had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.4 individuals, and the average family size was 2.96.

The 2010 Census county population includes 21.1 percent under the age of 18, 26.6 percent from ages 18 to 24, 26.6 percent from ages 25 to 44, 22.1 percent from ages 45 to 64, and 9.2 percent age 65 and older. The median age was 29.6 years.

19.3.7.1.3 Income The 2010 Census median income for a household in the county was $47,123, and the median income for a family was $66,943. The per capita income for the county was $25,970 (USCB, 2010c).

19.3.7.1.4 Residents Below the Poverty Threshold In the 2010 Census, approximately 9.9 percent of families and 19.2 percent of the population were below the poverty line, including 17.8 percent of those under age 18 and 10.3 percent of those ages 65 and over (USCB, 2010c).

19-1 56

.. NWMICapelviChater19.0 - Environmental Rev.

NWMI-2013-021, Review GA 19.3.7.1.5 Housing The 2010 Census reports a total of 69,551 housing units, of which 64,077 are occupied and 5,474 are not occupied. The homeowner vacancy rate is 2.5 percent, and the rental vacancy is 8.5 percent. The median home value is $156,600 (USCB, 2010c).

19.3. 7.1.6 Civilian Labor Force/Unemployment The civilian non-farm labor force for Boone County is estimated at 93,602, with an unemployment rate of 4.9 percent in July 2014 (USDOL, 2014).

19.3.7.1.7 Population Growth Table 19-46 provides the Boone County Table 19-46. Population Growth in Boone County population over the past 50 years and from 1960 (Estimated) through 2030 nrni~nt;nmo fnr th-i navt Ofl *,orcTh projections are based on growth estimated in the current City of Columbia comprehensive land use plan (City of Columbia, 2013c) of 15ne~rcent annually or 16S1 nterrtnt river S - S 0S -.-

- S

.3B 10 years. 1960 *** 55,202 1970 8,1 66 19.3.7.1.8 Transient Population 18 0,7 41 A detailed analysis of the transient population 1990 11,39120 is provided in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.1.2.2. 20 3,5 05 19.3.7.1.9 Water Supply 2010 162,4201 19.3.7.1.9.1 City of Columbia Water 2020 188,753 16.1%

The Columbia Water Treatment Plant is 2030. 219,0...

55 , 16.1%

owned by the City of Columbia and operated Source: USCB, 2010c, "U.S. Census 2010."

by the Water and Light Department. The factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_

system supplies water to approximately facts.xhtml#none, U.S. Census Bureau, Reston, Virginia, 45,500 customers. The water system has accessed March 12, 2013.

approximately 46,250 service connections and the average daily consumption is 47.7 ML/day (12.60 Mgal/day) (CSWP, 2013).

The service territory of the Columbia Water Treatment Plant lies in Boone County, including Columbia, where the majority of customers reside. Through cooperative service connections, the city has emergency ties to Public Water Districts No. 1 and No. 9, along with MU.

Columbia's water is pumped from 15 shallow wells in the McBaine bottoms that tap into the McBaine aquifer, a water-filled bed of sand and gravel beneath the bottom land bordering the Missouri River just southwest of the city (CSWP, 2013). Columbia's water treatment plant and well water source is located 16 km (10 mi) south of Columbia on Route K, near the small town of McBaine. The plant is approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) from the Missouri River. The 15 wells are situated on seven sites that are separated by a minimum of 762 km (2,500 ft) to reduce the possibility of wells competing for the same water area. These wells average 29 m (95 ft) in depth (20 km [65 ft] of well column and 9.1 m [30 ft] of stainless steel screen). Each of the wells is capable of pumping approximately 7.6 ML/day (2 Mgal/day)

(CSWP, 2013).

19-1 57

. NWChapte 19.0 - Environmental Review The water treatment plant is a lime-softening and iron removal plant and includes the addition of chlorine and ammonium sulfate before the water is pumped to three water towers in the city. A series of pumps in each of these pumping stations then sends the water out into the distribution system (CSWP, 2013).

In 1904, a series of 366 m deep (1,200-ft deep) wells were constructed into the Roubidoux formation; however, the formation could not support the continued withdrawals. Seven of the original deep wells are still listed by MDNR as part of the Columbia water system, although most of the wells have been inactive for decades. Several of the wells are operational and are identified as emergency backup sources (CSWP, 2013).

Deep Wells #8 and #10 have been renovated and brought back into service as aquifer storage and recovery wells. Well #7 at the West Ash Pumping Station and Well #5 at the northeast booster station are candidate sites for future aquifer storage wells (CSWP, 2013).

The Crump, El Ray, and Prathersville wells were acquired by the Columbia Water and Light Department in the 1990s. Like the majority of the remaining old deep wells, these water district operations are not a source of supply for Columbia. The Crump well is operational (CSWP, 2013).

19.3.7.1.9.2 Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 of Boone County was created in 1975 with the consolidation of three public water supply districts that originally formed in the 1960s. This marked the first consolidation of water districts in Missouri. After subsequent consolidations and the annexation of the town of Rocheport, Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 now encompasses approximately 995 km 2 (384 mi2) in portions of Boone, Howard, and Callaway Counties. The district provides service to the rural and suburban areas surrounding the southern and western borders of Columbia.

Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 serves a population of approximately 21,000 through more than 8,500 service connections, with a total average daily water consumption of 5.49 ML/day (1.45 Mgal/day). The distribution system is comprised of 13 deep wells with a total pumping capacity of over 41.6 ML/day (11 Mgal/ day), 12 water storage facilities with a total capacity of 212 ML/day (5.6 Mgal/day), and over 966 km (1600 mi) of water mains. Numerous interconnections with the cities of Columbia and Ashland and with adjoining water districts provide additional water sources in case of emergencies.

19.3. 7.1.9.3 Public Water Supply District #9 Public Water Supply District #9 provides service to the northeast portion of the proposed RPF site. The distribution system includes approximately 161 km (100 mi) of water line, one elevated 189,270 L (50,000-gal) water tower, five standpipes, and four deep wells with pumps and pump houses. The district owns the land where the wells, standpipes, and towers are located. The district serves approximately 4,000 customers in an area of approximately 272 km 2 (105 mi 2) (PWSD9, 2013).

19.3.7.2 Local Schools The Columbia Public School District services the population within the 8 km (5-mi) radius of the proposed RPF site. Total district enrollment is 17,722, with 6,171 students enrolled in the schools within the ROI (CPS, 2012).

19-1 58

'*=. NWMI

• .f° NOUTNWESTM M*AL ISOTDPI$

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-47 provides additional information on Table 19-47. Public Schools and Enrollment each district school. within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site 19.3.7.3 Population Map Two Missouri cities, Columbia and Ashland, represent the population centers in the ROI (8 km Benton PK-5 299

[5-mi] radius) (see Figure 19-4). As of the 2010 1~i+iii~93ill~l Census, Columbia had a population of 108,500, PK-5 Grant 281 which increased 20.5 percent over the 10 preceding PK-5 ii) 294!+i years, and Ashland had a population of 3,707 New Haven 287 (USCB, 2010a). While the proposed site is in PK-5 594~iiii Columbia, the city population resides primarily to the north-northwest. Ashland is approximately Shepard Blvd. 597 10 mi south of the site. Figure 19-5 is a map of the Rock Bridge Hg 8 km (5-mi) radius area surrounding the proposed Gentry Middle 6-7 899 site, including the highest population areas. Jefferson Jr.

Douglass 8-12 166 19.3.7.4 Transportation Systems Total 6.171i~i 19.3.7.4.1 Local Road Networks Source: CPS, 2012, "Columbia Public Schools 2012-13 Enrollment (Head Count)." Coluimhia Public The northproposed RPF site of Discovery in Discovery Ridge Ridge Drive within is just Columbia Schools, Columbia, Missouri, September 26, 2012.

city limits. Discovery Drive and Discovery Parkway would provide access to the proposed site.

Discovery Parkway intersects with U.S. Highway 63 approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) to the south.

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.

U.S. Interstate 70 proceeds approximately 201 km (125 mi) east to St. Louis, Missouri, and 201 km (125 mi) west to Kansas City, Missouri. Figure 19-4 shows the 200 km (124-mi) radius with cities and roads. Figure 19-5 shows the road adjacent to the proposed RPF site. Current traffic volume for the nearby road systems is summarized in Table 19-48. Additional information regarding corridor dimensions, corridor uses, and traffic patterns and volumes is provided in Section 19.4.10. No current traffic data exists for Discovery Drive or Discovery Parkway.

Table 19-48. Traffic Volume on Local Road Systems Discovery Parkway South of Discovery Lane 644 Discovery Parkway South of U.S. 63(traffic heading south) 205 237iiii ii!!ii Ponderosa Street South of Nifong Blvd 1025 U.S. Highway ~63 South of Mo 740 (traffic heading sorth) 22,994 U.S. Highway 63 Sotho Mo 740 (traffi~heading north) :i13,9551~

South of Grindstone Parkway (traffic heading south) 14,243 aMoDot, 2009, "Columbia Traffic Count Summary," Missouri Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning, Jefferson City, Missouri, July 8, 2009.19-159

.. NW tM "

lviChptr ChpeI 9.0NWMI-2013-021,

-Environmental Rev.

Review 0A 19.3.7.4.2 Rail Missouri is home to the second- and third-largest rail centers in the U.S., in Kansas City and St. Louis, respectively. Union Pacific operates approximately 85 trains each day (UP, 2013). The nearest Union Pacific siding is in Jefferson, approximately 32 km (20 mi) south of the proposed RPF site.

COLT Transload operates on the Columbia branch short line and provides rail transportation to Columbia. COLT Transload is owned by the City of Columbia and operated by the Water and Light Department. The track is rated Federal Railroad Administration Class II, which allows for a 40 km/hr (25 mi/hr) train speed. The rail line generally parallels State Highway B to Hallsville and State Highway 124 to Centralia. In Columbia, the rail line is located just west of the Highway B industrial area, crosses U.S. Highway 63 approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) north of U.S. Interstate 70, and ends south of Rogers Street near the center of town, approximately 7.2 km (4.5 mi) northwest of the proposed RPF site.

COLT Transload provides service for industrial land uses along the Route B corridor in northeast Columbia. Other land uses served include the Columbia Municipal Power Plant and a commercial lumber facility to the north of downtown Columbia. The vast majority (97 percent) of the rail traffic is inbound.

Typical usage is approximately 1,500 cars per year. The primary freight includes coal for the City Power Plant, chemicals, petroleum, steel for several manufacturing facilities, and lumber for several commercial facilities. COLT Transload, a Class III railroad, moves over 1,500 cars a year with two locomotives (CTR, 2013).

The Columbia Star Dining Train provides dining and entertainment on vintage 1930s and 1940s railroad passenger cars pulled by 1950s streamlined locomotives. The roundtrip route (approximately 3-hr) runs between Columbia and Centralia on Friday and Saturday evenings, with a brunch run on Sundays.

The nearest station for passenger rail service is Amtrak in Jefferson City (Amtrak-JEF), approximately 26 mi (42 kin) to the south (MU, 2006a).

19.3.7.4.3 Air The nearest airport is the Columbia Regional Airport approximately 10.5 km (6.5 mi) south of the RPF site. The Columbia Regional Airport is used by commercial and privately owned aircraft. The airport is situated on approximately 0.532 ha (1,314 acre) and is owned and operated by the City of Columbia. It is the sole public use airport located in Boone County for which records are kept. The airport has two aircraft runways:

• A 1,982 x 46 m (6,501 x 150-ft) concrete strip that supports most of the commercial air traffic

• A smaller 1,341 x 23 m (4,401 x 75-ft) crosswind runway primarily for private aircraft For the 12-month period ending October 31, 2013, the airport had 16,610 aircraft operations for an average of 46/day that were 80 percent general aviation, 3 percent military, 16 percent air taxi, and 1 percent air carrier. At that time, there were 36 aircraft based at the airport that were 47 percent single-engine, 25 percent multi-engine, 22 percent jet, and 6 percent helicopter (AMR, 2014).

Two small private airports are located within 16 km (10 mi) of the RPF site. These airports include the Cedar Creek Airport, approximately 9.7 km (6 mi) east of the RPF site, and the Sugar Branch Airport, 16 km (10 mi) to the west of the RPF site. Operations data for these airports is not available.

Three helicopter ports are located with 16 km (10 mi) of the RPF site. These heliports support hospital operations and include the University Hospitals and Clinics heliport located 6 km (3.7 mi) northwest, MU heliport located 6 km (3.7 ml) northwest, and Boone Hospital Center heliport located 6.3 km (3.9 mi) northwest. No operations data are available for these heliports.

19-1 60

IUVVChapter19.0

• .,..,NORTWWEST MEOICAL ISOTOPES ChptrMWI-0I-21 ev. oA

-Environmental Review 19.3.7.5 Taxes The Missouri personal income tax rates range from 1.5 to 6 percent, assessed over 10 income brackets.

The rates start at 1.5 percent on the first $1,000 of taxable income. The rate increases 0.5 percent on each additional $1,000 up to $9,000. The tax rate for income above $9,000 is 6 percent (MDOR, 2013).

Missouri has a State sales tax of 4.225 percent that is levied on the purchase price of tangible personal property or taxable services sold at retail. Columbia has an additional sales tax of 3.375 percent (MDOR, 2013) to support capital needs for public safety, parks, transportation, and maintenance (City of Columbia, 2013e). Boone County collects an additional 1.375 percent sales tax that supports infrastructure (MDOR, 2013).

Missouri charges what is called a transactional privilege tax, considered a sales tax on all sellers for the privilege of engaging in business in Missouri. Thus, additional fees on a sale (e.g., administrative fees for a service, such as auction fees) can be considered taxable (MDOR, 2013).

The Missouri corporate tax rate is 6.25 percent. Only income earned in Missouri is taxed. Two allocation options are offered for calculating this income: (1) the three-factor formula, based on sales, property, and payroll; or (2) the single-factor formula, based only on sales. Missouri is the only state that permits companies to choose the formula that results in the lesser corporate income tax liability. Thus, companies are not penalized for locating property and jobs in Missouri as they are in the other states (MDOR, 2013).

Missouri local governments rely on property taxes levied on real property (real estate) and personal property. The Missouri State Tax Commission oversees the property assessment system. The amount of property taxes imposed on any taxpayer is determined by two separate factors (MDOR, 2013):

1. The assessed value of their taxable property, as established by the local assessor.

2. The total of the tax rates that have been set by the governing bodies of local governments where the property is located, plus the $0.03 State tax rate. In 2013, Boone County levied a property tax of $0.2846. Columbia assessed a tax of $0.4 100. In addition, Columbia Public Schools collect

$5.40 19. The valuation for determining the taxes mentioned above is determined by dividing the assessed value by $100 (BCC, 2013).

Real property is assessed based on its use. Residential property is assessed at 19 percent of value, agricultural is 12 percent of value, and commercial is 32 percent of value (MDOR, 2013).

Some personal property is exempt, including household goods, inventories, apparel, and items of personal use and adornment. Exempt real estate includes property owned by governments and property used as nonprofit cemeteries, exclusively for religious worship, for schools and colleges, and for purely charitable purposes (MDOR, 2013).

19.3.7.6 Public Recreation Facilities The parks and open spaces within the ROI (i.e., Boone County) are listed in Table 19-49, along with their approximate distance from the proposed RPF site.19-161

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NW MI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-49. Parks within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site A. Perry Philips Park 1.1l 0.7 West ~Rock Bridge Park 5.9 3.7 Northwest Nifong Park 1.8 1l Northwest Shepard Park 4.5 2.8 North Rock Quarry Park 3.2 2.0 Northwest Oakwood Hills Park 7.2 4.5 Northwest Waters-Moss Memorial 3.5 2.2 Northwest Grasslands Park 7.2 4.5 Northwest Wildlife Area 6.8 4.2 Northwest Capen Park 4.9 3.1 Northwest Willis Quad Highpointe Park 5.1 3.2 Northwest 8.0 5.0 Northwest 3.6 Nor~~th tForum Nature Area Flat Branch Park Stephens Lake Park 5.8 7.4 4.6 Northwest North Eastport Park 5.8 3.6 Northeast McKee Street Park 7.7 4.8 North 19-162

lviChptr NorW.STMEIAISOOE Catr1 9.0 -Environmental WM-032,Rev. Q Review In addition to the parks, several other public facilities, summarized below, are located within the ROT.

Aquatic centers - The Columbia Parks and Recreation Department manages four outdoor and two indoor pools. Only two of these facilities, Douglass Family Aquatic Center and Stephens Lake Swimming Beach and Spraygrounds, are located within the ROI.

The Douglass Family Aquatic Center is an outdoor facility that consists of an 18 m (20-yd) recreational pool, a double-loop slide, and a spray park. The Stephens Lake Swimming Beach and Spraygrounds consists of a 4.5 ha (1 l-acre) lake with unguarded swimming only allowed in designated areas. The park also includes a spraygrounds.

Columbia Area Seniors Center - The Columbia Area Seniors Center offers services and activities for seniors, including meals, computers, and meeting places for activities.

Armory Sports & Recreation Center - This indoor facility is used for basketball, volleyball, meetings, aerobics, and other programs. The facility includes a gymnasium, classroom, meeting room, aerobics room, a cardio/strength training area, computer room, general recreation room, and locker rooms.

19.3.8 Human Health This section describes the current environment associated with human health for the proposed RPF site.

The ROT is defined as the 8 km (5-mi) radius surrounding the RPF site.

19.3.8.1 Sensitive Receptor Locations In accordance with the requirements of Section 19.3.8 of NRC-201 1-0135 (NRC, 2012a), Figure 19-41 shows the location of the proposed RPF and distances to the following locations:

• Nearest site boundary (fence and lot boundaries) from the centerpoint of the facility (Figure 2-4)

• Nearest full-time residence

• Nearest drinking water intake

• Nearby sensitive receptors (schools, hospitals, public parks, and recreational areas)19-163

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

++"NWMI~ Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Location Map CA )8RPF Site km (5 mile)

Sensitive Receptors Radius from RPF Site Type Drinking Wells ,* Educational

[0] Medical N [] Parks

• t Recreational

.Jefferson City S IReligious Institutions 0

0 0.5 1.8 0.

0,5 0 1,8 2.7 2.7 6

3.6Miles ** Residential Retirement Communities Scnsiv cRcccptors Figure 19-41. Sensitive Receptors19-164

NRTWSIMEIA ISOOE hpe NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A IIVVChapter 9.0 -Environmental Review 19.3.8.2 Major Sources and Levels of Background Radiation Existing sources of background radiation near the proposed site are associated with both natural and human-made sources. These sources include naturally occurring, medical, nuclear reactors, and industrial and commercial sources.

Environmental data and historical doses for these sources are described in the following sections. Based on this information, there are no significant abnormal radiation hazards in the vicinity of the proposed RPF. The background radiation exposure is equivalent to the average radiation dose in the U.S. of approximately 6.2 mSv/yr (620 mrem/yr) (NRC, 2013a).

19.3.8.2.1 Naturally Occurring Background Sources There are three sources of naturally occurring radiation: cosmic, terrestrial, and internal. Cosmic radiation comes from the sun and stars, and the dose received differs with weather and elevation. The elevation of Columbia is approximately 238 m (780 ft) above mean sea level, so the average annual dose from cosmic radiation is 0.28 mSv (28 mrem) (NRC, 2013b).

Terrestrial radiation comes from naturally occurring radionuclides in soil, water, and air. Exposure to airborne radon accounts for the majority of natural radiation sources in the U.S., accounting for 2.0 mSv (200 mrem) of the 3.2 mSv (320 mrem) annual dose from naturally occurring sources. Higher doses of radiation are usually observed in areas with higher soil concentrations of uranium and thorium (NRC, 2013c).

Missouri has average background concentrations of uranium and thorium (ORNL, 1981), so the average dose resulting from terrestrial radiation at the proposed site is 2.28 mSv/yr (228 mrem/yr) (EPA, 2013b).

Internal radiation comes from the radionuclides potassium-40 (4°K) and carbon-14 (' 4C), which are naturally occurring inside the human body (NRC, 2013c). This source accounts for an average dose of 0.4 mSv/yr (40 mrem/yr) (EPA, 2013b).

19.3.8.2.2 Human-Made Sources Human-made sources of radiation are discussed in the following subsections. These radiation sources include medical, nuclear power, industrial and commercial, and radioactive waste. Nearly all the annual radiation dose from human-made sources comes from medical procedures. The remaining sources account for less than 5 percent of the annual dose (NRC, 2013d). As discussed in the following sections.

there are no significant sources of radiation in the vicinity of the proposed RPF site; the average dose from human-made sources is 3.1 mSv/yr (310 mrem/yr) (NRC, 2013d).

19.3 .8.2 .2.1 Medical Sources There are numerous medical facilities in the ROI that use ionizing radiation for imaging and treatment services. These facilities are listed in Table 19-9. Patients receiving imaging or treatment services involving ionizing radiation receive an average dose of 2.98 mSv/yr (298 mrem/yr), which accounts for 96 percent of the annual dose from human-made sources (NRC, 2013d).

Employees of these medical facilities may be exposed to higher levels of radioactivity than members of the public employed at locations where radiation is not used. 19 CSR 20-10 outlines maximum permissible exposure limits and dosimetry requirements for occupational exposure to ionizing radiation and lists a maximum limit of 50 mSv/yr (5,000 mrem/yr) (whole body dose). Medical facility employees in Columbia do not receive doses in excess of these limits.

19.3.8.2.2.2 Nuclear Reactors 10 CER 50.47, "Emergency Plans," requires that the emergency planning zone surrounding nuclear power reactors includes the area within an 80 km (50-mi) radius of the reactor. There are two nuclear reactors within 80 km (50 mi) of the proposed RPF site: the MURR and the Callaway Energy Center.

19-1 65

lviChptr

• =.,,;"NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES ChapterI1NWM,-2013-021, 9.0 -Environmental Rev.

Review OA Both reactor facilities maintain a radiological environmental monitoring program and report annual radioactive effluent releases to monitor for any increases in radioactivity resulting from reactor activities.

As discussed in the following paragraphs, there were no abnormal radiological releases from either nuclear reactor in 2012, and the average annual dose from living near a nuclear reactor of less than 0.01 mSv (1 mrem) is applicable to the proposed RPF site (EPA, 2013b).

MURR - MURR is located on the MU campus in Columbia. According to the MURR 2012 Annual Report (MURR, 2013), the radiological environmental monitoring program at MURR entails semi-annual collection of soil, water, vegetation, and air samples. During each sampling event, soil and vegetation samples are collected at eight locations, and water samples are collected at three of those locations. Air samples are collected from environmental monitors placed within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of MURR, and from two control monitors placed 16 km (10 mi) from MURR.

Air monitoring results showed doses of approximately 0.14 mS v/year (14 moremo/year), or less, at all except two monitor locations. Both of those monitors are located near loading docks where radioactive materials are loaded for transport, and elevated doses recorded at these locations are likely the result of packaged material and not related to MURR operation. The facility also reported sanitary sewer and stack effluent monitoring results for calendar year 2012 (MURR, 2013). For the sewer effluent, a total activity of 0.18 curies (Ci) was released to the sanitary sewer, with tritium accounting for 0.16 Ci of the activity. All sewer effluents were in compliance with the limits outlined in 10 CFR 20. A total activity of 1,220 Ci was released via stack effluent, with the majority of the activity coming from argon-41 (4 1Ar) releases. All stack effluent releases were compliant with the MURR license technical specifications (MURR, 2013). Results from environmental monitoring during calendar year 2012 demonstrated there were no environmental impacts from MURR operations (MURR, 2013).

Callaway Energy Center - Callaway Energy Center is located 65 km (40 mi) southeast of Columbia near the town of Fulton. The center is operated by Ameren Missouri and provides power for 780,000 households annually (Ameren, 2013a). The Callaway Energy Center 2012 Annual Report (EIiML, 2013) outlines the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program. The monitoring program includes collection of water, terrestrial, air, and biological samples.

Surface water, groundwater, drinking water, and sediment samples are collected and analyzed for gamma isotopes, and water samples are also analyzed for tritium. These samples are collected on either a monthly, quarterly, or semi-annual basis. Low-level tritium activity was detected at two surface water locations and in several groundwater monitoring wells; the remaining isotopes were not detected. Low-level cesium-137 (137 Cs) activity was noted in both control sediment samples and one indicator sediment sample, and 4°K activity was noted in all sediment samples. No radionuclide activity was detected in any drinking water samples.

Soil samples are collected annually from two control locations and seven indicator locations and subsequently analyzed for gamma isotopes (EIML, 2013). Soil samples for 2012 exhibited positive 13C and 4°K activity (EIML, 2013).

Continuous air monitoring is performed at five locations and analyzed for iodone-131 (i3*I) and other gamma isotopes on a weekly basis. Air monitoring results for 2012 demonstrated average activities of 0.23 picocurie/cubic meter (pCi/m 3) for beryllium-7 (TBe). There were no positive detections of radionuclides from facility operations (EIM4L, 2013).

Direct ambient gamma radiation is monitored at three control locations and 40 indicator locations using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). The TLDs are analyzed on a quarterly basis. For the reporting period (2012), the average dose for the indicator locations was 16.0 mrem/quarter (64 mrem/yr), and was 15.3 mrem/quarter (61.2 mrem/yr) for the control locations. These dose levels were similar to historical TLD results (EIML, 2013).

19-1 66

NWMI~VVV I ME: ACISpterS9.0 Catr1 -

WM-032,Rev. O Environmental Review Biological sampling includes collection of milk, fish, and vegetation tissue. Milk samples are collected at least once per month and also analyzed for 131I and other gamma isotopes. Fish samples are collected on a semi-annual basis and analyzed for gamma isotopes. Edible vegetation is collected monthly during the summer months and analyzed for 131I and other gamma isotopes. Soybeans are also collected from four locations (one control location, and three locations on Ameren property) and analyzed for tritium and gamma isotopes (EIML, 2013). Positive detections of 4°K, which is a naturally occurring isotope, were noted in all 2012 biological samples. There were no other positive radioisotope detections.

The results reported for all environmental samples are consistent with historical data at the site. The results for the reactor facility reported no samples above background radiation levels outside of the facility boundary in 2012; therefore, there are no environmental impacts resulting from facility operations during 2012 (EIML, 2013).

Doses to members of the public from gaseous plant effluent, facility activities, and inhalation of '4C are outlined in Table A-5 of the Callaway Energy Center 2012 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (Ameren, 2013b). The whole body dose (0.0000771 mSv/yr [0.00771 mrem/yr]), thyroid dose (0.000077 mSv/yr [0.0077 mrem/yr]), and maximum other organ dose (0.000 161 mSv/yr

[0.0161 mrem/lyr]) were well below the allowable doses outlined in 10 CFR 20.1301(e), "Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public," and 40 CFR 190, "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."

19.3.8.2.2.3 Industrial and Commercial Use of Radiation ABC Laboratories - ABC Laboratories operates at two locations near the proposed RPF site. The nearest location is on Lot 1 of the Discovery Ridge development, approximately 152 m (500 ft) from the proposed site, and the second location is approximately 8 km (5 mi) northwest of the site. ABC Laboratories has a radiological material license with the NRC (No. 24-13365-01). Radiological materials at ABC Laboratories are used for animal studies, sample analysis and cleaning in gas chromatographs (nickel-63 [ 63Ni]), calibration of liquid scintillation counters (' 37 Cs), and research and development purposes. Occupational doses at ABC Laboratories are monitored using dosimetry. Biological monitoring is also conducted for personnel performing duties for field studies or for animal studies involving more than 10 millicurie (mCi). Doses to personnel are managed in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1203, "Determination of External Dose from Airborne Radioactive Material" (ABC Laboratories, 2007).

MU Pickard Hall - Pickard Hall is on Francis Quadrangle at MU and currently houses the Museum of Art and Archaeology. The building was formerly used as the university chemistry laboratory building, where radioactive material separation activities were conducted from the early 1900s through the 1930s (MU EH&S, 2013). These activities resulted in legacy radium contamination of subsurface soil in the immediate vicinity of Pickard Hall, original flooring and ceiling material in several rooms within the building, original ventilation system components, steam tunnel, and sanitary sewer lines associated with the building. The MU Radiation Safety Program has implemented an internal standard operating procedure to limit land and building use at Pickard Hall to reduce public exposure to and environmental releases of radiological contamination (MU EH&S, 2013). The operating procedure includes exposure monitoring for selected Pickard Hall faculty and staff, and periodic radiation surveys and monitoring of the building.

Areas of the building with residual contamination have controlled access, so members of the public may not enter these areas without an escort. Faculty and staff working in controlled areas of Pickard Hall may have higher radiation doses than the general public, but these doses are not higher than the ALARA level for dosimetry monitoring of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) per quarter (1.0 moSv [100 mrem/yr]) as outlined in the standard operating procedure (MU EH&S 2013).

19-1 67

ME-.D!ICAISOTOPES Chapter 1*V~vl NWM,-2013-021, Rev. 0A

'l..vi........... Chpe9.0- Environmental Review 19.3.8.3 Major Sources and Levels of Chemical Exposure The areas bounding the proposed RPF site have roadways, buildings, and open agricultural fields. These areas are maintained in accordance with MU policies and procedures. The site has not been used for storage of chemicals; however, the use of chemicals for maintenance is expected. Weed killer and fertilizer are expected to be used on or near the site. No other commercial chemicals are expected to be on the site. The only source for chemical exposure appears to be topical applications of commercially available pesticides.

Nonradioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid waste effluents from facilities within the Discovery Ridge development are required to report hazardous effluents to the MDNR and the EPA.

19.3.8.3.1 Hazardous Waste Management and Effluent Control Systems MU does not operate any hazardous or radioactive waste disposal sites. Nearby sources that manage hazardous waste include ABC Laboratories, RADIL, and the MU School of Agriculture, all located in the Discovery Ridge development near MU. The following subsections provide further detail on these sources.

19.3.8.3.1.1 Discovery Ridge Development According to the 2011 Phase I environmental site assessment conducted at Discovery Ridge:

[There is] no knowledge of any aboveground or undergroundstorage tanks for chemicals or petroleum, past use, treatment, disposal or generation of hazardous materialsor petroleum products. polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) equ~ipmnent, solid waste disposal, or any~ pending, threatened, or past litigation. admninistrativeproceedings, violations of environmental laws, or possible litigation relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products associated with the su~bject site. (Terrac on, 2011 a)

The MU School of Agriculture, ABC Laboratories, and RADIL have existing facilities in the Discovery Ridge development and use/dispose of radioactive and/or hazardous wastes. Waste handling, transport, and disposal activities are performed in accordance with 10 CFR 71; Appendix T of NUREG- 1556, Volume 11, Conzsolidated Gumidance abou~it Materials Licenses, Program-SpecificGuidance about Licenses of Broad Scope (specific to ABC Laboratories, 2007); MDNR regulations; and DOT regulations.

19.3.8.3.2 University of Missouri Research Reactor The MURR Health Physics Branch has a Radioactive Waste Management Program that manages airborne, liquid, and solid radioactive waste materials. Management and disposal activities for each type of waste are discussed in the following subsections. MU also has a separate hazardous waste management facility, the Resource Recovery Complex. The complex is located approximately 0.48 km (0.3 mi) northeast of MURR on the MU campus and handles all non-MURR-related waste generated by MU operations.

19.3.8.3.2.1 Solid Waste Solid low-level radioactive waste is temporarily stored on the belowgrade level of the MURR laboratory prior to shipment. No solid waste is permanently stored onsite. Waste is monitored prior to shipment to identify radioactive and nonradioactive waste to ensure proper disposal of waste and to help reduce the volume of waste by identifying items that may be reused. Radioactive waste is typically packaged in sealed metal drums and processed for shipping by the MURR Health Physics Branch in accordance with DOT requirements. Waste containers are either shipped directly to a waste disposal site or transferred to an authorized radioactive waste vendor. High-level radioactive waste shipments are planned and handled in accordance with NRC and DOT regulations (MU, 2006a).

19-1 68

NWMAI~f I flIVChapter 9.0 - Environmental Review During 2012, MURR shipped 19.9 m3 (703 cubic feet [ift3]) of low-level radioactive waste that contained 3,097 mCi of activity (MURR, 2013).

19.3.8.3.2.2 Liquid Waste Radioactive liquid waste is sent to a liquid waste retention and disposal system that is also located on the belowgrade level of the MURR laboratory building. The system consists of tanks, pumps, filter banks, and piping/valves, and uses both chemical and filtration treatment methods to reduce radioactivity levels.

Assay monitoring is used to record liquid waste activity levels. When activity levels are below those specified in 10 CFR 20, liquid waste is discharged into the sanitary sewer (MU, 2006a).

19.3.8.3.2.3 Gaseous Waste The majority of gaseous waste consists of 4"Ar, which is released through the facility ventilation exhaust stack. Exhaust air from the reactor is mixed with uncontaminated air to dilute the concentration of radioactive gases emitted into the atmosphere. The discharge rates do not exceed the limits outlined in the technical specifications (MU, 2006a).

19.3.8.3.3 Historical Releases and Exposure Historical releases of hazardous materials may have occurred at the ABC Laboratories location, 8 km (5 mi) northeast of the proposed RPF. This site is currently undergoing decommissioning under the NRC (NRC, 2013e), as discussed below.

The ABC Laboratories site consists of commercial buildings and three sanitary lagoons. Two historical lagoons were used between 1968 and 1986, after which they were backfilled. The NRC approved the unrestricted release of both lagoons in 2011, along with four buildings onsite (NRC, 2013e).

A third sanitary surface lagoon was constructed in 1986 and operated until 2004. The lagoon received sewer waste and rinsates from the laboratories that primarily contained '4C. The lagoon effluent was discharged to the site under a NPDES permit (MO-0 104591) via pipe and gravel beds. In 2011, the lagoon was drained and then backfilled in February 2012. Soil samples collected from the lagoon discharge areas showed an average activity of 6 pCi/gram (g), which is below the screening value of 12 pCi/g required in NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Consolidated Decomm~issionin~g Guidance:

Characterization, Surveey, and Determinationof RadiologicalCriteria. Detectable radiological activity was not noted in subsurface soils below the clay liner of the lagoon. Modeled doses resulting from residual radioactive contamination in the lagoon were calculated to be 0.002 mSv/yr (0.2 mrem/yr). The average concentration in groundwater from the site was 126 pCi/L, with the highest concentrations noted in the shallow water table, which is not available for drinking water according to 10 CSR 23-3.090, "Regionalization." Based on this data, the NRC issued a Finding of No Significant Impact with regard to the former sanitary lagoon at ABC Laboratories (NRC, 20130).

Positive detections of methylene chloride and 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyaceticacid were noted in the sediment and clay layer of the lagoon. A minimum of 0.9 m (3 ft) of cover soil was placed in these areas to effectively eliminate potential human contact. Based on this data, the NRC issued a Finding of No Significant Impact with regard to the former sanitary lagoon at ABC Laboratories (NRC, 2013f).

To-date, there are no additional records of any historic recordable incidences of releases to the general public in the vicinity of the proposed RPF site. Radiological exposure of MURR staff as a result of routine tasks is discussed in Section 19.3.8.4.

19-1 69

, ;:.. WMI lviiChaper 9.0 - Environmental Rev.

haper 1NWMI-2013-021, Review 0A 19.3.8.4 Occupational Injury Rates The occupational injury rate of workers associated with the proposed RPF is expected to be similar to the MURR facility or other MU research facilities currently operating in the vicinity of the proposed RPF site. While the isotope extraction process may be continuous, the preliminary design of the systems and components of the facility call for many tasks to be automated. The goal is to reduce human error, while also reducing occupational risk from many process activities. In addition, occupational dose received by RPF workers will be maintained ALARA, in accordance with an approved ALARA/Radiation Protection Program, similar to the ALARA Program for MURR (MU, 2006a).

Occupational dose received by students and faculty while performing activities associated with the MURR are maintained ALARA. The MURR ALARA Program has been established in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1101, "Radiation Protection Programs" (MU, 2006b) to ensure that doses from radiation and gaseous effluents are maintained ALARA. Occupational doses at MURR for calendar year 2012 are shown in Table 19-50.

Table 19-50. Total Personnel Dose to University of Missouri Research Reactor Facility Employees Analytical Chemistry 0.27 27 3.43 343 Bu &et~ evcs0.86 86 3A3 :343 Director' s Office 0.06 6 NR NR 0.72 72 1 1100 Hot Cell/Shipping 9.81 981 25.25 2,525 He1! 4.68 468 8.3 834 Irradiations 0.58 58 NR NR 1.18 118 34~6 ,6 Neutron Scattering 2.16 216 5.09 509 Operaions 12.75! 1,275 31.22 3,122 Isotope Processing 5.16 516 53.61 5,361

~1.09'

• 9 6,29 629 Research 1.12 112 13.85 1,385

~~0.87' 87 19.95 i: 1,995 Silicon 8.42 842 13.33 1,333 Epeuogy0.17 17 1.82 182 Work Control 2.92 292 52.72 5,272 Source: Section IX of MURR, 2013, University of Missouri Research Reactor, Reactor OperationsAnnual Report, January 1, 2012- December 31, 2012, MURR Research Reactor Staff, Columbia, Missouri, February 26, 2013.

The highest occupational whole body radiation doses at MURR were noted for those employees working in operations (12.75 mSv [1,275 mrem/yr]) and hot cell/shipping (9.81 mSv [981 mrem/yr]). Radiation doses for body extremities were highest for isotope processing (53.61 mSv [5,361 mrem/yr]) and work control employees (52.72 mSv [5,272 mrem/yr]). These exposures were less than the occupational exposure limits outlined in 10 CFR 20.1201, "Occupational Dose Limits for Adults" (MURR, 2013).19-170

NW IVChapter ISOOE hpe 9.0NWM,-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev. QA Review 19.3.9 Connected Action - University Reactor Network Irradiation of LEU targets at the university research reactors is key Component of the NWMI process. For a specific university reactor to irradiate LEU targets for NWMI, an amendment to the university's 10 CFR 50 NRC license and an analysis of site-specific environmental impacts related to such an amendment would be required. For the purposes of complying with NEPA's requirements to analyze connected actions, the following sections describe the affected environment at each of the proposed university reactors.

19.3.9.1 University of Missouri Research Reactor The University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) is a pressurized, reflected, light-water moderated, open pool-type research reactor. The reactor is used to conduct experiments, irradiate materials, and produce isotopes for use in various fields of medicine. In addition, the reactor is used for training, research, and demonstration purposes associated with undergraduate and graduate-level degree programs.

MURR is located in University Research Park, an extension of the Missouri University-Columbia, Missouri and is licensed to the Board of Curators of the Missouri University. A detailed description of the facilities can be found in the Facility Operating License No. R-103 (NRC Docket 50-186), which will expire on October 2026 (MU, 2006b).

MURR is located in Columbia, Missouri, approximately 201 km (125 mi) east of Kansas City and 201 km (125 mi) west of St Louis. The site is 2.4 km (1.5 mi) south of U.S. Interstate 70, just west of Research Park Drive. The Missouri River lies 13.6 km (8.5 mi) west of the site. The site is located 6.4 km (4 mi) northwest of the Discovery Ridge site. Specifically, MURR is located is 1.6 km (1 mi) southwest of the main MU campus. The site's latitude and longitude is 380 55' 53" north and 920 20' 31" west. MURR is situated on a 3.0 ha (7.4-acre) lot in the central portion of the University Research Park, a 34.0 ha (84-acre) tract of land approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) southwest of the MU main campus. The campus is situated in the southern portion of Columbia. The University Research Park consists of low-occupancy research buildings. Personnel are currently working in facilities located within 457.2 m ( 1,500 ft) of the alternative site. A detailed MURR site evaluation is provided in Section 19.5.2.3.

19.3.9.2 Oregon State University Radiation Center Complex The OSU Radiation Center complex is an approximately 47,000 ft2 facility and is comprised of three buildings including OSTR, Advanced Thermal Hydraulics Research Laboratory (ATHRL), and Radiation Center Building.

• OSTR or Reactor Building is located in a four-story building located on the north side of the Radiation Center. The Reactor Building contains primarily the main Reactor Bay, the Reactor Control Room, space for reactor mechanical equipment, two research laboratories, office space for the Reactor Operations Staff, and a small conference room.

• ATHRL is a high-bay facility attached to the east side of the Reactor Building and houses experimental test loops. There is no access between the ATHRL and Radiation Center

• Radiation Center Building houses classrooms, offices, a wide variety of radioisotope laboratories, a cobalt-60 irradiation facility, a large inventory of nuclear instrumentation useful for research applications as well as for radiation protection, and a number of supporting facilities. Access to the Reactor Building from the Radiation Center can be made through two secure locations.19-171

N NW.MEICSOPEChpe1 NWMI-2013-021, Rev.

haper 9.0 - Environmental Review OA The OSTR is a light-water-cooled, graphite-reflected reactor using uranium-zirconium hydride fuel elements. These fuel elements are placed in a circular grid with 16 feet of water over the top of the core.

The reactor has an authorized maximum steady-state thermal power of 1.1 MW and may be pulsed to a peak power of over 2,000 MW. A detailed description of the reactor facility can be found in their Facility Operating License No. R-106 (NRC Docket 50-243), which will expire on August 2028 (NRC, 2008b).

The Radiation Center Complex is located on the east side of 35th Street and the north side of South Jefferson Way both two lane roads. 3 5 th street provides access to the Complex and intersects to the south approximately 0.75 miles with combined U.S. Highway 20 and Oregon State Highway 34. Highway 20 and Highway 34 separate approximately 1.25 miles to the east with Highway 20 continuing approximately 11 miles where proceed to Albany Oregon and intersects with U.S. Interstate 5. Highway 34 intersects U. S. Interstate 5 approximately 8.25 miles to the east. To the west Highway 20 and Highway 34 separate approximately 5 miles with Highway 20 continuing approximately 46 miles to the coast were it terminates at Newport, Oregon. Highway 34 continues approximates 57 miles to the southwest where it terminates in Waldport, Oregon.

19.3.9.3 Third Reactor The third reactor will be similar to the OSTR and will located on a University campus.19-172

I.:T.PESChapter NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA

I.,,. IVChpter19.0 - Environmental Review 19.4 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, AND DECOMMISSIONING This section provides an analysis of the impacts of the RPF construction, operation, and decommissioning. Overall impact rankings are given to each environmental resource evaluated. Unless otherwise defined, criteria followed the guidance given in NRC Impact Rankings at 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, Footnote 3, as follows:

° Small - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource

° Moderate - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource

° Large - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource 19.4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources 19.4.1.1 Land Use This section presents the evaluation of impacts of the proposed action to land use in the 8 km (5-mi) ROI, as described in Section 19.3.

Impacts on land use were assessed based on the consistency of the proposed action with State and local plans and on compatibility with land uses in and near to the proposed RPF site. Impacts include effects from (1) activities associated with construction, including excavation, grading, placement of fill material, temporary staging and construction laydown, and construction of permanent features; (2) activities associated with operations, including potential operational disturbances; and (3) activities associated with decommissioning a nuclear medical isotope production facility, which are similar to construction except for the final handling and disposition of radioactive materials and wastes.

Factors considered for determining impacts involving changes to the affected environment are discussed in Section 19.3. The proposed RPF is considered to have an impact on land use if its presence:

• Results in land use change on a short- and/or long-term basis

• Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment

• Involves substantial secondary land use impacts (e.g., population changes, effects on public facilities/infrastructure)

• Conflicts with existing or planned land uses within Discover Ridge or the ROI

• Conflicts or is incompatible with the objectives, policies, or guidance of State and local land use plans (e.g., Discovery'Ridge Master Plan and Protective Covenants [MU, 2009], "Columbia Imagined, The Plan for How We Live & Grow" [City of Columbia, 2013c], Boone Coiunti Master Plan [Boone County, 1996])

• Conflicts or is incompatible with administrative designations or special land uses

• Conflicts or is incompatible with agricultural resources or facilities and mineral resources Impacts to land use are related to the amount of land disturbed and the type of construction on the land.

The proposed RPF would be approximately 106.7 x 56.4 m (350 x 185 ft) and stands 19.8 m (65 ft) tall above grade (maximum). The actual RPF building would occupy a rectangular area approximately 213 x 91 mn(700 x 300 ft) at the outer perimeter and cover approximately 1.95 ha (4.8 acres) on Lot 15 of Discovery Ridge.

19-1 73

NO hES MIALCatr1NWMI Chaper 9.0*.-20o3-o21

-Environmental Rev.

Review OA The land on which Discovery Ridge is sited is zoned for commercial agriculture; however, Missouri, via the MU, has acquired and set aside this area to achieve the research park mission. Therefore, construction of the proposed RPF would be consistent with land use at the park. Discovery Ridge is not mined or used for any mineral resources. Construction of the proposed RPF was found to be consistent with the objectives, policies, and guidance of the Discover Ridge, Columbia, and Boone County land use plans.

19.4.1.1.1 Impacts of Construction The entire 3 ha (7.4 acres) of Lot 15 would be directly and permanently disturbed to construct and support the RPF. Construction staging activities could also occur along Discovery Drive bordering the lot and the adjacent Discovery Ridge Lot 14. Staging activities would be temporary and would cease after construction of the facility. After the facility is built, landscaping would mitigate disturbances caused during construction on the lot, both exterior of the perimeter fence and from the perimeter fence to the perimeter of the building. The facility would retain the amount of undeveloped open space and developed landscaped areas in accordance with the Discovery Ridge covenants (MU, 2009). This includes maintaining a minimum of 30 percent of the site (preferably 35 percent) as open for landscaping and not covered by buildings or paving for access, circulation, loading, or parking.

Direct impacts from construction activities would occur as ground disturbance. Indirect impacts associated with construction activities could affect Discovery Drive. These impacts (e.g., broken curbing and pot holes) would be temporary since they could be mitigated through road repairs. Overall, because direct and indirect impacts are constrained to those typically associated with construction activities necessary to build any facility, they would be small.

19.4.1.1.2 Impacts of Operation After the RPF is constructed, no additional land would be disturbed during operational activities.

Operational activities would not interfere with any surrounding land uses or change land uses near the facility. Operations activities would not interfere with any mineral resource uses. The addition of 98 employees to Discovery Ridge for facility operation would not result in a population change that would impact current facilities or infrastructure, or result in any subsequent changes to land use to accommodate the increase. Thus, both direct and indirect impacts to land use from operations would be small.

19.4.1.1.3 Impacts of Decommissioning From a land use perspective, decommissioning activities (except for the final handling and disposition of radioactive materials and wastes) are assumed to be similar to construction activities. The facility would be demolished, and resultant land would return to commercial agriculture/open space. Facility modification and demolition activities both require (de)construction and staging activities. Thus, facility demolition activities would result in impacts similar to construction. No additional ground disturbance would occur if the nuclear components of the building were decommissioned and removed, and if facility modification was confined to the interior of the building.

Under decommissioning, an additional indirect impact would be an increase in landfilled materials from demolition activities for any materials that could not be recycled. This impact would not be significant from the proposed RPF in comparison to similar remodeling or demolition activities in the ROI. Impacts from final handling and disposition of radioactive materials and wastes under the decommissioning scenario are discussed in Section 19.4.10.19-174

liE ChaptrI1 Chapter 19.0 -WM,-20o3-021, Environmental Rev.

ReviewOA

. .NORTHWEST MIEDICAL ISOTOPES With the land at Discovery Ridge designated as a research park, it is reasonable to assume that the land would not be returned to commercial agriculture use and the park would remain a dedicated industrial/research area for the foreseeable future. The RPF would be used for some time (20 to 40 years) and then demolished at the end of its useful life. As such, direct and indirect impacts to land use that can be reasonably assumed from decommissioning activities are anticipated to be similar to the impacts associated with construction, which would be small.

19.4.1.2 Visual and Aesthetics Resources This section describes the visual and aesthetic impacts of the proposed RPF during the phases of construction, operations, and decommissioning. Potential impacts to viewers over the facility lifespan are addressed. Satellite imagery was used to identify populations that would have views of the RPF. Those with views on a routine basis would be Discovery Park employees (currently RADII and ABC Laboratories), MU personnel associated with South Farm, residents at nearby homes or businesses, U.S. Highway 63 commuters, and regular travelers on the roads surrounding Discovery Ridge. Those with intermittent or a limited-basis view would be Discovery Ridge visitors, Nifong Park and Perry Phillips Lake users, and travelers passing through the area.

Eight viewpoints were identified and used to conduct a GIS visual analysis to determine facility impacts to potential viewers and viewsheds. Viewsheds are areas of land or water visible from a fixed vantage point (see Section 19.3.1 .2). Using vantage points, viewsheds are calculated using the Spatial Analyst Viewshed tool in ESRI ArcMap 10.

A calculated viewshed shows all that an observer can see from that point. The tool does not take into consideration vegetation, buildings, fences, or other obstructions, but assumes the view is completely unobstructed, with the exception of intervening topography (e.g., a mountain). Thus, all calculated RPF viewsheds conservatively represent maximum viewsheds because vegetation and structures are found throughout the ROI. The calculated observer is 183 cm (6 ft) tall and standing at ground level, a conservative height for analysis purposes. Using the combination of an unobstructed view and a tall person as model parameters, the calculated viewsheds are exceptionally conservative regarding the views that would be seen by a typical viewer. The viewsheds from the eight viewpoints were calculated and mapped, and the maps analyzed.

Factors considered in determining if the proposed RPF would have a significant impact to visual and aesthetic resources include the extent or degree to which the facility would:

• Introduce physical features that are substantially out of character with adjacent developed areas

• Alter a site so that a sensitive viewing point or vista is obstructed or adversely affected, or if the scale or degree of change appears as a substantial, obvious, or disharmonious modification of the overall view

• Partially or completely obstruct views of the existing landscape

• Create visual intrusions (e.g., radar towers, cooling towers, effluent stacks) to the existing landscape character

• Require the removal of natural or built barriers, screens, or buffers, thus enabling lower quality viewscapes to be seen

• Alter historical, archaeological, or cultural properties, other areas of a special land-use category, or the character of the property's setting when that character contributes to the property's significance

• Create visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the site or alter its setting

• Be inconsistent with the visual resource policies of the Discover.y Ridge Master Plan and C'ovenants (MU, 2009)19-175

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review

' .,.:'NORPIWE MEOICAL0AISTPE 19.4.1.2.1 Visual Impacts Figure 19-42 shows an artist's rendition of the proposed RPF to demonstrate what the completed facility would look like on Lot 15 of Discovery Ridge.

Figure 19-42. Radioisotope Production Facility Visualization Photographs of RADIL and ABC Laboratories are provided in Figure 19-43 and Figure 19-44, respectively.

The RPF in design and character, as shown in the artist rendition, and as approved by the design review committee operating under the Master Plan and Covenants, would be similar in aesthetics to these buildings. Because the facility is being sited on an open space, there are no natural or built barriers, screens, or buffers that would require removal; therefore, no lower quality viewscapes would become visible. As discussed in the Section 19.3.6, there are no historical, archaeological, or cultural properties or other areas of a special land-use category in, near, or associated with Lot 15 in Discovery Ridge, or in the immediate area, with which the proposed RPF would be considered visually incompatible.

Figure 19-43. Research and Diagnostic Laboratory Facility Located at Discovery Ridge 19-1 76

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

...,NWMI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Figure 19-44. ABC Laboratories Facility Located at Discovery Ridge The visual study, review of photos from the eight observer viewpoints, and the artist rendition of the facility (Figure 19-42) provide significant data to determine the visual impacts with regard to partially or completely obstructing views of the existing landscape or creating intrusions in the existing landscape character, as follows:

• At its tallest point, the RPF's exhaust stacks, at 22.9 m (75 ft) total height and 3 m (10 ft) above roof level, would be the facility' s tallest fixed feature viewable from a distance. While steam, under certain meteorological conditions might be seen coming from the stacks, it would dissipate quickly and is not discussed further in this section. As a viewer observes the RPF from a vantage point and then continues to move closer to the facility, more of the facility would come into view, until the entire facility is viewable. Figure 19-18 through Figure 19-25 show various viewpoints toward Lot 15 in Discovery Ridge from distances between 0.4 and 4.4 km (0.25 and 2.72 mi).

• When the RPF is completed, if the viewer is located on Lot 15, close to the facility, and expecting to look through or around the facility to the other side, the facility would partially or completely obstruct views of the surrounding landscape. In this circumstance, having a blocked or obstructed view would be an expected impact of placing a facility in an open space where no facility existed before. Because the land was designated for use as a research park, it is reasonable to expect that at some point buildings supporting research would be constructed. As such, observers who are located at close range to the facility would have views of the facility, and their views toward landscapes on the other side of the facility would be partially or completely obstructed by the facility.

To determine the visual impacts associated with fully or partially obstructed views from further distances, views toward the facility from the eight viewpoints were analyzed with Spatial Analyst Viewshed tool in ESRI ArcMap 10. The resultant viewshed is shown in Figure 19-45. The figure shows the areas from which an observer can see the stacks on the RPF. Again, this analysis does not account for screening effects from structures and vegetation, and provides the maximum potential viewsheds from the observer points.

19-1 77

NW NWMI

• ,p,"*N**V*TMEDnICAL S*f[

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review

• Photopoints A RPF CJ 75' Stack is Potentially Visible within this Area

)* 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF 36§ 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 2.7 Miles  !

Figure 19-45. Stack Potentially Visible Areas19-178

NWM*LU I~f : : WI21-2,Rv oA Chapter 19.0 -Environmental Review 19.4.1.2.2 Impacts of Construction The most noticeable impact to viewers would be during the construction phase. Lot 15 of Discovery Ridge would transition from an area of open space to a fully constructed facility with surrounding landscaping. During this initial phase, changes at the lot would be significant and noticeable. The changes would not be out of character with the research park, but the changes would seem sudden and dramatic, particularly to viewers familiar with Discovery Ridge. Specific activities at the lot would be varied on a daily basis, but would be similar to general facility construction project activities, including:

• Heavy equipment would be brought onsite

• Materials would be staged on the lot and in the immediate area around the lot

• Workers would use equipment for excavation, grading, and building activities

• Cranes may be onsite to lift and place materials and components in the facility and on the lot As the facility progresses toward completion, there would be less large equipment and construction personnel on the exterior of the building as work proceeds to interior construction-related activities (e.g.,

electrical installation, sheetrocking, and painting). The final exterior work would require equipment and personnel for grading, paving, and landscaping. When the building is complete, the view from the street and from the other facilities in the park is anticipated to be similar to the views one can see of the RADLL and ABC Laboratories buildings shown conceptually in Figure 19-42, and in Figure 19-43 and Figure 19-44.

As discussed in Section 19.3.1.2, the Discovery, Ridge Master Plan and C'ovenants (MU, 2009) addresses visual resources and scenic considerations throughout the plan's building and design requirements. At a minimum, compliance with the following covenants and review by the Discovery Ridge Design Committee would ensure that the RPF visual impact is compatible with the character of the property setting (MU, 2009):

• 5.4, Minimum Open Space and Landscaped Area

• 5.5, Building Height

• 5.6, Exterior Appearance of Buildings

• 5.8, Parking and Loading Areas

• 5.12, Landscape Design

• 5.13, Site Lighting

• 5.14, Storage Areas and Fences While the visual impacts are most notable during the construction phase, over time, as viewers become more aware of the activities Discovery Ridge, view the activities more frequently, and the building progresses to completion, the building's presence becomes less noticeable. Because the proposed RPF would be in context with Discover Ridge and its setting, it is unlikely that the average viewer would see the facility as an isolated structure or a distraction on the overall landscape. In context, impacts of construction on visual resources are considered small.

19.4.1.2.3 Impacts of Operations The RPF would not generate electricity and thus does not maintain any power transmission lines. While steam might be seen coming from the stacks under certain meteorological conditions, it would dissipate quickly and is not discussed further in this section. Operation of the RPF has no visual impact on anything external to the building, including the aesthetics of the surrounding area. The facility would look the same on a daily basis during the operations phase. The impacts to visual resources would be restricted to the impact the facility has on the landscape, which is small.19-179

• • . *NORIWVEST lviChptr ME~IICM ISOTOPES Chptr1MWI-0I-21 ev. Q 9.0 -Environmental Review 19.4.1.2.4 Impacts of Decommissioning At the end of its lifespan, the RPF would be demolished and returned to commercial agriculture use or open space. Facility demolition would require activities similar to construction activities. For example, heavy equipment would be used, a crane might be needed to remove interior components to transport, and a number of personnel would be onsite. There would be considerable activity occurring daily as the facility is demolished, until the end result is obtained. From a visual and aesthetics resource perspective, facility demolition activities are not uniquely different from construction activities. As such, visual impacts during decommissioning would be similar to those seen in the construction phase, and are considered small.

19.4.2 Air Quality and Noise 19.4.2.1 Air Quality The proposed RPF site is located in Boone County, Missouri, which is part of the EPA Region 7. The Missouri DEQ is the regulatory agency responsible to protect and enhance the quality of the Missouri environment and its citizens, while the MDNR operates an extensive network of ambient air monitors to comply with the Clean Air Act and its amendments.

The ambient air quality monitoring network for Missouri includes State and local air monitoring stations, special purpose monitoring stations, and National Core (NCore) multi-pollutant monitoring stations consistent with requirements in Federal regulation 40 CFR 58.10. The only DNR air monitor in Boone County is located at Finger Lakes and monitors for 03 from May to October each year. The MDNR continuous air monitors nearest to the proposed RPF site, which are also in similar urban locales, are in the following locations:

• Mark Twain State Park - In Stoutsville, Monroe County, approximately 103 km (64 mi) northeast of the proposed RPF site; monitors for SO 2, 03, and inhalable particulates PM-10 and PM-2.5

• El Dorado Springs - In Cedar County, approximately 261 km (162 mi) southwest of the proposed RPF site; monitors for NO 2, inhalable particulate PM-2.5, and 03 Both air monitor locations are well outside of the ROI.

The EPA established NAAQS for six common pollutants (also referred to as "criteria" pollutants).

Missouri DEQ monitors for CO, NO2 , 03, total suspended particulate, inhalable particulates (PM-10 and PM-2.5), and Pb. Other pollutants or compounds are measured as part of air toxics or particulate speciation sampling. Legal descriptions of the standards are provided in 10 CSR 10-6, "Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods and Air Pollution Control Regulation for the Entire State of Missouri." The NAAQS are summarized in Table 19-27.

Gaseous effluents at the proposed RPF would originate from several sources, including construction equipment, isotope production, fuel combustion from heating and generating systems, and decommissioning activities. RPF operations would generate gaseous effluents. The permits required for release and their status are listed in Table 19-4. The anticipated gaseous effluents and their associated air quality parameters for construction, operations, and decommissioning are discussed in the following subsections.

19-1 80

IUVVCapter19.0

. .NORl'1WEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES ChptrMWI-0I-21 ev. O

- Environmental Review 19.4.2.1.1 Air Impacts from Construction Construction activities result in localized increases in air emissions. Earthmoving, excavation, clearing, pile driving, erection, batch plant operation, and construction-related traffic generate fugitive dust and fine particulate matter that potentially impact both on-site workers and off-site residents of the community. Vehicles and engine-driven equipment (e.g., generators and compressors) generate combustion product emissions such as CO, NOx, and, to a lesser extent, S02. Painting, coating, and similar operations also generate emissions from the use of VOCs.

People living near or working at or near construction sites may be subject to the physical impacts of construction activities. Activities associated with the use of construction equipment may result in varying amounts of dust, air emissions, noise, and vibration. The magnitude and area of extent of the impacts from these emissions depends on atmospheric conditions at the time of the activity. The magnitude of these potential impacts is typically related to specific construction controls and the proximity of the site to populated areas. Contractors, vendors, and subcontractors are required to adhere to appropriate Federal and State occupational health and safety regulations. These regulations set limits to protect workers from adverse conditions, including air emissions.

19.4.2.1.1.1 Fugitive Dust Earth-moving activities involve operation of heavy construction equipment on exposed soil. Methods for calculating fugitive dust emissions for earth-moving activities outlined in EPA AP 42, Conmpilation of Air PollutantEmission Factors, Volume 1, Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 13, "Miscellaneous Sources" (EPA, 2010) were used. Activity rates (A) for earth-moving were derived from information on hours of vehicle operation, tons of material moved, or vehicle miles traveled.

E = A x EF x (1-ER/100) where:

E = emissions A = activity rate EF = emission factor ER =overall emission reduction efficiency, percentage Values for these parameters are expected to evolve over time as design parameters are refined. Therefore, conservative parameter values based on the notional facility designs were established to bound PM-10 and PM-2.5 activity rates. Activity rates for each parameter are provided in Table 19-51.

19-1 81

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-51. Activity Parameters for Earth Moving

£ B- 6 6, 0 . - B -.

Bulldozing hr 1 100 NA NA hr Loading of earth haulers from front 1 60 10,886 12,000 lnader.s Compacting hr 1 80 NA NA Sources: EDF-3 124-0001, 2015, Estimate of Excavationfor the NWMI Radioisotope ProductionFacility, Rev. 3, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, February 2, 2015.

EDF-3 124-0004, 2015, Calculationfor the Determinationof Fugitive Dust during ConstructionActivities from Construction Equipment, Rev. 1, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, February 3, 2015.

NA = not applicable.

Equations recommended by the EPA (EPA, 2010, Section 13.2, Table 13.2.3-1) for dust-generating operations using heavy equipment on exposed soils were used to calculate emission factors for different sizes of particulate matter. Emission factors for earth moving activities were based on guidance (EPA, 2010) and are provided in Table 19-52 (EDF-3 124-0004, Calculationfor the Determination of Fugitive Dust during ConstructionActivities from Construction Equipment). The total PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions from earth moving activities during construction presented in Table 19-52 are summarized in Table 19-53.

Table 19-52. PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emission Factors for Earth-Moving Activities During Construction kg/hr 4.05E-01 4.17E-01 Bulldozing lb/hr 8.92E-01 9.1 9E-0 1 Loading of earth haulers from front aIkg/t 2.96E-02 4.48E-03 loaders alb/ton 5.92E-02 8.96E-03 Copcigkg/hr Copciglb/hr 4.05E-01 8.92E-01 4.17E-01 9.19E-01 Source: EDF-3 124-0004, 2015, Calculationfor the Determination of Fugitive Dust during ConstructionActivities from Construction Equipment, Rev. 1, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, February 3, 2015.

a Per ton of material moved.

PM-2.5 particulate VMT - vehicle miles traveled particulate matter, matter, 2.5 10 *t.*t.

=

PM-b1 = VKM - vehicle kilometer traveled 19-182

., . NM, NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review 19.4.2.1.1.2 Fugitive Dust Emissions from Table 19-53. Annual PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emissions Wind Erosion of Bare Ground from Earth-Moving Activities During Construction Areas where wind erosion of bare ground could occur during construction include all disturbed areas whether temporary or permanent, including clear and grub areas, roadways, rail lines, power lines, piping, batch kg 1.4E+03 2.7E+02 plant footprint, gravel pit, and stockpiles.

Equations and calculation steps for wind t 1.4 27 erosion of bare ground from EPA (2010),

Section 13.2.5, were used. PM-10 and PM-2.5 PM-2.5 = particulate matter, 2.5 *t.

emissions for wind erosion of bare ground PM-10 = particulate matter, 10 *t.

during construction are provided in Table 19-54 (EDF-3 124-0006, Determination Table 19-54. Annual PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emissions of Wind-Blown Dust during Construction from Wind Erosion of Bare Ground Activities).

19.4.2.1.1.3 Summary of Total Particulate Matter Emission from Construction Activities lb 160 24 The total release of particulate matter (PM- 10 and PM-2.5) from construction of the facility presented in Table 19-53 and Table 19-54 is tons 0.082 0.012 summarized in Table 19-55. Implementation Source: EDF-3 124-0006, 2014, Determinationof Wind-of controls and limits at the source of Blown Dust during ConstructionActivities, Rev. 0, emissions on the construction site would result Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

in a reduction of impacts offsite. PM-2.5 = particulate matter, 2.5 *t.

PM-10 = particulate matter, 10 *t.

Table 19-55. Total PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emissions from Construction S - S S S Equipment 1.4E+03 3.0E+03 1.5 1.4 270 6.0E+02 0.27 0.30 Totals 1473 3160 1.6 1.5 281 624 0.28 0.31 PM-2.5 = particulate matter, 2.5 *t.

PM- 10 = particulate matter, 10 *i.

Specific mitigation measures to control fugitive dust may include any or all of the following:

• Stabilizing construction roads and spoil piles

• Limiting speeds on and periodically watering unpaved construction roads

• Covering haul trucks when loaded or unloaded

• Minimizing material handling (e.g., drop heights, double-handling)

• Phased grading to minimize the area of disturbed soils

• Revegetating road medians and slopes 19-1 83

NWMI-201 3-021, Rev. 0A

• . NOIWnSTMICtSTP Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.4.2.1.1.4 Vehicle Emissions - Criteria Pollutants On-road vehicles - On-road vehicle emissions estimates were generated for construction vehicles used for hauling and delivery of materials and for the construction workforce traveling to and from the construction site. The EMFAC201 1 model was used to calculate on-road vehicle emission factors for this period. The model estimates vehicle emission factors based on fuel type, vehicle type, vehicle speed, and the climatological normal for temperature and humidity.

EMFAC201 1 is the latest installment of the EMFAC series of models, which is the California Air Resources Board tool for estimating emissions from on-road vehicles. EMFAC201 1 was used to calculate on-road and non-road vehicle emission factors for the construction period. The model produces an estimation of vehicle emission factors based on fuel type, vehicle type, vehicle speed, and climatological normal for temperature and humidity.

On-road vehicle emissions were calculated using emission rate in grams (g)/(vehicle miles traveled) +

g/day(idle) + g/day(starting). On-road vehicles considered for the construction period were dump trucks, concrete trucks, asphalt trucks, and general delivery trucks. For workforce travel during construction, light-duty gas vehicles, light-duty gas trucks, and light-duty diesel trucks were considered. A round trip value of 64.4 km (40 mi) and a vehicle split of 60 percent light-duty gas vehicles, 30 percent light-duty gas trucks, and 10 percent light-duty diesel trucks were assumed for workforce travel.

Total mileage estimates for on-road vehicles during the construction period are shown in Table 19-56 (EDF-3 124-0005, On-Road Emissionsfor Vehicles during Construction). Estimates of the on-road vehicle emissions for criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2 ) are provided in Table 19-57 (EDF-3 124-0005); emissions are presented for an estimated construction period spanning 17 months.

Table 19-56. Total Mileage Estimates for On-Road Vehicles Earth haulers (dump trucks) (4) Material hauling (3 months) 4,258 2,646 Asphalt trucks (2) Asphalt hauling (14 months) 811 504 Workforce travel (60) Commute - light duty gas vehicles (17 months) 1,421,373 883,200 Workforce travel (10O) Commute - light duty diesel trucks (17 months) 236,895 147,200 Source: EDF-3 124-0005, 2014, On-Road Emissions for Vehicles during Construction, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc.,

Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.19-184

• ~NWMINWIThWESI MEOCASOOPt S

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Table 19-57. On-Road Vehicle Emissions (During Construction)

S 6 6 - S - 0 9~ - 9 9 S S 5 6 6 6 9 9 S S Light duty Gas 1,500 3,400 140 300 320,000 700,000 2.1 4.6 1.9 4.2 3.2 7.1 autos Light duty Diesel 49 110 99 220 52,000 120,000 9.0 20 8.3 18 0.50 1.1 trucks Earth Diesel 1.8 3.9 21 47 3,3000 7,200 0.22 0.49 0.21 0.45 0.031 0.069 haulers Asphalt Diesel 1.1 2.5 9.3 21 1,000 2,200 0.056 0.12 0.050 0.11 0.010 0.022 trucks li iii]i*!i 16.8,:i=* 370 I 1. 316i~ i 6.0i* 13.2;+*iii i

Totals (t) (tons) 3.50 3.86 0.72 0.79 597.44 658.70 1.68 1.85 1.52 1.68 6.0 6.61 E-02 E-02 E-02 E-02 E-03 E-03 Source: EDF-3124-0005, 2014, On-Road Emissionsfor Vehicles during Construction. Rev. 0, Portage, Inc.,

Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

PM-2.5 = particulate matter, 2.5 ps.

PM-10 = particulate matter, 10 *t.

Off-road vehicles - Off-road vehicle emissions were estimated for diesel-fueled construction equipment used for moving, grading, and compacting earthen materials using emission factors for off-road construction based on values from the EPA NONROAD model. Model emission factors were based on g/hr. These values were combined with the number of pieces of equipment and hours of operation to estimate the total pounds released for each activity. The results are shown in Table 19-58 (EDF-3 124-0009, Off-Road Emissions During Construction).

While emissions from construction activities and equipment are unavoidable, the implementation of mitigation measures minimizes the impacts to local ambient air quality and the nuisance impacts to the public in proximity to the project. Mitigation measures may include any or all of the following:

• Implementing controls to minimize daily emissions such as reducing engine idle time, using cleaner fuels (e.g., ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel or biodiesel), installing pollution control equipment on construction equipment (e.g., diesel oxidation catalysts and particulate matter filters), and curtailing or controlling the time of day construction activities are performed

• Performing proper maintenance of construction vehicles to maximize efficiency and minimize emissions19-185

• ;:.:IIA il NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-58. Air Pollutant Emissions Factors for Off-Road Construction Equipment

• 0

• S

• S S S S S S Bulldozer 1 100 140 310 19 41 6.3 14 4.7 10 13,000 29,000 23 51 Excavators 1 60 49 110 7.5 17 2.4 5.4 1.8 4 4,500 10,000 8.1 18 Graders 1 80 66 150 10 22 3.2 7.2 2.4 5.4 6,000 13,000 11 24 Asphalt roller 1 80 100 230 14 31 4.7 10 3.5 7.7 9,700 21,000 17 38 Source: EDF-3124-0009, 2014, Off-Road Emissions during Construction, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

PM-2.5 = particulate matter, 2.5 *t.

PM-10 = particulate matter, 10 It.

19.4.2.1.1.5 Emissions Modeling Emissions from construction activities were evaluated using AERSCREEN, Version 11126. This screening model uses standard defaults for meteorology and terrain values. Modeled emissions included PM-10, PM-2.5, CO, NOx, and sulfur oxides (SOs). The model estimated ambient air concentrations at 112 m (368 ft) (nearest road) and 375 m (1,230 ft) (near residence). These values were then compared to relevant Missouri and EPA air quality standards. This comparison is summarized in Table 19-59. In summary, unmitigated air emissions during construction are below Federal and State emissions standards for all parameters except PM-10 at 375 m (1,230ft) (closest residential receptor). The standard mitigation methods described previously would be used to ensure that the PM- 10 levels at 112 m (368 ft) remain below the air quality parameters (6 CSR Division 10) (EDF-3 124-0014, Emission Modeling for ConstructionActivities using AERSCREEN).

Table 19-59. Anticipated Gaseous Effluents and Their Associated Air Quality Parameters for Construction PM-10 W, C, OR 1,483 3,270 2.95 .tg/m 3 1.21 l[tg/m 3 b150 *tg/m 3 NOx C, OR 646 1,422 6 p SOx C, OR 107 236 0.008 ppm 0.009 ppm f0.0'75 ppm Source: EDF-3124-0014, 2014, Emission Modeling for ConstructionActivities using AERSCREEN, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

aW = wind-blown dust, C = construction activities, OR = emissions from off-road construction activities.

b 24-hr, not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over three years.

24-hr, 98th percentile, averaged over three years.

d1-hr, 98"' percentile, averaged over three years.

e8-hr, not to be exceeded more than once per year.

11-hr, 99th percentile of 1-hr daily maximum concentrations, averaged over three years.

PM-2.5 = particulate matter, 2.5 *i.

PM- 10 = particulate matter, 10 Ix.19-186

( W I NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.4.2.1.2 Air Quality Impacts from Operations Operation activities may result in a slight increase in vehicle traffic in the immediate area of the proposed RPF, which could cause a slight increase in internal combustion emissions such as GO, NOx and, to a lesser extent, SO 2. Operation of the emergency standby generator would also result in a slight increase in emission products, but due to intermittent use, these emissions would be low. The majority of effluent would be from radioisotope production and the release of a small amount of gaseous fission products.

The offgas system is designed to filter and/or retain these isotopes in the facility until they are less than the established allowable concentrations for residential receptors. Each of these emissions is discussed in the following subsections.

19.4.2.1.2.1 Stack Characteristics The RPF is designed to have five emission points that would each vent different areas of the process. The Zone I, Zones II/III, and the laboratory stacks would be located in the northwest corner of the facility (Figure 19-9) and extend 22.9 m (75 It) high, which is 3 m (10 ft) above the building roof. The locations of the process steam and HVAC boilers are not shown on Figure 19-9. A summary of the five emission sources is provided below.

Zone I Exhaust air flow rate: 534 m3/min (18,850 ft3 )/min)

Diameter: 86 cm (34 in.)

Exhaust velocity: 911 mn/min (2,990 ft/min)

Release frequency: Continuous Effluent temperature: Ambient Zone II/Ill Exhaust air flow rate: 999.5 m3/min (35,300 ft 3/min)

Diameter: 117 cm (46 in.)

Exhaust velocity: 933 rn/min (3,060 ft/min)

Release frequency: Continuous Effluent temperature: Ambient Laboratory Exhaust Exhaust air flow rate: 467 m3/min (16,500 ft3/min)

Diameter: 81 cm (32 in.)

Exhaust velocity: 900 rn/min (2,955 ft/min)

Release frequency: Continuous Effluent temperature: Ambient Process Steam Boiler Exhaust air flow rate: 39 m3/min (1,386 ft3/min)

Diameter: 30.4 cm (12 in.)

Exhaust velocity: 538 rn/min (1,765 ft/min)

Release frequency: Continuous Effluent temperature: 29°C (85 0 F)

IIVAC Boiler Exhaust air flow rate: 40.6 m3/min (1,435 ft 3/min)

Diameter: 30.4 cm (12 in.)

Exhaust velocity: 557 mn/min (1,827 ft/min)

Release frequency: Continuous Effluent temperature: 29°C (85°F) 19-1 87

.*,,.. 1IUVIVIlI*INWMI-2013-021,

.i*;.*!Chapter Chpe 19.0- Environmental Rev. 0A Review

• .* * " IS ffiUTU~mCA.

IS1 19.4.2.1.2.2 Gaseous Control System Description Process exhaust offgases would be treated in two subsystems for the process offgas components and for the primary exhaust system for the hot cell(s). Each process offgas subsystem would treat the process offgas components separately to prevent mixing of waste constituents. A detailed description of the gaseous control system is provided in Section 19.2.3.2.12.

19.4.2.1.2.3 Releases from Isotope Production Gaseous effluents from the RPF production process would originate from three main sources:

• Processing of irradiated targets for recovery and purification of 99Mo product

• Recovery of LEU from the target processing activities

° Recycling the recovered uranium for fabrication into new targets.

Process offgases are treated in two subsystems that serve the process offgas components and the primary exhaust system for the hot cell(s).

Each process offgas subsystem would treat the process offgas components separately to prevent mixing of waste constituents. (Addition information is provided in Section 19.2.3.2.12.) Gaseous effluents resulting from the production process are based on a 50-week/year operating schedule. There are no emissions of CO, Pb, 03, or particulate matter from the process exhaust system. All iodine fission products would be removed using absorption methods. Fission product gases such as xenon (Xe) and krypton (Kr) would be removed using gas trapping to allow decay. The resulting release would be maintained until levels are less than those defined in Table 2 of 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, "Annual Limits on Intake (ALI) and Derived Air Concentrations (DAC) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentration; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage."

19.4.2.1.2.4 Releases for Fuel Combustion Emergency generator - A diesel generator is used for temporary operation and safe shutdown of the system if required. The emergency generator would emit CO, NOR, PM, SO 2, VOCs, and CO2 , as summarized in Table 19-60, assuming less than 24 hr of operation a year, as required for routine maintenance (EDF-3124-0008, Emissionsfrom Natural Gas Boiler and Emergency Diesel GeneratorOperation).

Table 19-60. Emissions for Standby Emergency Diesel Generator 3.3 0.12 7.9 0.28 710 25 0.43 0.015 2.5 0.087 Standby diesel 2,600 de**

kW 8.7 19 21 45 1,800 4,000 1.1 2.4 6.4 14 generator dpryear 21 6 9 &0 4,00 9,0 7 5 5 4 Source: EDF-3124-0008, 2014, Emissions from Natural Gas Boiler Operation, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

aValues from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 standards for non-road diesel generators (Table 7 of 40 CFR 1039.102, "What exhaust emission standards and phase-in allowances apply for my engines in model year 2014 and earlier.").

b Values from EPA, 2010, Compilation of Air PollutantEmission Factors, Volume 1, Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP 42, Fifth Edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, D.C., 2010.

CAssumes 0.5% sulfur content.

d Assumes 24 hr/year operation for maintenance.

PM = particulate matter.19-188

NWM I NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Natural gas-fired boilers - Several combustion sources at the proposed RPF Table 19-61. Natural Gas-Fired Boiler would contribute to the gaseous effluents. Total Annual Emissions These combustion sources would be two natural gas-fired boilers using steam production and two natural gas-fired boilers using heating. In addition to these natural gas-fired heaters, a diesel-fired standby diesel CO 16 18 1.07 4.2 generator is proposed at the facility.

The two steam boilers and the two boilers used PM (total) 0.36 0.40 0.03 0.39 for heating would be released through two separate stacks. The boiler and generator all S02 0.12 0.13 0.009 0.030 emit CO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and CO2 . as summarized in Table 19-61 and Table 19-62 (EDF-3 124-0012, Emission Modelingfor Source: EDF-3 124-0008, 2014, Emissions from Natural Process and HVAC Boilers Using Gas Boiler Operation, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, AERSCREEN). The total annual emissions for Idaho, June 26, 2014.

natural gas-fired boilers are summarized PM = particulate matter.

Table 19-61 (EDF-3124-0008). VOC = volatile organic compound.

The AERSCREEN modeling system was used to assess the impacts of pollutants expected to be generated by the RPF from the production unit's four natural gas-fired heaters and the standby emergency diesel generator.

Table 19-62. AERSCREEN Model Total Annual Emissions CO 4.3E+00 18 7.2E+01 4.6E+0 1 4.0E+04 i!iU!!:1iii iiii! i CPM-IO (total) 3.9E-01 1.6 6.5E+00 4.2E+00 g150 evoc 2.8E-01 1.2 fco 2 6.1E+03 26,000 5.1 E-0 1 3.3E-01 NA Source: EDF-3 124-0012, 2015, Emission Modeling for Process and HVA C Boilers Using AERSCREEN, Rev. 1, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, February 4, 2015.

aIt was determined that the stack effluent maximum concentration was found at 136 m (446 ft).

b Based on 50 weeks/year.

cUsed as PM-10 values.

dAssumed to represent PM-2.5.

eNo NAAQS for volatile organic compounds.

SNo NAAQS for carbon dioxide.

£24-hr standard for PM-10 and PM-2.5 NA = not applicable. PM-10 = particulate matter, 10 *t.

NAAQS -- National Ambient Air Quality Standards. VOC = volatile organic compound.

PM-2.5 = particulate matter, 2.5 *t.

19-1 89

NW U IMVII i  : Chpeo9.0 -WI21-2,Rv.

Chpter Environmental ReviewQ Release point characteristics - Emissions and stack characteristics for each emission source are based on the design parameters, assumptions, and emission factors. Exhaust characteristics for the boilers are estimated based on heat input to the source, fuel consumption, and combustion calculations assuming 30 percent excess combustion air and 75 percent efficiency.

Exhaust gas temperatures for the natural gas-fired boiler are based on temperature data provided by boiler vendors for other similar projects. Exhaust from the natural gas-fired boiler is vented to the atmosphere through different 22.9 m (75 ft) stacks that are separate from the other three process stacks. Each stack is 4.9 m (10 ft) taller than the tallest point of the building.

The results of the AERSCREEN model, as it relates to the NAAQS, are shown in Table 19 62. The results are presented for the point of maximum concentration (136 m [446 ft]J) and at 375 m (1,230 ft),

which represents the distance to the closest residential receptor. As shown in Table 19 62, no pollutant is estimated to be released during normal RPF operations that exceeds the NAAQS based on AERSCREEN modeling, making the need for more detailed modeling unnecessary (EDF-3124-0012).

19.4.2.1.2.5 Vehicle and Other Emissions During the operations phase, vehicular air emissions would result from the commuting workforce and from routine deliveries to and from the proposed RPF. EMFAC20 11 was used to calculate on-road vehicle emission factors for this period. The model estimates vehicle emission factors based on fuel type, vehicle type, vehicle speed, and climatological normal for temperature and humidity.

The volume of traffic generated during operations would be considerably lower than that expected during construction. In additional, the lands on the RPF site are either developed surfaces (buildings, paved parking/access road) or consist of either agricultural or landscaped areas. Consequently, limiting routine vehicle use to paved areas would reduce the emission of fugitive dust. In summary, impacts from vehicular air emissions and fugitive dust during operations would be far less than during the construction phase.

Emissions data shown in Table 19-63 provide an estimate of vehicle emissions. Calculations used to obtain the estimates are based on an average workforce of 25-50 vehicles/day using a specific vehicle ratio (60 percent light-duty autos, 30 percent light-duty gas trucks, and 10 percent light-duty diesel trucks) and a round trip of 40 mi/day (EDF-3124-0013, On-Road Emissionsfor Vehicles During Operations).

Table 19-63. Vehicle Emissions During Operations Light duty autos Gas 540 1,200 48 110 110,000 250,000 0.74 1.62 0.67 1.48 1.1 2.5 Light duty trucks Diesel 17 39 35 77 19,000 41,000 3.2 7.0 2.9 6.5 0.18 0.39 Source: EDF-3124-0013, 2014, On-Road Emissionsfor Vehicles During Operation, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc.,

Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

PM-2.5 = particulate matter, 2.5 gi.

PM-10 = particulate matter, 10 gi.19-190

NOhWETMEDCLISOOE hpe NWM,-2013-02, Rev. OA

l Chapter 9.0 - Environmental Review 19.4.2.2 Monitoring Gaseous effluents from the RPF would be released through three separate stacks (Zone I stack, Zones 111III stack, and the laboratory stack) (discussed in Section 19.2.3.2.12). The airborne effluent exhaust from the Zone I stack is expected to contain measurable quantities of noble gas radioactivity (i.e., Xe and Kr).

There could also be radioactive iodine, radioactive particulates, and tritium in the airborne effluent exhaust. Due to the expectation of having measurable quantities of radioactivity in the airborne effluent and since malfunction of the exhaust carbon filtration system could result in a change in iodine radioactivity releases, the Zone I exhaust stack would be continuously monitored for gross gamma radioactivity. Grab sampling provisions would also be in place to support routine collection and analysis of gas and particulate samples from the Zone I exhaust stack to identify radionuclides, identify relative concentrations of radionuclides in the airborne effluent, and quantify radionuclide releases. No monitoring would occur for the HVAC and process steam boiler stacks.

19.4.2.2.1 Air Impacts from Decommissioning Following the cessation of operations, the facility would be decommissioned. Decommissioning activities, however, are assumed to be similar to construction activities and involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Effluents resulting from decommissioning are anticipated to be similar to the impacts associated with construction, with the addition of some particulate fission products radionuclides as a result of contamination of the equipment used in the process. The nonradioactive emissions should not exceed those defined in Table 2 of 10 CFR 20, Appendix B. Radioactive releases from contaminated equipment would be mitigated to acceptable levels using standard containment methods and procedures.

19.4.2.2.2 Visibility Impacts 19.4.2.2.2.1 Impacts of Construction People living near or working at or near construction sites may have some visibility impact due to construction activities. The use of construction equipment may result in varying amounts of dust and air emissions. The magnitude and area of extent of the impacts from these emissions depends on atmospheric conditions at the time of the activity. BMPs, including dust control suppressants, would be used to limit any impacts. Contractors, vendors, and subcontractors would be required to adhere to appropriate Federal and State occupational health and safety regulations. Given the above-mentioned factors, the visibility impacts associated with gaseous effluents during construction are considered small.

19.4.2.2.2.2 Impacts of Operation Quantities of gaseous effluent released from the facility during operations would be below regulatory limits, and these quantities are not anticipated to result in visibility impacts. As such, the visibility impacts associated with gaseous effluents during operation are considered small.

19.4.2.2.2.3 Impacts of Decommissioning Following the cessation of operations, the facility would be decommissioned. Decommissioning activities are similar to construction activities and involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Visibility impacts from decommissioning are anticipated to be similar to the visibility impacts associated with construction and, as such, are considered small.

19.4.2.2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, absorbing and emitting radiation in the thermal infrared range. The most important of these gases are CO 2. methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. GHGs are reported as CO,. equivalent (CO 2e) and refer to the global warming potential of the GHG or gases being emitted.

19-1 91

.*. NW MvIi NORhChaptIer hpe NWM,-2013-021,

- Environmental 1TOES9.0 Rev.

Review OA Activities associated with the proposed RPF site that are expected to contribute to GHGs (summarized in Table 19-64) include:

Construction activities at the site principally result in Table 19-64. Expected Green House Gas Emissions from emissions of CO2 ; GHG Radioisotope Production Facility Project emissions associated with construction activities include those from the commuting -00 construction workforce and Construction phase onsite 44,000 97,000 operation of constructionCOSUIOpheofst 61,013000 equipment at the site..........

Normal plant operations

• Plant operation activities (per year) 23,000,000 51,000,000 associated with the operation of..,..

plant equipment and the Op........ oad.. ....

operations workforce *e veil rae yer * ,0 3, The ncrasein ttalGH~ in he orm Source: EDF-3124-001 1, 2014, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, The ncrasein ttalGH~ in he orm Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

of CO 2 from on-road and off-road sources, and the annual CO 2 expected from normal operations are summarized in Table 19-64 (EDF-3 124-0011, Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

NWMI will develop a comprehensive program to avoid and control GHG emissions associated with the RPF. This program is expected to include elements such as:

• Developing a GHG emission inventory

• Investigating and implementing methods for avoiding or controlling identified GHG emissions

• Encouraging carpooling or other measures to minimize GHG emissions due to vehicle traffic

• Conducting periodic audits of GHG control procedures

• Implementing corrective actions when necessary 19.4.2.2.4 Mitigations Emission-specific strategies and measures would be developed and implemented to ensure compliance within the applicable regulatory limits defined by the National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 50) and NESHAP (40 CFR 61). Contractors, vendors, and subcontractors would be required to adhere to appropriate Federal and State occupational health and safety regulations.

These regulations set limits to protect workers from adverse conditions, including air emissions.

Implementation of controls and limits at the source of emissions on a construction site result in reduced impacts offsite.

1 9.4.2 .2 .5 Meteorology Meteorological measurements would be available 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 government weather monitoring stations that observe wind and other surface meteorological parameters on an hourly basis.

19-1 92

SIVIIICatr A SOChaptSr19.0 NWM,-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev. 0A Review 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 (w I .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 available from the station at the Columbia Regional Airport, weather information from another station with hourly meteorological data in the site climate region would be used. The following Missouri stations would be used as listed in order of increasing distance from Columbia:

a. Jefferson City Memorial Airport: wl1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KJEF.html

b. Kansas City International Airport: wl1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KMCI.html

c. Sedalia Memorial Airport: wl1.weather.gov/data/obhi story/KDMO.html

d. Spirit of St. Louis Airport: wl1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KSUS.html During normal operations, data would be obtained by internet access to hourly surface weather observations recorded at the Columbia Regional Airport at w l.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KCOU.html.

19.4.2.3 Noise This section provides an assessment of the noise impacts associated with RPF construction, operation, and decommissioning.

19.4.2.3.1 Impacts of Construction Site preparation, grading, and facility construction activities would require the use of heavy equipment such as graders, bulldozers, and concrete trucks. Noise generated from these types of equipment ranges from 75 to 89 dBA at approximately 15 m (50 ft) (FHWA, 2006). Most construction activities would occur during weekday, daylight hours (8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday); however, construction may continue during nights and weekends when necessary to maintain the construction schedule. A special permit is required per Section 16-265 of the Columbia Code of Ordinances (City of Columbia, 2013b), if construction activities are conducted outside of the normal weekday, daylight hours.

Onsite noise level exposure would be controlled through appropriate training, PPE, periodic health and safety monitoring, and industry best practices. Practices such as maintenance of noise-limiting devices on vehicles and equipment, controlling access to high-noise areas, controlling duration of emissions, and/or shielding high noise sources near their origin limit the adverse effects of noise on workers. Nonroutine activities with potential adverse impacts on noise levels are limited and use best industry practices that further limit adverse effects.

The closest receptor is located 152 m (500 ft) from the proposed RPF, as shown in Figure 19-4 1.

Increased noise levels resulting from construction activities would be short-term, lasting the duration of construction of the facility, and would not result in long-term impacts to ambient noise levels. In addition, the natural attenuation of the noise over distance would reduce the effect of construction noise.

The impact of noise from construction of the new site on nearby residences, churches, and recreational areas is small.

19-1 93

l:Chater19.0 Chapte NWMI-o13-o2,

- Environmental Rev. OA Review Traffic associated with the construction workforce commuting to and from the facility site also generates noise. As previously discussed, the baseline noise conditions for traffic include airports, railways, and highways. The increase in noise relative to baseline conditions is most noticeable during periods of high-activity onsite and during shift changes in the morning and late afternoon. In addition, potential indirect impacts may be anticipated to off-site areas associated with the roadway network and adjacent lands beyond the site boundary. Noise-related impacts may result from an increased traffic volume and resultant increases in traffic-generated noise. The potential noise impact to nearby receptors due to construction-related traffic is small.

1 9.4.2 .3 .2 Impacts of Operation Long-term noise sources resulting from operation of the proposed RPF would include process equipment, ventilation, heating and cooling systems, and increased traffic. These noise sources are similar to existing noise sources near the proposed facility location. Ambient background noise sources in the area currently include vehicular traffic along highways and commercial building heating, cooling, electrical, and ventilation systems. In addition, intermediate operation of agricultural equipment is present in the area.

Process equipment would be housed inside the facility, such that the noise contribution to the environment would be minimal. The major source of process noise from the facility is anticipated to be the HVAC systems associated with process and routine operations. Many of these systems are already present at other facilities within the immediate area (e.g., ABC Laboratories, RADIL). Impacts from operation of the systems associated with the RPF are not anticipated to increase the baseline noise levels for any process activity at the RPF. Therefore, potential noise impacts to the community from process noise, including HVAC systems, at the RPF are small.

Commercial vehicle traffic would include regular shipments of laboratory supplies, waste, irradiated targets, newly fabricated targets, and 99Mo product. Shipments would occur at regular intervals. Supply shipments would be expected to be weekly or bi-weekly. Transport shipments of irradiated targets are expected to occur two times per week. Transport of the 99Mo product is also expected to occur two times per week. Occupational vehicle traffic would include the daily commute of on-site workers, resident workers, residents, and students. In many cases, this occupational traffic is not expected to significantly impact existing traffic patterns. Noise generated from occupational traffic is expected to occur during normal weekday, daylight operational hours (8:00-5:00, Monday-Friday).

To meet schedule demands, the transport of product, targets, and waste could occur during times other than normal operational hours. Noise from truck transports would include engine noise, air brake noise, backup warning beepers, tire noise, and air horn.

Potential indirect impacts to off-site areas are associated with the roadway network and adjacent lands beyond the site boundary. Noise-related impacts may result from an increased traffic volume and resultant increases in traffic-generated noise as discussed in this section. Noise levels during operations in these off-site areas would not be notable, as these areas are currently located within a roadway network (e.g., highway, agriculture) that is characterized by traffic volumes that exhibit traffic/vehicle noise. The intermittent increase in traffic volume associated with normal work conditions, intermediate deliveries, and the natural noise attenuation over distance results in noise levels to receptors at baseline levels.

Therefore, noise impacts resulting from normal operations are small.

19.4.2.3.3 Inpacts of Decommissioning Decommissioning is the removal of a nuclear facility from service and reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license. During the decommissioning phase activities, equipment usage and the noise associated with their operation are expected to be similar or less than that of the construction phase. As such, noise impacts during the decommissioning phase of the RPF are considered small.

19-1 94

NW MIMEICl IOOPSChapter 19.0NWM,-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev.

Review 0

19.4.3 Geologic Environment This section provides a description of the impacts to geology and soils that can be expected from the proposed RPF construction, operation, and decommissioning. A complete description of the geology and soils at the proposed site is provided in Section 19.3.3. Brief descriptions of the geology and soils provide context for the impacts discussion.

19.4.3.1 Soils and Bedrock The proposed RPF would be located on flat terrain, requiring some cut and fill to bring the ground surface to the final grade. The excavation of a detention basin would also produce fill material. The maximum depth of excavation is anticipated to be 4.7 m (15.5 ft). About 6,881 m3 (9,000 cubic yards [yd 3]) is estimated to be excavated for the building footprint (EDF-3124-0001, Estimate of Excavation for the NWMI Radioisotope ProductionFacilit,). The material excavated would be soil; no blasting is anticipated. The volume of material resulting from excavation of the site would be used as fill for the lower areas of the site, with no additional fill required. No contaminated soils are expected to be encountered during construction.

Minimal excess excavated material is anticipated. Any excess would be stockpiled by Discovery Ridge for any future construction and landscaping activities within the park area. Because of the agricultural history of the site, the resulting terrain change for the site from gently sloping to flat topography as a result of construction of the facility is expected to cause a small environmental impact to the site geology or soils.

Lot 15 is underlain by competent limestone bedrock that would not be expected to subside due to construction of buildings and related infrastructure. The possible exception to this generalization is the potential for the occurrence of sink holes. The subsurface could be subject to collapse due to increased loads resulting from facility construction. However, there was no evidence of subsidence or sinkholes within the Discovery Ridge project area during geotechnical investigation (Terracon, 2011 a). Based on these observations, the likelihood of subsurface sinkholes within the facility footprint is expected to be small but should be considered during detailed subsurface investigations associated with facility construction.

19.4.3.1.1 Impacts of Construction Short-term increases in soil erosion and dust generation in the areas within and adjacent to the proposed RPF footprint and roads may occur during construction due to earth-moving activities, clearing of vegetation, and compaction of soils. However, dust production and erosional impacts due to site clearing and grading would be mitigated by using construction and erosion control BMPs. Disturbed soils would be stabilized as part of construction work. Earthen berms, dikes, and sediment fences would be used as necessary during all phases of construction to limit runoff. These measures would prevent the local surface drainages from being affected substantially by construction activities. Much of the excavated areas would be covered by structures or paved, limiting the creation of new dust sources. At a minimum (when needed), twice-daily watering would be used to control potentially fugitive construction dust in addition to other fugitive dust prevention and control BMPs, as discussed in Section 19.4.2.2.4. Because site preparation and construction result in only short-term effects to the geology and soils, the impacts would be small.

19.4.3.1.2 Impacts of Operation The proposed RPF operation phase would not involve additional disruption of the local soil or bedrock and, therefore, is expected to have no impact on the site geology beyond that caused by excavation activities during construction. Thus, the impact to geology and soils due to operation would be small.

19-1 95

NWM 'e lvii.:..

......... Chpe 9.0 -Environmental Review During operation of the proposed facility, BMPs would also be used to manage stormwater runoff from paved and compacted surfaces to drainage ditches and basins. Process wastewater would be contained within enclosed systems, treated, and evaporated. Process waste water would not be disposed to the subsurface bedrock or local soils. These various measures would minimize impacts to geology and soils from the proposed facility. As such, the impacts associated with RPF operation are small.

19.4.3.1.3 Impacts of Decommissioning Following the cessation of operations, the facility would be decommissioned. Decommissioning activities, however, are similar to construction activities and involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Direct and indirect impacts from decommissioning are anticipated to be similar to the impacts associated with construction and are considered small.

19.4.3.2 Large-Scale Geologic Hazards Large-scale hazards include earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides, subsidence, and erosional processes. As noted in Section 19.3.3, the USGS projected hazards for Boone County if an earthquake occurs along the NMSZ in the 50 years after 2002 include (USGS, 2003):

• 25-40 percent chance of a magnitude 6.0 and greater earthquake

• 7-10 percent chance of a magnitude 7.5-8.0 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 (USGS, 2003).

According to the Boone Count. 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 Missouri if various magnitude earthquakes occur along the NMSZ (Figure 19-33), as measured by the MMI scale.

Geologic features that are associated with landslide, subsidence, and errosional processes are discussed in Section 19.3.3. The occurrence of landslides is low because the topography of the site is relatively level.

Previous investigations at the site (Terracon, 201 lb) did not identify any evidence of shallow bedrock, karst features, and/or extensive previous deposits of water-bearing sand associated with sinkholes. The investigation did not find any evidence of subsidence or sinkholes.

19.4.4 Water Resources 19.4.4.1 Surface Water Water resources at the proposed RPF site are discussed in Section 19.3.4. The nearest water body is created by the MU R1 Dam, located approximately 152 m (500 ft) northwest of the site. This dam is not on a regulated water body. The second nearest water body is a farm pond approximately 305 m ( 1,000 ft) to the northeast of the site. Gans Creek, which is located approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south of the site, drains the site and Discovery Ridge. Perry Phillips Lake is located approximately 1.2 km (0.75 mi) west of the RPF site.

19.4.4.1.1 Impacts of Construction Federal, State, and local regulations and permit procedures provide minimum requirements for stormwater management during construction activities to prohibit adverse impacts on surface water or stormwater. Some dewatering due to groundwater and precipitation may be required during construction at the deepest excavation. Any water would be collected in a detention/retention pond. Disturbed soils would be stabilized as part of construction work. Earthen berms, dikes, and sediment fences would be used as necessary during all phases of construction to limit runoff. These measures would prevent the local surface drainages from being affected substantially by construction activities. Impacts associated with construction of the proposed RPF on the surface water are small.

19-1 96

NORWJEMEIAIOPSChpe NWM,-2013-021, Rev. OA IIVYChapter19.0 - Environmental Review 19.4.4.1.2 Impacts of Operation As described in Section 19.2.4, all water used at the proposed RPF would be obtained from the Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 water supply system, and all sanitary wastewater would be discharged directly to the Columbia sanitary sewer system. The facility would be designed to have zero liquid discharge from the radiologically controlled area, and there would be no use or release water from the facility to the adjacent environment that would affect surface water. As such, direct and indirect impacts to surface water from RPF operations are small.

19.4.4.1.3 Impacts of Decommissioning Following the cessation of operations, the proposed RPF would be decommissioned. Decommissioning activities, however, are similar to construction activities and involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Direct and indirect impacts from decommissioning are anticipated to be similar to the impacts associated with construction and, as such, are considered small.

19.4.4.2 Groundwater The groundwater aquifer beneath the proposed RPF site is the Mississippian aquifer (also referred to as the Kimmswick-Potosi aquifer). The Mississippian aquifer is the principal aquifer supplying groundwater to Boone County. 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.

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.

19.4.4.2.1 Impacts of Construction Some dewatering due to groundwater may be required during construction at the deepest excavation. No alterations to groundwater systems are expected during facility construction. Runoff controls would be in place during construction as part of the BMPs to prevent uncontrolled releases of water. The potential for water or other liquids from spills or leaks to cause significant migration of contaminants downward to the groundwater system is considered unlikely. No groundwater withdrawals or returns are required during construction. As such, direct and indirect impacts of construction of the proposed RPF on groundwater are small.

19.4.4.2.2 Impacts of Operation The RPF would obtain its water supply from the Columbia municipal water system. Operations would not require any groundwater. Consequently, direct and indirect impacts on groundwater during operations are small.

19.4.4.2 .3 Inpacts of Decommissioning Following the cessation of operations, the facility would be decommissioned. Decommissioning activities are similar to construction activities and involve heavy equipment to dismantle buildings and remove roadway and parking facilities. Direct and indirect impacts from decommissioning are anticipated to be similar to the impacts associated with construction and, as such, are considered small.

19-1 97

NWM i lviChater19.0 - Environmental Review 19.4.4.3 Monitoring The proposed RPF is eligible for a Missouri General Operating Permit MO-R10A000. The permit does not include any stormwater monitoring requirements. Because of the absence of direct impacts to surface water and groundwater, the low potential for indirect impacts, and the use of management measures and controls to prevent releases to surface water or groundwater, no surface water or nonradiological groundwater monitoring activities are planned for the site.

19.4.5 Ecological Resources This section assesses the impacts of construction, operation, and decommissioning on ecological resources, as described in Section 19.3.5, for the proposed RPF site and analysis area. Impacts include effects from activities associated with construction, operation, and decommissioning, including excavation, grading, placement of fill material, temporary staging and construction laydown, construction of permanent features (or deconstruction in decommissioning), and potential operational disturbances.

19.4.5.1 Impacts of Construction As discussed in Section 19.3.5.3, the proposed site and the ROI are mostly urban development or used for agriculture or pasture. The proposed RPF site is located in an area that has been used historically for cropland and pasture. There are no designated critical habitats for Federal- or State-listed species within the ROI (Section 19.3.5.9). Furthermore, Federal- or State-listed species are not likely to occur near the proposed site because of the lack of available resources. There are no aquatic environments located on the proposed site. Flora within the proposed site consists of common grasses and forbs typically found in cropland and pasture. Potential fauna within the proposed site would mostly consist of transient species because of the lack of available resources.

Direct and indirect impacts from construction of the facility would potentially consist of temporary displacement of fauna species from the area, bird collisions with construction equipment, and stormwater runoff. Construction noise would most likely cause temporary displacement of fauna species and would primarily occur during construction hours. After construction hours, elevated noise levels would cease and displaced fauna species would potentially return to the area.

Bird collisions with the proposed facility are unlikely because of the low profile of the building and the low occurrence of bird strikes with buildings. Based on the findings of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, bird collisions with buildings occur at very low frequencies. Bird strikes with construction equipment (e.g., cranes) are rare, but are most likely to occur during nighttime construction due to the use of artificial lights. To mitigate any potential strikes, BMPs for artificial lights are used (e.g., artificial lights are directed toward construction activities and shielded). Potential impacts from stormwater runoff are limited because there are no aquatic environments located on the site. Potential impacts to aquatic environments offsite would be mitigated because of the stormwater retention systems already in place and the use of BMPs in accordance with the site-specific construction SWPPP, which prevents runoff and subsequent siltation from reaching any of the surrounding streams.

Potential impacts to ecological resources, either permanent or temporary, from construction of the facility are considered small due to:

• Historical and current use of the proposed site, which limits available resources for fauna species

• Commonality and distribution of the current flora located on the site

• Lack of an aquatic environment on the site Mitigations for bird collisions and stormwater runoff would limit any potential impact.

19-1 98

N MEIL EUVYChapter ISOOE hpe NWI212,Rev. O 9.0 - Environmental Review 19.4.5.2 Impacts of Operation Direct and indirect impacts from operation of the proposed RPF would potentially consist of the exposure of flora and fauna to herbicides used for vegetation management, bird collisions with the facility, and stormwater runoff. Potential impacts from herbicides used for vegetation management would be mitigated with BMP requirements that would limit their use and contain the broad application throughout the site. Bird collisions with the proposed facility are unlikely because of the low profile of the building, available windows on the building, and the low occurrence of bird strikes with buildings. Based on the findings of NUREG-1437, bird collisions with buildings occur at very low frequencies. Potential impacts from stormwater runoff would be limited because there are no aquatic environments located on the site.

Potential impacts to aquatic environments offsite would be mitigated because of stormwater retention systems on the site.

Potential impacts, either permanent or temporary, from operation of the RPF are considered small because of the historical and current use of the proposed site, which limits the available resources for fauna species, the commonality and distribution of the current flora located on the site, the ability for fauna species to habituate to their surroundings, and the lack of an aquatic environment on the site. Mitigations for bird collisions and stormwater runoff would limit any potential impact.

19.4.5.3 Impacts of Decommissioning Potential direct and indirect impacts to ecological resources from decommissioning of the proposed RPF would be similar to those from construction. As such, potential impacts to ecological resources, either permanent or temporary, from decommissioning of the facility are considered small because of the historical and current use of the proposed site, which limits the available resources for fauna species, the commonality and distribution of the current flora located on the site, and the lack of an aquatic environment on the site. Mitigations for bird collisions and stormwater runoff would limit respective potential impacts.

19.4.5.4 Monitoring As described in Section 19.3.5, the proposed RPF site has been used for agriculture for the past several decades and is routinely disturbed by the discing, plowing, herbicide application, and harvesting activities associated with row crop production. Ecological resources at the site are limited by the lack of surface water and the historical agricultural practices on the site. Because the baseline conditions consist of agricultural land lacking native terrestrial or aquatic habitat, post-construction ecological monitoring and maintenance plans are not deemed necessary.

19.4.6 Historical and Cultural Resources As described in Section 19.3.6.3, no on-site historic properties are associated with the proposed RPF project area. No archaeological sites or evidence of cultural resources were identified within the survey area. The Missouri SHPO has reviewed the findings of the Phase I archaeological survey and indicated that no further consultation with the SHPO regarding the proposed RPF is required (DNR, 2013).

As discussed in Section 19.3.6.8, NWMI initiated consultation with six Federally recognized tribes regarding the proposed development. No responses have been received. The nearest listed NRHP property is the Maplewood House located approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) to the northwest of the proposed RPF site. No direct impacts would occur to this property from construction, operational, or decommissioning activities. Therefore, potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources are small. However, if potential cultural or historical resources are identified during construction, the SHPO will be immediately notified.

19-1 99

NWMI 4*

ORTJIWEST lviChptr MEDICAL ISOTOPES Catr1 9.0 -Environmental WM-130,Rev. O Review 19.4.7 Socioeconomics This section assesses the impacts of construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed RPF on the socioeconomic environment, including transportation system impacts. The evaluation of potential socioeconomic impacts addresses potential changes in the regional population, economy, housing availability, and public services. The evaluation of transportation system impacts addresses routes and modes that would be involved with transporting materials, workers, and equipment to the proposed RPF site.

Operation of the RPF from 2017 through 2047 would lead to a permanent increase in employment, income, and population in the area. Facility employment during operation would include up to 98 workers. If all 98 operational workers traveled or moved to Boone County from outside the area, this would only represent a 0.11 percent increase in the total employed labor force of 92,742 (USDOL, 2014) in Boone County. A significant number of the operational jobs are likely to be filled by local residents.

Some of the in-migrating construction workers would likely stay to become part of the operational workforce of the RPF.

The annual RPF operating payroll is estimated to be approximately $8. 122 million for a workforce of 98, or an average of $82,878 per worker per year (in constant 2013 dollars). This average salary is approximately 176 percent more than the 2010 Boone County $47,123 median household income (USCB, 2010b).

19.4.7.1 Population The Boone County population is 162,642 (USCB, 2010a). Growth projections show that the population is estimated to increase an average of 20.3 percent over the next 20 years (Table 19-46). Analysis of the population changes considers impacts that would result from RPF construction, operation, and decommissioning.

19.4. 7.1.1 Impacts of Construction As shown in Table 19-65, for major labor categories, a large construction trade workforce is available in Boone County. A large number of workers are not anticipated to relocate to Boone County to support construction. The labor force within the ROI for the construction trades is demonstrated to be abundant relative to construction workforce requirements. Approximately 80 percent (66) of the required construction workforce for these trades are estimated to come from within the ROI. The remaining 16 (of total 82 needed) are anticipated to temporarily relocate to the ROI. Using the ROI average of 2.4 persons per household, the total population increase in the various communities within the ROI due to the construction workforce requirements would be 38 people. This estimated population increase constitutes 0.02 percent of the 2013 population of the ROI. Therefore, the impact of construction of the RPF on population is small.19-200

,t-..IIllvI ES EDIC ....

., ChapterV 19.0NWM,-2013-021,

!**¢ ChSOterES - Environmental Review Rev. 0A Table 19-65. Workforce Required for Construction Carpenters 750 5 745 Electricians 170 8 162 Construction equipment operators 370 12 358 Sheetmetal workers 50 6 44 BLS, 2012, "May 2012 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates," www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcma.htm, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C., accessed September 2013.

19.4.7.1.2 Impacts of Operation Table 19-66 shows that the 89 (non-management) permanent operations workers needed are available in the ROI. About 40 percent (36) of the operations workers and their families are assumed to relocate to reside in the ROI. Using the ROI average of 2.4 persons per household, the total population increase in the various communities within the ROI due to operational workforce requirements is 86 people. This estimated population increase constitutes 0.05 percent of the projected 2015 population of the ROI.

Therefore, the impact of operating the RPF on population is small.

Table 19-66. Workforce Required for Operations bTechnical support 1,140 30 1,110 Production worker support 280 16 264 aBLS, 2012, "May 2012 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates," www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcma.htm, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C., accessed September 2013.

b Includes all architecture and engineering occupations.

19.4.7.1.3 Impacts of Decommissioning An estimated 81 workers would be required for decommissioning. The workers needed are assumed to be similar to workers employed during construction, with the addition of approximately 15 radiation technologists. About 60 percent (49) of the 81 workers are assumed to come from the ROI, and the remainder of the workers (32) and their families would relocate to Boone County during the decommissioning period. Based on the ROI average of 2.4 persons per household, the ROI population would increase by 77 due to the decommissioning workforce. This estimated population increase constitutes 0.03 percent of the projected population of the various communities within the ROI at the end of the 30-year license period. Therefore, the impact of decommissioning the RPF on population is small.19-201

NW MOPE lviChptr Chpei 9.0NWMI-2013-021,

-Environmental Rev. 0A Review 19.4.7.2 Housing Section 19.3.7.1.5 provides a summary of the 2010 Census data concerning availability of housing in the ROI. This data is used as a basis for estimating the number of housing units that may be available to accommodate housing demands resulting from construction, operation, and decommissioning of the RPF.

In 2010, there were 69,551 housing units, of which 64,077 are occupied and 5,474 are not occupied within the county.

19.4.7.2.1 Impacts of Construction As discussed in Section 19.4.7.1.1, a total of 16 workers would be anticipated to move into the area during the construction period, requiring an equal number of housing units. The available number of housing units is 5,474. Potential impacts on housing are small due to the large number of available vacant housing units in the ROI and the relatively small requirements for construction.

19.4.7.2.2 Impacts of Operation As discussed in Section 19.4.7.1.2, a total of 36 workers would be anticipated to move into the area during operation of the NWMI facility and would require an equal number of housing units. The available number of housing units is 5,474. Potential impacts on housing are small due to the large number of available vacant housing units in the ROI and the relatively small requirements for operations.

19.4.7.2.3 Impacts of Decommissioning As discussed in Section 19.4.7.1.3, a total of 32 workers are anticipated to move into the area during decommissioning of the NWMI facility and would require an equal number of housing units. The available number of housing units is 5,474. The percentage of available housing units is anticipated to remain constant over the life of the RPF license. Potential impacts on housing are small due to the large number of available vacant housing units in the ROI and the relatively small requirements for decommissioning.

19.4.7.3 Public Services Public services impacts as a result of construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed RPF include the requirements for water, sanitary sewer, and power.

Water - Water at the facility site would be used for dust control and compaction, and to support the needs of the construction workforce. During construction and operations, Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 would provide water to the site. Construction needs are estimated to not exceed an average of 7,571 L/day (2,000 gal/day).

The average per capita water usage in the U.S. is 340.7 L/day (90 gal/day) per person, including personal use, bathing, laundry, and other household uses (USGS, 2013d). Assuming half of that level of usage is onsite, the 92 workers would use 15,672 L/day (4,140 gal/day). Including construction needs, this amounts to a total water usage of 23,242 L/day (6,140 gal/day).

As noted in Section 19.3.7.1.9.2, the Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 presently supplies 5.49 ML/day ( 1.45 MgaL/day). Construction requirements of the RPF are small compared to the available water supply, and operations requirements are similarly small. As noted in Section 19.2.4, the RPF would require 4,885 L/day (1,286 gal/day) during operations. This is a small impact compared to the total water available. Decommissioning requirements are anticipated to be similar to construction.19-202

IIJVChapter ChaperI1NWM,-2013-021, 9.0 - Environmental Rev.

Review 0A

=... ' NORTWWEST MEOICAL ISOTOPES Sanitary Sewer - The facility would be connected to the Columbia sanitary sewer system. Sanitary sewer service is provided to the lot line for each of the Discovery Ridge tenants and has been sized to support the industrial park with tenants similar to the RPF. The sanitary sewer requirements for construction and operation of the facility would not exceed those presently provided for the research park.

Power - The RPF is estimated to require approximately 1,150 kilowatts (kW) of power during operation, or approximately 10 megawatt (MW) hours annually. This is a small impact compared to the total power (1,188,483 MW hours) distributed by Columbia in 2013 (City of Columbia, 2014).

19.4.7.4 Public Education Schools and student populations are discussed in Section 19.3.7.2. The criteria used to determine impacts to public education as a result of construction, operation, and decommissioning of the RPF are based on projected changes in both student enrollment and the number of teaching staff and classrooms.

19.4.7.4.1 Inpacts of Construction Columbia Public Schools has a student enrollment of 17,722. Construction of the RPF is estimated to result in an increased population of 38. Based on the U.S. Census data (USCB, 2010a), 14.9 percent of the population in Boone County is school age (5 to 18 years). The estimated impact to the school system would be six new students during the construction phase, an increase of 0.03 percent. Columbia Public Schools are presently planning for an annual increase of 2 percent (CPS, 2006). Impacts from the RPF construction on public schools are a small fraction of the presently planned increase and, as such, are small.

19.4.7.4.2 Impacts of Operation Operation of the proposed RPF is estimated to result in an increased population of 86. Based on the U.S. Census data (USCB, 2010a), 14.9 percent of the population in Boone County is school age (5 to 18 years). The estimated impact to the school system would be 13 new students during the operation phase, an increase of 0.07 percent. Columbia Public Schools are presently planning for an annual increase of 2 percent (CPS, 2006). The impacts from operations on public schools are a small fraction of the presently planned increase and, as such, are small.

19.4.7.4.3 Impacts of Decommissioning Following the cessation of proposed RPF operations, the facility would be decommissioned.

Decommissioning activities are considered similar to those of construction, with an estimated increase of 32 workers into the ROI. Direct and indirect impacts from decommissioning are anticipated to be similar to the impacts associated with construction and, as such, are small.

19.4.7.5 Tax Revenues Tax revenues associated with proposed RPF construction, operation, and decommissioning would include payroll taxes on wages and salaries of the construction and operations workforces; sales and use taxes on purchases made by NWMI and construction, operations, and decommissioning personnel; and property taxes on owned real property and improvements. Increased tax collections would benefit Missouri, Boone County, city of Columbia, and Columbia Public Schools.

Workforce payroll taxes (Federal and State) would be generated by construction, operations, and decommissioning activities and purchases, and the taxes generated by workforce expenditures. State tax payments would be distributed throughout the ROI and extend beyond the ROI, based on the expectation that some construction, operations, and decommissioning employees would reside outside of Boone County. Table 19-67 provides an estimate of the annual tax payments (EDF-3 124-0007, Tax Revenue from the Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning of the Northwest Medical Isotope Facility).19-203

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NW MI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-67. Estimated Annual Tax Payments 0 0 2015 $200,709 $485,574 $217,017 $903,300

$1,2f$936 $1,366

$821,053 2017 $465,296 $1,213,936 $2,511,285

$1,23,3 $832,053

$2,51,28 2019 $465,296 $1,2 13,936

$832,03

• $1,1396 $2,5 11,285

$465296 2021 $1,213,936 $832,053

$465,296 $! 2~3936 $2,511,285

$832,053 2023 $1,213,936

$465,296 $I,12j,3 $832,053 $2,511,285 2025 $1,213,936

$832.053

$465,296 $2,511,285

$1,213936 2027 $832,053

$465,296 $1,213,936 $2,511,285 2029 $832,053

$465,296 $1,213,936 $2,511,285 2031 $832,053

$465,296 $1,213,936 $2,511,285 2033 $832,053

?$1,1,3

$465,296 $2,5 11,285 2035 $832,053

$465,296 $1,213,936 2037 *$1,2~3 $832,053

$465,296 $1,213,936 $2,511,285 2039 $832,053

$1,213,936

$465,296 $2,511,285 2041 $1,213,936 $832,053

$465,296 $2,511,285

$1,213,936 2043

$465,296 $1,213,936 $2,511,285 2045 Total $14.095,718 $37..308.300 $24.729.973 $76,133.991 Source: EDF-3 124-0007, 2014, Tax Revenue From the Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning of the Northwest Medical Isotope Facility, Rev. 1, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, November 1, 2014.

19.4.7.6 Transportation Impacts on the local transportation infrastructure as a result of proposed RPF construction, operations, and decommissioning are measured against the existing traffic conditions and the assumption that no new infrastructure would be developed. Materials for construction, operations, and decommissioning would be transported to and from the facility using the existing roadway networks.19-204

: VChapter19.0 Chapter NWM,-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev. 0A Review 19.4. 7.6.1 Impacts of Construction The majority of traffic related to the construction phase would travel to and from the site on U.S. Highway 63. Peak construction traffic volume is estimated to be 30 heavy vehicles (dump truck and deliveries) and 82 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) traveling to and from the site daily in 2015. Except during the peak construction period, the worksite traffic volume is expected to be less and represents an estimated 0.5 percent increase over the existing traffic levels. As such, the impact on transportation due to construction is considered small.

19.4.7.6.2 Impacts of Operation Traffic volume during facility operation is estimated to be one heavy vehicle and 98 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) traveling to and from the site daily during operations. This estimate does not take into account potential carpooling and alternative transportation that some employees may use. The majority of this traffic would likely travel to the worksite on U.S. Highway 63 and represents an estimated 0.5 percent increase over the existing traffic levels. As such, the impact on transportation due to operations is considered small.

19.4.7.6.3 Impacts of Decommissioning Following cessation of operations, the facility would be decommissioned. Decommissioning activities are considered similar to those of construction, with an estimated 30 heavy vehicles (waste trucks) and 81 vehicles (pickup trucks and cars) traveling to and from the site daily. This estimate represents a 0.5 percent increase over the existing traffic levels. As such, the impact on transportation due to decommissioning is considered small.

19.4.8 Human Health This section describes public and occupational health impacts from both nonradiological and radiological sources. Regulations for generating, managing, handling, storing, treating, protecting, and disposing of hazardous materials during construction, operation, and decommissioning are contained in Federal regulations. These regulations include compliance with provisions of the Clean Air Act, CWA, Atomic Energy Act, and RCRA, among others.

19.4.8.1 Nonradiological Impacts The following sections discuss the potential nonradiological public and occupational hazards and impacts for proposed RPF construction, operation, and decommissioning. Nonradiological hazards/impacts are associated with emissions, discharges, and waste from processes within the facility and with accidental spills/releases. Nonradioactive/hazardous materials encountered during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the facility include chemicals, wastes (solid and liquid), discharges, and air emissions. These materials would be managed in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, and applicable permit requirements.

19.4.8.1.1 Nonradiological Impacts During Construction Construction of the proposed RPF would include potential hazards to workers typical of any construction site. Slips, trips and falls, heavy lifting, moving machinery, excessive noise, sharp objects, environmental hazards, and other safety hazards would be encountered by workers while on the RPF site. Proper procedures, BMPs, and access control would be employed to promote worker safety and reduce the likelihood of worker injury during construction.19-205

NW ICatr1NWMI NOR:hChapteri19.0 -Environmental Rev.

• • -2013-o2, Review OA Chemicals, hazardous liquids, and gases may also be encountered during construction. Compressed gases, oxidizers, flammable liquids, and gases are expected to be onsite during construction activities.

Access controls, proper PPE and other typical construction practices would be used to ensure safe work conditions and reduce the likelihood of an accident or exposure to hazardous materials. In addition, construction equipment and tooling would be used in such a way to ensure compliance with OSHA requirements. In the event of a spill/accident during construction, the impact to human health and the environment would be mitigated by following an emergency response plan. The cumulative impacts to human health during construction are small.

19.4.8.1.2 Nonradiological Impacts During Operation Potential nonradiological public and occupational hazards pertaining to operation of the proposed RPF are associated with emissions, discharges, and waste associated with processes within the facility, and with accidental spills/releases. Typical occupational hazards associated with work conducted in a process facility would be expected. These hazards include lighting, noise, repetitive motion, awkward posture, sharp objects, and slips, trips, and falls.

19.4.8.1.2.1 Chemical Sources Chemical processes would be conducted throughout the proposed RPF, including inside the hot cell area, outside the hot cell, and in the laboratory and waste management areas. The anticipated list of chemicals, locations, and estimated quantities is presented in Table 19-68. The Table 19-68 values are intended to be bounding for accident analysis. Laboratory chemicals and janitorial supplies are also listed for completeness. These values may be updated as the process is revised.

19.4.8.1.2.2 Nonradiological Waste Management and Effluent Control Systems Chemicals would be recycled and reused to minimize waste when applicable. Any wastes created by RPF processes would be handled by waste management processes and procedures, including sorting and segregating, volume reduction, containerization, and shipping to the appropriate off-site disposal or recycle facility. Worker exposure to wastes outside of the hot cell could result from accidents/spills during receiving, movement, routine operations, or disposal. Exposure to chemicals during laboratory processes can also occur. Waste management processes and procedures help to reduce the probability of an exposure. If an accident or spill occurs, emergency response plans would mitigate the effects of the accident or spill. Waste from the accident or spill would be managed according to the facility hazardous waste management plan.

19.4.8.1.2.3 Liquid Waste Management Liquid wastes produced at the proposed RPF as a result of routine activities or accidents/spills would be sampled and treated as necessary. Wastes that do not meet the local municipal wastewater treatment standards would be containerized and disposed of following proper procedures to ensure worker safety and compliance with applicable disposal requirements. Floor and sink drains would only be used for sanitary purposes. Where applicable, containerized liquid waste, sumps, and traps would be sampled and treated (if possible) before release.19-206

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

"-°oN..'"IgWV l Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-68. Chemical Inventory for the Radioisotope Production Facility 0 - S S *

• S .55 .5-Nitric acid (HNO3 ) 100,000 26,420 Chemical make-up Liquid 10.4 M Ti.vr *al/vr rnnm/lahnratorv (90) wt%'*

Ammonium hydroxide 100L 26.4 gal Chemical make-up Liquid 15.7 M (NWH'NH rnnm (62 wt%)

Carbon dioxide 200 kg 441 lb Chemical make-up Gas room'lT Nitrogen 1,800 kg 4,000 lb Chemical make-up Gas room/laboratory Sodium hydroxide 70,000 L/yr 18,490 Chemical make-up Liquid 19M (NaOH) gal/yr room (50 wt%)

Sodium hypochlorite 1L 0.26 gal Chemical make-up Liquid 2M (NaOC1) room Diethylbenzene 50 kg 110 lb Chemical make-up Liquid room/l ahoratory Solvent 200 L 53 gal Chemical make-up Liquid room/laboratory Urea (Co(NH 2)2 ) 100 kg 220 lb chemical make-up Solid room General laboratory Nominal Laboratory Solids!

supplies liquids/gas

f i{;7i i~i{

/ i{ 7iii~

i{77DI i]if i~i ;?,7 i7 4]L sic]i4i 19-207

NW lvii

• NRWETMEOICAL

.° iMI ISOTOPES Chapter 19.0NWMI-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev.

Review 0A 19.4.8.1.2.4 Solid Waste Management Solid wastes are expected to be generated during routine operation of the proposed RPF. This waste is typical for a production facility, including wood, metal, plastics, wires and piping, office supply waste, packaging waste, batteries, solidified oil/used solvents, and liquid waste.

These wastes would be containerized and disposed of following proper waste management procedures, including a recycling and reuse plan and waste reduction practices. All hazardous waste would be handled in accordance with applicable regulations (e.g., RCRA, Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law).

19.4.8.1.2.5 Gaseous Wastes The proposed RPF would generate gaseous effluents resulting from process operations and the ventilation of operating areas. Gaseous effluent from ventilation of operating areas would include a cascading pressure zone ventilation control system. This system would draw air from the cleanest areas of the facility to the most contaminated. Standard offgas treatments would be performed using two-stage HEPA filtration and activated carbon prior to the release stack(s). Stack sampling and monitoring would occur to establish compliance with NESHAP requirements and applicable State law. The cascading zones are described in Section 19.2.3.2.12.

19.4.8.1.2.6 Nonradiological Effluent Release Liquid waste effluents meeting municipal treatment standards would be discharged to the municipal sewer. Liquid wastes that do not meet the municipal treatment standards would be containerized, volume reduced, neutralized, solidified, and shipped to an appropriate disposal facility.

Nonradioactive solid wastes (e.g., office waste, recyclables) would be collected, temporarily stored, and disposed of or recycled locally. Scrap metal, universal wastes (i.e., Federally designated universal waste includes batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and bulbs [lamps]), used oil, and antifreeze would be collected, stored, and recycled or recovered at an off-site permitted recycling or recovery facility, as appropriate.

All the gaseous effluents from the RPF would be filtered and vented to the atmosphere through one of the three main stacks. These stacks would be equipped with air monitors/samplers to ensure compliance with applicable regulations (e.g., NESHAP, Missouri Air Conservation Law). Impacts of gaseous effluents are discussed in detail in Section 19.4.2.1.

Effluent monitoring and sampling/control systems would be used to detected and mitigate the possible releases of air emissions outside the facility. Impacts from nonradiologicai air emissions during normal operations are discussed in Section 19.4.2.1.2.

Most chemicals would be stored in tanks and piping or in controlled access storage. Bulk chemical quantities would be limited to a four-week supply. Table 19-68 lists the estimated chemical inventory at any given time for the RPF. The general public would not be allowed access to the RPF site. As a result, the public would not have direct contact with chemicals at the RPF. Therefore, potential air emissions effects to the public are limited to indirect impacts.

Quantitative analyses for nonradiological impacts as a result of credible accident scenarios are discussed in Chapter 13.

Control systems would be used to mitigate risks and control exposure of the public to nonradiological constituents during accidents. Spill prevention/mitigation procedures, air emission controls, liquid effluent sampling, and treatment and monitoring processes, along with emergency response plans, would be in place as appropriate to ensure that the exposure to the public is in compliance with applicable regulations. Therefore, cumulative impacts from nonradiological sources to human health are small.19-208

~: LU NW M E1V I~

V

• .,.. TWETMEDICAL

.N I$OTOPE$

NWI21-2,Rev.

Chapter 19.0 -Environmental Q Review 19.4.8.1.2.7 Physical Occupational Hazards Exposure characteristics of the workforce for nonradiological hazards would be defined when the operating strategies are finalized. No indirect impacts (offsite) are identified. General types of occupational physical hazards that may be present at the proposed RPF include lighting, noise, repetitive motion, awkward posture, sharp objects, and slips, trips, and falls.

Occupational physical hazards would be addressed and reduced or eliminated through implementation of administrative controls, safety practices, training, and control measures. In summary, occupational hazards would be managed and minimized by compliance with OSHA regulations, and, therefore, impacts from physical occupational hazards are considered small.

19.4.8.1.2.8 Nonradiological Exposure to the Workforce The majority of process chemicals used is in liquid form and would be contained in tanks and pipes.

Most processes involving chemicals would occur in hot cells, limiting workforce exposure. The proposed RPF would be designed and practices would be applied to keep air contaminants below the limits in 29 CFR 1910.1000, "Air Contaminants." The occupational hazards would be managed and minimized by compliance with OSHA regulations. The impacts from chemical occupational hazards are small.

19.4.8.1.3 Nonradiological Impacts during Decommissioning Impacts associated with decommissioning activities would be similar to impacts associated with construction (e.g., heavy equipment, noise, slips, trips, and falls). An additional hazard encountered during decommissioning may be exposure to a legacy chemical, caused by an unknown spill or leak. In such instances, these hazards would be addressed using work control practices to minimize impacts. The cumulative impacts to human health during decommissioning are small.

19.4.8.1.4 Nonradiological Environmental Monitoring Program Applicable regulations and attending administrative codes that prescribe monitoring requirements may include those associated with emergency management, environmental health, drinking water, water and sewage, pollution discharge, air pollution, hazardous waste management, and remedial action. Sampling and monitoring programs would be established to ensure that requirements of the Federal CWA, the Missouri Clean Water Law (i.e., Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 640, "Department of Natural Resources," and Chapter 644. "Water Pollution"), and other local requirements are met.

The RPF would generate gaseous effluents resulting from process operations, the ventilation of operating areas, and boiler emissions from facility buildings. Sampling/monitoring procedures would be implemented to ensure that the Federal Clean Air Act and the Missouri Air Conservation Law (Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 643, "Air Conservation") requirements are met. Specific monitoring requirements in support of required local air permits would be determined thrOugh the permitting process.

19.4.8.1.5 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures, including workplace and environmental regulations, are used to ensure the protection of human health. NWMI is committed to BMPs during construction, operation, and decommissioning to minimize pollutant releases to on-site and off-site areas, guarantee delivery of all facility wastewater to the local municipal wastewater treatment facility, and impose air emission controls, as appropriate. Required permits would be obtained for effluents and emissions. Waste reduction practices, including recycling and waste minimization, are also employed.19-209

NW lvChapter NORTHWE-T MI' NRWETMEOZOAL ISOTOPES 19.0NWI212,Rev.

- Environmental Review 19.4.8.2 Radiological Impacts The proposed RPF may release small quantities of radionuclides to the environment. Gaseous effluent activity releases and liquid effluent activity releases would be managed to ensure compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local requirements.

19.4.8.2.1 Baseline Radiation Levels Baseline radiation levels onsite and in the vicinity of the proposed RPF site are discussed in Section 19.4.8. There are no identified abnormal sources of radiation onsite or within the vicinity of the site that would cause radiation levels to be any higher than the expected natural background radiation level.

19.4.8.2 .2 Radiological Impacts During Construction The majority of the proposed RPF construction activities would not include any sources of radiological exposure. The impacts to human health from radiological sources during construction are small. Prior to initiating operation, radiological sources for analysis and LEU would be brought onsite to support initial startup and component testing. During this period, the potential impacts would be similar to those during operation and are discussed in the following sections.

19.4.8.2.3 Radiological Impacts During Operation 19.4.8.2.3.1 Location of and Types of Radiological Sources Radioactive material would be located in the RPF hot cell area, irradiated target receipt and unloading area, target fabrication area, and waste management areas. The radioactive liquid effluent and radioactive gas would be contained within process waste management systems and the offgas systems.

19.4.8.2.3.2 Dose Rates Direct dose to a member of the public at the fence line would be due to gamma radiation penetrating the walls of the production facility and the waste staging and shipping area. The facility and facility systems would be designed to ensure that any dose at the fence line would be below applicable limits.

19.4.8.2.3.3 Dose at the Site Boundary As a result of site shielding design, the direct dose outside of the buildings would be small and decreases with increasing distance. For this analysis, the site boundary is the facility fence line. The fence line is located at an appreciable distance from the sources of radiation (production facility hot cell and the waste staging area). Therefore, the dose would be negligible at the fence line, and the impacts to human health are small.

The proposed RPF would be designed such that the radiological impacts to any individual would be below applicable limits. Accident scenarios presented in Chapter 13 detail the initiating event, accident evolution, and the final consequences. The impacts to human health and the environment as a result of an accident involving radiological materials would be small.

19.4.8.2.3.4 Annual Dose to the Maximally Exposed Worker Administrative dose limits are occupational radiation exposure limits that radiation workers at the RPF would not exceed without prior management approval. Administrative controls would be used to ensure that workers do not receive dose above the regulatory reference.

19-2 10

Chater1,,M,,,,, 2, ev. O

'-...:........... Chptr 9.0- Environmental Review 19.4.8.2.3.5 Dose Rates from Transportation Activities The radiation dose to the public due to the transport of radioactive waste (considered an indirect effect) is discussed in Section 19.4.10. All shipments made to and from the proposed RPF would be in compliance with applicable DOT regulations. As such, the dose limit for transport of radioactive material is 200 milliroentgen/hr (mR/hr) on contact, and 10 mR/hr at 1 m. In addition to these requirements, individual cask and container requirements may dictate a smaller allowable dose. Impacts to the public as a result of transporting radioactive material to and from the RPF are small.

The dose to the public and to the workforce resulting from transportation activities is discussed in Section 19.4.10. Under normal operating conditions, the greatest radiological impact to the workforce is anticipated to be during transportation activities. Transportation workers may receive a larger dose. In compliance with DOT and NRC requirements, the transport of radioactive material would be conducted using approved radiation control procedures that are based on ALARA principles. Therefore, the cumulative impacts resulting from transporting nuclear material from the addition of the RPF are small.

19.4.8.2.3.6 Radiation Exposure Mitigation Measures Occupational and public exposures due to routine operations at the RPF would be ALARA. This exposure minimization goal would be met through both engineered and administrative controls.

Engineered controls - The facility would employ the following engineered controls to minimize radiation exposure to the public and workers:

• Radiation source identification

• Shielding around radiation sources

• Ventilation control

• Access control to radiation areas

• Contamination control

• Remote operation

• Waste minimization

• Administrative controls Administrative controls - To minimize radiation exposure to the public and workers, the facility would employ administrative controls consisting of written procedures, policies, and employee training in the following subject areas:

• General environmental activities, including hazards associated with the facility

• Waste minimization requirements and goals

• Radiation safety, including workforce protection

• ALARA principles

• Specific environmental issues and responsible environmental stewardship

• Continual improvement

• Regulation compliance 19.4.8.2.4 Characteristics of Radiological Sources and Effluents 19.4.8.2.4.1 Gaseous Sources of Radioactive Material Radioactive gaseous effluents produced in the proposed RPF during normal operations would consist of offgas from hot cell processes (i.e., processing of irradiated targets, recovery of LEU from processing activities, and recycling of recovered uranium for target fabrication). All gaseous effluents released from the RPF would be combined and released through three vent stacks. As stated in Section 19.4.2.1.2.3, all iodine fission products would be removed using absorption methods. Fission product gases such as Xe and Kr would be removed using gas trapping to allow decay. The resulting release would be maintained until levels are less than those defined in Table 2 in 10 CFR 20.19-211

°: -

NW M N

• ORTRWEST MEOICAL iSOTOPES Chapter 19.0 -Environmental Review 19.4.8.2.4.2 Liquid Sources of Radioactive Material Liquid waste generated during process operations would be recycled and reused, if practicable. As discussed in Section 19.2.3.1.5, liquid waste would be treated in the aqueous waste handling system.

Liquid waste would be treated and solidified into a solid waste form suitable for off-site disposal. No radioactive liquid sources of radioactive material would be released to the environment as a result of normal operating conditions.

19.4.8.2.4.3 Solidified Sources of Radioactive Material Solid radioactive waste would be located in either the hot cell/target fabrication area or the waste management area.

19.4.8.3 Radiological Impacts During Decommissioning The potential impacts from radiological material associated with decommissioning activities are from residual contamination in the hot cell and process areas. Proper radiation protection measures would be followed for all decontamination operations. During shutdown operations, most areas would be decontaminated as part of cell cleanout. Piping and vessels would be decontaminated, rinsed, and sampled to ensure that the removal of radioactive material has been achieved. In the event that a vessel/area cannot be adequately decontaminated, a fixative would be applied to prevent the spread of contamination.

When the remaining contamination has been immobilized, items would be sized and placed into the appropriate containers and disposed of following applicable regulations. In all activities, proper care, including ALARA practices, would be followed to limit exposure to workers or the public. The cumulative impact to human health during decommissioning is small.

19.4.8.4 Radiological Monitoring Program In addition to the nonradiological monitoring program, the radiological monitoring program would include effluent monitoring and environmental monitoring.

19.4.8.4.1 Radiological Effluent Monitoring The NWMI Radiological Effluent Monitoring Program identifies and quantifies principal radionuclides in effluents (Regulatory Position C. 1 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.21, Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactive Materialin Liquid and Gaseous Effluents and Solid Waste [NRC, 2009a]). This program would be used to verify that the RPF is performing as expected and within its design parameters so that doses to individual members of the public remain within the limits established in 10 CFR 20.1301 and doses due to airborne emissions meet the ALARA requirement of 10 CFR 20.1 101(d) as required by Regulatory Guide 4.20, Constraint on Releases of Airborne Radioactive Materials to the Environmentfor Licensees other than Power Reactors (NRC, 2012b). All effluent pathways that could be a significant release pathway for radioactive material from the RPF include radiological effluent monitoring.

19.4.8.4.2 Gaseous Monitoring 19.4.8.4.2.1 Gaseous Effluent Monitoring All gaseous effluents from the RPF would be released through three vent stacks (Zone I, Zone II/III, and the laboratory). Each exhaust system would have a separate stack, with the exception of the process offgas subsystem, which would merge with the Zone I exhaust stream of the HEPA filter train. Each exhaust filter train would consist of pre-filters, two stages of HEPA filters, carbon absorbers, and isolation dampers. Exhaust ducts upstream of the filter trains would be round to minimize areas where contamination can accumulate and sized to minimize particulate settling in the duct. No monitoring would occur for the HVAC and process steam boiler stacks.

19-2 12

IUVVChapter

• • ....NORThWVEST ISOTOPE MEDICAl. S Chptr1MWI-0I-21 ev. O 9.0 - Environmental Review The Zone I exhaust stack would service the hot cell, waste loading area, target fabrication enclosures, and process offgas system. HEPA filters would be included in both the inlet and outlet ducts. The outlet HEPA filters would minimize the spread of contamination from the hot cell into the ductwork leading to the exhaust filter train. The inlet HEPA filters would prevent contamination spread in the event of an upset condition. Zone II/III exhaust would service portions of the target fabrication systems, laboratory, uranium storage, truck bay, mechanical, supply rooms, corridor and airlocks, and general occupational areas of the facility. The laboratory exhaust system would handle exhaust air from fume hoods and gloveboxes located in the laboratory area.

The airborne effluent exhaust from the vent stacks is expected to contain measurable quantities of noble gas radioactivity (i.e., Xe and Kr). Radioactive iodine, radioactive particulates, and tritium could also be present in the airborne effluent exhaust. Due to the expectation of having measurable quantities of radioactivity in the airborne effluent and since malfunction of the exhaust carbon filtration system could result in a change in iodine radioactivity releases, the combined exhaust in the vent stacks would be continuously monitored for gross gamma radioactivity using an off-line gas monitor. Additionally, grab sampling provisions would be available for routine collection and analysis of gas, particulate, iodine, and tritium samples from the combined exhaust in the vent stacks, to (1) identify radionuclides, (2) identify relative concentrations of radionuclides in the airborne effluent, and (3) quantify radionuclide releases.

19.4.8.4.2.2 Liquid Effluent. Monitoring The proposed RPF is designed to have zero liquid discharge from the radiologically controlled area, and there would be no release of water from the facility to the adjacent environment that would affect surface water. As such, there are no defined liquid effluent release pathways from the radiologically controlled area and no requirement for radiation monitoring of liquid effluent pathways.

19.4.8.4.3 Radiological Environmental Monitoring The requirement to have a radiological environmental monitoring program is documented in 10 CFR 20.1302, "Compliance with Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public." The radiological environmental monitoring program is used to verify (1) the effectiveness of plant measures that are used to control the release of radioactive material, and (2) that the measurable concentrations of radioactive materials and levels of radiation are not higher than expected based on effluent measurements and modeling of the environmental exposure pathways. Methods for establishing and conducting environmental monitoring are provided in Regulatory Guide 4.1, Radiological Environmental Monitoring for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC, 2009b). Regulatory Guide 4.1 refers to NUREG-1301, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Efflutent Controlsfor Pressurized Water Reactors, for detailed guidance on conducting effluent and environmental monitoring. Although Regulatory Guide 4.1 (NRC, 2009b) and NUREG-1301 are written for nuclear power plants, due to the similarities between airborne releases of radioactivity from nuclear power plants and those released from the RPF, guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 4.1 and NUREG-1301 was considered when developing radiological environmental monitoring for the RPF. Specifically, guidance provided in Figure 1 of Regulatory Guide 4.1 and Table 3.12-1 of NUREG-1301 was considered when determining which exposure pathways to sample, sample locations, types of samples, and sample frequencies for the RPF.

The following radiation exposure pathways are considered for monitoring under the NWMI radiological environmental monitoring program:

• Waterborne exposure pathway

• Direct radiation exposure pathway monitoring using TLDs

• Airborne exposure pathway monitored using continuous air samples

• Ingestion exposure pathway 19-2 13

lviChater19.0 Chapter NWM,-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev.

Review0A 19.4.8.4.3.1 Waterborne Exposure Pathway Monitoring The proposed RPF is designed to have zero liquid discharge from the radiologically controlled area, and there would be no release of water from the facility to the adjacent environment that would affect surface water (e.g., Gans Creek). As such, surface water sampling is not included in the radiological monitoring plan. Similarly, aquatic life in the rivers is not expected to accumulate detectable levels of radioactivity, and sampling of fish or other aquatic creatures for the ingestion pathway is not included in the radiological environmental monitoring plan.

The groundwater aquifer beneath the proposed RPF site is the Mississippian aquifer (also referred to as the Kimnmswick-Potosi aquifer), which is discussed in detail in Section 19.3.4.2. There are no defined liquid effluent release pathways, and the groundwater is not expected to be contaminated due to operation of the RPF. Therefore, groundwater sampling is not included in the radiological environmental monitoring plan.

19.4.8.4.3.2 Direct Exposure Pathway Monitoring TLDs provide measurements of the direct radiation from radioactive materials located at the RPF and from radioactivity in airborne effluent and deposition of airborne radioactivity onto the ground.

NUREG-1301 recommends 40 TLD locations but can be reduced based on. geographical limitations. The TLD locations would consist of an inner ring and outer ring of TLDs, with one TLD located in each ring at each of the 16 meteorological sectors (i.e., a total of 32 TLDs) and the remainder located at special interest areas. NUREG-1301 also provides for at least one TLD to be located a significant distance from the facility as a control station to measure background radiation dose.

At the RPF, six TLDs would be located outside at entry points to the building where personnel may congregate or spend time outside of the RPF building. An additional TLD would be located on the outside wall near the target fabrication area of the building to evaluate direct radiation from the hot cells and waste management area. The location of the on-site TLDs is shown in Figure 19-46.

TLDs would also be located at the site boundary (the perimeter of the lot) to evaluate the direct radiation dose. Sixteen TLDs would be placed on the lot line, with a TLD placed at all four corners of Lot 15 and the remaining TLDs placed at approximately equal distances from each other. The sixteen TLDs would provide adequate coverage to ensure that direct doses to neighboring facilities on adjoining lots can be monitored and evaluated. The location of the perimeter TLDs is shown in Figure 19-46.

An additional TLD would serve as a control and would be located offsite at a significant distance from the facility such that it represents a background dose. One TLD location would be provided with two TLDs so that data quality can be determined.

19-2 14

• lv...i......Chpe.:;.Chapter:.NWMI-2013-021, 19.0- Environmental Rev. Review 0A DIS(OVURY RIDGE LOT IS FIIOfUITY LINEs PINElWATER PUN SKID 74LACIrvES+ WASTE MANAOE~dwr BU A~NOP R--105.'14. SIDESETEACK -I 5FEET SPACERP.EEIVIEDlNFUB WATER FULTANK *J On-Ste TLDs

• '

• Fence Line TLDs J! *IrCAMS Pr~AKNG SPACES GU R II7 .......

N mu~r m~xGA..... (TcyPICL) SUTE PLAN Figure 19-46. Location of On-site Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeters and Continuous Air Monitors 19.4.8.4.3.3 Airborne Exposure Pathway Monitoring Airborne effluent releases from the RPF contribute to off-site doses. The airborne effluent exhaust from the vent stacks is expected to contain measurable quantities of noble gas radioactivity (e.g., Xe and Kr).

Radioactive iodine, radioactive particulates, and tritium could also be present in the airborne effluent exhaust. However, most of the off-site exposure due to airborne effluent releases is associated with noble gas and radioactive iodine releases.

Environmental airborne sampling is performed to identify and quantify particulates and radioactive iodine in airborne effluents. Regulatory Position C.3.b of Regulatory Guide 4.1 (NRC, 2009b) indicates that airborne sampling should always be included in the environmental monitoring programs for nuclear power plants. Since the RPF includes airborne effluent releases, and radioactivity in the airborne effluent can result in measurable off-site doses, the radiological environmental monitoring program includes airborne sampling.

The guidance provided in Table 3.12-1 of NUREG-1301 is used to establish locations for airborne sample acquisition, sampling frequency, and type of sample analysis. Continuous air sample locations are specified in accordance with the guidance provided in Table 3.12-1 of NUREG- 1301. The continuous air monitors (CAM) that are used to obtain continuous air samples include a radioiodine canister for weekly 1311 analysis, and a particulate sampler that is analyzed for gross beta activity and for quarterly isotopic analysis.19-215

NW: haper 9.0 - Environmental Review Four CAM locations would be located near the facility fence line, with one CAM being located in the direction of the prevailing wind (e.g., north-northwest) and the other three CAMs being located in the remaining cardinal directions (e.g., 90 degrees) from the first CAM location (i.e., west-southwest, south-southeast, and east-northeast). The CAM locations are shown in Figure 19-46.

An additional CAM would be located a sufficient distance from the RPF, in the least prevalent wind direction, to provide background information for airbomne activity.

19.4.8.4.3.4 Ingestion Exposure Pathway Monitoring NUREG-1301 suggests sampling of various biological media (biota monitoring) to indirectly assess doses due to particulate and iodine ingestion. This type of monitoring may include sampling of soils, broad-leafed plants, fish, meat, or milk. Considering that particulates and iodine radionuclides are not expected to be present in measurable quantities within the RPF airborne effluent releases, biota monitoring would not be performed. In the event that environmental airborne sample results indicate the presence of iodine or particulates in measurable quantities, or if the effluent monitor sample results indicate the presence of iodine or particulates in quantities large enough to result in a calculated dose at the property line that exceeds 10 percent of the dose constraint (i.e., 1 mrem/yr), a sampling campaign would be undertaken.

Milk is an important food product that contributes to the radiation dose to people, most notably from radioactive iodine. If biota sampling is determined to be required as a result of radioactive iodine and particulate activity measured during effluent monitoring or air sampling, milk sampling would be performed following the guidance provided in Table 3.12-1 of NUREG-1301 (e.g., sampling frequency and type of sample analysis). Cow and/or goat milk samples would be obtained from dairy production sites on a semi-monthly basis (when animals are on pasture) and on a monthly basis (at other times). A gamma isotopic analysis and 1311 analysis would be performed on the samples. Since milk samples are considered a better indicator of radioactive iodine in the environment than vegetation, as long as milk samples are obtained, vegetation sampling (e.g., broad leaf vegetation) is not expected to be included in the exposure pathway sampling, in accordance with guidance provided in Table 3.12-1 of NUREG-1301.

19.4.9 Waste Management A detailed description of the sources, types, and approximate quantities of waste within the proposed RPF is provided in Section 19.2.7. This section also discusses the proposed waste management systems, including on-site treatment and waste minimization approaches and the anticipated disposal locations.

The facility waste types would be managed in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. The direct and indirect impacts associated with the treatment and disposal of RPF-generated wastes are small.

19.4.10 Transportation Materials to be transported to the proposed RPF include LEU, irradiated targets, commercial supplies/chemicals, and other industrial supplies to support the day-to-day operation of the facility.

Materials transported from the facility would include 99Mo product, unirradiated targets, and waste.

Section 19.2.7 provides a description of the treatment of radioactive and nonradioactive waste prior to shipment. Section 19.2.8.2.1 provides a description of the waste packaging required for LEU, irradiated and unirradiated targets, and 99Mo product.19-216

NWMII fe,.

l Chapter 9.0 - Environmental Review 19.4.10.1 Transportation Mode and Projected Distances Descriptions of the modes of transportation and distances are provided in Section 19.2.8.2.2, along with the estimated distance to projected destinations. The following subsections provide specific information regarding the transport of LEU, irradiated and unirradiated targets, 99Mo product commercial supplies/chemicals, and RPF-generated waste.

19.4.10.1.1 Fresh Low-Enriched Uranium The fresh LEU would be transported by commercial carrier to the proposed RPF from the DOE Y-12 Program Office in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, approximately 953 km (592 mi) from the proposed RPF site.

The transportation route includes one stop for fuel or other provisions.

19.4.10.1.2 Irradiated and Unirradiated Targets Both unirradiated and irradiated targets would be sent from the three reactor facilities to the proposed RPF by commercial carrier using a commercial cask, certified by the NRC, on public roads. The routes are:

• RPF to MURR in Columbia, Missouri - Approximately 9 km (6 mi) with no stops

• RPF to OSTR in Corvallis, Oregon - Approximately 3,320 km (2,063 mi) with two stops each way

• RPF to third reactor - Approximately [Proprietary Information]

19.4.10.1.3 Molybdenum-99 Product The 99Mo product produced at the proposed RPF is assumed to be distributed to two vendors. One vendor, located in Hazelwood, Missouri, would require transport by commercial ground carrier from the RPF to the vendor facility, which is 181 km (112.5 mi) away. The 9 9MIo product sent to the other vendor would be transported by commercial ground carrier to the Columbia Regional Airport, which is approximately 13 km (8 mi) from the RPF site. From the airport, the 99Mo product would be transported by air carrier to Boston Logan International Airport. Exposure from 99Mo to the general public during the flight is assumed to be negligible and was not calculated. The 99Mo product is assumed to be transported by commercial ground carrier for a distance of 50 km (31 mi) from Boston Logan International Airport to the vendor in Billerica, Massachusetts. Approximately 50 percent of the 99Mo product is assumed to be shipped to Hazelwood and 50 percent shipped to Billerica.

19.4.10.1.4 Spent Low-Enriched Uranium The spent LEU would be transported approximately 1,345 km (836 mi) to the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina using an ES-3 100 cask, or equivalent. The transportation route includes one stop for fuel or other provisions.

19.4.10.1.5 Commercial Supplies/Chemicals Commercial supplies and chemicals would be transported by commercial carrier on public roadways in compliance with vendor requirements. There is no anticipated dose resulting from the transport of commercial supplies and chemicals.

19.4.10.1.6 Waste Transportation Waste generated at the proposed RPF would be disposed in licensed facilities. Radioactive waste would be transported by truck to Waste Control Specialists (WCS) in Andrews, Texas. WCS is approximately 1,470 km (913 mi) from the RPF site. The transportation route includes one stop each way.

19-2 17

lviChptr

.NWCatr1NWMI-21-2,Rev.

MEDICAt

.e.N ORTHWEST ISOTO pEs O

9.0 -Environmental Review NWMI also incorporates a recycling program into general operations at the facility. This program includes arranging for recycle drop-off and pick-up of recyclable wastes. The recycling drop-off point is located approximately 6 km (4 mi) from the RPF site. Municipal waste would be disposed of at the local sanitary landfill, approximately 17.5 km (11 mi) from the facility.

19.4.10.1.7 Radioactive Waste Packaging Radioactive waste generated at the proposed RPF would be treated and packaged as discussed in Section 19.2.7. Solid waste would include used components, equipment, and solidified liquid wastes.

This material would be collected, stored at the facility to allow for radioactive decay, and then size-reduced and consolidated for shipment. Prior to shipment, all radioactive material would be packaged to meet DOT and NRC requirements for transporting radioactive materials.

19.4.10.2 Incident-Free Radiological Dose Incident-free radiological doses are determined for members of the public and the transportation and handling workers involved in transporting the fresh LEU, irradiated and unirradiated targets, 99Mo product, spent LEU, and radioactive wastes.

Calculation of the incident-free radiological doses is performed using the RADCAT/RADTRAN modeling code. The RADCAT/RADTRAN code calculates doses to workers and members of the public. For shipments by air, transport of the 99Mo product from the proposed RPF to Columbia Regional Airport is modeled; ground transport from the RPF to Hazelwood, Missouri, is also modeled. As described below, transportation scenarios based on land routes are used to conservatively estimate the radiological doses resulting from radioactive material transport.

The highway route and distance traveled for a shipment from the proposed RPF to a destination facility were determined from route data from MapQuest 2 and applicable GIS data available from ArcGIS 3 software. Census data files were used to derive the population density along the route (USCB, 2010a),

which is required for calculating the dose to members of the public. National Highway Planning Network data files were used to derive the vehicle density data required for the model (FHWA, 2013).

Regions containing segments of each transportation route are classified as rural, suburban, or urban, based on population. Population zones are based on the following specific population concentration ranges:

• Rural - Less than 54 persons/km 2 (139 persons/mi 2)

• Urban - Between 54 and 1,284 persons/km 2 (139 and 3,326 persons/mi2)

• Suburban - Greater than 1,284 persons/km 2 (3,326 persons/mi 2)

Once data are gathered, the route segment categories, transportation information for each route, package shielding information, and radioactive characteristics for the constituents of each package would be loaded into the RADCAT interface and run with the RADTRAN computer model. The route information is listed in Table 19-69. The route segment information is summarized in Table 19-70 (EDF-3124-0010, RadiologicalDose Consequences Associated with Transportationof Materialsfor the Radioisotope Produ~ctionFacilityfor Northwest Medical Isotopes).

2 MapQuest is a registered trademark of MapQuest. Inc., Denver. Colorado.

SArcGIS is a trademark of Esri. Redlands, California.

19-2 18

~. ~J3AfJ~ NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Table 19-69. General Route Information

- 0 0~ 6 *~ 0 I-

• a S.

RPF to MURR 9.6 6 0 26 RPF to OSTR 3,320 2,063 2 8 RPF to third reactor [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary 8 Information] Information] Information]

DOE Y-12 Program Office (Oak 953 592 1 2 Ridge, Tennessee to RPF)

RPF to distributor (Hazelwood, 181 113 0 52 Missouri)

Boston Logan Airport to 50 31 0 52 distributor (Billerica, Massachusetts)

Source:

Materials forEDF-3124-0010, the Radioisotope 2015, Radiological Production FacilityDose Consequences for Northwest Associated Medical Isotopes,with Rev.Transportation of Idaho 2, Portage, Inc.,

Falls, Idaho, January 4, 2015.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy. RPF = Radioisotope Production Facility.

MURR = University of Missouri Research Reactor. SRS = Savannah River Site.

OSTR = Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor. WCS = Waste Control Specialists.19-219

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NW~U Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-70. Route Segment Information Source: EDF-3124-0010, 2015.,RadiologicalDose Consequences Associated with Transportationof Materialsfor the Radioisotope Production Facilityfor Northwest Medical isotopes. Rev. 2. Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, January 4, 2015.

a Percentage of Geographical Information System census tracts for each destination.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy. OSTR = Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor.

MURR = University of Missouri Research Reactor. WCS = Waste Control Specialists.

NA = not applicable.19-220

i.NWMI N+W.W..

IR" OsolrpfS T MIEWCAUS NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review 19.4.10.2.1 Radiological Source Table 19-71. Unirradiated Target Shipment Source Term Term Radiological characteristics are .. . . . - . - .

derived from estimated source term data, and then evaluated from material 232U [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

balance calculations, product specification, and estimated waste 235w [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

calculations.

[Popnetar Inora ion]

238U [Proprietary Information]

The radioactive characterization for

[Proprietary Information]

each of the materials is presented in

[Proprietary Information]

Table 19-7 1 through Table 19-76 (EDF-3 124-0010). These numbers are [Proprietary Information]

TotCs preliminary and subject to change [Proprietary Information]

based on future data. Radionuclides less than 0.1 Ci were not listed for the MURR = University of Missouri Research Reactor.

irradiated target. OSTR = Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor.

Table 19-72. Irradiated Targets for Oregon State University and Third Reactor Radiological Characteristics l S*1 [ f*ll

.i!l I iII  :*..

• il[l [, Siiomml~

85 Kr 29 1 mTe [Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

90Sr [Proprietary Information] 4

[Proprietary Information]

32Te 91 y [Proprietary Information] 133m Xe [Proprietary Information]

9 SmNb [Proprietary Information] 4Oa [Proprietary Information]

' 03 Ru [Proprietary Information] 143 pr [Proprietary Information]

"l'Ag [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

'23Sn [Proprietary Information] ' 5t Sm [Proprietary Information]

' 25 Sb [Proprietary Information] ' 56 Eu [Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information] 237U [Proprietary Information]

12 7mTe [Proprietary Information]

Source: EDF-3124-0010, 2015, Radiological Dose Consequences Associated with Transportationof Mate rialsfir the Radioisotope Production Facilityfor Northwest Medical Isotopes, Rev. 2, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, January 4, 2015.

aBased on 30 targets per shipment at 8-hr end of bombardment.

'URh is not included in the nuclide library of RADTRAN. '6Ru in secular equilibrium was used as a substitute.19-221

.+*.'.NWlIMII NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-73. Irradiated Targets for University of Missouri Research Reactor Radiological Characteristics 239 Np [Proprietary Information] 137 Cs [Proprietary Information]

i

[Proprietary Information] 95m~pb [Proprietary Information]

+ i

[Proprietary Information] 90y [Proprietary Information]

1311 [Proprietary Information] 85 Kr [Proprietary Information]

-I I

[Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

89 Sr

-I[Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

I~ I~, [PoreayIfrain 133 mXe

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

237U

[Proprietary Information]

235U m

[Proprietary Information]

' 27 Te mi[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

29 I mTe [Proprietary Information]L 238 puL

[PoreayIfrain

[Proprietary Information]

'06Ru [Proprietary Information]

'25Sn 241u

[Prorietry Iformtion I.

Source: EDF-3 124-0010, 2015, RadiologicalDose ConsequencesAssociated with Transportationof Materialsfor the Radioisotope Production Facilityfor Northwest Medical Isotopes, Rev. 2, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, January 4, 2015.

a Based on twelve (12) targets per shipment at 8-hr end of bombardment.19-222

.. Chapter 1 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

."o.viChptr 9.0 -Environmental Review Table 19-74. Low-Enriched Uranium Radiological Characteristics 237U [Proprietary Information] 6OCo [Proprietary Information]

235g [Proprietary Information] 9OSr [Proprietary Information]

238u [Proprietary Information] Total [Proprietary Information]

Source: EDF-3124-0010, 2015, RadiologicalDose Consequences Associated with Transportationof Materialsfor the Radioisotope Production Facilityfor Northwest Medical Isotopes, Rev. 2, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, January 4, 2015.

B Spent LEU is assumed to have the same source term as fresh LEU.

b Based on 186.6 kg (411 lb) total uranium.

LEU = low-enriched uranium.

Table 19-75. Estimated Waste Radiological Characteristics I *. ,

A- I S9Sr 0.65 1.8 91 y 0.56 0.93 141Ce 95 Zr 0.56 0.11 127 Sb 0.07 1 2.3 Source: EDF-3 124-0010, 2015, RadiologicalDose Consequences Associated with Transportationof Materialsfor the Radioisotope Production Facilityfor Northwest Medical Isotopes, Rev. 2, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, January 4, 2015.

a Based on the quantities in Table 19-13.

Table 19-76. Molybdenum-99 Product Radiological Characteristics

[Proprietary Information] [Proprietary Information]

99 8 9Sr MoIiii 103 R [Proprietary Information] ~Sr [Proprietary Information]

Source: EDF-3 124-0010, 2015, Radiological Dose Consequences Associated with Transportationof Materialsfor the Radioisotope Production Facilityfor Northwest Medical Isotopes, Rev. 2, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, January 4, 2015.

99 aBased on cask limit of 1,500 Ci Mo.19-223

NOhWETMEIA ISOOE lviChptr hpe 9.0NWMI-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev. 0A Review The dose associated with the transport of LEU is much smaller than the dose associated with the transport of other radioactive materials. Doses associated with the transport of LEU metal are much smaller because of the infrequent shipments (two per year) and the low activity in each shipment.

Palladium-i112 (1"2 pd) was not in the available nuclide library in RADTRAN. This radionuclide is a minor contributor to the 99Mo product source term. The dose consequence from "*2Pd was not calculated for the transportation scenarios presented. The exclusion of " 2pd has a negligible impact to the 99Mo product source term and derived dose consequence.

19.4.10.2.2 Dose Model Results The annual incident-free radiological doses resulting from transport of radioactive materials from the RPF are summarized in this section. These doses are calculated assuming that the dose rates associated with the shipping containers are equal to typical dose rates, based on the DOT-approved dose limits of 10 mrem/hr at 2 m. The source term used for the contents of the packages was determined based on the numbers in Table 19-71 through Table 19-76. The dose to workers due to the handling and transport of radioactive material to and from the RPF is 0.366 person-sievert (Sv) (36.6 person-rem/yr).

The dose to the general public resulting from exposure during transportation, including stops/inspections, is 0.473 person-Sv (47.3 person-rem/yr). The total dose to the maximum exposed individual from exposure during transit is 3.93E-06 Sv (3.933E-04 rem) (EDF-3124-0010).

As indicated in Section 19.3.8.2.1, background radiation for the RPF site is approximately 228 mrem/yr.

The population within a 5-mi radius of the facility is 33,966; therefore, the population dose in the vicinity of the RPF due to background radiation is approximately 77.44 person-Sv/yr (7,744 person-rem/yr).

Compared to the background dose in the vicinity of the RPF, the effect of incident-free transportation is small.

Materials to be transported to the RPF include LEU, irradiated targets, process chemicals, and other industrial supplies to support the day-to-day operation of the facility. Materials transported from the RPF include 99Mo product, targets, spent LEU, and waste. Section 19.2.7 provides a description of the treatment of radioactive and nonradioactive waste prior to shipment. Section 19.2.8.2.1 provides a description of the packaging associated LEU, targets, and 99Mo product. Descriptions of the modes of transport and distances are provided in Section 19.2.8.2.2, along with the estimated distance to anticipated destinations.

19.4.11 Postulated Accidents This section identifies the hazards associated with the facility, postulated accidents associated with the major systems of the RPF, the initiating events, the postulated accidents/hazards, and the impacts from postulated accidents that drive the design of the facility and systems. These accidents are referred to as design basis accidents (DBA). Detailed analyses of the radiological and nonradiological consequences from the maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) and subsequent accident categories are discussed in Chapter 13.

The hazards associated with the RPF include the following:

• Criticality

• Release of radioactive offgas or radioactive products

• Radioactive waste

• Hydrogen production by radiolytic decomposition of irradiated fissile solution

• Tank and equipment failure leading to a release of radiological or chemical materials

• Release during receiving of hazardous chemicals outside the facility 19-224

IIVVChapter 9.0 - Environmental Review

.... .NORT1HWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES 19.4.11.1 Accident Categories According to NRC (20 12a), the following accident categories are to be addressed for the RPF:

° MHA

• Criticality

• Loss of normal electrical power

• External events

• Mishandling or malfunction of equipment

• Operator error

• Facility fire

• Hazardous chemical release All initiating events and scenarios applicable to the RPF are discussed in Chapter 13. Representative accident scenarios with bounding consequences for each of the initiating events/scenario categories are evaluated quantitatively in Chapter 13. The most bounding accident scenarios with respect to consequences for the facility are evaluated in the following subsections.

19.4.11.1.1 Maximum Hypothetical Accident The RPF is being designed to withstand credible external events. Therefore, an internal accident releasing the largest possible quantity of radioactive material is considered to be the initiating event that would result in the maximum bounding radiological consequence. The MHA:

• Defines an event that results in radiological consequences that exceed those of any accident considered to be credible

• Bounds the radiological consequences of postulated DBA scenarios; does not need be a credible scenario but a failure assumed to establish an outer limit consequence

• Is based on events unique to the facility that hypothetically could result in a release of radioactive materials The accident scenario identified as the MHA is initiated after the dissolver system has been running beyond its nominal target processing rate (12 MURR targets per week) for 12 weeks. This allows the iodine retention units (IRU) to accumulate an amount of iodine greater than during normal operation.

Accident events might degrade the IRU, making it less efficient to capturing the fresh iodine during dissolution or generate a partial release of accumulated iodine. However, an accident that could release all of the accumulated iodine has not been identified.

As a conservative analysis, a combustion accident that releases all of the accumulated iodine as a gas was assumed to take place. As a result of the combustion, the entire inventory of iodine would also be released over a two-hour period directly to the 22.9 m (75-ft) stack and into the environment. The source term for the MHA scenario came from NWMI-201I3-CALC-0 11, Source Term Calculations. No reduction from secondary filter systems was assumed. In addition, no plating or entrapment of any iodine was assumed.

Controls that mitigate the consequences of the MHA include:

• Hot cell containment area/shielding

• Radiation monitors

• Ventilation system cascading design and secondary iodine retention unit

• Design of the entire dissolution offgas system (e.g., chain of filters and retention systems running in parallel through a large network of piping)19-225

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWMIV Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review

• Sizing of the target dissolution system and batching of target dissolution process for eight targets The evaluation of the inventory for the considered MHA is based on a set of limiting initial conditions that were designed to maximize the potential source term and bound the credible scenarios. These assumptions include:

• Estimating 12 MURR targets for the process batch upstream of the IRU system, which is beyond the process design capacity of eight MURR targets 6 Maximum accumulation of iodine in the IRU based on the 12 targets

• Greater than expected release of material (e.g., entire inventory of iodine is assumed to be deposited on a single IRU, no plating out of iodine, or subsequent capture downstream of IRU).

The Radiological Safety Analysis Code (RSAC) system, RSAC Version 6.2, was used to model the dispersion resulting from the MHA. The following common parameters were used for all model runs:

• Mixing depth: 400 m (1,312 ft) (default)

• Air density: 1,250 g/m 3 (1.25 oz/ft 3) (sea level)

• Pasquill-Gifford a (NRC Regulatory Guide 1.145, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants [NRC, 1983])

• No plume rise (i.e., buoyancy or stack momentum effects)

• No plume depletion (wet or dry deposition) Results

• 2-hr release (constant release of all activity)

• 2-hr exposure

• ICRP-30 inhalation model (ICRP-30, 1979)

• Finite cloud immersion model

• Breathing rate: 3.42E-4 m3 /second (sec)

(1 .2E-2 ft3/sec)(ICRP-30 heavy activity) 200 656 4.36E-03 4.36E-01

• Respiratory fraction: 1.0 The results of the modeling show that for a 22.9 m (75-ft) 400 1312 1.59E-02 1.59E+00 stack with the release detailed above, the maximum dose 500 received during a two-hour exposure by an individual 600 1968 8.15E-02 8.15E+00 would be 17.1 rem at a distance of 1,100 m. The dose 7OO results for the 12-target inventory are provided in 800 2625 1.40E-01 1.40E+0 1 Table 19-83.

The 8-hr and 16-hr decay inventories were used. 1100 3609 1.71 E-0 1 1.71E+01 Radionuclides not available in the RSAC library or noted as having an activity less than one atom were removed from the inventory in the RSAC model runs. The wind 1300 4265 1.67E-01 1.67E+01 speed (m/s) and stability category were varied. The model i40 was also run varying the inventory from 100 to 25 percent 1500 4921 1.56E-01 1.56E+0 1 (EDF-3124-0003, PreliminaryMaximum Hypothetical Accident to Support the Northwest Medical Isotope 1700 5577 1.43E-01 1.43E+01 Facility Environmental Report). Table 19-83 provides the results. Source: EDF-3124-0003, 2015, PreliminaryMaximum HypotheticalAccident to Support the Northwest Medical Isotope Facility EnvironmentalReport, Rev. 1, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, February 5, 2015.19-226

NW M

¶¶V I~

• *e.,NORTHW

.Q...

I~f STEIAIOTOPE$

Chapter 19.0NWMI-2013-021,

-Environmental Rev.

Review OA 19.4.11.1.2 Criticality Inadvertent criticality is prevented and/or mitigated by the design of criticality safe geometry tanks, piping, drains, and sumps in the hot cell areas. Administrative controls (e.g., batch sizing [mass] and time requirements) on system operations are implemented to prevent the occurrence of a criticality. Tanks or components containing significant quantities of fissile material are seismically qualified to survive seismic events.

Any potential releases of radioactive material from a criticality are mitigated by the offgas system, the ventilation system, and the passive confinement provided by the hot cell and the facility structure. The criticality event would result in a singular pulse or series of short duration pulses, followed by a dispersion of the fissile material. A criticality would generate source terms and doses that are equivalent to or less than the MHA discussed in Section 19.4.11.1.1.

19.4.11.1.3 Loss of Electrical Power A loss of power could lead to initiating events that result in various accident conditions, including the loss of ventilation and offgas system. Loss of ventilation and offgas systems could lead to deflagration from the accumulation of hydrogen gas in the offgas system, in the hot cell area, or in smaller vessels/piping.

Hydrogen accumulation in the offgas system and the hot cell area is not expected to exceed the lower explosive limit or lower flammability limit. In the event that accumulation occurs in a smaller vessel to a point above the lower explosive or lower flammability limits, and an ignition source is present, the deflagration event may occur. During this accident scenario, radioactive material is confined in the hot cell and ventilation system. The consequences of this scenario are bounded by the release of the entire contents of the dissolver during the MHA.

19.4.11.1.4 External Events The following potential external events have been identified as possible accident scenarios:

• Seismic event

• Tornado, high wind, or other natural phenomenon hazard

• External crash into the RPF The facility structure, including the hot cell containment areas and critical process equipment, would be designed, as required by the results of the safety analysis, to provide appropriate levels of mitigation during these accident scenarios.

19.4.11.1.5 Mishandling or Malfunction of Equipment Potential DBAs that could be initiated by mishandling or malfunction of equipment include:

• Failure of the offgas system

• Vessel or piping failure The proposed RPF would be designed with multiple engineering features and controls to prevent or mitigate the potential consequences from mishandling or malfunctioning equipment. Critical equipment would be designed robustly with significant redundancy or fail-safe features to prevent or mitigate the consequences from these events. Consequences from these accident scenarios are bounded by the release of the entire contents of the dissolver, as discussed in the MHA.19-227

lviChater19.0 ChptrMWM-2I302,Rev.

- Environmental ReviewQ 19.4.11.1.6 Operator Error In any process, operator error is considered probable. The proposed RPF and systems would be designed to minimize the need for operator inputs. Human factors would be considered when determining process steps, controls, and procedures used to define operations at the facility. Work controls would include independent checks and verifications when transitioning between steps, a mass balance tracking system, and batch-wise process flow controls to help eliminate the need for human judgment and interference with a system. When possible, engineered controls would be used to define process steps. This includes geometrically favorable configurations, small capacity tanks, bird-cages, or zone barriers. When necessary, administrative controls would be used to supplement engineered controls. Batch-wise process, zones, active inventory management for all fissile or hazardous material, and storage accountability controls would be used as administrative controls. The MHA could be initiated by operator error; however, all other postulated accidents that could happen within the hot cell or around the facility proper result in consequences that are bounded by the MHA.

19.4.11.1.7 Facility Fire A fire in the proposed RPF is identified as a possible DBA. Events that could lead to a fire may be precipitated by failure of electrical or mechanical equipment or human error involving a loss of control of combustible materials or ignition sources. Facility fires are not expected to directly release significant amounts of radioactive material; however, fires can lead to the release of radioactive material where fire damage to process equipment results in a loss of confinement through damage to system integrity, spurious equipment operation, or loss of equipment control. Fire damage to equipment typically results from direct exposure of equipment to a fire or exposure of equipment to elevated temperatures caused by a fire. Widespread fire damage to process equipment that can lead to a radiological release most likely occurs inside a confined enclosure such as the hot cell or vessel. Small spaces also provide confinement of the products of combustion, which can develop into a damaging fire environment.

A damaging fire environment in the general area of the RPF is unlikely due to the large size of the area.

Direct fire damage to key process equipment that could lead to a significant radiological release is not likely because redundant control or power circuits are separated by distance to prevent such damage from a single fire. Thus, the DBA is considered to be a fire in an enclosure that may develop into a damaging fire environment.

The design basis fire accident is postulated to occur in the hot cell where it would contribute to the release of the contents of the dissolver. Fire damage to the dissolver, associated valves, or process piping could lead to a release of contents of the dissolver into the hot cell area. Release of this material into the hot cell could lead to an airborne release of radiological material into the cell and ultimately migrate into the ventilation system. The potential release would be mitigated by design of the fire suppression system and the ventilation system. Mitigation would occur due to the activation of the fire suppression system and the isolation of affected parts of the ventilation system in response to a smoke alarm signal or detection of radioactive material by the radiation monitoring system. Activation of the fire suppression system would reduce or stop the spread of combustion. Isolation of the ventilation system would prevent significant release to the environment.

Radiological release of this DBA is bounded by the MI-A and contained by the facility (i.e., hot cell) and ventilation system. The hot cell structure and ventilation systems are designed to withstand or contain fire strengths that are postulated for this event.19-228

-"- VV' VChater19.0- Chapter WM.-2013-o21 Environmental Rev. OA Review

• -. ,.. -

• ORTHEWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES 19.4.11.1.8 Hazardous Chemical Release Consistent with NUREG/CR-64 10, hazardous chemical releases considered for this ER are limited to those that can be released from the processing of licensed nuclear material or that have the potential for adversely affecting radiological safety. Other Federal and State agencies such as EPA and OSHA also regulate hazardous chemical management to protect facility workers and the general public from releases.

The controls, programs, licenses, threshold quantities, and other aspects of Federal and State programs other than NRC would be considered during the consequence analysis. Where necessary to ensure that radiological safety is not adversely affected, engineering or administrative controls would be developed to eliminate or mitigate the chemical release and the postulated accident(s) and resultant controls, as discussed in Chapter 13. The effects of chemical releases will also be considered in the facility emergency response plan and operating procedures.

The consequences of chemical releases are evaluated using dispersion models and/or computer codes that conform to NUREG/CR-6410 methodologies. The ALOHA computer code was used to estimate the consequences from releases of certain chemicals currently anticipated to be present at the RPF. ALOHA is an atmospheric dispersion model used for evaluating releases of hazardous chemical vapors. The model does not monitor combinations or chemical reactions. Chemical reactions will be addressed in the safety analysis discussed in Chapter 13. The inventory values used in the ALOHA analysis are considered to be bounding conditions and may be refined during the development of the Final Safety Analysis (FSAR), as the process matures. Within the context of the preliminary safety analysis (PSAR),

calculation of the exposure of the maximally exposed off-site individual (MOD) and nearest resident, and comparison to Protective Action Criteria (PAC) limits serve as a baseline to identify where additional controls should be considered (e.g., where the worker is subject to effects that hinder their ability to respond or where off-site response to a radiological emergency may be hindered by chemical effects).

In running the simulation model, no credit is taken for depletion or plate-out of chemicals within the RPF or during transport to the fence line or nearest population location. All dispersion calculations are performed assuming moderate wind conditions (i.e., Stability Class C) based on the average meteorological conditions presented in Section 19.3.2.1. The following environmental parameters were used:

• Wind speed is 14.25 km/hr (8.86 mi/hr)

• Wind direction is from due south (180°)

• Temperature is 23.9°C (75°F)

• Humidity is 70 percent The location of the MOI is based on the general layout of the RPF, as shown in [Proprietary Information]

Figure 19-10. The distance from the facility to the boundary fence is estimated at 24 m (80 ft). The location of the nearest resident is based on Table 19-77. The nearest resident is 0.43 km (0.27 mi

[285 ft]) to the south. The model is run such that the MOI and the resident are both in line with the direction of the wind. This provides a conservative bound for the exposure calculation.

Chemical concentrations were determined for a select list of chemicals from Table 19-68. Chemicals were selected based on availability in the ALOHA library and quantity. Chemical inventory and release concentrations for the MOI and nearest resident are presented in Table 19-77. In each case, the material at risk (MAR) represents the estimated maximum inventory of the chemical listed. Two different scenarios were used for the release, based on the physical form of the chemical. For liquid chemicals, the scenario is a breach in the tank resulting in an unconfined spill and subsequent evaporation. For gases,19-229

.. lvioi.:,*.Chapter.1.NWMI-2013-021, hate 9.0 -Environmental Rev. 0A Review the scenario is an immediate release to the atmosphere from a ruptured tank. All scenarios were conducted for a 1-hr interval.

Table 19-77. Chemical Dose Analysis Results Nitric acid (HNO 3) 5,000 (L) 1,321 (gal) liquid 24 (ppm) 1,200 (ppm) 19.1 (ppm)

Ammonia 100 (kg) 220 (lb) gas 160 (ppm) 36,800 (ppm) 123 (ppm) aSodium hydroxide (NaOH) 1,900 (L) 502 (gal) liquid 5 (ppm) NA NA Source: EDF-3 124-0002, 2014, Chemical Hazard Analysis for Accidents Associated with the Radioisotope ProductionFacilityfor Northwest Medical Isotopes, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

a Sodium hydroxide was not analyzed, but based on the quantity, and the low PAC-2 limit, it is assumed to exceed the PAC-2 limit.

MAR = material at risk. NA = not applicable.

MOI = maximally exposed off-site individual. PAC = Protective Action Criteria.

The results for each chemical are compared to the values listed in the PAC for chemicals, including Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL), Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG), and Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits (TEEL) (DOE, 2012). The analysis indicates that some of the chemical exposures exceed PAC-2 limits. The PAC-2/EPRG-2 limit is the threshold below which it is believed that nearly all individuals exposed for up to 1 hr would not experience irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms that could impair their ability to take protective actions. Accordingly, releases above the PAC-2IEPRG-2 limit will be evaluated, and additional controls will be developed. These requirements and controls will be are specifically identified in in the PSAR and subsequent FSAR.

19.4.11.2 Postulated Accident Impacts The proposed RPF would be designed, constructed, and operated to ensure that the consequences of postulated accidents would comply with applicable regulations and standards, as discussed in other sections (e.g., Chapters 11 and 13 of the Construction Permit Application). Therefore, the postulated accident impacts associated with construction, operation, or decommissioning of the RPF would be small.

19.4.12 Environmental Justice On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." Executive Order 12898 directs Federal executive agencies to consider environmental justice under NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.).

This Executive Order ensures that minority and/or low-income populations do not bear a disproportionate share of adverse health or environmental consequences associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the RPF.19-230

" ,=

EUVYChVpter19.0 "NORThIWEST MESICAL ISOOfPES ChptrWWMI03-2,Rev. O

- Environmental Review 19.4.12.1 Methodology This section describes the minority population and household income distribution within the ROI, the 8 km (5.0-mi) area from the center point of the proposed safety-related area at the proposed RPF. The information includes estimates of the minority population and household income for the most recent (2010) census year, and projects that population for the following future years:

• Year submitting Construction Permit application (2015)

• Year submitting Operating License application (2016)

• Five years after submitting Construction Permit application (2020)

• Five years after submitting Operating License application (2021)

• Approximate expected end of Operating License period (2047)

• Five years after approximate expected end of Operating License period (2052)

Estimates and projections of minority and household income distribution around the proposed project site were 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 a total of 80 population segments. For each segment formed by the distance bands and directional sectors, the minority and income distribution was estimated using 2010 Census data. The future minority and household income growth in each distance/direction segment was projected using specific growth rates that depend on whether the segment is located in Columbia or in Boone County.

The City of Columbia comprehensive land use plan, dated October 7, 2013 (City of Columbia, 2013c),

presents projections on the future city 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 obtaining historic population data and determining 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 also within the Columbia city limits. The 2010 Census estimate of resident and transient populations 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 involves the review of recent historical 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 2010-2015, by 7.2 percent from 2015-2020, by 6.2 percent from 2020-2025, and by 5.0 percent from 2025-2030. For each five-year period, the percent of 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 City of Columbia. The estimated 2010 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 2011-2015, by 1.44 percent from 20 16-2020, by 1.24 percent from 2021-2025, and by 1.0 percent from 2026-2030. The growth rate, or 1.0 percent, was used for 2031-2050.

19-23 1

ChaperI1NWM,-2013-021, Rev. 0A lviChptr 9.0 -Environmental Review 19.4.12.2 Minority Population The 2010 Census race and ethnic minority data associated with the census block and tract areas were used to estimate the minority population within the 1 km (0.6-mi), 2 km (1.2-mi), 4 km (2.5-mi), 6 km (3.7-mi.), and 8 km (5.0-mi) distance bands. As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, ethnic minority populations are Asian Americans, Black or African Americans, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders, and Native Indian or Alaska Native. Total minority populations were estimated in each segment for each of the minority populations. For each segment formed by the distance bands and directional sectors, the percentage of each census tract land area that falls, either partially or entirely, within that segment was calculated using ESRI ArcMap 10. The equivalent proportion of each census tract's minority 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 minority distribution estimate for that segment. This methodology and associated maps are presented in Section 19.2. The minority distribution estimate was then used to calculate the percentage of the resident population by race for each of the designated years. The percent of the resident population by race is based on the resident population estimate discussed in Section 19.3.7.1.2.

19.4.12.3 Household Income The U.S. Census Bureau 2006-20 10 American Community Survey estimate data and associated census tract and block data were used to determine the 2010 household income within the 1 km (0.6-mi), 2 km (1.2-mi), 4 km (2.5-mi), 6 km (3.7-mi), and 8 km (5.0-mi) distance bands (USCB, 2010d). The survey data estimates household income into 16 income levels, starting with those that earn less than $10,000/yr.

The method for estimating household income within the distance bands is the same method used for determining the minority population.

19.4.12.4 Assessment of Disproportionate Impacts Under current NRC staff guidance, a minority or low-income community is identified by comparing the percentage of the minority or low-income population in the impacted area to the percentage of the minority or low-income population in the county and the state. Significance is defined as when the percentage of either the minority or low-income population in the impacted area exceeds 20 percentage points of the state or the county. Significance is also considered if either the minority or low-income population percentage in the impacted area exceeds 50 percent of the total population (NRC, 2012c).

19.4.12.4.1 Minority Population Table 19-78 provides the results of the analysis for minority populations. The minority population distribution is anticipated to increase at the same rate of the general population (1.5 percent annually) over the license period. The percentages of each minority category within the county and state are also provided as the basis for determining if any of the population groups meet the NRC criteria of significant.

For the most part, the population within each segment block within the 8 km (5-mi) radius is within two percentage points of the state and county minority populations. In addition, none of the segment block minority populations exceed 50 percent.19-232

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

• "+.."NW*H*T JmAIIOOE Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-78. Percent Population Distribution by Race

-. .. 4

• p -

I -.. . S6 S.

0-1lkm (0-0.6 mi) 221 81% 4% 9% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3%

0% 5% 0% 0%2 2-4 km (1.2-2.5 mi) 7,608 81% 3% 8%

0% 5% 0% 0% 2%

6-8 km (3.7-5 mi) 23,143 79% 3% 10%

0% 6% 0% 0% 2%

Missouri 6,444,660 81% 4% 11%

Source: USCB, 2010c, "U.S. Census 2010," factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/

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

aPopulation extrapolated to 2015.

19.4.12.4.2 Low Income Populations Table 19-79 provides the results of the analysis for low income populations. The population distribution is anticipated to increase 1.5 percent annually over the license period.

Table 19-79. Estimated Household Income Within Various Distance Bands and Within State and County (2 pages)

Total households 361 954 3,264 5,031 11,245 63,420 2,538,656

$10,000 to $14,999 7.5% 8.2% 8.3% 7.3% 8.7% 6.0% 6.2%

$20,00 to$4,9 11.1% 11.8% 11.4% 9.9% 8.0% 7.1% 6.2%

$30,000 to $34,999 3.9% 4.8% 6.4% 6.1% 5.2% 5.7% 5.8%

$40,000 to $44,999 5.5% 5.3% 5.4% 5.2% 4.5% 5.3% 5.3%

$50,000 to $59,999 8.9% 9.1% 9.3% 8.0% 6.9% 8.4% 8.8%

$75,000 to $99,999 11.6% 10.5% 9.0% 8.3% 8.0% 11.5% 11.7%

$125,000 to $149,999 3.3% 2.7% 2.6% 2.7% 3.6% 3.7% 3.5%

19-233

• ~N VVINWMI-21-2,  : : Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Rv. o Review Table 19-79. Estimated Household Income Within Various Distance Bands and Within State and County (2 pages)

$200,O000or more 1.4% 2.1% 2.0% 1.5% 1.9% 2.6% 2.5%

USCB, 2010d, 2006-2010 American Community Survey. Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2010 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars), www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/data_main, Table B 1900, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., accessed September 2013.

The percentages applicable to each income category within the county and state are also provided as the basis for determining if any of the population groups meet the NRC criteria of significant. For the most part, the low-income population within each segment block within the 8 km (5-mi) radius is within two percentage points of the state and county low-income populations. The "less than $10,000" income level in the segments from 4-8 km (2.5-5 mi) is higher than the state and county (8 to 9.9 percentage points),

but below the significance criteria of 20 percentage points. In addition, none of the segment block low-income populations exceed 50 percent.

19.4.13 Connected Actions - University Reactor Network Irradiation of LEU targets at the university research reactors is key component of the NWMI process. For a specific university reactor to irradiate LEU targets for NWMI, an amendment to the university's 10 CFR 50 NRC license and an analysis of site-specific environmental impacts related to such an amendment would be required. For the purposes of complying with NEPA' s requirements to analyze connected actions, the following sections analyze the operations at each of the proposed university reactors.

19.4.13.1 IrradiationServices Irradiation of LEU targets at the university research reactors is a key component of the NWMI process.

For a university research reactor to irradiate LEU targets for NWMI, an amendment to the university's 10 CFR 50 NRC license and an analysis of site-specific environmental impacts related to such an amendment would be required. For the purposes of complying with NEPA requirements to analyze connected actions, the following sections analyze the operations at each of the proposed university reactors.

19.4.13.1.1 University of Missouri Research Reactor Facility Modification A number of facility modifications are anticipated to be required to support handling and irradiating LEU targets at MURR. The most significant modifications that will be performed, either via license amendment or by performing a screen or evaluation per 10 CFR 50.59, "Changes, Tests, and Experiments," include:

Fabrication and installation of three graphite reflector elements to provide irradiation locations for the targets near the reactor core - The fabrication and installation of new graphite reflector elements are routine operations and the facility has years of experience in both areas, with personnel doses well documented during installation. Graphite reflector elements are designed based on the programming needs of the facility to support the type of material irradiations needed for research and development and for service work.19-234

lIChapter 19.0 - Environmental Review

. e,.,NORTHWEST MEOICAL ISOTOPES Fabrication of an intermediate irradiated target transfer cask - Design and build an intermediate irradiated target transfer cask to transfer irradiated targets from the reactor pooi to a Type B transport cask. This cask will be similar, both physically and functionally, to the current TRIGA single element transfer cask that is routinely used for fuel movements at other TRIGA-fueled facilities worldwide.

• Addition of an airlock on the beamport floor - Design and construct an airlock on the beamport floor of the reactor to enable the intermediate irradiated target transfer cask to be moved into and out of the containment structure while the reactor is operating.

• Addition of storage locations for both unirradiated and irradiated NWMI targets - Design and build storage areas for unirradiated targets in an area yet to be determined and for irradiated targets in the reactor pool awaiting shipment. These storage locations will be similar to what is currently used to store fresh and irradiated reactor fuel in geometrically safe criticality configurations.

Other minor tasks will include refurbishment of the 15-ton capacity overhead rectilinear crane and freight elevator for increased reliability and fabrication of some target handling tools. These tasks may or may not fall under the 10 CFR 50.59 screen and evaluation process depending on whether modifications need to be made.

19.4.13.1.1.1 Fresh Low-Enriched Uranium Target Handling MURR receives 24 fresh HEU fuel elements per year as part of the normal operating cycle fuel consumption. These elements undergo a receipt inspection that includes a contamination and radiation survey. These elements typically read 2 to 3 mrem/hr on contact. Based on information obtained from TRIGA-fueled reactors that have gone through HEU-to-LEU fuel conversion in the past eight years, the receipt of fresh LEU TRIGA fuel may be indicative of what should be expected for unirradiated LEU targets.

The fuel received for conversions was 20 percent enriched and 30 wt% standard TRIGA fuel containing a nominal uranium mass of 820 g within a stainless-steel clad cylinder with outer dimensions very similar to the proposed LEU targets. Typical dose equivalent rate readings on contact and at 0.3 m (1 ft) were 0.1 to 0.3 and 0 mrem/hr, respectively. No measureable dose equivalent rate at 0.3 m (1 ft) from a fully loaded storage container was observed. Because of this, no appreciable increase in the occupational dose equivalent is expected from the handling of the proposed unirradiated LEU targets at MURR.

Additionally, no appreciable increase in dose to the general public is expected from handling the unirradiated LEU targets due primarily to the very low dose equivalent rates observed with the LEU TRIGA fuel handling and a lack of proximity of the general public to the targets themselves.

19.4.13.1.1.2 Irradiated Low-Enriched Uranium Target Handling MURR has extensive experience in handling fresh and irradiated reactor fuel, fueled experiments, and irradiated samples of varying materials, masses, and fluences within the reactor pool. To support its operating cycle, MURR performs a complete reactor core refueling each week that consists of, at a minimum, 16 fuel-handling evolutions. All of these fuel-handling evolutions and material sample handling have well-documented historical dose rate measurements. The handling of irradiated NWMI targets, using established ALARA principles, is anticipated to have a minimal impact on the occupational dose to MURR staff. Table 19-80. Table 19-81, and Table 19-82 provide a summary of the past five years of occupational dose to the MURR reactor operations, reactor health physics, and shipping groups, respectively, that are responsible for handling, packaging, and shipping the irradiated LEU targets.19-235

NW MvI  :  : Chpter hpe 9.0NWMI-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev.

Review 0A Table 19-80. Annual Occupational Dose Summary for MURR Reactor Operations Group (typically 28 people badged within the group) 2013 1,556 1,236 67 696 19,489 2011 2,895 1,010 68 698 16,055 2009 2,930 870 41 574 14,928 Table 19-81. Annual Occupational Dose Summary for MURR Reactor Health Physics Group (typically 8 people badged within the group) 2013 866 425 22 202 1,621 2011 1,609 1,248 22 461 3,225 "2009 810 772 11 172 2,411 a In 2009 and 2010, Reactor Health Physics Group was part of the Regulatory Assurance Group, which typically badged up to 14 people within the group.

Table 19-82. Annual Occupational Dose Summary for the Shipping Group (typically 8 people badged within the group) 2013 3,397 1,565 51 578 4,623 2011 3,209 1,253 33 629 4,403 2009 3,290 887 36 427 3,842 19-236

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA

• -*. NORThWESTMEWtCALS/PE Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review The MURR environmental monitoring program includes monitoring the annual dose equivalent at various locations and distances from the facility ventilation exhaust stack. There are 40 environmental monitoring stations deployed within the fenced, licensed area and also beyond the fenced area up to a distance of 907 m (2,976 ft). Each station includes a three-chip environmental TLD. Table 19-83 summarizes the annual dose equivalent of the 40 environmental dosimeters. Two stations (Station No. 9 and 15), located immediately adjacent to two separate loading docks that are a part of the laboratory building and well within the fenced area, account for approximately 60 percent of the total annual accumulative dose.

Packages containing radioactive material are Table 19-83. Summation of the Annual Dose staged for transport and loaded at these locations. Equivalent for the MURR Environmental Most other environmental TLDS receive little or Thermoluminescent Dosimeters no dose. Given the similarity in activities (i.e.,

fuel handling evolutions and movements of irradiated NWMI targets), a measureable increase in the projected dose to the general public is 2013 257 unlikely to occur.

19.4.13.1.2 Oregon State University TRIGA 2011 214 Reactor 19.4.13.1.2.1 Facility Modifications 20092 323 Three modifications are anticipated to be needed a After 2010, some of the radioactive material for the OSTR to handle both unirradiated and packing was relocated further within the facility, away from the two environmental dosimeters located at irradiated NWMI targets, and include the Stations 9 and 15.

following:

• Refurbish the existing 5-ton overhead crane (e.g., replacement of contactors, motor brushes, etc.)

or replace the crane to increase reliability and weight margin. Either modification will need to follow the process described in 10 CFR 50.59 for making changes to a facility.

• Design and build an intermediate target transfer cask to transfer irradiated targets from the primary tank to a Type B transport cask. This cask will be similar, both physically and functionally, to the current TRIGA single-element transfer cask that is routinely used for fuel movements at OSTR and other TRIGA-fueled facilities worldwide.

• Design and build a storage container for storage of unirradiated LEU targets. This storage container is anticipated to be similar to the one designed and built to hold fresh TRIGA fuel elements during the OSTR fuel conversation in 2008. Approved by the NRC during the order to convert, this container is a metal box with two holding plates containing holes in a grid pattern necessary to maintain a geometrically safe criticality configuration.

1 9.4.13.1.2 .2 Fresh Low-Enriched Uranium Target Handling Experience with the receipt of fresh LEU TRIGA fuel used for the HEU-to-LEU fuel conversion at the OSTR in 2008 is indicative of what would be expected for the fresh NWMI targets. The fuel received was 20 percent enriched and 30 wt% standard TRIGA fuel containing a nominal uranium mass of 820 g within a stainless-steel clad cylinder with outer dimensions similar to the NWMI LEU targets. After the fresh LEU TRIGA fuel was received, each element was visually inspected, dimensions recorded, and the dose equivalent rates measured at contact and at 0.3 m (1 ft) away along the perpendicular bisect. Typical dose equivalent rate readings at contact and at 0.3 m (1 ft) were 0.1 to 0.3 and 0 mrem/hr, respectively.19-237

S NW MIVI:  : Chapter 19.0NWI212,

- Environmental Rv.

Review G

Once the inspections were complete, no measureable dose equivalent rate at 0.3 m (1 ft) from the fully loaded storage container was observed.

The receipt of LEU targets is expected to be similar, with no appreciable increase in the occupational dose equivalent expected from their handling. Additionally, no appreciable increase in dose to the general public is expected from handling the LEU targets due primarily to the very low dose equivalent rates observed with the LEU TRIGA fuel handling and a lack of proximity of the general public to the targets themselves.

19.4.13.1.2.3 Irradiated Low-Enriched Uranium Target Handling The handling of irradiated HEU TRIGA fuel during the HEU-to-LEU fuel conversion at the OSTR is similar to what would be expected for the irradiated NWMI targets. Additionally, the OSTR has collected underwater exposure rate measurements on irradiated HEU TRIGA fuel over several decades. The HEU TRIGA fuel is nearly identical in terms of both outer dimensions and uranium mass as the LEU targets.

In late 2008, the existing HEU core was unloaded to a neighboring storage pool using the single-element TRIGA fuel transfer cask. In early 2009, the fuel from the HEU core was moved from the storage pool to the Type B transport cask. Although the short-lived radioisotopes had decayed away prior to the move, the burn-up on the fuel (1260 megawatt days [MWD]) was considerably higher that what is anticipated for the LEU targets (6.5 MWD). Initial estimates of the exposure rates of the irradiated LEU targets during the transfer at the OSTR from the primary tank to the cask are approximately a factor of 3 larger than experienced during the fuel movements just described. This difference would be accommodated by shield optimization of the intermediate transfer cask that will need to be designed and built. This transfer cask would be similar, both physically and functionally, to the current TRIGA single-element transfer cask that is routinely used for fuel movements at OSTR and other TRIGA-fueled facilities worldwide.

In 2013, the OSTR was completely unloaded and reloaded again, involving well over 200 fuel movements.

Table 19-84 summarizes the occupational dose equivalent information for the last seven years. Years 2008, 2009, and 2014, when large number of fuel movements occurred, would be similar in procedure and application to what is anticipated for the irradiated LEU targets. (Note: The higher values in 2014 are largely due to a significant and high-exposure rate maintenance evolution that occurred after unloading the core.) Given that the occupational dose did not otherwise significantly change during these years, were within ALARA guidelines, and all less than the applicable dose limit during these time periods, the routine handling of irradiate LEU targets should not significantly increase the occupational dose rates.

Table 19-84. Annual Summary of Occupational Doses Received at the Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor 2014 382 502 639 914 2,229 3,518 2012 102 340 187 1269 717 2,377 2010 39 212 64 478 446 1,489 2008 106 312 227 566 850 2,495 19-238

NWMIChpe1.; I The OSTR environmental monitoring program Table 19-85. Total Annual Dose Equivalent includes monitoring the annual dose equivalent at Measured at the Oregon State University TRIGA the fence that surrounds the reactor. There are Reactor Fence Line nine environmental monitoring stations located on the fence. Each station includes a three-chip environmental TLD. The average measured annual close inequivalent is provided measured by these stations Table 19-85.2031 2014 15 - 206 As noted previously, a number of fuel element 2012 8 +/-4 transfers similar to what is anticipated with the !J irradiated LEU targets, occurred in 2008, 2009, 201 10....4 and 2014. Given the similarity in activities (i.e., 2010 7 +/-3 fuel movements and movements of irradiated LEU 2009 18+/-7 targets), a measureable increase in the projected ......... ....... ...........

dose to the general public is unlikely to occur. 2008 11 +/- 4 19.4.13.1.3 Third University Network Reactor The third university reactor, once selected, would also require an amendment to the university's 10 CFR 50 license and analysis of site-specific environmental impacts related to such an amendment.

Information is not currently available to conduct additional analysis for the third reactor. However, the impacts associated with irradiating LEU targets at both MURR and OSTR are considered to be similar to what would be expected at a third reactor.

19.4.13.2 Transportation A detailed description of the transportation of unirradiated and irradiated LEU targets to the university reactor network is provided in Section 19.4.10.

19.4.13.3 Waste Management 19.4.13.3.1 University of Missouri Research Reactor The amount of radioactive waste that would be generated at MURR as a result of handling and irradiating NWMI targets is not anticipated to be significant, as the targets will be minimally handled with little potential for contamination. The majority of the waste generated will be solid dry wastes (e.g., paper, gloves, and absorbent materials) from moving casks into and out of the reactor pool. Estimates of the added amount of dry-solid-compactable radioactive wastes are 0.11 to 0.17 m3 (4 to 6 ft3) annually. In comparison, MURR generated an average of 19.4 m3 (685 ft3) of dry solid radioactive waste annually over the past five years. No liquid radioactive waste is expected to be generated as a result of these activities.

19.4.13.3.2 Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor The amount of radioactive waste that would be generated at OSTR as a result of handling and irradiating LEU targets is not anticipated to be signification, as the targets will be minimally handled with little potential for contamination. The majority of the waste generated would be solid dry wastes (e.g., paper, gloves, and absorbent materials) from 19-239

• ChapterII19.0 - Environmental Review The targets will be moved from the reactor core to the intermediate transfer cask underwater in the primary tank. Estimates of the added amount of dry-solid-compactable radioactive wastes at OSTR is 0.11 to 0.17 m3 (4 to 6 ft3) annually. In comparison, OSTR typically generates 0.85 to 1.13 m3 (30 to 40 ft3) of dry solid radioactive wastes annually. No liquid radioactive waste is expected to be generated as a result of these activities.

19.4.13.3.3 Third University Reactor The third university research reactor will generate waste similar to OSTR.

19.4.14 Cumulative Impacts The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA require that the cumulative impacts of a proposed action be assessed (40 CFR 1500-1508, "Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act"). A cumulative impact is defined by the Council as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.7, "Cumulative Impact").

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). The Council on Environmental Quality guidance for considering cumulative effects states that NEPA documents "should compare the cumulative effects of multiple actions with appropriate national, regional, State, or community goals to determine whether the total effect is significant" (CEQ, 1997).

This section addresses cumulative effects of the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the RPF in the context of other actions within the ROI and during the reasonably foreseeable future.

Section 19.4.14.1 presents the methodology used to evaluate cumulative impacts. Section 19.4.14.2 presents other projects within the ROI that may have cumulative effects when combined with the impacts from the RPF. Section 19.4.14.3 identifies and describes the cumulative impacts for each of the resource areas discussed in Sections 19.3 and 19.4.

19.4.14.1 Methodology Cumulative impacts were evaluated by other identified projects and actions (Federal, State, and private) that have occurred or may occur in the present, or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Projects were identified through several sources. The initial lists of local projects were identified using the City of Columbia FY2013 CIP Planning Document (City of Columbia, 20130). In addition, State and county planning documents were reviewed, and potential projects were discussed with Regional Economic Development, Inc., to identify potential private projects. After identifying projects, the likelihood that a project would be reasonably expected to occur was determined.

An integral part of the cumulative impacts analysis involved determining if impacts from the proposed projects would contribute to ongoing or foreseeable resource trends. A list of projects was evaluated to identify those with the potential to contribute incremental impact resources during RPF construction, operation, and decommissioning. Many of the identified projects are anticipated to have short-term, temporary, direct impacts or are outside of the ROI and not expected to have cumulative impacts with the RPF. These projects include many of the street and sidewalk, maintenance, replacement, and public safety projects.

The cumulative impacts analyses do not assess all expected environmental impacts from regional projects within the ROI. Only those impacts resulting from the RPF and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that influence the identified resource area are assessed.19-240

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A IW Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review The cumulative impacts were then assessed by resource area (e.g., water resources, air quality, and socioeconomic impacts). Impacts may arise from single or multiple actions, or they may result in additive or interactive effects. Interactive effects may, in some cases, be countervailing, where the adverse cumulative effect is less than the sum of the individual effects; or they may be synergistic, where the net adverse cumulative effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects (CEQ, 1997).

For individual resources, the ROI for cumulative impacts is often larger than the ROI for direct and indirect impacts (identified in Section 19.3, within each resource area discussion). The factors considered in determining the significance of cumulative impacts are often the same as those presented in Section 19.4.

19.4.14.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Table 19-86 lists 239 projects, which, when considered with the proposed RPF, could result in incremental impacts to a number of resource areas. These activities largely involve State and local construction occurring near the proposed RPF site.

Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

Oil Water Sep 7th & 10/1/2003 12/31/2008 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Walnut previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

5th & Walnut Parking 10/1/2006 10/1/2010 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Garage previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

10/1/2010 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Short St. Parking Garage 10/1/2008 previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Columbia Regional- Greater than Greater Y Construction includes newly Airport Runway 8 km than 5 disturbed lands and the potential Expansion cumulative effects from air emissions and effects on land use.

Columbia Regional Not yet Greater than Greater N Construction activity limited to Airport Terminal defined 8 km than 5 previously disturbed lands at a Expansion distance from the RPF site.

Power Plant Rail Spur 10/1/2010 9/30/2011 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

9/30/2011 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to College Avenue Crossing 10/1/2010 previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Construct Warehouse & 10/1/2013 12/31/2015 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Enclosed Parking previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Municipal Office Space 3.7 to 5 N Existing facility with new 7/17/2000 4/30/2011 6 to 8 km Expansion construction.

Global PET Imaging 0tol1km 0to0.6 N Project is conceptual with no Not yet defined identified date to initiate.

19-24 1

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWM I Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages) m Em""' El-Blind Boone Home 12/1/2000 12/1/2000 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Existing facility with new construction.

University of Mo 2012 2015 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Existing facility with new Memorial Stadium construction.

Expansion University of Mo -- 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Campus Chilled Water previously disturbed lands at a Plant Phase 2 distance from the RPF site.

MURR Industrial 2014 2014 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Building Expansion previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Odles' Discovery Park Not yet 0Otol1km 0-0.6 mi Y Development is mostly on Residential/Commercial defined undisturbed land located near the Development RPF site. Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, air.

noise, traffic, and utilities.

Aspen Heights Housing 2012 2013 2 to 4 km 1.3 to 2.5 Y Development is mostly on Development undisturbed land located near the RPF site. Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, air, noise, traffic, and utilities.

The Grove Student 2011 2011 2to4km 1.3 to 2.5 Y Development is mostly on Housing undisturbed land located near the RPF site. Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, air.

noise, traffic, and utilities.

2013 2014 2 to 4km 1.3 to2.5 Y Development is mostly on The Den Student Hosing undisturbed land located near the RPF site. Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, air.

noise, traffic, and utilities.

Fire Station #1 N Construction activity limited to 10/11/2005 10/1/2006 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Replace Existing Fire 3/6/2006 1/ 19/2009 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Station # 7 previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Police Headquarters 3/17/2012 3/17/2013 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Building previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Distr. Center/Yard - 10/1/2005 10/1/2012 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5' N Construction activity limited to Consolidation & previously disturbed lands at a Expansion distance from the RPF site.

Distributed Generator at 10/1/2007 9/30/2008 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Southeast Location previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.19-242

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

• l... NOR}WMS MEIAIOESI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

Broadway Undergrounding 10/2/2008 9/30/2011

-I 6 to more than 8 km 3.7 to 5 El.!

N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

New South Side 10/1/2009 9/1/2013 2 to more 1.3 to more N Construction activity on previously 161/13.8 kV Substation than 8 km than 5 disturbed land and some undisturbed lands. However, the impacts are anticipated to be limited and short-term.

Rebel Hill 212- 10/1/2009 10/1/2010 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Substation Feeder previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Perche Substation 10/1/2009 5/1/2015 4 to more 2.5Sto more N Construction activity on previously Transformer Interconnect than 8 km than 5 disturbed land and some undisturbed lands. However, the impacts are anticipated to be limited and short-term.

William Street 10/1/2009 9/30/2010 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Undergrounding previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Underground Rangeline - 12/23/2009 3/1/2011 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Rogers to Wilkes previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Relocation of 69 kV Line 4/1/2010 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously

- Hinkson to Perche disturbed land and some undisturbed lands. However, the impacts are anticipated to be limited and short-term.

Primary Control Center 4/1/2010 4/1/2013 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Green Meadows- 5/1/2010 11/1/2010 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Providence to Gray Oak- previously disturbed lands at a SLA distance from the RPF site.

E. Broadway-Hinkson 10/1/2010 12/1/2012 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Creek-Brickton Dr. previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Clark Ln-Rte PP to St. 10/1/2010 5/1/2012 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Charles Rd-SLA previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Eastpointe Electric Loop 3/24/2011 10/1/2013 2 to 6km 1.3 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously Closure disturbed land and some undisturbed lands. However, the impacts are anticipated to be limited and short-term.

Grindstone 223 - 10/1/2011 12/31/2012 2 to 4km 1.3 to 2.5 N Construction activity limited to Substation Feeder previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.19-243

• ~.NWMI Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

- Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

South 16! Tie Line (Grindstone-Perche) 10/1/2012 12/31/2014 Il2 to more than 8 km 1.3 to more than 5 N

El- Construction activity on previously disturbed land and some undisturbed lands. However, the impacts are anticipated to be limited and short-term.

5th St. Undergrounding - 1/18/2013 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Rollins to Turner previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

College Undergrounding 1/18/20 13 11/1/2014 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to

-Univ to Bouchelle previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Extend Rebel H-ill Feeder 10/1/2013 10/1/2014 6to8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously 212 disturbed land and some undisturbed lands. However, the impacts are anticipated to be limited and short-term.

New Water Reservoir at 10/1/2014 10/1/2015 6 to more 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Power Plant than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

161 Trans-Perche Sub to 10/1/2014 10/1/2015 2 to 8km 1.3 to 5 N Construction activity on previously New South Sub disturbed land and some undisturbed lands. However, the impacts are anticipated to be limited and short-term.

Mill Creek Substation 10/1/2015 10/1/2016 0to8km 0to5 N Construction activity on previously Trans Interconnect disturbed land and some undisturbed lands. However, the impacts are anticipated to be limited and short-term.

161 Transmission - 10/1/2017 10/1/2018 4 to greater 2.5 to N Construction activity on previously Power Plant Line than 8 km greater disturbed land and some undisturbed than 5 lands. However, the impacts are anticipated to be limited and short-term.

161 kV Power Plant 10/1/2018 10/1/2019 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Existing facility with new Substation construction.

Business Loop 70 - 10/1/2019 10/1/2021 6 to greater 3.7 to5 N Construction activity limited to Phase 5 Undergrounding than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Business Loop 70 - 10/1/2020 10/1/2022 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Phase 6 Undergrounding previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

16 in. Main-Hwy 63 - 4/1/2013 9/1/2013 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to West Crossing to previously disturbed lands at a Stadium distance from the RPF site.

8 in. Main - Lake-of-the- 2/25/2009 12/I1/2010 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Woods than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.19-244

NWI NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages) 8n.ManRneie1012110/03 Smith to Bus Loop 70

-m-6 to greater than 8 km 3.7 to 5 N El- Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Deep Well Abandonment 10/1/2016 10/1/2017 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

EC: Cliff Dr.: Hawthorne 10/1/2008 5/31/2012 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Dr. - Univ Close Loop previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

EC: Lawrence Place 10/1/2008 9/30/2009 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Main Relocation previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

EC: Univ Av: Ann St- 10/1/2010 5/30/2012 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Rock Hill Close Loop previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Hillsdale PS - 1.5 Mgal 3/17/2008 12/30/2010 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Ground Storage Tank previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Hinkson Main - Williams 10/1/2013 10/1/2014 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to to Old Hwy 63 previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Hominy Branch: Main 10/1/2009 12/4/2010 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Relocation previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Loop Closure of 12 in. 10/1/2008 10/1/2012 I to greater 0.6 to N Construction activity on previously Mains S of Nifong Blvd than 8 km greater disturbed lands and undisturbed than 5 lands. However, the impacts are anticipated to be limited and short-term.

Maguire - 12 in. Main 11/1/2008 10/30/2010 2 to4 km 1.3 to 2.5 N Construction activity on previously disturbed land and some undisturbed lands. However, the impacts are anticipated to be limited and short-term.

Main Adjustment-Forum 10/1/2018 10/1/2019 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to 6 to greater Blvd Improvements than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Main Adjustment-Nifong 10/1/2018 10/1/2019 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Blvd Improvements than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

N Section of 24 in. East 10/1/2008 9/25/2012 4 to 8km 2.5 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Transmission Main previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

NC: Rangeline St & 10/1/2008 9/30/2009 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Smith St Main previously disturbed lands at a Relocation distance from the RPF site.19-245

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

• =',:"NWREMEICAIOOE Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages) m Old Hwy 63 N &

McAlester Loop Closure 10/1/2016 10/1/2017

-I I-

- 6 to 8km b1 3.7 to 5 El-.

N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Providence Rd at Stewart 10/1/2009 6/30/2012 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Rd Close Loop previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Quail Drive - Main 10/1/2011 12/30/2013 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Relocation previously disturbed lands.

S Section of 24 in. East 10/1/2009 12/1/2013 I to 6 km 0.6 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously Transmission Main disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, the impacts are anticipated to be limited and short-term.

Stadium Crossing at 10/1/2017 10/1/2018 6to8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Audubon previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Thilly & Westmount 10/1/2013 10/1/2014 6to8km 3.7to5 N Construction activity limited to 6 in. Main - 2.800 ft previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Bingham Road - Phase I1 10/1/2019 10/1/2020 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to

- WT0254 previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Discovery Parkway 2014 2015 0Otol1km 0-0.6 mi Y Construction activity on previously disturbed and undisturbed lands.

Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, traffic, and water resources.

N Construction activity limited to Audubon Dr S Sidewalk 10/I/2020 12/31/2021 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7

-Shepard Blvd-N Azalea previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Ballenger over 1-70: 10/1/2009 12/31/2018 4 to 8km 2.5 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Clark to 740 ExtI disturbed lands and undisturbed Richland lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Bearfield Rd: Clear 10/1/2013 12/29/2019 2to4km 1.3 to 2.5 N Construction activity on previously Creek-Gans Road disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Bearfield Rd; Nifong- 10/1/2013 12/31/2018 2to4km 1.3 to 2.5 N Construction activity on previously Clear Creek disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

N Construction activity limited to Broadway - Garth Ave to 4/10/2012 12/1/2015 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 West Blvd than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.19-246

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

• • ..',"NRTWESMEICAIOO Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

Broadway Sdwlk -

McBaine-W Blvd. N Side 10/1/1999 5/31/2010 I-6 to greater than 8 km 3.7 to 5 N El- Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Bus Loop 70 Sidewalk- 10/1/2020 12/31/2021 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Rangeline to Rt B than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Carter Lane Sidewalk 6/6/2013 6/6/2013 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Clark Ln - Ballenger to 10/3/2005 12/31/2011 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to St. Charles Rd previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Clark Ln - Woodland 10/1/2013 10/1/2019 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Springs Ct to Ballenger previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Creekwood Prkwy-Gldn 10/1/2020 12/29/2023 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Bear Dr-Vandvr Dr than 8 km disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Discovery Parkway: 12/29/2008 0Oto 4km 0Oto 2.5 Y Construction activity on previously Gans to New Haven disturbed and undisturbed lands.

Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, traffic, and water resources.

East Blvd - Bus Loop 70 10/1/2020 12/29/2023 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously to Conley (TDD) disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

East Side Sidewalk 11/3/2009 11I/3/2010 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Phase 1 Stimulus previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

East Side Sidewalks - 10/1/2009 10/1/2012 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Phase 2 (CDBG) previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

East side sidewalks 10/1/2010 10/1/2011 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Phase 3 (CDJBG) previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Elm Street Extension 10/3/2008 12/31/2014 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Forum Blvd Sidewalk - 10/1/2019 12/31/2021 6to8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Nifong to Mill Creek previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Forum Blvd: Chapel 4/16/2010 4/16/2010 6 to greater 3.7 to N Construction activity limited to Hill to Woodrail (4-lane) than 8 km greater previously disturbed lands at a than 5 distance from the RPF site.19-247

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review TTMED

• eQ.NOSRTAY CALSOTOPES Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

/I EhIIIIlhEl-.

Forum Left turn lanes at M KT/Victoria 7/8/2011 7/8/2011 6 to greater than 8 km 3.7 to greater than 5 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Cans Rd: Interchange at 10/3/2005 12/31/2008 0 to 2 km 0Oto 1.3, Y Construction activity on previously 63 disturbed and undisturbed lands.

Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, traffic, and water resources.

Cans Rd: Providence- 10/1/2020 12/29/2023 2 to 6 km 1.3 to 3.7 Y Construction activity on previously Bearfld Rd disturbed and undisturbed lands.

Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, traffic, and water resources.

Gans Rd:Providnc- 10/1/2020 12/29/2023 2 to 6 km 1.3 to 3.7 Y Construction activity on previously Bearfild Rd (4-Lane disturbed and undisturbed lands.

Upgrade) Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, traffic, and water resources.

Cans Rd: U.S. 63 10/1/2019 10/1/2020 1 to 4km 0.6 to 2.5 Y Construction activity on previously Interchange-Bearfield disturbed and undisturbed lands.

Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, traffic, and water resources.

Cans Rd: U.S. 63 10/1/2020 12/29/2023 I to 4 km 0.6 to 2.5 Y Construction activity on previously Interchange-Bearfield disturbed and undisturbed lands.

(4-Lane Upgrade) Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, traffic, and water resources.

Grace Ln. - Richland to 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 4to 8km 2.5 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Stadium Extension previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Hanover Blvd - Olympic 10/1/2020 12/29/2023 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Blvd to Rice Rd previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Heriford Drive - Parker 10/1/2020 12/29/2023 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to St to Route B than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

7/9/2013 7/9/2013 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 Y Construction activity on previously Hominy Trail Connection disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Jefferson Commons 10/l/2002 3/31/2009 2 to 4 km 1.3 to 2.5 N Construction activity limited to Pedestrian Crossing previously disturbed lands.

Keene Street: Broadway 3/18/2010 3/18/2010 4to 8km 2.5 to 5 N Construction activity limited to to 1-70 Drive previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.19-248

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

• • ....NORTHWEST MEOICALIOTUPE Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review

• EIEIEEIE Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

U Lake of the Woods Rd.

and St Charles Rd.

Intersect 10/1/2020 12/29/2023 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N U

Construction activity limite*d to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Lake Ridgeway Dr - 10/1/2020 12/29/2023 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 Y Construction activity on previously Clark Ln-Vandiver Dr disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Landscaping Route AC 10/1/2003 12/31/2009 2 to 6 km 1.3 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands.

Lenoir Woods Sidewalk 10/18/2013 10/18/2013 0to2km 0Oto 1.3 mi N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands.

Maguire - N to Stadium 10O/1/2001 12/31/2010 2 to 4km 1.3 to 2.5 N Construction activity on previously Blvd & Exit disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Maguire/Warren to New 7/I16/2008 1lto 4km 0.6 to 2.5 Y Construction activity on previously Haven disturbed and undisturbed lands.

Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, traffic, and water resources.

Missouri Theatre 10/20/2009 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Sidewalk previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

MM Maguire Blvd: 3/18/2010 3/18/2010 1lto 2km 0.6 tol1.3 N Construction activity limited to Lemone to Emily previously disturbed lands.

MM-Green Meadows 3/18/2010 3/18/2010 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Rd: Skylark Lane to previously disturbed lands at a Oaklawn Drive distance from the RPF site.

MM-Royal Lytham 3/18/2010 3/18/2010 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Drive:Glen Eagle Dr to previously disturbed lands at a Chadwick Dr distance from the RPF site.

MM-Santiago Drive: 3/18/2010 3/18/2010 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Granada Blvd to Nifong previously disturbed lands at a Blvd distance from the RPF site.

New Haven: Lemone to 6/2/2009 I to 2 km 0.6 to 1.3 N Construction activity limited to Warren previously disturbed lands.

Nifong - Providence to 10/1/2010 12/29/2019 4to8km 2.5 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Forum 4 Lane previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Nifong: Forum to Old 2/21/2026 2/21/2026 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Mill Creek Rd. (4-Lane than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a Upgrade) distance from the RPF site.

Nifong-Bethel Sidewalk 2/2 1/20 12 4 to 8km 2.5 to 5 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.19-249

NWI NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

Old Plank Road -

S. Providence to Forum Blvd.

10/1/2020 12/29/2023 I- -

4 to 8 km 2.5 to 5 El..

N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Old Route K Bridge over 10/1/2007 9/8/2010 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Hinkson Creek previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Peachtree Connector and 10/20/2009 4 to 6 km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously Nifong Signal disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Phillips Farm Rd - 10/1/2020 12/29/2023 2 to 6 km 1.3 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously Southampton to disturbed lands and undisturbed Ponderosa lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Ponderosa TDD: Gans 10/1/2017 10/1/2017 0Oto 2km 0Oto 1.3 Y Construction activity on previously to Blue Acres disturbed and undisturbed lands.

Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use, traffic, and water resources.

Providence and Nifong 7/9/2013 7/9/2013 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Bike Lanes than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Providence Corridor -

10/2/2006 12/31/2012 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5' N Construction activity limited to Burnham Inter PHI1 previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Providence Corridor - 1/1/2020 12/31/2020 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Burnham Inter PH12 previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Rangeline -Wilkes to 7/16/2008 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Business Loop than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Rice Road - Hanover to 2/17/2020 2/17/2023 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Ballenger Lane than 8 km previously disturbed lands.

Richland - St. Charles to 10/1/2012 12/29/2018 4to6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Grace previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Rock Quarry Nifong to 6/30/1998 12/30/2023 2 to 4 km 1.3 to 2.5 N Construction activity limited to Gans Road previously disturbed lands.

Rock Quarry Rd 10/1/2020 12/31/2021 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Sidewalk: Stadium previously disturbed lands.

Blvd-Hinkson Rock Quarry Rd - 10/1/2009 12/29/2015 2 to 6 km 1.3 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Grindstone Prkwy to previously disturbed lands at a Stadium 9,400 ft distance from the RPF site.

Rock Quarry Rd - Nifong 10/1/1999 12/29/2023 2to4km 1.3to2.5 N Construction activity limited to to Grindstone Prkwy previously disturbed lands.19-250

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

" "l..a""

ORTWESTMEDCALI$OOPES Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

Rolling Hills - County Project: New Haven to WW 3/6/2009 LI II-!

2 to 4km 1.~to 2.5 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands.

Rolling Hills Road 10/1/2020 12/29/2023 2 to 4 km 1.3 to 2.5 N Construction activity limited to (4-Lane) previously disturbed lands.

Rolling Hills Road- Old 10/2/2006 12/31/2012 4to6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously Hawthorn to Richland disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Rustic Road 3/19/2010 3/19/2010 2 to 4km 1.3 to 2.5 N Construction activity on previously disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Shepard Blvd Sidewalk - 10/1/2020 12/31/2021 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Old 63 to Danforth previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

9/26/2011 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Short Street Garage Traffic Mitigation previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Southampton Dr - 10/1/2020 12/29/2023 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Sinclair to 1000 ft than 8 km disturbed lands and undisturbed Eastward lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

South Hampton Dr - 10/1/2004 3/31/2008 4 to 6 km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously U.S. Hwy 163-Route disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

St Charles Road - Keene 10/1/2011 12/29/2017 4 to 8km 2.5 to 5 N Construction activity limited to to Richland Rd previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Stadium at Old 63 10/1/2004 11/28/2012 4to6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Intersection previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Stadium Extension East 10/1/2007 12/31/2010 4to8km 2.5 to 5 N Construction activity limited to to 1-70 previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Traffic Islands - Old 63 10/1/2004 11/30/2009 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to and Broadway previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to West Broadway Corridor 3/1/2007 2/8/20 10 6 to greater than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Williams Street with 7/16/2008 12/15/2010 6to8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Williams - Broadway previously disturbed lands at a Intersection lmprv distance from the RPF site.

19-25 1

NWI

• , ,NoR'rWESTMED

• CA SOTOPES Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

- Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

Woodridge Dr -

St Charles Rd to Terminus 10/1/2020 10/31/2023 I- -

4 to 8km 2.5 to 5 El..

N Construction activity on previously disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Hinkson Cr Tr Stadium - 1/9/2008 3/31/2010 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously Rockhill Ph II1 disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

8/16/2011 6/8/2012 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously Hominy Branch Trail:

Stephens - Woodridge disturbed lands and undisturbed Phase 1 lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

B-8 Relief Sewer - 10/1/2019 10/1/2021 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Rangeline & Vandiver than 8 km disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

C-5 Trunk Relief Swr - 10/1/2019 10/1/2021 2 to 4km 1.3 to2.5 N Construction activity on previously Rock Quarry: Nifong- disturbed lands and undisturbed Zoe lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Calvert Drive Sewer 2/11/2013 2/11/2013 3.7 to 5 NConstruction activity on previously 6 to greater Relocation than 8 km disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Douglass High School 2/17/2012 2/17/2012 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Sewer Relocation previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Flat Branch Watershed N Construction activity on previously 10/1/2016 11/15/2018 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 Relief Sewers than 8 km disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Hinkson Creek Outfall 11/18/2010 1/27/2012 6to8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Replacement disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

N Construction activity on previously Hominy Branch Outfall 10/1/2020 1/1/2023 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 Ext: LOW Rd-Mxco than 8 km disturbed lands and undisturbed Grvl lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.19-252

NWI NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

!1 Hominy Branch Outfall Relief Sewer 10/1/2008 12/1/2010 I- Im 4 to 8 km 2.5 to 5 El!

N Construction activity on previously disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

North Grindstone Creek 2/20/2012 2/20/2012 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously Bank Stabilization disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

North Grindstone Outfall 4/23/2008 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Extension Phase I disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

North Grindstone Outfall 10/1/2008 1/1/2011 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Extension Phase II than 8 km disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However. dfie to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

PCCE # 6: 5 Country 8/1/2008 1/15/2011 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Club Dr Area previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

PCCE #8: Thilly 2/9/2010 11/1/2012 6to8km 3.7 to5 N Construction activity limited to Lathrop previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

PCCE #11: Wilson 5/7/2010 4 to 8km 2.5 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Street / High Street previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

PCCE #14: Cliff Drive 1/27/2011 1/27/2011 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

PCCE #16: Binghamn Rd 1/27/2011 1/27/2011 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to

& West Ridgeley Rd previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

PCCE #17: Wilson 5/7/20 10 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to StreetlRoss Street previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

PCCE #24: St. James 10/1/2018 9/30/2019 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to and St. Joseph previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

PCCE #25: Glen wood 10/1/2018 9/30/2019 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to and Redbud previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Sewer District - 1/27/2020 1/27/2022 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Hillcreek Road previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.19-253

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

• "...'NRTWETMEICAIOOE Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages) ml -m 2.5 to 5 iII-Sewer District # 170 - 1/1/2011 12/31/2012 4to8km N Construction activity limited to S. Bethel Church Road previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Sexton Road Relief 8/1/2018 8/1/2020 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Sewer than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Stephens Park Sewer 10/1/2014 12/15/2016 4 to 8km 2.5 to 5; N Construction activity on previously Relocation disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Westwood Avenue 2/17/2012 2/17/2012 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Sewer Relocation previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

2 to 4km 1.3 to 2.5 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a W5toods~b'toc"H WP22021 /021 distance from the RPF site.

2302 Business 70 East 1/28/2025 1/28/2026 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 51 N Construction activity on previously disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Alan Lane 10/1/2019 10/1/2021 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

10/1/2012 9/30/2013 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5; N Construction activity limited to Ash & Hubble previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Calvert Drive 1/30/2013 1/30/2013 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously than 8 km disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

1/30/2013 1/30/2013 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to East Downtown previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Eighth Street Drainage 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to C49084 previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Grasslands-Brandon 10/1/2020 10/1/2023 6 to 8km 3.7 to5 N Construction activity limited to Drainage previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Greenwood South 1/30/2013 1/30/2013 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.19-254

'; NWMI NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages) 9-.

I Hickman and 6th and 7th 1/30/20 13 1/30/2013 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 II.!.

N Construction activity on previously disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Hinkson Avenue 10/1/2020 10/1/2023 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Hinkson Cr Trail: 2/22/2010 12/31/2011 4to6km 2.5to3.7 N Construction activity on previously Grindstone-Stephens disturbed lands and undisturbed Phase I lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Hinkson Cr Trail: 2/22/2010 12/31/2011 4to6km 2.5 to3.7 N Construction activity on previously Grindstone-Stephens disturbed land and undisturbed lands.

Phase 11 Hinkson Creek Trail: 10/1/2018 12/31/2020 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Stephens to Vandiver than 8 km disturbed lands and undisturbed Pedway lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Hitt and Elm C49099 1/28/2011 1/28/2011 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Kelly Detention Retrofit 4/14/2011 4/14/2011 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Lawrence Place 10/1/2007 5/1/2009 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Mill Creek Phase 3 1/30/2013 1/30/2013 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to C49 111 previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

MKT Bridge 1/1/2017 1/1/2018 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Improvements Phase Ii than 8 km disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

10/15/2014 2/1/2015 4to6km 2.5to3.7 N Construction activity on previously Nifong and Bethel Drainage Project disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Old Plank Storm 10/1/2019 6/1/2022 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Drainage - South Side previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.19-255

NMI

• .,,.NORTHWVEST MEDICA ISOTOPES Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

- Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

I Peachtree Water Quality Basin Huh/III El-10/I/2028 10/1/12029 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Pear Tree Circle Storm 10/1/2025 10/1/2026 6to8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Drainage previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Philips Lake Connector: 10/1/2025 10/1/2026 1 to 4km 0.6 to 2.5 Y Construction activity on previously Nifong to GCRA disturbed land and undisturbed lands.

Rangeline Street Smith 1/9/2025 1/9/2026 6 to greater 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Street than 8 km previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

10/1/2017 11/1/2018 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Rockhill Rd previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Royal Lytham -

10/1/2007 7/1/2010 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Fallwood previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Seventh and Locust N Construction activity limited to 1/28/2016 1/28/2017 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Stewart Park Drainage 10/1/2016 12/31/2018 6to8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Vandiver/Sylvan Storm 10/1/2014 10/1/2015 6 to greater 3.7 to 5* N Construction activity on previously Drainage than 8 km disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

10/1/2020 11/1/2023 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Wayne Road previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Wilson Ross 1/30/2013 1/30/2013 4 to 8km 2.5 to 5 N Construction activity limited to previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

American Legion Park: 10/1/2016 10/1/2017 4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7/ N Construction activity on previously Shelter. Restrooms, disturbed lands and undisturbed Playground lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

American Legion 10/1/2009 12/31/2011 4to6km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously Renovation - Phase I disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.19-256

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWM I Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

I Aquatic Facility 10/1/2017 5/3/2019 I1 1 to 2km 0.6-1.3 Eml-Y Construction activity on undisturbed lands. Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use and water resources.

COLT Railroad Trail 10/1/2018 10/1/2020 4 to greater 2.5Sto N Construction activity limited to Phase I: Columbia than 8 km greater previously disturbed lands at a College to Vandiver than 5 distance from the RPF site.

Cosmo-Bethel Four 1/7/2008 10/30/2009 4 to 6 km 2.5 to 3.7 N Construction activity limited to Court Tennis Complex previously disturbed lands.

Douglass Park 2/24/2012 12/31/1969 6to8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Improvements: Security disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Douglass Park: 10/1/2013 12/31/2014 6 to8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Amphitheater and Shelter disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Douglass Park: 10/1/2020 12/31/2023 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Multipurpose Building disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Eastport Neighbored 10/1/2007 12/31/2010 4 to greater 2.5 to N Construction activity on previously Park Develop than 8 km greater disturbed lands and undisturbed than 5 lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Flat Branch Park - 10/1/2001 5/5/2009 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Phase II previously disturbed lands at a distance from the RPF site.

Grasslands 10/1/2007 12/31/2009 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Neighborhood Park disturbed lands and undisturbed Development lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Grasslands Park 9/2/2002 2/28/2003 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Acquisition disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Hinkson Creek - 10/1/2012 12/31/2014 4to6km 2.5to3.7 Y Construction activity on undisturbed Grindstone Trailhead lands. Could potentially have Restroom cumulative effects on land use and water resources.19-257

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review

• =. 4ORIT1WEST MEIAL SOTOPES Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

I H-ominy Creek Trail:

Old 63 to Green Valley 2/1/2019 2/1/2021

-l -

4 to 6km 2.5 to 3.7 El.!

N Construction activity on previously disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Lake of the Woods Golf 1/19/2006 7/30/2009 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 Y Construction activity on undisturbed Course New Restroom lands. Could potentially have cumulative effects on land use and water resources.

MKT Trail: New 10/1/2016 12/31/2017 6 to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Restroom at Flat Branch previously disturbed lands at a Park distance from the RPF site.

Nifong Park: Covered 10/1/2016 12/31/2017 1lto 4km 0.6 to 2.5 N Construction activity on previously Tractor and Implement disturbed land.

Structure Nifong Park: 10/1/2011 12/31/2013 1 to 4km 0.6 to 2.5 Y Construction activity on previously Maplewood Barn/Home disturbed land and undisturbed lands.

& Parking Nifong Restroom and 10/2/2006 1/1/2009 1 to 2 km 0.6-1.3 Y Construction activity on undisturbed Buildings lands.

Paquin Park 10/l/2009 12/31/2010 6 to 8 km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity limited to Improvement-Phase Ill - previously disturbed lands at a Raised Beds distance from the RPF site.

Philips/Gans: Park 10/1/2016 I to 4 km 0.6 to 2.5 Y Construction activity on previously Development Phase I1 disturbed land and undisturbed lands.

Philips/Gans: Ice 10/3/2016 12/31/2018 I to 2 km 0.6-1.3 Y Construction activity on undisturbed Skating Facility - lands.

Outdoor Philips/Gans: Indoor 10/3/2016 10/3/2018 1 to 4km 0.6 to 2.5 Y Construction activity on previously Pavilion/Shelter disturbed land and undisturbed lands.

Philips/Gans: Indoor 10/1/2016 10/l/2018 1Ito 2km 0.6-1.3 Y Construction activity on undisturbed Sports Center - Gym lands.

Rock Quarry Park 10/1/2008 4/1/2011 2 to 4km 1.3 to 2.5 Y Construction activity on previously Tennis/Basketball disturbed land and undisturbed lands.

South Regional Park - 10/1/2012 12/31/2015 1lto 4km 0.6 to 2.5 Y Construction activity on previously Gans/Philips Phase I disturbed land and undisturbed lands.

South Regional Park - 10/2/2006 6/1/2010 1Ito 2km 0.6-1.3 Y Construction activity on previously Philips Phase I disturbed land and undisturbed lands.

South Regional Park 3/19/2007 1 1/2/2009 1 to 4km 0.6 to 2.5 Y Construction activity on previously Acquisition disturbed land and undisturbed lands.

South Regional Park 10/1/2009 12/31/2012 1to 4km 0.6 to 2.5 Y Construction activity on previously Development - Phase I disturbed land and undisturbed lands.

Stephens Lake Park 5/18/2000 12/31/2010 4 to 8km 2.5 to 5 N Construction activity on previously Development - Phase I disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.19-258

• W I Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

- Environmental Review Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages)

IStephens Lake Park:

E. Walnut Development 10/1/2016 12/31/2017

-J 6to 8km 3.7 to 5 N Construction activity on previously disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Waters-Moss Develop 10/1/2015 12/31/2016 2 to 6km 1.3 to 3.7 N Construction activity on previously Phase 11: Waters and disturbed lands and undisturbed Jones Buildings lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Waters-Moss Park: 10/1/2012 10/1/2015 2 to 6km 1.3 to3.7 N Construction activity on previously Phase I Development disturbed lands and undisturbed lands. However, due to the distance from the RPF site, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

CDBG = Community Development Block Grant. RPF radioisotope production facility.

GCRA = Gans Creek Recreation Area. SLA street light addition.

MHP = mobile home park. TDD Transportation Development District.

MURR = University of Missouri Research Reactor. WWTP wastewater treatment plant.

PCCE = private common collector elimination.

19.4.14.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts 19.4.14.3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources As discussed in Section 19.4.1.1, proposed RPF construction, operation, and decommissioning impacts on land use and visual resources are small. Relevant other projects to be considered for cumulative impacts include the construction of Discovery Parkway and other Discovery Ridge facilities.

19.4.14.3.1.1 Land Use Discovery Ridge (the proposed site for the RPF) occupies 505 ha (1,250 acres), within which there are presently two existing facilities. The remaining land is either fallow or being used for agricultural purposes. The RPF would change current fallow land to a more industrial use; however, the land-use designations would not be changed with the construction and operation of the facility. The 505 ha (1,250 acres) would be anticipated to be converted to industrial use over time, and there would be a minor loss of agricultural lands.

The Odles' Discovery Park, Aspen Heights, Grove, and Den developments would also impact land use.

None of these lands are prime farmland, and the loss of crop production is a minor impact when compared to the amount of agricultural land in the ROI. Therefore, cumulative impacts to land use resources, including agricultural resources, are small.

19.4.14.3.1.2 Visual Resources The cumulative impacts to the visual or scenic quality of the proposed RPF were assessed by examining the proposed actions associated with construction of the facility and the development of surrounding properties. The RPF would abide by the Discovety Ridge Master Plan and Covenants (MU, 2009) to ensure that the visual impact is compatible with the character of the development.19-259

N MISOOE lv..-i.......... Chpe WMI,_013-_o Chpe9.0- Environmental Rev. 0A Review Under ideal conditions with no interferences from vegetation, the exhaust stacks may be visible from up to a distance of approximately 3.2 km (2 mi). However, this visual impact would be small. By considering both proposed on-site and nearby existing developments, modification to the proposed site would result in small visual impacts. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be small on the visual/scenic quality of the proposed RPF site.

19.4.14.3.2 Air Quality and Noise 19.4.14.3.2.1 Air Quality The cumulative impacts to the air quality resulting from the proposed RPF were assessed by examining the proposed actions associated with construction and operation of the facility and the development of surrounding properties. The road, water, power, and sewer projects in the area may have temporary effects on air quality, but are likely to be short-term. Therefore, the cumulative impacts on the air quality of the proposed site would be small. Other sources in the area, when combined with the RPF, would be unlikely to result in significant cumulative impacts. The cumulative impact to the regional air quality would be small.

19.4.14.3.2.2 Noise Cumulative noise sources would include the proposed RPF, existing traffic along U.S. Highway 63 and Discovery Parkway, operations at the ABC Laboratories and RADIL facilities, the Odles' Discovery Park development, and farm and ranch operations. Road construction projects in the area (e.g., Discovery Parkway) would also result in a temporary increase in noise, as would RPF construction. Impacts from all noise sources at the RPF during operation would generally remain at or below Discovery Ridge Master Plan and Protective Covenants (MU, 2009) and the Columbia Code of Ordinance (City of Columbia, 2013b) requirements. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts from the RPF would be small.

19.4.14.3.3 Geologic Environment As discussed in Section 19.4.3, RPF construction and operation impacts on the geologic environment would be small. The cumulative impacts to the geologic resources would be similar to the direct and indirect impacts of the facility and those associated with the current land use. RPF construction would result in limited soil erosion, which would be minimized using BMPs. The proposed construction of the Discovery Parkway adjacent to the RPF and the Odles' Discovery Park development would have similar short-term impacts that are anticipated to be mitigated with BMPs. Therefore, cumulative geologic impacts would be small.

19.4.14.3.3.1 Water Resources The proposed RPF would not extract groundwater, and there would be no liquid discharge from the facility. Stormwater runoff from the facility would be discharged to lined, engineered basins. The proposed construction of the Discovery Parkway adjacent to the RPF and the Odles' Discovery Park development would be required to follow similar requirements for stormwater. As a result, no significant effects on natural water systems are anticipated, and the cumulative impact to water resources would be small.

19.4.14.3.4 Ecological Resources As discussed in Section 19.4.5, impacts from the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the RPF on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, including protected species, is small. The historical and current use of the proposed site limits the available resources for flora and fauna species. The potential for impacts from stormwater runoff are limited because there is no aquatic environment located on the site, and stormwater retention systems would be in place. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts to ecological resources are small.19-260

IIVYChapter 9.0 - Environmental Review

• e.,.*NORThTWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES 19.4.14.3.5 Historical and Cultural Resources As noted in Section 19.4.6, there were no cultural resources located on the proposed RPF site. The nearest listed NRHP property is the Maplewood House located approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) northwest of the site. No direct impacts would occur to this property by either construction or operational activities of the proposed RPF. Other off-site development actions could potentially result in direct or indirect impacts to NRHP-listed or -eligible historic or archaeological resources. Federal- and State-funded projects with such potential impacts on historic resources would require coordination with the SHPO, documentation, and mitigation measures, if warranted. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts to historic and archaeological resources are small.

19.4.14.3.6 Socioeconomnics Labor force and population - A number of other development projects have been proposed in Boone County that could have cumulative effects with the proposed RPF, depending on their scope and schedules for development. These projects would provide additional employment opportunities for construction workers and would increase the economic activity in the region. In addition to the road projects, the MU East Campus Chilled Water Plant, the addition to MU Memorial Stadium, the Odles" Discovery Park development, and the Columbia Regional Airport expansion all have the potential to increase economic activity in the region. The labor pool in the area is considered large enough that potential competition is not likely to lead to increased labor rates or require additional housing needs or public services. Thus, the cumulative socioeconomic impacts of these projects are expected to be small.

Utilities - Discovery Ridge utility service, including power, water, and sewage, has been designed to service the anticipated future tenants. No additional upgrades would be required. The cumulative impacts of these projects on utilities are expected to be small.

Tax base - The development of Discovery Ridge would increase the property values specific to the site and increase the local tax base. The RPF, if built at the Discovery Ridge site, would result in new, well-paying jobs. These jobs would also contribute to the tax base in the area. The overall tax revenues would be positive, but based on the overall tax base, the effects are anticipated to be small.

Transportation - No modifications to the local traffic infrastructure are necessary to support the construction and operation of the proposed RPF. The construction and occupation of the Odles' Discovery Park, Aspen Heights, Grove, and Den developments would likely increase traffic in the general area. However, the construction of Discovery Parkway and the other local road projects is designed to accommodate the increase in traffic associated with these projects. Therefore, cumulative effects to transportation infrastructure and traffic patterns are small.

19.4.14.3.7 Human Health Nonradiological impacts - Construction of the RPF and the other construction projects considered include potential hazards to workers typical of any construction site. Normal construction safety practices would be employed to promote worker safety and reduce the likelihood of worker injury during construction.

Potential nonradiological public and occupational hazards pertaining to the operation of the RPF, the expansion of the Columbia Regional Airport, and the Odles' Discovery Park, Aspen Heights, Grove, and Den developments include emissions, discharges, and waste associated with the facilities and potential accidental spills/releases. Most of the chemical processes at the RPF would be conducted inside of the facility, limiting the potential effects on the public. Any wastes would be disposed offsite. The RPF would implement spill prevention/controls and air emission controls, as appropriate. The cumulative nonradiological health impacts are anticipated to be small.

19-26 1

WKCatr1NWMI NORI$TWEST lviChptr MEDICAL ISOTOPES 9.0.*-2013-o2, Review

-Environmental Rev. OA Radiological impacts - Operation of the RPF would result in releases of small quantities of radionuclides to the environment. Gaseous effluent activity releases are discussed in Section 19.4.8.2.4. Direct dose to a member of the public at the fence line is due to gamma radiation penetrating the walls of the production facility and the waste staging and shipping facility. With the site shielding design, the direct dose outside of the buildings is small and decreases with increasing distance. The fence line is located at an appreciable distance from the two fixed sources of radiation (production facility building and waste staging and shipping building); therefore, the dose is negligible at the fence line.

19.4.14.3.8 Environmental Justice No present or ongoing environmental justice actions were identified that are relevant to this analysis.

Disproportionate impacts on low-income or minority populations from other actions are not expected. It is not anticipated that there would be any cumulative impacts on low-income or minority groups from construction and operation of the RPF. The cumulative impacts associated with environmental justice are considered small.19-262

NOhWSTMEIl I IIVVChapter19.0 hpe NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA

- Environmental Review 19.5 ALTERNATIVES NWMI proposed to establish, as soon as practicable, a domestic capability to produce a continuous supply of 99Mo for the U.S. medical community. The purpose of the proposed action is to ensure a reliable domestic supply of 99Mo, the most widely used medical isotope worldwide. This section describes the alternatives considered for the production of 99Mo. To determine the reasonable alternatives, NWMI identified specific criteria (e.g., facility, location, regulatory) necessary to satisfy the purpose of, and need for, the proposed action.

19.5.1 The No-Action Alternative The current demand for 99mTc in the U.S. requires a weekly supply of approximately 6,000 six-day Ci of 99Mo, approximately 50 percent of the annual U.S. demand. The U.S. supply of 99Mo is currently imported. Under the No-Action Alternative, the U.S. medical community would continue to rely on this source of supply and a domestic supply of 99M0 would not be established. The U.S. Government has established a policy to encourage the domestic production of medical isotopes (Senate Bi11-99). The RPF would provide a significant contribution toward advancing this policy. Under the No-Action Alternative, this benefit would not be realized.

Accordingly, the Discovery Ridge property, the site of the proposed RPF, would not be constructed or operated. The environmental consequences of the No-Action Alternative are assumed to be the status quo, and the consequences discussed in Section 19.4 would be circumvented. In the absence of NRC approval of the RPF license, 99Mo customers would be required to meet their isotope needs through the existing supply chain that does not include any U.S. producers.

19.5.2 Reasonable Alternatives 19.5.2.1 Site Alternatives NWMI identified three alternatives for siting the RPF in addition to Discovery Ridge. Each of these three sites is located next to an existing university nuclear research reactor. The siting study of proposed site locations next to university reactors included the following (NWMI-2013-002, Site Selection:

Radioisotope Production Facilit,):

• University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) - Columbia, Missouri

• Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor (OSTR) - Corvallis, Oregon

• McClellan Business Park (McClellan) - Davis, California These proposed sites are described in the following subsections.

19.5.2.1.1 University of Missouri, Adjacent to the University of Missouri Research Reactor This site is adjacent to MURR on the MU campus, near existing buildings on a partially paved parking lot. MURR is located near Highway 70, just off the MU main campus. No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist, and the roadways are sufficient for transport of radioactive materials and waste.

MU added the stipulation that university personnel operate and staff the RPF at this location.

19.5.2.1.2 Oregon State University, Adjacent to the University Oregon State TRIGA Reactor This site is next to OSU Radiation Center where the OSTR is located, approximately 129 km (80 mi) south of Portland, Oregon, in an area that includes a partially paved parking lot and a small number of existing laboratory buildings. The site is immediately east of the university reactor on an area covering approximately 1.21 ha (3 acres). Relocation of several buildings and rerouting of transportation routes would be required.19-263

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

• , * .o. ,, , NO--ST MI[fllCAL I

ISOTOPIE$ Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.5.2.1.3 McClellan Business Park This site is near the UC Davis McClellan Nuclear Research Center (MNRC), located off the UC Davis campus at McClellan Business Park, 16 m (10 mi) northeast of Sacramento, California, and near the U.S. Interstate 5 corridor. McClellan Air Force Base was closed in 1995 and privatized, creating the McClellan Business Park. The site includes a 4,181 m2 (45,000 ft2) clear span and high-bay building approximately 61 m (200 ft) from MNRC.

19.5.2.2 Screening To determine the preferred site, a Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) decision analysis methodology was used. The methodology is based on DOE Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods (DOE, 2001). NWMI developed the site-specific scoring criteria used in this evaluation. Site selection criteria were developed through discussions between NWMI and its subcontractors. A summary of the siting criteria, description, and ranking is provided in Table 19-87. The criteria were weighted from i to 10 based on importance to NWMI.

Table 19-87. Summary of Site-Specific Scoring Criteria (2 pages)

Political and local Ability of NWMI to leverage connections for local logistical 10 logistics support support, based on regional politics and importance of project to economic development Production logistics Number of 6-day Ci processed and delivered to distributor 10 Radioactive, hazardous, Site ability to meet Federal, State, and local requirements and 8 and mixed secondary availability of waste disposition pathway waste generation (i.e., air, liquids, solids)

Federal and State taxes Includes costs associated with sales tax, property tax, corporate 3 and incentives income tax, hiring credits, etc. Criteria does not include RPF ownership and lease terms; these would be dealt with by NWMI separately Construction costs Site-specific cost estimates; variations in labor rates and materials; 2 and construction indices19-264

,l..:vi....... Chpe9.0- Environmental Review

- I- .e Table 19-87. Summary of Site-Specific Scoring Criteria (2 pages)

Total Weight 60 a NUREG-1537, Guidelinesfor Preparingand Reviewing Applicationsfor 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.

FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency. NWMI = Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC.

NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. RPF = radioisotope production facility.

The following describe the priority and weighting criteria:

Political and local logistics support (Weight 10) - NWMI's ability to leverage connections for local support is dependent on regional politics and the importance of the project to local economic development efforts. This support will play a large role in the financial success of the company. For this reason, political and local logistics support was given the highest weight.

Facility operations (Weight 10) - This criterion consists of management and operation of the facility, including staff (i.e., would NWMI have sole responsibility for operations, or would the university be involved?). NWMI prefers to directly staff and operate the production facility, rather than have the facility operated by the university, but some limited involvement by the university reactor faculty could be beneficial.

Production logistics (Weight 10) - This criterion consists of the number of 6-day Ci processed and delivered to the distributor, based on time to transport between reactors and processing facility. Due to the short half-lives of 99VMo (66 hr) and 99"*Tc (6 hr), the transport time plays a critical role in the amount of product delivered to the end client. Product is shipped between all three facilities regardless of the selected production location, but total transit time for irradiated targets returning to the production facility affects the final product significantly.

Transportation (Weight 8) - The costs of transporting nuclear material and potential inclement weather impact timely transport of both irradiated targets from university research reactors and delivery of the 99Mo to the distributor.

Radioactive, hazardous, and mixed secondary waste generation (Weight 8) - The selected RPF site must comply with Federal, State, and local radioactive and hazardous waste requirements for waste generation and have a suitable waste disposition pathway.

Federal, State, county, and local requirements to construct and operate facility (Weight 5) - This criterion considers the required NRC licensing (NUREG-1537) and State, county, and local environmental permitting (e.g., air, water). Because of the proximity to existing reactors, no site is expected to face insurmountable permitting or licensing challenges, but differences between sites could lead to delays in beginning operations.

Federal and State taxes and incentives (Weight 3) - Taxes (including sales tax on equipment and construction materials, property tax, and corporate income tax), employment hiring credits, and incentives are not expected to be strong differentiators between locations, but differences could affect the cost of construction, equipment, and operations. Taxes and incentives were given a low weight.19-265

"'-NWMI!

• , ..,NO~ThWFSTMItAL* S Chapter 190 niomna Review Available space (Weight 3) - This criterion considers the available space for the production facility (without increasing the complexity of the facility design and construction costs) and suitability for future expansion (e.g., boutique isotopes, education, research, and development). All sites have the minimum amount of space required for the production facility, but differences in available space could impact the complexity of facility design (leading to operational complexities), differences in cost of construction, and ability to expand the production facility in the future.

Construction costs (Weight 2) - This criterion considers site-specific cost variations and construction cost indices for each location (using RSMeans 4 ). Local labor rates, materials costs, and current site condition could affect the cost of construction at each site.

Natural or human-made disaster potential (Weight 1) - This criterion is based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster declarations and USGS seismic activity predictions. Because each site is adjacent to an existing reactor, the disaster potential was considered a less significant differentiator and given the lowest weight.

Based on the siting criteria established and using readily available public information and observations from site visits, the sites were scored using a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being most favorable, 1 being least). The NWMI team determined that all four of the sites are viable and acceptable, with Discovery Ridge selected as the preferred site of the proposed RPF (see Table 19-88).

Table 19-88. Evaluation of Alternative Sites Political and local logistics support 4 40 4 40 4 40 1 10 4...40 4 40 3 30 3 3 Production logistics 4 40 2 20 3 30 3 30 Radioactive, hazardous, and mixed 4 32 4 32 4 32 3 24 secondary waste generation (i.e., air, liquids, solids)

Federal and State taxes and incentives 5 15 5 15 3 9 1 3 Avials e5 15 3 9 1 3 Construction costs 4 8 4 8 3 6 3 6 Total 245 219 190 145 DR = Discovery Ridge. MURR = University of Missouri Research Reactor.

MNRC = McClellan Nuclear Research Center. OSTR = Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor.

The Discovery Ridge site total weighted score of 82 percent was followed by the MURR location. Given the high weighting of certain criteria (i.e., political and local logistical support, facility operations, and production logistics) and high scores for these criteria, the MURR and Discovery Ridge sites have an advantage over both the proposed McClellan Business Park and OSTR sites.

4 RSMeans is a trademark R.S. Means Company, LLC, Kingston, Massachusetts.19-266

IAIM':.NWMI-2013-021,

,"Chapter Rev. OA 19.0 - Environmental Review The proposed site at the McClellan Business Park ranks fourth for the RPF location. The McClellan Business Park score was 34 percentage points lower than the Discovery Ridge site, primarily due to a lack of political and local support, Federal and state taxes and incentives, limited available greenfield space, and weaker ties to the UC Davis reactor team. However, the site's strengths include an existing building and abundant available space. The OSTR site, which ranked third, had limited available space, transportation routes and State and local financial incentives.

In consideration of these factors, the Discovery Ridge site was selected as the proposed site for the RPF.

The siting alternatives of the MNRC Business Park and OSTR locations were not further evaluated. The MURR site was considered to be viable and was identified as a reasonable alternative; its evaluation is provided in the following subsections.

19.5.2.3 University of Missouri Research Reactor Site Evaluation 19.5.2.3.1 Site Description The MURR site is located in Columbia, Missouri, approximately 201 km (125 mi) east of Kansas City and 201 km (125 mi) west of St Louis. The site is 2.4 km (1.5 mi) south of U.S. Interstate 70, just west of Research Park Drive. The Missouri River lies 13.6 km (8.5 mi) west of the site. The site is located 6.4 km (4 mi) northwest of the Discovery Ridge site.

The site is located directly to the south of the existing reactor building on a partially paved parking lot.

Access to the site is provided from Research Park Drive and South Providence Road. The site is 1.6 km (1 mi) southwest of the main MU campus. The site's latitude and longitude is 380 55' 53" north and 920 20' 31" west.

The MURR site is situated on a 3.0 ha (7.4-acre) lot in the central portion of the University Research Park, a 34.0 ha (84-acre) tract of land approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) southwest of the MU main campus.

The campus is situated in the southern portion of Columbia. The University Research Park consists of low-occupancy research buildings. Personnel are currently working in facilities located within 457.2 m (1,500 ft) of the alternative site.

The site's 8 km (5-mi) radius encompasses nearly the entire City of Columbia and parts of the outlying metropolitan area. The nearest permanent residence is located approximately 762 m (2,500 ft) north of the reactor facility near Stadium Boulevard (State Highway 740) on Brandon Road.

Existing land uses within each concentric ring can generally be described as follows:

• 0-1 km (0-0.06 mi) - There is very little residential development within 1 km (0.06 mi) of the MURR site. Most of the land is owned by MU. Recreational areas include a golf course to the west and a park to the south. There are three major University sports venues located in this area:

Memorial Stadium/Faurot Field (62,000 seats), Mizzou Arena (15,061 seats), and Heamnes Center (13,300 seats).

• 1-2 km (0.6-1.3 mi) - Major residential areas are located north, northwest, and south of the proposed RPF site. A shopping center, business district, two hospitals, and a large portion of MU's main campus are located within this area. With the exception of a small area to the southeast, there is no room for any substantial residential or nonresidential (industrial, commercial, or business) development.19-267

N MEIAIsao~ hpe 1vi9.0NWMI-2013-021, Chapter -Environmental Rev. 0A Review 2--4 km (1.3-2.5 mi) - The major residential areas are located in the northern half of the ROI and to the southwest. A shopping center, business district, two hospitals, two colleges, three high schools, three middle/junior high schools, and nine elementary schools are located in this area.

Recreational areas include two golf courses and eight parks. The downtown area of Columbia, which consists mainly of government offices and retail, commercial, and business uses, is located to the northeast. Development should continue within this area, most likely south of the reactor facility.

• 4-6 km (2.5-3.7 mi) - Most residential development is within the northern half of the ROI.

Three shopping centers, two hospitals, one middle/junior high school, three elementary schools, and an industrial park are located in this area. Recreational areas include two golf courses and five parks. Substantial amounts of land exist for residential or commercial development.

• 6-8 km (3.7-5 mi) - The only substantial residential development is northeast of the proposed RPF site. A shopping center, two middle/junior high schools, and four elementary schools are located in this area. Recreational areas include one park. Substantial amounts of land presently exist for residential or commercial development.

19.5.2.3.2 Land Use and Visual Resources The MURR site is currently used for industrial purposes and would remain as such if the RPF was constructed at that location. Construction of the RPF is not anticipated to threaten any important land use resources; therefore, the land use impact due to project construction would be small. Similarly during operation of the RPF, land use impacts would not change beyond those impacts associated with construction; therefore, the land use impact due to operation of the RPF would be small. Impacts to land use that could be reasonably assumed from decommissioning activities are anticipated to be similar to the impacts previously identified and associated with construction and, as such, would be small.

The RPF would be designed to blend in with the architecture of the existing MURR facilities. Because the site is presently industrial in nature, the impacts to visual resources as a result of construction, operation, and decommissioning of the RPF at this location would be small.

19.5.2.3.3 Air Quality Meteorology The impacts to air quality from RPF construction, operation, and decommissioning at the MURR site are anticipated to be similar to those associated with the Discovery Ridge site (discussed in Section 19.4.2.1).

Potential air pollution emissions during construction would include dust from earth-moving and material-handling activities, and exhaust emissions from construction equipment and vehicles. In general, these emissions would be the same as the emissions associated with any large construction project. Emission-specific control measures (e.g., watering areas of disturbed soil) would be implemented to limit air quality impacts and ensure compliance with applicable Federal and State regulations. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with facility construction would be small. Impacts associated with operation would be similar to those previously identified in Section 19.4.2.1, and are considered small. Air quality impacts that could be reasonably assumed from decommissioning activities are anticipated to be similar to impacts identified and associated with construction and, as such, would be small.

19.5.2.3.4 Noise Noise during construction at the MURR site would be very similar to that discussed in Section 19.4.2.3 for the Discovery Ridge site. The primary source of noise during construction would be the operation of heavy equipment. This noise would be noticeable in the immediate construction area, but would presumably attenuate to acceptable levels before reaching sensitive receptors.19-268

NWMAIRev.  : : Chpter 9.0 - Environmental Review Vehicular traffic due to construction workers commuting to and from the site and deliveries of equipment and supplies to the site would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity of several sensitive receptors. Increased traffic noise would likely be noticeable at some of these receptors; therefore, noise impacts associated with project construction would be moderate.

During operation, project-related traffic would be greatly reduced, and there would be no use of heavy construction equipment on the site. As discussed in Section 19.4.2.3, no significant sources of noise have been identified for project operation. Therefore, noise impacts associated with operation would be small.

Any impacts to noise levels that could be reasonably assumed from decommissioning activities are anticipated to be similar to impacts identified and associated with construction and, as such, would be moderate.

19.5.2.3.5 Geologic Environment The proposed MURR location would be located on flat terrain, requiring some cut and fill to bring the ground surface to the final grade. The excavation would be considered similar to the Discovery Ridge site, with a maximum depth of excavation anticipated to be 4.7 m (15.5 ft) and an estimated 6,881 m3 (9,000 yd 3) excavated for the building footprint. The material excavated would be soil; no blasting is anticipated.

The area under the MURR site is underlain by competent limestone bedrock that is not expected to subside due to construction of buildings and related infrastructure. There is no evidence of subsidence or sinkholes near the MURR site. The impacts to geology for construction, operation, and decommissioning of the facility, if the RPF is constructed at the MURR site, are similar to those of the Discovery Ridge site and are considered small.

19.5.2.3.6 Water Resources No streams or other surface water bodies have been identified within the boundaries of the MURR site.

Construction of the RPF would have no direct impacts on surface water. The nearest stream is Grind Stone Creek, approximately 305 m (1,000 ft) south of the facility. Federal, State, and local regulations and permit procedures provide minimum requirements for stormwater management during construction activities to prohibit adverse impacts on surface water or stormwater. During construction, any stormwater would be collected in a detention/retention pond. Disturbed soils would be stabilized as part of construction work. Earthen berms, dikes, and sediment fences would be used as necessary during all phases of construction to limit runoff. These measures would prevent the local surface drainages from being affected substantially by construction activities. The impacts of RPF construction on surface water are considered small.

For the MURR site, the RPF would obtain its water from the water system owned and operated by MU.

The amount used by the RPF is anticipated to be an extremely small percentage of the capacity of the MU water supply system.

Some dewatering due to groundwater and precipitation may be required during construction at the deepest excavation. No alterations to groundwater systems would occur due to the facility construction. Runoff controls would be in place during construction as part of the BMPs to prevent uncontrolled releases of water. The potential for water or other liquids from spills or leaks to cause significant migration of contaminants downward to the groundwater system is considered unlikely. No groundwater withdrawals or returns are required during construction. As such, direct and indirect impacts of RPF construction and operation on groundwater at the MURR site are small.19-269

• P...

IORTHWEST lviChptr MECJCAt.

lSOTOPES ChaperI1NWMI-2013-021, 9.0 -Environmental Rev.

Review0A Any impacts to water resources that could be reasonably assumed from decommissioning activities are anticipated to be similar to impacts identified and associated with RPF construction and, as such, are small.

19.5.2.3.7 Ecological Resources The MURR site is on previously disturbed land. Missouri has determined that there are no threatened or endangered "listed species" on the facility site (MU, 2006b). There are two species of concern in the surrounding area: the Trout-Perch and Topeka Shiner are both found in Hinkson Creek to the west of the MURR site. Hinkson Creek, which drains the MURR site, is a major tributary of Perche Creek, the principal stream of the Boone County drainage basin. Perche Creek enters the county from the northwest, flows southward, and then flows southeasterly before entering the Missouri River approximately 13.7 km (8.5 mi) from the MURR site. To preserve the Trout-Perch and the Topeka Shiner, Hinkson Creek and its tributaries should be protected from soil erosion, water pollution, and in-stream activities that modify or diminish aquatic habitats. No activities associated with construction or operation of the RPF at the MURR site would contribute to soil erosion. All potential water runoff would be captured in stormwater detention ponds. As such, direct and indirect impacts of RPF construction and operation on ecological resources are small.

Any impacts to ecological resources that could be reasonably assumed from decommissioning activities are anticipated to be similar to impacts identified and associated with construction and, as such, are small.

19.5.2.3.8 Historical and Cultural Resources The buildings in the near vicinity of the MURR site were constructed recently and are not listed in the NRHP. MU previously performed an assessment of the potential impact of construction on historic properties at the MURR site, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.), and in accordance with the provisions of 36 CFR 800. The study determined that there are no buildings, or sites of historical or archaeological importance, located on the MURR site (MU, 2006a). There is insignificant impact to historical properties, as stated in the draft NRC environmental assessment (NRC, 2001) related to the MURR request for a construction permit recapture license amendment filed on December 27, 2000 (MURR, 2000). The MURR site would be located on previously disturbed land; therefore, the potential for an impact on historical or archaeological resources due to the construction and operation of the RPF is small.

Any impacts to historical and cultural resources that could be reasonably assumed from decommissioning activities at the MURR site are anticipated to be similar to impacts identified and associated with RPF construction and, as such, are small.

19.5.2.3.9 Socioeconomnics The socioeconomic impacts associated with siting the RPF at the MURR site would be similar to those for the Discovery Ridge site. The ROI for both sites, Boone Country, are the same. Impacts to housing, education, taxes, and utilities (including power and sanitary sewer) would be similar. Water at the MURR site would be obtained from the MU-owned and operated water system that, as previously stated, has the capacity to absorb the additional demand from the RPF.

Any impacts to socioeconomics that could be reasonably assumed from decommissioning activities at the MURR site are anticipated to be similar to impacts identified and associated with RPF construction and, as such, are small.19-270

go E ChaperI1NWM,-2013-021, Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Rev. 0A Review

.. =EIORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES 19.5.2.3.10 Human Health Nonradiological - Construction and operation of the RPF at the MURR site would be essentially the same as the Discovery Ridge site described in Section 19.4.8.1 for the following:

• Nonradioactive chemical sources (location, type, strength)

• Nonradioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid waste management and effluent control systems

• Nonradioactive effluents released into the on-site and off-site environment

• Chemical exposure to the public and on-site workforce

• Physical occupational hazards

• Mitigation measures for nonradiological human health impacts Nonradiological chemical sources, wastes, effluents, and occupational hazards associated with the RPF would be controlled to ensure compliance with applicable environmental and occupational regulations and standards, as discussed in Section 19.4.8.1. As such, the nonradioiogical human health impacts associated with RPF construction and operation at the MURR site would be small.

Radiological - The RPF constructed at the MURR site would be basically the same as the Discovery Ridge site, and the following aspects of the facility would be the same:

• Characteristics of radiation sources and expected radioactive effluents

• Compliance with 10 CFR 20.1301, including calculated radiation dose rates at the fence line

• Annual radiation dose to the maximally exposed worker

• Mitigation measures to minimize public and occupational exposures to radioactive material Radiation sources and radioactive effluents would be controlled to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and standards, as discussed in Section 19.4.8.2. The radiological human health impacts associated with RPF construction and operation at the MURR site would be expected to be small.

19.5.2.3.11 Transportation The MURR site is located within the city limits of Columbia, Missouri. The area is served by two major highways: U.S. Interstate 70 and U.S. Highway 63. U.S. Interstate 70 is a major east-west route across the U.S. that connects St. Louis and Kansas City. This interstate currently carries approximately 72,530 vehicles/day and is projected to carry more than 109,410 vehicles/day by the year 2026.

U.S. Highway 63 is a major north-south route that connects Columbia, Missouri, and Memphis, Tennessee. This highway currently carries approximately 44,300 vehicles/day and is projected to carry over 68,930 vehicles/day by the year 2026.

The MURR presently has approximately 140 employees (MU, 2006b). Construction, operation, and decommissioning of the RPF would add 98 employees to the area, with a similar number of vehicles. The number of vehicles used by facility staff represents a very small percentage of the total number of vehicles used in the area daily. As such, there is no significant impact on transportation in the area associated with the construction, operation, or decommissioning of the RPF at the MURR site.

19.5.2.4 Process Alternatives Alternatives to the process proposed for the RPF include different irradiation, target fabrication, and separations processes selected for use by NWMI. Trade studies were identified as part of the preconceptual planning. Alternatives are divided into the following categories:

• Irradiation technique alternatives

• Process alternatives 19-27 1

S.

S.S NWMI NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review 19.5.2.4.1 Irradiation Alternatives A major component of design is the selection of the irradiation process. A few varying processes exist to make 99Mo, including:

0 Neutron capture of molybdenum-98 (98Mo)

S Use of a linear accelerator for the production of 99M0 6 Use of LEU aqueous homogeneous reactors.

99 Mo production Neutron begins with naturally activation/capture occurring

- This process of

• 98 molybdenum, Mo, and uses one of two Neutron M0-98 M0-99 techniques to create 99 Mo. The first technique bombards 98Mo with neutrons in a nuclear reactor. Figure 19-47. Molybdenum-98 Bombarded When successful, the result of the collision is a with Neutrons to Form Molybdenum-99 free-released gamma ray and 99 Mo (Figure 19-47).

The second technique employs an accelerator to produce neutrons in a similar fashion. Neutron capture involves using free neutrons to collide with a 98Mo target.

The National Academy of Sciences published a report (NAS, 2009) that documents the probability of 99 Mo generation from uranium fission at 37 barns (b). A barn is a unit of measure equal to 1024 cubic centimeters (cm 2). Because nuclear interaction rates are determined by the cross-sectional area of the target atom available to the incident particle, the barn represents a scaled probability of interaction. Thus, an interaction that has a large number of barns has a higher probability of occurrence than an interaction with a lower number. So for comparison, the neutron capture by 98Mo for the production of 99 Mo is approximately 0.13 b. This is much smaller than the 37 b cross-section for 99 Mo production from the fission of uranium; thus, it has a lower probability of occurrence and would require more neutrons to achieve the same quantity of Mo. Another negative aspect of this method is that the 99M0 produced has a low specific activity. Most of the Mo produced by this method is 98Mo because of the long half-life of the 98 Mo and molybdenum-100 ('°°Mo). According to the National Academy of Sciences report, the specific activity of molybdenum produced by neutron capture is two to four times lower than that produced from the fission of uranium (NAS, 2009).

Linear multipleaccelerators -This totechnology linear accelerators produce 99uses Mo. The 6 _ _ '7 -

linear accelerator accelerates electrons that collide Htgh!neg MO-iGO0 **

Mo-99 with a metal target, producing extremely intense plmotons high-energy photons. The most common method Neutron is to use a photon to produce 99Mo through the I°°Mo('y,n) 99 Mo reaction (Figure 19-48). The Figure 19-48. Molybdenum-100 second method uses protons in one of two ways, Reactions to Form Molybdei High hum-99 Energy 99 either to produce Mo through the

'°°Mo(p,pn) 99Mo reaction or produce 9 9 mZC directly through the l°°Mo(p,2n) 99 mTc reaction.

The National Academy of Sciences reported that the cost of construction and operation of multiple accelerators would have to be analyzed to determine if these approaches could be feasible (NAS, 2009).

Another option is to use the accelerator to produce 99 m~Tc directly from a 1°°Mo source; however, the short half-life of 99*ITc (6 hr) makes this approach impracticable.

Another possible application is to use a linear accelerator to induce fission on uranium targets, essentially replacing the traditional reactor with an accelerator. An extraction process would still be needed to recover the 99M0 from any option associated with an accelerator, as with a traditional reactor.19-272

NWM lviChater19.0 ,v

- Environmental Review LEU aqueous homogeneous reactor approach - This process consists of an array of aqueous homogeneous reactors to produce 99Mo, 1311, and xenon-133 ( 133Xe). The aqueous homogeneous reactor uses an LEU uranyl nitrate solution for fuel and target material. A typical facility would consist of a small number of reactor modules. The use of LEU uranyl nitrate solution for both reactor fuel and target material allows 99Mo to be produced in the entire reactor solution. To produce 99Mo, 131I, and ' 33Xe, LEU is dissolved in nitric acid and brought to criticality. To extract these isotopes, the solution is transferred from the reactor to a vent tank. After degassing, the solution is transferred to an extraction column where it undergoes a purification and separation process. The processed solution is cleaned up and returned to the reactor. The 99Mo is then handled in a manner similar to the NW~MI process.

19.5.2.4.2 Additional Process Alternatives In addition to the acid dissolution process proposed by NWMI, an alkaline dissolution process has also been used. A sodium hydroxide solution is used to dissolve the entire target. Dissolution produces a sodium aluminate solution containing sodium molybdate along with small amounts of fission products, other actinides, and residue. The solution is recovered, thus removing suspended solids, and purified by a method such as ion exchange. The 99Mo recovery yield from the solution typically exceeds 85 to 90 percent. The sorbed molybdate is typically washed with a dilute ammonium hydroxide solution and then removed from the column using a concentrated saline or ammonium hydroxide solution. The 99Mo is then recovered, configured, and shipped.

19.5.3 Cost-Benefit of the Alternatives Table 19-89 summarizes the cost and benefit analyses of the Discovery Ridge and MURR alternative sites and alternative technologies.

Table 19-89. Cost-Benefit Summary of the Alternatives (4 pages)

Land use and Land use is presently set aside for a Land use is presently industrial. Siting the visual research park. Construction and RPF is not anticipated to impact current land resources operation is harmonious with land use at use. The RPF would be designed to blend in the park. The RPF would be designed to with the existing MURR facilities. No blend in with the current facilities. No degradation is anticipated associated with land degradation is anticipated associated use or visual resources.

with land use or visual resources.19-273

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A L iVI! Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-89. Cost-Benefit Summary of the Alternatives (4 pages)

S.- - S S - ~. --

Geologic A short-term increase in soil erosion and A short-term increase in soil erosion and dust environment dust production during construction production during construction would be would be anticipated. No degradation to anticipated. No degradation to the geologic the geologic environment would be environment would be anticipated during anticipated during facility operations. facility operations.

Ecological The site is on ground that has been The site is on previously disturbed ground, resources historically used for agriculture. There and there are no threatened or endangered are no threatened or endangered species species on the site. There are two species, the on the site. There is a potential impact Trout-Perch and the Topeka Shiner, found in to fauna species near the site due to Hinkson Creek to the west of the site.

noise levels at the site during Hinkson Creek drains the MURR site.

construction. The fauna would be Releases from the MURR site could migrate expected to return to the surrounding to Hinkson Creek and impact the Trout-Perch area after construction is complete. The and Topeka Shiner. A potential exists for an potential impact to off-site aquatic accident or uncontrolled release to degrade the environments would be mitigated with Trout-Perch and the Topeka Shiner habitat.

the use of BMPs. There is a potential The potential also exists for impacts to fauna for bird strikes to elevated equipment species near the site due to noise levels at the during night construction. site during construction. The fauna would be expected to return to the surrounding area after construction is complete. The potential impact to off-site aquatic environments would be mitigated with the use of BMPs. There is a potential for bird strikes to elevated equipment during night construction.19-274

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-89. Cost-Benefit Summary of the Alternatives (4 pages)

S.- -- - --

Socio- Construction and operation would result Construction and operation would result in a economics in a small increase in the demand for small increase in the demand for housing, housing, utilities, public schools, and utilities, public schools, and other public other public services. However, this services. This impact is anticipated to be impact is anticipated to be small because small because the majority of workers would the majority of workers would be be obtained from the local labor force.

obtained from the local labor force. Construction would result in an increase in the Construction would result in an increase amount of local traffic due to commuting in the amount of local traffic due to construction workers and delivery of supplies commuting construction workers and and materials to the site. Operations would delivery of supplies and materials to the result in increased local traffic from site. Operations would result in commuting employees.

increased local traffic from commuting employees.

Environ- RPF construction and operation would Construction and operations would not mental justice not disproportionally impact minority disproportionally impact minority and/or low-and/or low-income populations, income populations.19-275

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A IW~ Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-89. Cost-Benefit Summary of the Alternatives (4 pages)

No other environmental costs have been No other environmental costs have been identified. identified.

Construction would result in 83 jobs at Construction would result in 83 jobs at the the peak of construction. A total of peak of construction. A total of 98 full-time 98 full-time jobs would be filled during jobs would be filled during Operations at a Operations at a salary 75 percent higher salary 75 percent higher than the current than the current Boone County average. Boone County average.

.- -e -. . -

Constructing would result in additional Constructing would result in additional tax tax revenue of approximately revenue of approximately $2.5 million in

$2.5 million in Columbia, Boone Columbia, Boone County, and Missouri County, and Missouri during operation during operation and approximately and approximately $76 million over the $76 million from construction through period spanning construction through decommissioning.

decommissioning.

No improvements beyond those No improvements to the infrastructure are presently planned for Discovery Ridge expected due to construction or operations.

are expected for construction or operation.

a -

Operations would benefit the health of Operations would benefit the health of99people people who need diagnostic tests that who need diagnostic tests that require mlTC; require 99mTc; NWMI intends to provide NWMI intends to provide a reliable supply of a reliable supply of 50 percent of the 50 percent of the U.S. need for 99m'c.

U.S. need for 99 mTC.

a 10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

BMP = best management practice. NWMI = Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC.

MURR = University of Missouri Research Reactor. RPF = radioisotope production facility.

NRHP = National Register of Historic Places.19-276

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

• tO..,.NO1AHWE TMEO4CAAtOOE Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.5.4 Comparison of the Potential Environmental Impacts This section compares the environmental impacts, costs, and benefits discussed in Sections 19.5.1, 19.5.2, and 19.5.3. Table 19-90 and Table 19-91 summarize the potential construction and operational impacts of the Discovery Ridge site and alternatives, respectively.

Table 19-90. Comparison of the Potential Construction Impacts of the Discovery Ridge Site and Alternatives Land use Small Small None Small Small None Air quality Small Small None Geology, soils, seismology Sm~~all Smoeale None Surface Small Small None Ecological resources Socioeconomic Smal Smal None Public services Small Small None Public eduation Smal Smal None Taxes Small ($2,534,962) Small ($2,534,962) None Small None Employment Small (82) Small (82) None Small None Waste management Small Small None Small Postulated accidents MURR = University of Missouri Research Reactor.19-277

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

~NWMIV Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-91. Comparison of the Potential Operational Impacts of the Discovery Ridge Site and Alternatives Land Use Small Small None Small Air Quality Small None Small Geology, Soils, Small None Seismology Small Surface Small None Small Ecological Resources Small None Socioeconomic Small i onieii Public Services Small None Small$2,27263 Taxes Small ($72,827,264)

Small(8 None Employment Small (98)

Small Human Health Small Small(8 None Transportation Small Small None Environmental Justice Small MURR = University of Missouri Research Reactor.19-278

NW~M NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review

19.6 CONCLUSION

S 19.6.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action Unavoidable adverse impacts are predicted adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided and for which there are no practical means of further mitigation. This section considers unavoidable adverse impacts from construction and operation of the proposed RPF. The decommissioning of the facility would return the site to its present state. If the site is returned to its current state, there would be no unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

19.6.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts of Construction The impacts associated with construction are discussed in Section 19.4, and as described in that section, all impacts are considered small. Table 19-92 summarizes construction-related impacts that result in a measurable loss or permanent change in resources, the mitigation and control measures available to reduce those impacts, and the remaining unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation and control measures are applied.

Table 19-92. Construction-Related Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts (2 pages)

Land Use and Visual Construction would Construction activities comply with A total of 3 ha (7.4 acres)

Resources permanently impact all relevant Federal, State, and local within Discovery Ridge 3 ha (7.4 acres) of regulatory requirements, including would be impacted.

Lot 15 (open space in BMPs and stormwater management Discovery Park). plans to control erosion and runoff.

Partial obstruction of Visual impacts are minimized A minor change in existing views of the existing through landscaping of the site. landscape would be expected.

landscape Visual obstruction via BMPs, including dust control, Unavoidable adverse dust generation would be used to limit any impact. environmental impacts are anticipated to be small.

$t~l1 rQSQfl Storm' BMPs Air Quality Unavoidable adverse Emissions and fugitive Application of BMPs, including dust dust suppression, periodically environmental impacts are watering unpaved construction expected to be small.

areas, covering haul trucks when loaded or unloaded, minimizing material handling (e.g., drop heights, double-handling), phased grading to minimize the area of disturbed soils, revegetating road medians and slopes.

Vehicle emissions Encouraging car pooling Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are expected to be small.19-279

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NW~N Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-92. Construction-Related Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts (2 pages) 0@ *~.@

. S - S - . S.

Water Resources No surface water Stormwater would be collected in a Unavoidable adverse impacts would be detention/retention pond, and runoff environmental impacts are anticipated. Minimal controls would be applied, not anticipated.

groundwater dewatering at the deepest excavation.

Public Services Use of water, sanitary No mitigation is required. Unavoidable adverse sewer and power, environmental impacts are public education, tax anticipated to be small.

revenues, transportation.

Cultural and No adverse impacts on A Phase I archeological survey was Unavoidable adverse Historical Resources cultural or historic performed and the SHPO reviewed environmental impacts are not resources have been the findings and indicated that no anticipated.

identified, further consultation is needed.

BMP = best management practice. RPF = radioisotope production facility.

LEU = low-enriched uranium. SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office.

OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

For many of the impacts related to construction activities, the mitigation measures are referred to as BMPs. Typically, these mitigation measures are based on the types of activities that are to be performed.

The mitigation measures are implemented through permitting requirements and the plans and procedures developed for the construction activities.19-280

• %e I1VV Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review

• • ...-NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Unavoidable adverse impacts from construction of the RPF would be direct and permanent disturbance of 3 ha (7.4 acres) of Lot 15 that changes open space to a fully constructed facility with surrounding landscaping and partially obstructs views of the existing landscape. Even with application of BMPs, construction activities would result in localized increases in air emissions, including GHGs, dust, noise, vibration, and soil erosion, which may impact on-site workers, other Discovery Ridge tenants, and nearby residents. Because there are no streams, ponds, or water bodies present on the RPF site, and no groundwater dewatering would be anticipated, potential construction-related impacts to water resources are limited to off-site impacts associated with runoff and siltation that are not fully mitigated through stormwater management plans and BMPs. There may be temporary displacement of fauna species (because of noise), and bird strikes with illumination. BMPs for artificial lights would be used to minimize bird collisions.

Impacts to land and visual resources from facility construction are mitigated by returning lands within the site boundary, which surround the developed area, to a combination of open and landscaped spaces on completion of construction. Potential noise impacts also include traffic noise associated with the construction workforce traveling to and from the RPF.

19.6.1.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts of Operations Operational impacts, all of which are considered small, are discussed in detail throughout Section 19.4.

Table 19-93 summarizes operations-related impacts that result in a measurable loss or permanent change in resources, the mitigation and control measures available to reduce these impacts, and the remaining adverse impacts after mitigation and control measures are applied. As indicated in Table 19-93, most of the adverse impacts are either avoidable or negligible after mitigation and control measures are considered.

Unavoidable adverse impacts from operation of the RPF include a change to the viewshed, potential stormwater, infrequent bird collisions with buildings, emissions and dust from traffic, operating noise and vibration, and an increase in potential for nonradiological and radiological hazards to the public and occupational workers.

Visual impacts to the viewshed would occur as a result of the main building's exhaust stacks and exhaust from them. The surrounding viewshed includes light industrial development; therefore, impacts are minor. Stormwater runoff during plant operation from paved and compacted surfaces would be controlled via drainage ditches and basins. Infrequent bird collisions with buildings at the RPF and associated structures could result in some bird mortality. However, the RPF has a relatively low profile, and the effects on bird populations from collisions with buildings would be minimized. A small level of noise and vibration from equipment would occur during operations. Noise would be limited to the interior of the facility and the immediate exterior area, where it would be perceived as being close to ambient levels. There would be an increase in potential for nonradiological and radiological hazards to the public and workers. These hazards would be mitigated through the facility's design, engineering controls, and administrative controls.19-281

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A 2::NWMI O.R.,

RftV. Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-93. Operations-Related Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts (3 pages)

Land Use and Visual impacts as a result of The majority of the facility Minor impacts to Visual Resources the main building associated structures have a relatively low viewscape would occur as with the three main profile. The exhaust stacks a result of the completed processing exhaust vent would extend to approximately facility; thus, impacts are stacks* 22.9 m (75 ft) high abovegrade. small.

No mitigation is required.

Quantities of gaseous effluent No mitigation is required. Unavoidable adverse released from the facility environmental impacts are during operations are not not anticipated.

anticipated to result in visibility impacts.

Noise and Noise and vibration would be These noise sources would Unavoidable adverse Vibration generated from process largely be limited to the interior environmental impacts are equipment, ventilation, of the facility. The exterior anticipated to be small.

heating and cooling systems, noises would not be significantly and increased traffic, above ambient level. No mitigation is required.19-282

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-93. Operations-Related Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts (3 pages) 6*.*~ .6 - -

- - S. 6. 6 ~. - 6 - . 6.

ueoogic ~tormwater runon arm i*Ms wouto DCuseo o mean!age ~navoiuawe auverse process wastewater environmental impacts are anticipated to be small.

stormwater runoff from paved and compacted surfaces to drainage ditches and basins.

Proes waciltewye woulddsge be Water Resources Stormwater runoff Unavoidable adverse controiled withiand tenlose ld environmental impacts are small.

Proesnsewrrlastewaterwroulmotb dipoedfclt to thesuburacen Liquid discharge Unavoidable adverse Bniomen sa would busdtmanagec environmental impacts are adcmatdsurfaceswator not anticipated.

I9-28 Environmental No adverse impacts on Level of impact is comparable Impacts to low income and Justice minority or low-income for all populations, and minority populations are populations have been mitigation is not required. not anticipated.

identified.

Human Health Potential nonradiologicai Control systems would be used Unavoidable adverse public and occupational to mitigate risks and control environmental impacts are hazards pertaining to exposure. anticipated to be small.

operation of the RPF are associated with emissions, discharges, waste associated with processes within the facility, and accidental spills/releases.

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

~NWMI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-93. Operations-Related Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts (3 pages) 0*.*~ .0 - -

'0 - 0. 0. 0 -- - 0 - S.

Human Health Worker exposure to wastes Processes and procedures would Unavoidable adverse (cont). and chemicals reduce the probability of an environmental impacts are exposure. Emergency response anticipated to be small.

plans would mitigate the effects of accidents and spills.

Radiological impacts - public The facility would be designed Unavoidable adverse such that the radiological environmental impacts are impacts at the fence line to any anticipated to be small.

individual would be below applicable limits. Engineered controls used would include:

shielding, ventilation control, access control, contamination control, etc.

Radiological impacts - Administrative controls Unavoidable adverse workers (e.g., regulation compliance, environmental impacts are waste minimization goals, etc.) anticipated to be small.

would be used to ensure that workers do not receive dose above the regulatory reference.

a 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, "Annual Limits on Intake (ALl) and Derived Air Concentrations (DAC) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentration; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

BMP = best management practice. SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office.

PM = particulate matter. VOC = volatile organic compound.

RPF = radioisotope production facility.

19.6.2 Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the Environment This environmental review focuses on the analyses and resulting conclusions associated with the environmental impacts from activities during the construction and operation at the RPF. These activities are considered short-term uses for purposes of this section. In this section, the long-term is considered to be initiated with the conclusion of RPF decommissioning. This section includes an evaluation of the extent that the short-term uses preclude any options for future long-term use of the RPF site.

19.6.2.1 Construction of the Radioisotope Production Facility and Long-Term Productivity Subsection 19.6.1.1 summarizes the potential unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of construction and the measures proposed to reduce those impacts. Some small adverse environmental impacts could remain after all practical measures to avoid or mitigate them are taken. However, none of these impacts represent long-term effects that preclude any options for future use of the RPF site.

The acreage disturbed during construction of the facility would be larger than that required for the RPF due to the need for construction parking areas and the material staging and laydown areas. These disturbances, along with noise from construction activities, may displace some wildlife and alter existing vegetation.

Once the RPF is completed, the areas not needed for operations would be restored with landscaping.19-284

fl: Chapter 9.0 -Environmental Review Construction of the RPF would include the installation of water and sewer lines that connect the facility to the Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 water supply system. This additional infrastructure would be available and beneficial to any future use of the RPF site after decommissioning. There would be no effects on the long-term productivity of the RPF site as a result of these impacts.

Construction traffic would increase the volume of traffic on local roads, but not to the extent that modifications to the traffic infrastructure or increased rate of maintenance would be required. As presented in the Section 19.4.7, the facility construction has a small positive socioeconomic effect on the local area. These impacts include new construction-related jobs, local spending by the construction workforce, and payment of taxes within the area and region. The beneficial impacts from the construction workforce and indirect economic output and employment resulting from construction expenditures to the local community are limited to the duration of construction. However, the changes that result from increased tax revenues and employment of operational workers would continue throughout the operational life of the RPF.

Construction of the RPF would have insignificant impacts on populations identified as minority or low-income. The percentage of minority or low-income population within the impacted area does not exceed 20 percent of the State or the county, and the percentage of minority or low-income population in the impacted area does not exceed 50 percent of the total population.

19.6.2.2 Operation of the Radioisotope Production Facility and Long-Term Productivity Section 19.6.1.2 summarizes the potential unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of RPF operation and the measures proposed to reduce or eliminate those impacts. Some small adverse environmental impacts could remain after all practical measures to avoid or mitigate them are taken. However, none of these impacts represent long-term effects that preclude any options for future use of the RPF site.

The RPF site is located in an area that was previously disturbed for agricultural use and later acquired by MU for use as a research park. Operation of the RPF, therefore, represents a continuation of the planned land use. Once the facility is decommissioned to NRC standards, the land could be available for other industrial or non-industrial uses.

During operation, noise levels are largely expected to be similar to ambient levels because facility-generated noise would be limited by the walls and other physical barriers of the facility itself. Operation of the RPF would slightly increase air emissions from the exhaust stacks. The majority of effluent would be from radioisotope production and include the release of a small amount of gaseous fission products.

However, the results of modeling showed that no pollutant released during normal operations would exceed the NAAQS. Facility equipment would be operated in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, and would not be expected to result in any long-term decrease in regional air quality. Once the facility is decommissioned, none of these impacts would preclude future use of the site.

Operation of the RPF would have a comparable impact on all populations in the region around the site.

19.6.2.3 Summary of the Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity The impacts resulting from construction and operation of the RPF result in both adverse and beneficial short-term impacts. The principal short-term adverse impacts are small residual impacts (after mitigation measures are implemented) to land use and visual resources, ecological resources, human health, and air quality. There are no long-term impacts to the environment.

The principal short-term benefits are the creation of additional jobs, additional tax revenues, and improvements to local infrastructure. The principal long-term benefit would be the continued availability of the improved infrastructure and potential benefits from increased tax revenues after RPF decommissioning.19-285

• . N Chater 9.0 - Environmental Review The short-term impacts and benefits and long-term benefits do not affect the long-term productive use of the RPF site.

19.6.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Used to Support the Proposed Action This section describes the expected irreversible and irretrievable environmental resource commitments used in the RPF construction and operation. The phrase "irreversible commitment of resources" describes environmental resources that are potentially changed by either RPF construction or operation such that they could not be restored at some later time to the resource's prior state. Irretrievable commitments of resources are generally materials that are used for the new facility in such a way that they could not, by practical means, be recycled or restored for other uses.

19.6.3.1 Irreversible Environmental Commitments of Resources Irreversible environmental resource commitments resulting from the new facility, in addition to the materials used for radioisotope production, are described in the following subsections.

19.6.3.1.1 Land Use The land used for the RPF would not irreversibly committed because once the RPF ceases operations and the facility is decommissioned in accordance with NRC requirements, the land supporting the facility could be returned to other industrial or nonindustrial uses. There would be no long-term storage or disposal of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes at the site. Medical isotopes would not be stored for any significant time period as these items would be transported to clients as quickly as possible. LEU will be recycled.

19.6.3.1.2 Water Resources The RPF requires water from the Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 water supply system for construction, isotope production, potable water, fire protection, and facility heating and cooling. The Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 presently supplies 5.49 ML/day (1.45 Mgal/day).

Construction requirements of the RPF are small compared to the available water supply. As noted in Section 19.2.4, the RPF would require 4,885 L/day (1,286 gal/day) during operations, less than one percent of the total Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 operational capacity. This leaves a significant excess capacity. Because there would be significant excess capacity within the Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1, there are no indirect effects associated with the demand from the RPF.

There are also no direct impacts to water quality or hydrology from the RPF, and therefore, there would be no irreversible impacts.

1 9.6.3.1.3 Ecological Resources Long-term irreversible losses of ecological resources are not anticipated. Subsequent to the completion of construction, floral and faunal resources are expected to recover in areas that are not affected by ongoing operations. Losses of fauna due to operations are anticipated to be attributable to bird collisions with buildings at the RPF, as wildlife occurrence on the site would be relatively infrequent. There are no wetlands or water bodies located at the RPF site.

All water for the RPF facility would be provided by the Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1, and the RPF would not be discharging into any water body, thus avoiding any environmental impacts.

Stormwater BMPs would control runoff and minimize runoff impacts to any off-site water body.

19.6.3.1.4 Socioeconomic Resources No irreversible commitments would be made to socioeconomic resources, as they would be available to be reallocated for other purposes once the RPF is decommissioned.19-286

flIVChapter Catr1NWMI-2013-021, 9.0 - Environmental Rev. QA Review 19.6.3.1.5 Historic and Cultural Resources No known historic or cultural resources would be irreversibly altered as a result of RPF construction or operation.

19.6.3.1.6 Air Quality Dust and other emissions, such as vehicle exhaust, would be released to the air during construction activities. Implementation of controls and limits at the .source of emissions on the construction site result in the reduction of impacts offsite. Mitigations, such as dust suppression BMPs, would also reduce dust from construction activities.

During operations, emissions would be a product of vehicle exhaust, isotope production, and fuel combustion, resulting in very low levels of gaseous pollutants and particulates released from the facility into the air. Contractors, vendors, and subcontractors are required to adhere to appropriate Federal and State occupational health and safety regulations to protect workers from adverse conditions, including air emissions. Emissions during operations were shown through modeling to be in compliance with applicable Federal and State regulations, which would minimize their impact on public health and the environment.

19.6.3.1.7 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Irretrievable commitments of resources during RPF construction would generally be similar to that of any small-scale facility construction project. Materials consumed during the construction phase are shown in Table 19-7. These materials are irretrievable unless they are recycled at decommissioning.

Approximately 1,647 L (435 gal) of diesel fuel would be expected to be used on an average monthly basis during construction. The use of construction materials in the quantities associated with the facility has a small impact on the availability of such resources.

During RPF operations, the primary irreversibly and irretrievably resource committed is the uranium used as the source for the molybdenum isotope to eventually produce 99 mTc for medical diagnostics. The amount of uranium that NWMI will require on an annual basis and over the lifetime of the operating license (assuming a 30-yr operating license) is small when compared to the amount consumed by other users and the total global supply of uranium.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) studies of supply and demand of uranium indicate that a total of 5,902,500 metric tons (NIT) of uranium were available in 2013. Current usage is a bout 66,000 t U/yr representing an 90-yr supply of uranium at current prices based on known resources (WNA, 2014). This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals.

Uranium is a relatively common metal found in rocks and seawater. The world's known uranium resources increased by at least one-quarter in the last decade due to increased mineral exploration.

Australia has a substantial part (about 29 percent) of the world's uranium, Kazakhstan has 12 percent, Russia has nine percent, Canada has eight percent, and the U.S. has four percent. The amount of uranium could increase to a 200-yr supply as market prices rise and other conventional sources of uranium are used.

Therefore, the uranium that is used to generate the medical radioisotopes has a negligible impact with respect to the long-term availability of uranium worldwide.

While a given quantity of material consumed during new facility construction and operation at the RPF site would be irretrievable, except for materials recycled during decommissioning, the impact on their availability would be small.19-287

.~NW M:INWMI-201 ISOTOPE$

• e ,..NRHETMEDICAL

Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 3-021, Rev. OA

19.7 REFERENCES

3 CSR 10-4.110, "General Prohibition; Applications," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

3 CSR 10-9.110, "General Prohibition; Applications," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

3 CSR Division 10, "Department of Conservation," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

6 CSR Division 10, "Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods and Air Pollution Control Regulation for the Entire State of Missouri," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 20, Appendix B, "Annual Limits on Intake (ALI) and Derived Air Concentrations (DAC) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentration; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 20.1101, "Radiation Protection Programs," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 20.1201, "Occupational Dose Limits for Adults," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 20.1203, "Determination of External Dose from Airborne Radioactive Material," Code of FederialRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

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

10 CFR 20.1302, "Compliance with 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 FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 40, "Domestic Licensing of Source Material," Code of FederalRegulations, 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 50.10, "License Required; Limited Work Authorization," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 50.31i. "Combining Applications," C'ode of FederalRegutlations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 50.32, "Elimination of Repetition," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 50.47, "Emergency Plans," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 50.50, "Issuance of Licenses and Construction Permits," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 50.57, "Issuance of Operating Licenses," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.19-288

flIVChapter

• ,....NORThWEST MEDICAl ISOTOPES ChptrW 9.0NM-2I302,Rev. oA

- Environmental Review 10 CFR 50.59, "Changes, Tests, and Experiments," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Review," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CFR 51 Subpart A, "National Environmental Policy Act - Regulations Implementing Section 102 (2)," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

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

10 CFR 71, "Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

10 CSR 10-6, "Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods and Air Pollution Control Regulation for the Entire State of Missouri," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 10-6.020, "Definitions and Common Reference Tables," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 10-6.060, "Construction Permits Required," Missou~ri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 10-6.06 1, "Construction Permit Exemptions," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 20-6.0 10, "Construction and Operating Permits," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 20-7.03 1, "Water Quality Standards," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 23-3.090, "Regionalization," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 25-3.260, "Definitions, Modifications to Incorporations and Confidential Business Information,"

Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 25-5.262, "Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 25-7, "Rules Applicable to Owners/Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 25-7.266, "Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 25-7.270, "Missouri Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit Program,"

Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 25-9, "Resource Recovery," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 25-9.020, "Hazardous Waste Recovery Processes," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR 25-16.273, "Standards for Universal Waste Management," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR Division 10, "Air Conservation Commission," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR Division 20, "'Clean Water Commission," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

10 CSR Division 25, "Hazardous Waste Management Commission," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.19-289

NW MKIChpe

• • .,o*NORTHWEST E

Chater19.0 MEDICAL ISOTOPES

- Environmental Rev.

NWM,-2013-021, Review 0A 10 CSR Division 60, "Safe Drinking Water Commission," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq., "National Historic Preservation Act of 1966," United States Code, as amended.

16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., "Endangered Species Act of 1973," United States Code, as amended.

19 CSR 20-10, "Protection Against Ionizing Radiation," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

19 CSR 20-10.020, "Exemptions from Requirements of this Chapter," Missouri Code of State Regu~lations, as amended.

19 CSR Division 20, "Division of Community and Public Health," Missouri Code of State Regul~ations, as amended.

25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq., "Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act," United States Code, as amended.

29 CFR 1910, "Occupational Safety and Health Standards," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

29 CFR 1910.1000, "Air Contaminants," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

29 U.S.C. §§ 657-658, "Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970," United States Code, as amended.

33 CFR 323, "Permits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material into Waters of the United States," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., "Clean Water Act of 1972," United States Code, as amended.

36 CFR 60.6, "Nominations by the State Historic Preservation Officer under Approved State Historic Preservation Programs," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

36 CFR 800, "'Protection of Historic Properties," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 50, "National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 51, "Regional Haze Regulations," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 58.10, "Annual Monitoring Network Plan and Periodic Network Assessment," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 60, "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 61, "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 63, "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 70, "State Operating Permit Programs, Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 8 1.416, "Identification of Mandatory Class I Federal Areas where Visibility is an Important Value, Missouri," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.19-290

.:,;.;Chapter.NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

• "INWMI I.i.O,.I..Ihaper19.0- Environmental Review

.e'" NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES 40 CFR 112, Subpart D, Appendix F, "Facility-Specific Response Plan," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 122, "EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 141 and 142, "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 143, "National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 190, "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 230.404(b)(1), "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material,"

Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 260, "Hazardous Waste Management System: General," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 261, "Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 262, "Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 266, "Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 266, Subpart N, "Conditional Exemption for Low-Level Mixed Waste Storage, Treatment, Transportation, and Disposal," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 268, "Land Disposal Restrictions," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 282, "Approved Underground Storage Tank Programs," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 355, "Emergency Planning and Notification," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 370, "Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right-To-Know," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 372, "Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-To-Know," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 373, "Reporting Hazardous Substance Activity When Selling or Transferring Federal Real Property," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 1039.102, "What exhaust emission standards and phase-in allowances apply for my engines in model year 2014 and earlier," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 1500-1508, "Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

19-29 1

lviChater19.0 Chapter NWMI-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev.

Review 0A

• ... IORT14WEST MEDICAt ISOTOPES 40 CFR 1508.7, "Cumulative Impact," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

40 CFR 1508.25, "Scope," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

42 U.S.C. § 300(f) et seq., "Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974," United States Code, as amended.

42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq., "Atomic Energy Act of 1946," United States Code, as amended.

42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., "National Environmental Policy Act," United States Code, as amended.

42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976," United States Code, as amended.

42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., 1970, "Clean Air Act of 1970," United States Code, as amended.

42 U.S.C. § 7491, et seq., "Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas," United States Code, as amended.

42 U.S.C. Chapter 116 §§ 11001-11050, "Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986," United States Code, as amended.

49 CFR 107, "Hazardous Materials Program Procedures," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

49 CFR 171, "General Information, Regulations, and Definitions," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

49 CFR 172, "Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements, and Security Plans," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

49 CFR 173, "Shippers - General Requirements for Shipments and Packages," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

49 CFR 175, "Carriage by Aircraft," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

49 CFR 177, "Carriage by Public Highway," Code of FederalRegulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

49 CFR 397, "Transportation of Hazardous Materials; Driving and Parking Rules," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended.

49 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5127, "Hazardous Materials Transportation Act," United States Code, as amended.

ABC Laboratories, 2007, "Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc., Application for Material License," Renewal of License Number 24-13365-01, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Form 313, ABC Laboratories, Columbia, Missouri, February 27, 2007.

Ameren, 2013a, "Ameren Missouri's Callaway Energy Center,"

www ameren .com/sites/aue/Callaway/Pages/Home.aspx, Ameren, Missouri, accessed August 2013.

Ameren, 2013b, C'aliawav Energy Center 2012 Annual Effluent Release Report, Facility Operating License NPF-30, Docket No. 50-483, Ameren, Missouri, April 22, 2013.

AMR, 2014, "Airport Master Record," FAA Site 1165 1.lI'A, Federal Aviation Administration, June 27, 2014.

Baker, David E., 1997, "Noise: The Invisible Hazard," Department of Agricultural Engineering, extension.minissouri .edu/publications/DisplayPrinterFriendlyPub.aspx?P=G 1962, December 1997.19-292

IUVVChapter Chpe WM,-2013-02, Rev. 0A 9.0 -Environmental Review Barr, M., 2012, Qu~alit. of Surface Water in Missouri, Water Year 2011, United States Geological Survey, Data Series 734, Reston, Virginia, 2012.

BCC, 2013, "Boone County Tax Entities and Rates," Boone County Collector, www.showmeboone.comlcoilector/TaxRates.asp, Boone County, Missouri, accessed August 9, 2013.

Berger, E. H., L. H. Royster, J. D. Royster, D. P. Driscoll, and M. Layne, 2003, The Noise Manual, 5* Edition, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax, Virginia, January 1, 2003.

BFSC, 2007, Bonne Femnme Watershed Plan, www.cavewatershed.org/plan.asp, Bonne Femnme Stakeholder Committee, Boone County Planning and Building Department, Columbia, Missouri, February 2007.

BLM, 1986, H-841JO-I - Visual Resource Inventory Manual, U.S. Department of Land Management, Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C., January 1986.

BLS, 2012, "May 2012 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates," www .bls.gov/oes/currentloessrcma.htm, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, WaShington, D.C., accessed September 2013.

Boone County, 1996, Boone Count, Master Plan, Booker Associates, Inc., St. Louis Missouri, October 1996.

Boone County, 2011, Floodplain Management Ordinance, Governing Board of Boone County, Missouri, March 1, 2011.

Boone County, 2013a, "Boone County Stormwater Management Program,"

www.showmeboone.comi/stormwater, Columbia, Missouri, accessed July 16, 2013.

Boone County, 2013b, Chapter 2, "Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations,"

www.bcrsd.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= 1&Itemid=30, Columbia, Missouri, accessed August 2013.

Boone County Historical Society, 2013, "Maplewood House and Historic Nifong Park," and "Maplewood History," boonehistory .org/attractions/Maplewood, Columbia, Missouri, accessed August 2013.

CEQ, 1997, ConsideringCumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C., January 1997.

Chapman, C. H., 1975, The Archaeology of Missouri I, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri, 1975.

Chapman, C. H., 1980, The Archaeology of Missouri 11, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri, 1980.

Chapman, S. S., Omernik, J. M., Griffith, G. E., Schroeder, W. A., Nigh, T. A., and Wilton, T. F., 2002, "Ecoregions of Iowa and Missouri (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia," U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,800,000), 2002.

City of Columbia, 1998, "Sec. 29-25, Screening and Landscaping Requirements," Chapter 29, Code of Ordinances,City of Columbia, Missouri, June 15, 1998.

City of Columbia, 201 2a, "Columbia City View," zoning map, Geospatial Information Office, www.gocolumbiamo.com/Maps/City View, Columbia, Missouri, accessed July 2013.

City of Columbia, 201 2b, Columbia Code of Ordinances, Chapter 29 - Section 29-18, District M-R, Planned Research, Development and Office Park District, www.gocolumbiamo.com/Council/ColumbiaCode ofOrdinances/Chapter_29/index.html, Columbia, Missouri, accessed August 2013.19-293

" NW M

• .,..-*NOSTWWEST MEOICAL.

I$OTUPES Chapter 19.0 -Enlvironmentl Review City of Columbia, 2013a, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27, "Utilities for the City of Columbia,"

www.gocolumbiamo.com/Council/ColumbiaCode ofOrdinances/index.html, Columbia, Missouri, accessed August 2013.

City of Columbia, 2013b, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 6, "Buildings and Building Regulations,"

www.gocolumbiamo.com/Council/ColumbiaCode ofOrdinances/index .html, Columbia, Missouri, accessed August 2013.

City of Columbia, 2013c, "Columbia Imagined, The Plan for How We Live & Grow,"

www.gocolumbiamo.com/community~development/comprehensive~plan/documents/

Columbialmagined-FINAL.pdf, Columbia, Missouri, October 7, 2013.

City of Columbia, 2013d, Columbia Code of Ordinances, Chapter 16 - Section 265, "Construction, Repair, and Demolition of Buildings, Streets, and Utilities,"

www.gocolumbiamo.com/Council/ColumbiaCode ofOrdinances/Chapter_1 6/265.htrnl, Columbia, Missouri, accessed August 2013.

City of Columbia, 2013e, City of Columbia FY 2014 C1P Planning Docu~ment, Columbia, Missouri, October 1, 2013.

City of Columbia, 201 3f, City, of Columbia FY 2013 CIP Planning Document, Columbia, Missouri, October 1, 2012.

City of Columbia, 2014, 2013 Renewable Energy Report, Columbia, Missouri, 2013.

Columbia Source Water Protection Task Force, 2013, Source Water Protection.Plan City of C'olumbia Missouri. prepared for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, Missouri, February 2013.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe, 1979, Classificationof Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31, Washington, D.C., 1979.

CPS, 2006, Columbia Public School Long-Range FacilitiesMaster Plan, Columbia Public Schools, Columbia, Missouri, October 31, 2006.

CPS, 2012, "Columbia Public Schools 20 12-13 Enrollment (Head Count)," Columbia Public Schools, Columbia, Missouri, September 26, 2012.

CSWP, 2013, Source Water Protection Plan, City of C'olumbia Missouri, Columbia Source Water Protection Task Force, Columbia, Missouri, February 2013.

CTR, 2013, "Columbia Terminal Railroad," www.gocolumbiamo.com/WaterandLight/About_Us/COLT, Columbia, Missouri, accessed August 9, 2013.

Decker, W. L., 2013, "Climate of Missouri," Missouri Climate Center, University of Missouri, College of "Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, The Curators of the University of Missouri, climate.missouri.edu/climate.php, Columbia, Missouri, accessed August 2013.

DNR, 2013, "Lot 15, Discovery Ridge (NRC) Boone County Missouri," letter from Mark Miles to Carolyn Haass, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Richland, Washington, October 10, 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, 2001, Guidebook to Decision-MakingMethods, WS-IIM-2002-00002, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., December 2001.19-294

N MEICA EUVYChapter19.0

• • .,..NOET'hAWEST MEZAISOTOPES Catr - Environmental Rev.

NWMI-2013-021, Review 0A DOE, 2012, Protective Action. Criteria(PA C): Chemicals with AEGis. ERPGs, & TEELs, Rev. 27, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., February 2012.

DuCharme, C., and T. Miller, 1996, Water Use of Missouri, Missouri State Water Plan Series Volume IV, Water Resources Report No. 48, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Rolla, Missouri, 1996.

EDF-3124-0001, 2015, Estimate of Excavation for the NWMI Radioisotope Produ~ction Facility, Rev. 3, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, February 2, 2015.

EDF-3 124-0002, 2014, Chemical Hazard Analysis for Accidents Associated with the Radioisotope Production Facilityfor Northwest Medical Isotopes, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

EDF-3 124-0003, 2015, Preliminary,Maximtum HypotheticalAccident to Support the Northwest Medical Isotope Facility.Environmental Report, Rev. 1, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, February 5, 2015.

EDF-3124-0004, 2015, Calculationfor the Determination of Fugitive Dust during C'onstruction Activities from Construction Equ~ipment, Rev. 1, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, February 3, 2015.

EDF-3124-0005, 2014, On-Road Emissionsfor Vehicles During Construction, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc.,

Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

EDF-3 124-0006, 2014, Determination of Wind-Blown Dust durin~g Construction Activities, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

EDF-3 124-0007, 2014, Tax Revenue fronm the Construction. Operation, and Decommissioning of the Northw~est Medical Isotope Facility, Rev. 1, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, November 1, 2014.

EDF-3 124-0008, 2014, Emissionsfrom Natural Gas Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., June 26, 2014.

EDF-3 124-0009, 2014, Off-Road Emissions during Constru~ction, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

EDF-3 124-0010, 2015, RadiologicalDose Consequences Associated with Transportationof Materialsfor th~e Radioisotope ProductionFacilityfor Northwest Medical Isotopes, Rev. 2, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, January 4, 2015.

EDF-3124-001 1, 2014, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

EDF-3 124-0012, 2015, Emission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers Using AERSC'REEN, Rev. 1, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, February 4, 2015.

EDF-3124-0013, 2014, On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operations, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.

EDF-3124-0014, 2014, Emission Modeling for ConstructionActivities using AERSCREEN, Rev. 0, Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, June 26, 2014.19-295

• • ....NORTHWEST lviChptr MEDICAL I$OTOPE$

ChaptrI1 9.0 -WMI-20o -021, Rev.

Environmental OA Review EILML, 2013, Ameren Missouri, C'allaway Energy Center, Fuiton, Missouri, Annual Report to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Radiation Environmental Operating Report, January,1 to December 13, 2012, Environmental, Inc. Midwest Laboratory, Northbrook, Illinois, April 22, 2013.

EPA, 2010, Compilation of Air PolluitantEmission Factors, Volume 1, Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP 42, Fifth Edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, D.C., 2010.

EPA, 2012, "Proposed changes made by the EPA to Missouri's 2012 Clean Water Act, Section 303(d)

List," Letter from Karen A. Flournoy to John Madras, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Lenexa, Kansas, November 13, 2012.

EPA, 201 3a, "Wetlands," water.epa.gov/type/wetlands, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., accessed August 2013.

EPA, 201 3b, "Radiation Doses in Perspective," www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/perspective.html, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., accessed August 2013.

Epperson, J., 1992, Missouri Wetlands: A Vanishing Resource, Water Resources Report No. 39, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey, Jefferson City, Missouri, January 1, 1992.

ERC, 2012, Cultural Resource Investigations, Phase I Survey Ameren C'ommunication Tower Project Boone Cou~nty, Missou~ri, C. Sturdevant, Principal Investigator, Environmental Research Center of Missouri, Inc., Jefferson City, Missouri, August 2012.

ERC, 2013, CulturalResource Investigations Phase I Survey Lot 15 - Discovery,Ridge Boone Countx,,

Missouri, Environmental Research Center of Missouri, Inc., Jefferson City, Missouri, September 2013.

ES, 2012, "Cask Book for Model 10-160B USA/9204B(U)F-96," Cask Book CNS- 10-160B, Rev. 33, EnergySolutions, Columbia, South Carolina, 2012.

Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," Office of the President, William J. Clinton, Washington, D.C.,

February 11, 1994.

Executive Order 13112, 1999, "Invasive Species," Federal Register, Volume 64, Number 25, Office of the President, William J. Clinton, Washington, D.C., February 3, 1999.

Faber-Langendoen, D., editor, 2001, Plan~t Communities of the Midwest: Classification in an Ecological Context, Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, Virginia, 2001.

Fenneman, N. M., 1946, PhysiographicDivisions of the Conterminous U.S., Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 1946.

FHWA, 2006, FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook, Chapter 9.0, "Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, www.fhwa.dot .gov/environment/noise/handbook/09.htm, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., accessed April 8, 2013.

FHWA, 2013, "National Highway Planning Network," www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/tools/nhpn, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., accessed November 15, 2013.

Fry, J., G. Xian, S. Jin, J. Dewitz, C. Homer, L. Yang, C. Barnes, N. Herold, and J. Wickham, 2011, "Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States,"

Photogramnmetric Engineering & Remote Sensing Journal,Volume 77(9):858-864, Bethesda, Maryland, 2011.19-296

IUVVChapter ChaperI1NWMI-2013-O21, 9.0 - Environmental Rev.

Review OA

" =.=

"NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Haass, Carolyn C., 2014a, "Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Radioisotope Production Facility," (letter to Jennifer Szymanski, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, July 14, 2014.

Haass, Carolyn C., 2014b, "Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Radioisotope Production Facility," (letter to Missouri Department of Conservation), Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, July 14, 2014.

IBC, 2009, "International Building Code," as amended, International Code Council, Inc., Washington, D.C., February 2009.

ICRP-30, "Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers," International Commission on Radiological Protection, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1979.

INL, 2011, "United States Domestic Research Reactor Infrastructure TRIGA Reactor Fuel Support,"

INL/Con-10203 13, D. Morrell, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, March 2011.

ISO 14644-1, "Cleanrooms and Associated Controlled Environments--Part 1: Classification of Air Cleanliness," International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.

Leahy, M., 2010, The Wetlands of Missouri. Missouri Conservationist Magazine, www.jeffcomo.org/uploads/stormwater/brochures/missouri %20wetlands.pdf, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2010.

MDC, 2000a, Best Management Practices,Pallid Sturgeon, Scaphirhvnchus albus, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2000.

MDC, 2000b, Best Management Practices, Topeka Shiner, Notropis Topeka, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2000.

MDC, 2000c, Best Management Practices,Running Buffalo Clover, Trifolium stoloniferumn, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2000.

MDC, 2000d, Best Management Practices,Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalist, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2000.

MDC, 2000e, Best Management Practices, Gray bat, Myotis grisescens, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2000.

MDC, 2000f, Best Management Practices,Black-tailed Jackrabbit,Lepus californicus, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2000.

MDC, 2000g, Best Management Practices,Plains Spotted Skunk, Spilo gale putorius interrupta,Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2000.

MDC, 2000h, Best Management Practices,American bittern, Botaurus lentiginosus, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2000.

MDC, 2000i, Best Management Practices, Northern Harriet, Circus cyan~eus, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2000.

MDC, 2010, Missouri Forest and Woodland Commnunity Profiles. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2010.

MDC, 2012, "The Bald Eagle in Missouri," mdc.mo.gov/sites/defaultlfiles/resources/2010/03/

baldeaglemo2012.pdf, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed September 30, 2013.

MDC, 2013, Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation Concern Checklist, p. 52, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, January 2013.19-297

• ,.,.,. NORIThWEST lviChptr MEOICAL ISOTOPES Chptr1WMI-01-21 ev. O 9.0 -Environmental Review MDNR, 2000, A Sumirmary of Missouri Water Laws, Water Resources Report No. 51, Missouri State Water Plan Series Volume VII, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2000.

MDNR, 2002, "Missouri Groundwater," Fact Sheet No. 4, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2002.

MDNR, 2003, Major Water Use in Missouri.: 1996-2000, Water Resources Report No. 72, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2003.

MDNR, 2006, "Groundwater Elevation, From Driller Reports 1987-2005," ftp://msdi s.mi ssouri .edu/pub/

inland_water_Resources/MO_2006_Groundwater_Elevation_shp.zip, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City. Missouri, 2006.

MDNR, 2007, "Missouri Dam Report by County," www .dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/damsft/CrystalReports/

damsfty state_nid.pdf, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, March 9, 2007, accessed August 2013.

MDNR, 2011, Biological Assessment Report.' Cedar Creek, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality Monitoring Program, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2011.

MDNR, 2012a, "Missouri State Operating Permit, General Operating Permit," Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Clean Water Commission, Jefferson City, Missouri, May 31, 2012.

MDNR, 2012b, Missouri Water Qualit. Report (Section 305(b) Report), Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program, Jefferson City, Missouri, May 2, 2012.

MDNR, 201 3a, "National Ambient Air Quality Standards," https://dnr. mo.gov/env/esp/aqm/standard .htm, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Quality, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed August 2013.

MDNR, 201 3b, "Tertiary/Quaternary Period," members.socket.net./-joschaper/terquat.html, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed July 10, 2013.

MDNR, 2013c, "The Geology of Missouri," members.socket.net/.-joschaper/geo.html, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed July 16, 2013.

MDNR, 2013d, "Mississippian Period," members.socket.net/-joschaper/misp.html, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed July 11, 2013.

MDNR, 201 3e, "Sinkholes in Missouri," www.dnr.mo.gov/geology/geosrv/envgeo/sinkholes.htm, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed July 29, 2013.

MDNR, 2013f, "Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bonne Femme Creek," www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/docs/

1003-l-bonne-femme-cr-info.pdf, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed August 2013.

MDNR, 2013g, "Total Maximum Daily Load for Gans Creek," www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/docs/1004-gans-cr-info.pdf, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed August 2013.

MDNR, 2013h, "Total Maximum Daily Load for Perry Phillips Lake,"

www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/tmdl/tmdl-assign ments-huc8-201I2-303d-li st-chron-7 13 .pdf, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed August 2013.

MDNR, 2013i, "Boone County National Register Listings," www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/Boone.htm, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed September 2013.19-298

IIVVChapter

• ;.NORTHWEST

... MEDICAL IMI203-2,Rev.

ISOTOPES ChptrM 9.0 - Environmental O Review MDOR, 2013, "Motor Vehicle Bureau Local Sales Tax Rate Chart," Missouri Department of Revenue, Jefferson City, Missouri, August 1, 2013.

Miller, I. 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.

Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 64, "County Planning--Zoning--Recreation--Natural Streams and Waterways," Missouri General Assembly, Jefferson City, Missouri, as amended, August 28, 2012.

Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 172, Section 172.273, "Research, development and office park projects established, when--procedure--curators' powers--real property exempt from zoning, ordinances and property tax--permits, licenses and certificates may be issued, when, application of sovereign and official immunity and public duty doctrines," Missouri General Assembly, Jefferson City, Missouri, as amended, August 28, 2012.

Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 192, "Department of Health and Senior Services," Missouri General Assembly, Jefferson City, Missouri, as amended, August 28, 2012.

Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 250, "Sewerage Systems and Waterworks--City or District,"

Missouri General Assembly, Jefferson City, Missouri, as amended, August 28, 2012.

Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 260, "Environmental Control," Missouri General Assembly, Jefferson City, Missouri, as amended, August 28, 2012.

Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 640, "Department of Natural Resources," Missouri General Assembly, Jefferson City, Missouri, as amended, August 28, 2012.

Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 643, "Air Conservation," Missouri General Assembly, Jefferson City, Missouri, as amended, August 28, 2012.

Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 644, "Water Pollution," Missouri General Assembly, Jefferson City, Missouri, as amended, August 28, 2012.

MMRPC, 2010, Boone Count., 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.

MoDOT, 2009, "Columbia Traffic Count Summary," Missouri Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning, Jefferson City, Missouri, July 8, 2009.

Moser, Paul, 2013, "Directory of Towns, Villages, and Hamlets Past and Present of Boone County, Missouri," thelibrary.org/lochist/moser/booneco.html, Springfield, Missouri, accessed August 5, 2013.

MSS, 2013, Missouri Speleological Survey, www.mospeleo.org/, Rolla, Missouri, accessed September 25, 2013.

MU, 2006a, Missouri Universit., Research Reactor (MURR) Safety Analysis Report, MU Project

1. 000763, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, August 18, 2006.

MU, 2006b, University,of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR), Environmental Report for License Renewal, Facility License No. R-103, Docket No. 50-186, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 2006.

MU, 2009, Discovery Ridge Master Plan and Protective Covenants, https ://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/ed/Discoveryridge/masterplan-discoveryridge.pdf, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, January 6, 2009.19-299

NO~WS EIAlviChptr STPSCatr1NWM,-2013-021, Rev. 0A 9.0 -Environmental Review MU, 2011, "Phasing Overview," Maps and Roads, Research Parks & Incubators, Discovery Ridge, www.umsystem.edu/umrpi/discoveryridge/maps, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, accessed July 2013.

MU, 2013, "Fast Facts," admissions.missouri.edu/mizzou-life/fast-facts.php, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, accessed October 2014.

MU, 2014, "Missouri Historical Agricultural Weather Database,"

agebb.missouri .edu/weather/history/index .asp?station~prefix=sfm, Columbia-South Farms, Boone County, Missouri, weather station, January 1, 2008, to January 1, 2012, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, accessed September 2014.

MU EH&S, 2013, Pickard Hail Radiological Operationsand Restrictions Standard Operating Procedutre, University of Missouri Environmental Health and Safety, Columbia, Missouri, May 10, 2013.

MURR, 2000, "Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License Number R-103 to Extend the Expiration Date of the Operating License from November 21, 2001 to October 11, 2006," (letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 27), University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri, December 27, 2000.

MURR, 2013, Unii'rsitv of Missouri Research Reactor, Reactor OperationsAnnual Report, January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012, MURR Research Reactor Staff, Columbia, Missouri, February 26, 2013.

NAD 83, 1983, "North American Datum of 1983," National Geodetic Survey, Silver Spring, Maryland, as amended.

NAS, 2009, Medical Isotope Production Without Highly Enriched Uranium., National Academy of Sciences, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., June 10, 2009.

Nigh, T. A., and W. A. Schroeder, 2002, Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2002.

NOAA, 201 3a, "Climate of Missouri," www.crh.noaa.gov/images/dvnldownloads/Cli m_MO001 .pdf, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., accessed August 2013.

NOAA, 201 3b, "Storm Events Database, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,"

www .ncdc .noaa.gov/stormevents, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., accessed August 2013.

NRC, 1983, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for PotentialAccident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants, Regulatory Guide 1.145, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., February 1983.

NRC, 2001, "Predecisional Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Application for the License Extension of MURR," (letter from MURR, Columbia, Missouri, June 25), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., June 25, 2001.

NRC, 2005, "Certificate of Compliance for Radioactive Material Packages," Certificate Number 9315, Docket Number 71-93 15, Rev. 8, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.,

February 25, 2005.

NRC, 2008a, "Certificate of Compliance for Radioactive Material Packages," Certificate Number 9320, Docket Number 7 1-9320, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.,

June 20, 2008.19-300

NWMI Chapter 19.0wEnirnmeta Review NRC, 2008b, "Issuance of Renewed Facility License No. R-106 for the Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor," Facility License No. R-106, Docket No. 50-243, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., September 10, 2008.

NRC, 2009a, Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactive Material in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents and Solid Waste, Regulatory Guide 1.21, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., June 2009.

NRC, 2009b, Radiological Environmental Monitoringfor Nuclear Power Plants, Regulatory Guide 4.1, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., June 2009.

NRC, 2012a, FinalInterim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-153 7, "Guidelinesfor Preparingand Reviewing Applicationsfor the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors," Parts 1 and 2. for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilitiesand Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors, Docket ID: NRC-2011-0135, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., October 30, 2012.

NRC, 2012b, Constrainton Releases of Airborne Radioactive Materials to the Environmentfor Licensees other than Power Reactors, Regulatory Guide 4.20, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., April 2012.

NRC, 2012c, "Interim Staff Guidance, Attachment 2: Staff Guidance for Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice," ADAMS Accession No. ML12326A895, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormmission, Washington, D.C., 2012.

NRC, 201 3a, "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Radiation Protection," www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/related-info/faq.html#9, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.,

accessed August 2013.

NRC, 201 3b, "Personal Annual Radiation Dose Calculator," www.nrc .gov/about-nrc/radiation/around-us/caiculator.html, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., accessed August 2013.

NRC, 201 3c, "Natural Background Sources," www.nrc .gov/about-nrc/radiation/around-us/sources/nat-bg-sources.html, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., accessed September 2013.

NRC, 201 3d, "Doses in Our Daily Lives," www.nrc .gov/about-nrc/radiation/around-us/doses-daily-lives.html, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., accessed September 2013.

NRC, 2013e, "Complex Materials Sites Undergoing Decommissioning - ABC Labs," www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/complex/abc-labs.html, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., accessed August 2013.

NRC, 2013f, US NRC EnvironmentalAssessment and Finding of No Significant hnpact, Docket No.

030-05154, NRC-20 13-0009, License Amendment Request for Analytical B io-Chemi stry Laboratories, Inc., Columbia, Missouri, January 18, 2013.

NRCS, 2013, "National Soil Survey Handbook," soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part622.html, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.,

accessed July 25, 2013.

NRCS, 2014, "Soil Data Mart," websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., accessed July 16, 2013.

NUREG-0561, 2013, Physical Protection of Shipmnents of IrradiatedReactor Fuel, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Security and Incident Response, Washington, D.C., April 2013.

19-30 1

NO~WS N EIA STPSCatr1NwM,-2o13o021, Rev. 0A haper 9.0 - Environmental Review NUREG- 1301, 1991, Offsite Dose CalculationManual Guidance: StandardRadiological Effluent Controlsfor Pressurized Water Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, Washington, D.C., April 1991.

NUREG-1437, 2013, Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statementfor License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C., June 2013.

NUREG- 1537, 1996, Guidelinesfor Preparingand Reviewing Applicationsfor 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- 1556, 1999, Volume 11, Consolidated Guidance about Materials Licenses, Program-Specific Guidance about Licenses of Broad Scope, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, D.C., April 1999.

NUREG- 1757, 2006, Volume 2, ConsolidatedDecommnissioning Guidance: Characterization,Survey and Determination of Radiological Criteria, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, D.C., September 2006.

NUREG/CR-64 10, 1998, Nuclear Fuel Cycle FacilityAccident Analy'sis Handbook, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 1998.

NWMI-2013-002, 2013, Site Selection: Radioisotope Production Facilit,,Rev. 0, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, January 2103.

NWMI-2013-CALC-01 1, 2015, Source Termi C'alculations, Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Corvallis, Oregon, January 2105.

ORNL, 1981, State Background Radiationi Levels: Results of Measurements Taken During 1975-1979, Health and Safety Research Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 1981.

Pitts, D. E., and W. D. McGuire, 2000, Wildlife Managementfor Missou~ri Landowners, Third Edition, Missouri Department of Conservation, Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2000.

PWSD9, 2013, "Public Water Supply District No. 9," www.pwsd9.com/index.php, Columbia, Missouri, accessed August 8, 2013.

Senate Bi11-99, American Medical Isotope Production Act of 2011 (5. 99).

State of Missouri, 2014, Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation Concern Checklist, mdc. mo.gov/di scover-nature/field-guide/endangered-species, Jefferson City, Missouri, January 2014.

Terracon, 2006, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Discoverb' Ridge East of Lenoir Street and South of Sugar Grove Lane, Terracon Consultants, Inc., prepared for the University of Missouri, May 31, 2006.

Terracon, 201 la, Phase I Environmental Site Assessmnent Discovery Ridge Lots 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 17, and 18, Terracon Consultants, Inc., prepared for University of Missouri and Trabue, Hansen & Hinshaw, Inc., Terracon Project No. 09117701, March 23, 2011.

Terracon, 2011 b, PreliminaryGeotechnical Engineering Report Discovery Ridge-CertifiedSite Program Lots 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 13. 14. 15, 16, 17, and 18, Terracon Consultants, Inc., prepared for University of Missouri and Trabue, Hansen & Hinshaw, Inc., Terracon Project No. 09105094.1, February 11, 2011.19-302

.. 'Chapter 1 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A flIVVI..o-"Chptr 9.0 -Environmental Review

• ,-. ORTHWESTMEOIcAL ISOTOPES Union Electric Company, 2008, Combined License Application, Part JIG: Site Area Paleoliqutefactionand Surface Faulting Investigation Program, Rev. 1, pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0833/MvL083360 11 8.pdf, St. Louis, Missouri, November, 2008.

UP, 2013, "Union Pacific in Missouri," www .up.com/cs/groups/publ ic/documents/up...pdf~nativedocs/

pdfjnissouri~usguide.pdf, Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha, Nebraska, accessed August 15, 2013.

USCB, 2010a, "2010 Census Interactive Population Search," www.census.gov/2010census/

popmap/ipmtext.php, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., accessed July 2013.

USCB 2010~b, "Selected Economic Characteristics, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimate,"

factfinder2.census.us.gov, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., accessed August 2013.

USCB, 2010c, "U.S. Census 2010," factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/j sf/pages/

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

USCB, 2010d, 2006-2010 American Comunittyi Survey. Hotisehold Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2010 Infation -Adjusted Dollars), www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/data_main, Table B 1900, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., accessed September 2013.

USDA, 2007, 2007 Census of Agriculture - County Data, www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/

Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter 2CountyLevel/Missouri/st29_2_001_001.pdf, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D.C.,

accessed July 2013.

USDA, 2013a, "Web Soil Survey," Online Mapping Tool, websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., accessed July 10, 2013.

USDA, 2013b, "Missouri Electronic Field Office Technical Guide," efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/treemenuFS.aspx, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.,

accessed August 19, 2013.

USDOL, 2014; "Labor Force Data by County," www.bls.gov/Iau/laucntycurl4.txt, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., accessed September 17, 2014.

USFWS, 2010, Wetlands and DeepwaterHabitats of the Conterminous United States. National Wetlands Inventory., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Madison Wisconsin, 2010.

USFWS, 2013a, "Flyways.us," Mississippi Flyway, www.flyways.us/flyways/info, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, 2013.

USFWS, 2013b, "Missouri: County Distribution of Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species," www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/Iists/missouri-cty.html, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, Missouri, updated August 2013.

USFWS, 2014, "White-Nose Syndrome: The Devastating Disease of Hibernating Bats in North America,"https ://www.whitenosesyndrome .org/sites/defauit/files/resource/white-nose_fact_sheet_6-2014_l.pdf, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., June 2014.

USGS, 1986, National Water Sunimarv, 1986 - Hydrologic Events and Ground Water Quality, Water Supply Paper 2325, pp. 329-338, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 1986.

USGS. 2002, "Earthquakes in the Central United States 1699 -2002," pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-28 12/i-2812.jpg, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, June 18, 2002.

USGS, 2003, "Scientists Update New Madrid Earthquake Forecasts," U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, January 13, 2003.19-303

lviChptr Chaptr 19.0 -Environmental WMI,.013_o2, Rev. OA Review USGS, 2007, "Catastrophic Sinkhole Collapse in Missouri," Fact Sheet 2007-3060, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, July 2007.

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 2009-307 1, 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/20 11/2011051 6.php, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed July 23, 2013.

USGS, 201 lb, "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.htmI, 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, 201 3c, "Three Centuries of Earthquakes Poster," pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-281I2/i-2812.jpg, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed July 23, 2013.

USGS, 2013d, "Water Questions & Answers How Much Water Does the Average Person Use at Home Per Day," ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed October 21, 2013.

USGS, 2014, "Mineral Commodity Summaries 2014,"

http://minerals.usgs.gov/mineral s/pubs/mcs/2014/mcs20l4.pdf, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed October 6, 2014.

Weichman, M. S., and D. Weston, 1986, Master Planfor Archaeological Resource Protection in Missouri, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Program, Jefferson City, Missouri, 1986.

WNA, 2014, "Supply of Uranium," http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/', World Nuclear Association, London, United Kingdom, October 2014.

World, 2013, "Natural Disasters & Extremes," www.usa.com/columbia-mo-natural-disasters-extremes.htm#Tornadolndex, World Media Group, LLC, Bedminster, New Jersey, accessed August 2013.

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 1791, Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed August 2013.

WRCC, 2013b, "Station Monthly Time Series, Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012, Station 231791 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/wea mnsimts.pl?laKCOU, Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed August 2013.19-304

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA Chapter 19 - Environmental Review Appendix A CONSULTATION LETTERS A-i

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19 - Environmental Review This page intentionally left blank.

A-ii

NWMI-LR0 Bloomingon, MN 5437-145 RE: ~~~~~ NORTHWEST MEDICAL SERAISTPERDU~*

ISOTOPESLC-PO .. IN RESEARCHPARK, CLUMBIAMISSOU4

DeariMs. Szymanski:

NRthestna MSedcaIstiopes LLCoordnWMaitrprigaoplcainfrsbmsintrheUS ula ReUlS ihator Comisslion (NrC)tc ontuteprtaddcmiso aiiooepouto faclit Amrica n ald Wsite located inClmiMsor.Th9aii0wudb oatdwti o 5oh UnCIverITY LOfAETTEUNVRIYOMisorISseS(MSstmOisoeyRIdg ReSTEarc Park.RRDG asoprtohwes formcal Icesopes apLiCain TheM NRiwlste preparenappiatin analysubissioncomplane with thcea Neuationalyiomeisinta PoliC) Ato (onEPA)t ofp169ase pandofteolicesiong pradoces.tpInraddition, h NRCwillt cRF)ontacste youanditneed initoumiate consoultaio. Tefclt ol elctdwtio5oh Whe aRCreqntcings yoarlycinste applicantiton proess to informs you ofthsprojesdctio andto askvfronet iNfoMatwion adoumen hsassmn na niomentsrltvtoheandadedangeredpeciesR crticatil hbsbitats, tother willif species, wetlands, and any other natural resources that would be relevant to our analysis of this project.

To facilitate your review, a short description of the project and a site map of the proposed site are presented in Attachment A.

Your response to this request for information would be most helpful if received by August 14, 2014.

Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me on 509-430-6921 or carolyn.haass@nwmedicalisotopes.com.

Sincerely; Carolyn C. Haass Vice President and Technical Program Director cc: Michael Brooks, Regional Economic Development, Inc. (Columbia, Missouri)

Steven Lauzier, University of Missouri William Schuster, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC I815 NW 9th Aye, Suite 256 j Corvallis, OR 97330

A TTACHMENTA Description of the Proposed North west Medical Isotopes, LLC Radioisotope Production Facility NWMI is preparing an application for submission to the NRC to construct, operate, and decommission a Radioisotope Production Facility (RPF). This facility is proposed to be located at the University of Missouri System (UM System) Discovery Ridge Research Park in Columbia, Missouri. The proposed operations of the RPF includes fabrication of low enriched uranium (LEU) targets, deliver targets to a network of university research nuclear reactors for irradiation, receive irradiated targets, and extract and purify molybdenum-99 (99Mo) from the irradiated LEU. The LEU would be reclaimed and recycled into targets for delivery to the network of university research reactors. The 99M would be sold and distributed through the existing U.S. supply chain network.

Schedule

• Submit construction application to NRC (4 th Q 2014)

• NRC review and approval (Expected 4h Q 2015)

• Site preparation and construction: (2015 -2016)

• Facility Operations (2017 - 2045)

Site Location The proposed 7.5 acre site is situated in Boone County, Missouri, within the UM System, Discovery Ridge Research Park in Columbia, Missouri north of Discovery Ridge Drive (Figure B-l1). The approximate center of the NWMI RPF is Longitude: 920 16'34.63" and Latitude: 38o54'3.31"~.

Site Description The proposed site is located on Lot 15 of the Phase II section of the Discovery Ridge Research Park. The site is all on property owned by UM System. The facility would be approximately 330 feet (fi) in the long dimension and 110 ft wide with a maximum height of 45 ft not counting the stacks (Figure B-2).

The site would include an outer fence perimeter and provide the necessary initial security barrier. The fenced area would include paved roads laid out for the turning radius of tractor/trailers used to transport the materials.

Additional information can be found at the UM Systemr, Discovery Ridge Research Park website, http://www.umsystem.edu/ums/aa/umrpi/discoveryridge.

• &;e+-e° NORTHWEST MEDICAL SOTOPES r

+# %+++ +' +-*

++

!_lJ I* ** *+

4.

/

A Proposed Location W--"' Proposed Building Lot (Lot 15)

Discovery Ridge

[-7_._ Columbia City Limit 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 m -- Miles D Figure A-I. Proposed Location NWMI RPF - Discovery Ridge located in Columbia, Missouri

"": NWMI

-oO "NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES I NWMI Facility A NWMI Site 0* 5Mile (8 kin) Radius from NWMI Site Fence --- Interstate

-Highways

• ! City Limits 0 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24s Miles Figure A-2. NWMI RPF General Layout.

• *I°'°*° July 14, 2014 NWMI-LTR-022 Missouri Department of Conservation Atten: Resource Sciences Division P.O. Box 180 Jefferson City, Mo 65102 RE: NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, LLC - PROPOSED RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI SYSTEM DISCOVERY RIDGE RESEARCH PARK, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

Dear Sirs:

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) is preparing an application for submission to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct, operate, and decommission a radioisotope production facility (RPF) on a site located in Columbia, Missouri. The facility would be located within lot 15 of the University of Missouri System (UM System) Discovery Ridge Research Park (T.48N - R. 12W).

The NRC requires a license applicant to assess the impacts of its proposed action on the environment.

NWMI will document this assessment in an Environmental report (ER) that will be submitted to the NRC as part of the formal license application. The NRC will then prepare an analysis in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as part of the licensing process. In addition, the NRC will contact you and if needed initiate consultation.

We are contacting you early in the application process to inform you of this project and to ask for information and comments relative to State of Missouri species of conservation concern, critical habitats, wetlands, and any other natural resources that would be relevant to our analysis of this project. To facilitate your review, a short description of the project and a site map of the proposed site are presented in Attachment A.

Your response to this request for information would be most helpful if received by August 14, 2014.

Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me on 509-430-6921 or carolyn.haass@nwmedical isotopes.com.

Sincerely; Carolyn C. Haass Vice President and Technical Program Director cc: Michael Brooks, Regional Economic Development, Inc. (Columbia, Missouri)

Steven Lauzier, University of Missouri William Schuster, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC I 815 NW 9th Aye, Suite 256 ICorvallis, OR 97330

• oe:*NORTHWEST MEDICAL IOOE A TTACHMENTA Description of the Proposed Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Radioisotope Production Facility NWMI is preparing an application for submission to the NRC to construct, operate, and decommission a Radioisotope Production Facility (RPF). This facility is proposed to be located at the University of Missouri System (UM System) Discovery Ridge Research Park in Columbia, Missouri. The proposed operations of the RPF includes fabrication of low enriched uranium (LEU) targets, deliver targets to a network of university research nuclear reactors for irradiation, receive irradiated targets, and extract and purify molybdenum-99 (*Mo) from the irradiated LEU. The LEU would be reclaimed and recycled into targets for delivery to the network of university research reactors. The 99M would be sold and distributed through the existing U.S. supply chain network.

Schedule

• Submit construction application to NRC (4 th Q 2014)

• NRC review and approval (Expected 4 th Q 2015)

• Site preparation and construction: (2015 - 2016)

• Facility Operations (2017 -2045)

Site Location The proposed 7.5 acre site is situated in Boone County, Missouri, within the UM System, Discovery Ridge Research Park in Columbia, Missouri north of Discovery Ridge Drive (Figure B-l). The approximate center of the NWMI RPF is Longitude: 92° 16'34.63"~ and Latitude: 38o54'3.31"~.

Site Description The proposed site is located on Lot 15 of the Phase II section of the Discovery Ridge Research Park. The site is all on property owned by UM System. The facility would be approximately 330 feet (ft) in the long dimension and 110 ft wide with a maximum height of 45 ft not counting the stacks (Figure B-2).

The site would include an outer fence perimeter and provide the necessary initial security barrier. The fenced area would include paved roads laid out for the turning radius of tractor/trailers used to transport the materials.

Additional information can be found at the UM System, Discovery Ridge Research Park website, http://www.umsystem.edu/ums/aa/umnrpi/discoveryridge.

""NWMI S, NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES

" i F\

U a

A Proposed Location

[I'Proposed Building Lot (Lot 15)

Discovery Ridge 7".. 7 Columbia City Limit 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 am

• Miles Figure A-I. Proposed Location NWMI RPF - Discovery Ridge located in Columbia, Missouri

0.@o0.

• • .,,NORTHWEST MEDICAL IOOE SNWMI Faiiy A NWMI Site O 5Mile (8 kmn) Radius from NWMI Site Fence -- Interstate lq - Highways

• ~ City Limits 0 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 Miles Miles Figure A-2. NWMI RPF General Layout.

July 14, 2014 NWMI-LTR-0 15 The Honorable Scott Bighorse Principal Chief Osage Nation P. 0. Box 779 Grandview Pawhuska, Oklahoma 74056 RE: NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, LLC - PROPOSED RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI SYSTEM DISCOVERY RIDGE RESEARCH PARK, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

Dear Mr. Bighorse:

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) is preparing an application for submission to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct, operate, and decommission a radioisotope production facility (RPF) on a site located in Columbia, Missouri. The facility would be located within lot 15 of the University of Missouri System (UM System) Discovery Ridge Research Park.

The NRC requires a license applicant to assess the impacts of its proposed action on the environment.

NWMI will document this assessment in an Environmental report (ER) that will be submitted to the NRC as part of the formal license application. The NRC will then prepare an analysis in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as part of the licensing process. In addition, the NRC will contact you and if needed initiate consultation.

We are contacting you early in the application process to inform you of this proposed project and to ask for information and comments relative to the following:

• Information you may have regarding historic sites or cultural resources within or near the proposed site

• Any specific knowledge of any locations on or near the site that you believe have traditional religious and cultural significance A Cultural Resource Investigations Phase 1 Survey has been completed for the proposed site (Attachment A). No on-site historical properties or archeological sites were identified. In addition, a short description of the project and a site map of the proposed site are presented in Attachment B.

Your response to this request for information would be most helpful if received by August 14, 2014.

Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me on 509-430-6921 or carolyn.haass@nwmedicalisotopes.com.

Sincerely; Carolyn C. Haass Vice President and Technical Program Director cc: Michael Brooks, Regional Economic Development, Inc. (Columbia, Missouri)

Steven Lauzier, University of Missouri William Schuster, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC [815 NW 9th Aye, Suite 256 ICorvallis, OR 97330

• .. O O*."

• ... NOR'I"IWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPE July 14, 2014 NWMI-LTR-0 18 The Honorable Gary Pratt Chairperson Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 335588 East 750 Road Perkins, Oklahoma 74059 RE: NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, LLC - PROPOSED RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI SYSTEM DISCOVERY RIDGE RESEARCH PARK, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

Dear Mr. Pratt:

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) is preparing an application for submission to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct, operate, and decommission a radioisotope production facility (RPF) on a site located in Columbia, Missouri. The facility would be located within lot 15 of the University of Missouri System (UM System) Discovery Ridge Research Park.

The NRC requires a license applicant to assess the impacts of its proposed action on the environment.

NWMI will document this assessment in an Environmental report (ER) that will be submitted to the NRC as part of the formal license application. The NRC will then prepare an analysis in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as part of the licensing process. In addition, the NRC will contact you and if needed initiate consultation.

We are contacting you early in the application process to inform you of this proposed project and to ask for information and comments relative to the following:

• Information you may have regarding historic sites or cultural resources within or near the proposed site

• Any specific knowledge of any locations on or near the site that you believe have traditional religious and cultural significance A Cultural Resource Investigations Phase 1 Survey has been completed for the proposed site (Attachment A). No on-site historical properties or archeological sites were identified. In addition, a short description of the project and a site map of the proposed site are presented in Attachment B.

Your response to this request for information would be most helpful if received by August 14, 2014.

Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me on 509-430-6921 or carolyn.haass@nwmedicalisotopes.com.

Sincerely; Carolyn C. Haass Vice President and Technical Program Director cc: Michael Brooks, Regional Economic Development, Inc. (Columbia, Missouri)

Steven Lauzier, University of Missouri William Schuster, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC I 815 NW 9th Aye, Suite 256 I Corvallis, OR 97330

'*= NWMI

• .*. NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES July 14, 2014 NWMI-LTR-0 17 The Honorable Guy Munroe Chair Kaw Nation P.O. Box 50 Kaw City, Oklahoma 74641 RE: NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, LLC - PROPOSED RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI SYSTEM DISCOVERY RIDGE RESEARCH PARK, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

Dear Mr. Munroe:

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) is preparing an application for submission to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct, operate, and decommission a radioisotope production facility (RPF) on a site located in Columbia, Missouri. The facility would be located within lot 15 of the University of Missouri System (UM System) Discovery Ridge Research Park.

The NRC requires a license applicant to assess the impacts of its proposed action on the environment.

NWMI will document this assessment in an Environmental report (ER) that will be submitted to the NRC as part of the formal license application. The NRC will then prepare an analysis in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as part of the licensing process. In addition, the NRC will contact you and if needed initiate consultation.

We are contacting you early in the application process to inform you of this proposed project and to ask for information and comments relative to the following:

• Information you may have regarding historic sites or cultural resources within or near the proposed site

• Any specific knowledge of any locations on or near the site that you believe have traditional religious and cultural significance A Cultural Resource Investigations Phase 1 Survey has been completed for the proposed site (Attachment A). No on-site historical properties or archeological sites were identified. In addition, a short description of the project and a site map of the proposed site are presented in Attachment B.

Your response to this request for information would be most helpful if received by August 14, 2014.

Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me on 509-430-6921 or carolyn.haass@nwmedicalisotopes.com.

Sincerely; Carolyn C. Haass Vice President and Technical Program Director cc: Michael Brooks, Regional Economic Development, Inc. (Columbia, Missouri)

Steven Lauzier, University of Missouri William Schuster, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 815 NW 9th Ave, Suite 256 I Corvallis, OR 97330

M.TPE S...-NORTHWEST MEDICALW July 14, 2014 NWMI-LTR-0 16 The Honorable Douglas G. Lankford Chief Miami Tribe of Oklahoma P.O. Box 1326 Miami, Oklahoma 74354 RE: NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, LLC - PROPOSED RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI SYSTEM DISCOVERY RIDGE RESEARCH PARK, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

Dear Mr. Lankford:

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) is preparing an application for submission to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct, operate, and decommission a radioisotope production facility (RPF) on a site located in Columbia, Missouri. The facility would be located within lot 15 of the University of Missouri System (UM System) Discovery Ridge Research Park.

The NRC requires a license applicant to assess the impacts of its proposed action on the environment.

NWMI will document this assessment in an Environmental report (ER) that will be submitted to the NRC as part of the formal license application. The NRC will then prepare an analysis in compliance with the National Environmnental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as part of the licensing process. In addition, the NRC will contact you and if needed initiate consultation.

We are contacting you early in the application process to inform you of this proposed project and to ask for information and comments relative to the following:

• Information you may have regarding historic sites or cultural resources within or near the proposed site

° Any specific knowledge of any locations on or near the site that you believe have traditional religious and cultural significance A Cultural Resource Investigations Phase 1 Survey has been completed for the proposed site (Attachment

• A). No on-site historical properties or archeological sites were identified. In addition, a short description of the project and a site map of the proposed site are presented in Attachment B.

Your response to this request for information would be most helpful if received by August 14, 2014.

Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me on 509-430-6921 or carolyn.haass@nwmedicalisotopes.com.

Sincerely; Carolyn C. Haass Vice President and Technical Program Director cc: Michael Brooks, Regional Economic Development, Inc. (Columbia, Missouri)

Steven Lauzier, University of Missouri William Schuster, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC I 815 NW 9th Aye, Suite 256 ICorvallis, OR 97330

• .,o~o:O..n iv N mum

, o NORTIHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES July 14, 2014 NWMI-LTR-0 19 The Honorable Clifford Wolfe, Jr.

Chairman Omaha Tribe of Nebraska P0 Box 368 Macy, Nebraska 68039 RE: NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, LLC - PROPOSED RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI SYSTEM DISCOVERY RIDGE RESEARCH PARK, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

Dear Mr. Wolfe:

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) is preparing an application for submission to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct, operate, and decommission a radioisotope production facility (RPF) on a site located in Columbia, Missouri. The facility would be located within lot 15 of the University of Missouri System (UM System) Discovery Ridge Research Park.

The NRC requires a license applicant to assess the impacts of its proposed action on the environment.

NWMI will document this assessment in an Environmental report (ER) that will be submitted to the NRC as part of the formal license application. The NRC will then prepare an analysis in compliance with the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as part of the licensing process. In addition, the NRC will contact you and if needed initiate consultation.

We are contacting you early in the application process to inform you of this proposed project and to ask for information and comments relative to the following:

• Information you may have regarding historic sites or cultural resources within or near the proposed site

• Any specific knowledge of any locations on or near the site that you believe have traditional religious and cultural significance A Cultural Resource Investigations Phase I Survey has been completed for the proposed site (Attachment A). No on-site historical properties or archeological sites were identifiedL In addition, a short description of the project and a site map of the proposed site are presented in Attachment B.

Your response to this request for information would be most helpful if received by August 14, 2014.

Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me on 509-430-6921 or carolyn.haass@nwmedicalisotopes.com.

Sincerely; Carolyn C. Haass Vice President and Technical Program Director cc: Michael Brooks, Regional Economic Development, Inc. (Columbia, Missouri)

Steven Lauzier, University of Missouri William Schuster, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC I815 NW 9th Aye, Suite 256 Corvallis, OR 97330

.e000e.

'.00 0e..

July 14, 2014 NWMI-LTR-020 The Honorable Robert Flying Hawk Chairman Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota P0 Box 1153 Wagner, South Dakota 57380 RE: NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, LLC - PROPOSED RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI SYSTEM DISCOVERY RIDGE RESEARCH PARK, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

Dear Mr. Flying Hawk:

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) is preparing an application for submission to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct, operate, and decommission a radioisotope production facility (RPF) on a site located in Columbia, Missouri. The facility would be located within lot 15 of the University of Missouri System (UM System) Discovery Ridge Research Park.

The NRC requires a license applicant to assess the impacts of its proposed action on the environment.

NWMI will document this assessment in an Environmental report (ER) that will be submitted to the NRC as part of the formal license application. The NRC will then prepare an analysis in compliance with the NationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as part of the licensing process. In addition, the NRC will contact you and if needed initiate consultation.

We are contacting you early in the application process to inform you of this proposed project and to ask for information and comments relative to the following:

• Information you may have regarding historic sites or cultural resources within or near the proposed site

• Any specific knowledge of any locations on or near the site that you believe have traditional religious and cultural significance A Cultural Resource Investigations Phase 1 Survey has been completed for the proposed site (Attachment A). No on-site historical properties or archeological sites were identified. In addition, a short description of the project and a site map of the proposed site are presented in Attachment B.

Your response to this request for information would be most helpful if received by August 14, 2014.

Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me on 509-430-6921 or carolyn.haass@nwmedicalisotopes.com.

Sincerely; Carolyn C. Haass Vice President and Technical Program Director cc: Michael Brooks, Regional Economic Development, Inc. (Columbia, Missouri)

Steven Lauzier, University of Missouri William Schuster, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 81i5 NW 9th Aye, Suite 256 ICorvallis, OR 97330

!

NWMI

• ... NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES A TTA CHMENTA CulturalResource Investigation Phase 1 Survey

Cultural Resource Investigations Phase I Survey Lot 15 - Discovery Ridge Boone County, Missouri Nuclear Regulatory Commission Project Prepared for:

Northwest Medical Isotopes L.L.C.

Prepared By:

Environmental Research Center of Missouri, Inc.

1201 Moreau Drive Jefferson City, Missouri Phone: 573-635-9569 Email: craipqsturdevant(,mchs .com Principal Investigator:

Craig Sturdevant September 2013 ERC Project No. 3023 ERG

ABSTRACT During September 2013 a Phase I cultural resources survey was carried out for a 7.5 acre tract of land at Discovery Ridge, Boone County, Missouri. The area is the location of a proposed commercial development project.

There are no National Register of Historic Places (NRI-P) properties located within the proposed project area; State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS records indicate presence of no recorded archaeology sites within the project boundaries; and no recorded SHPO historic architectural sites are present within the project area of potential effect. 19t century plat maps do not illustrate any structures within the project area.

The field investigation was carried out under poor surface visibility conditions in a grass/hay setting. Shovel testing was implemented following guidelines described in this report. No evidence of the presence of prehistoric occupation was identified within the project area. No evidence of the presence of early historic occupation was identified within the project boundaries.

On the basis of the negative findings regarding presence of possibly significant cultural resources, it is the recommendation of this Phase I cultural resources survey that the proposed project proceed as planned in terms of Section 106 compliance concerns.

No significant cultural resources will be threatened by the proposed project actions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS2 LIST OF FIGURES 3 INTRODUCTION 4 Purpose of Study 4 Project Personnel and Schedule 5 The Project 5 INVESTIGATION METHODS 7 Introduction 7 Records and Literature Review 7 Field Procedures 8 Analysis Procedures 9 Statement of Findings and Recommendations 10 PROJECT SETTING 11 Environmental Setting 11 Cultural Setting 12 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS 18 Records and Literature Review 18 Field Investigation Findings 21 RECOMMENDATIONS 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY 25 2

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.

USGS Quadrangle Location of Project Area Surveyed

& Cultural Resources6 Figure 2.

DNR Study Unit Location of Project 13 Figure 3.

SI-PG GIS Archaeology & Survey Layers in Relation to the Project 22 Figure 4.

Aerial Photograph of Project Area Surveyed 23 3

INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study In compliance with current environmental regulations and policies, Northwest Medical Isotopes L.L.C. entered into a contractual agreement with Environmental Research Center of Missouri, Inc. (ERC) to conduct a Phase I cultural resource survey of a 7.5 acre tract of land at Discovery Ridge in Boone County, Missouri. The study followed the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) "Guidelines for Cultural Resource Contract Reports and Professional Qualifications" and is submitted in accordance with current environmental regulations and policies and in agreement with the study contract.

The project actions included discussion of the project with Missouri Department of Natural Resources/Historic Preservation Program staff, a records and literature review, and an intensive pedestrian field investigation of the project area. The study methods used are described and the results of the findings of these actions are presented in terms of cultural resource descriptions, when present, and recommendations for cultural resource compliance in reference to the proposed project actions. The project area cultural and environmental settings are briefly described.

Under state and federal legislation and policies outlined by the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National Historic Preservation Act (NIHPA) of 1966 as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the 1986 Protection of Historic Properties and other regulations regarding specific activities such as strip mining, it is necessary to inventory archaeological and historical resources located within proposed project areas which may be threatened by federally regulated or funded actions and evaluate any disruptive effects these actions might have on resources that are present.

Briefly, the National Historic Preservation Act requires that an area threatened by a federally funded and/or regulated project consider cultural resources which might be impacted by project related actions; the State Historic Preservation Officer (SH-PO) and/or federal agency involved may request that a cultural resource survey be conducted prior to granting permission to proceed with the proposed project actions. If any cultural resources are identified, they are evaluated in terms of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility criteria. Where NRH-P eligible sites are found to occupy compliance project areas, consultation is initiated which may include the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), the SHPO, and the governmental agency involved in the project. If an eligible site cannot be avoided, a Memorandum of Agreement may be prepared which would stipulate specific compliance actions to be initiated prior to project actions. The project initiator, if not a federal agency, may be requested to concur. The present project is partially funded or regulated by a federal agency. As a result, cultural resource compliance has been implemented by a federal agency and Missouri SHPO and the present survey has been carried out in order to meet NHPA requirements.

4

Project Personnel and Schedule The present project was carried out during December 2010. Principal Investigator and report author is Craig Sturdevant. Sturdevant has a Master of Arts degree in Anthropology from the University of Iowa, Iowa City and meets state and federal requirements for Principal Investigator for cultural resource compliance projects. John Carrel, ERC research associate, was field technician for the project.

The Proiect The total proposed project area includes approximately 7.5 acres of land located south of Columbia on the east side of US 63 in the commercial area known as Discovery Ridge. A detailed project plan and profile was not included in the scope of work and it was assumed that any cultural resources located within area surveyed would be threatened by project actions. The project is located in Section 33, Township 48 North, Range 12 West, Boone County, Missouri (Figure 1).

The present investigation has been carried out utilizing Phase I survey procedures as outlined in the methods. section of this report and available standard procedures for determining presence/absence of buried resources. Findings and recommendations are made with the understanding that it sometimes may not be possible to identify all possibly significant resources within a project area, particularly where vegetation is extremely heavy or valley settings with deep alluvium.

5

[Proprietary Information]

6

INVESTIGATION METHODS Introduction The major goal of the this investigation was the inventory and evaluation of cultural resources within the designated project zone through the use of currently accepted Phase I survey techniques and records and literature review. It is important that sufficient data are collected to allow development of appropriate recommendations concerning the significance of the identified cultural resources in the project zone in terms of National Register of Historic Places (NRI-P) eligibility criteria. The methods and techniques used during the present investigation allowed an intensity of coverage that should have identified all potentially significant cultural resources. Deeply buried sites and very low material density sites are possible to miss no matter how intensive the survey techniques. This study has been initiated in order to carry out federally mandated Section 106 compliance regulations. The scope of work placed emphasis upon identification of cultural resources within the project area along with recovery of sufficient data to allow the Missouri SHPO to make an informed determination of possible significance of those resources.

The following section includes a discussion of the methods that have been employed in this study. These consist of a pre-field evaluation of pertinent literature and records from which the field survey techniques and site designation criteria are developed, an intensive pedestrian survey of the project area, an attempt to recover sufficient data for site designation and evaluation in terms of NRA-P eligibility requirements, notation of locational information regarding site provenience and physiographic setting, post-field activates involving data analysis, and report preparation.

The methods and techniques and justifications for interpretations are discussed below.

Records & Literature Review A review of relevant publications and records prior to the field component of the study is important in establishing an understanding of the cultural sequence and types of cultural resources which might be expected to occur. The process begins with review of cultural resource management (CRM) reports that have been produced for the areas near the project zone. These reports are housed in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Jefferson City, Missouri and are catalogued by county as well as author. The repository also includes historic -

architecture site forms for the state, NRA-lP forms for Missouri, and correspondence regarding the proposed project. Archaeological Survey of Missouri (ASM) records located at the SHPO were also reviewed. The ASM files contain information on reported archaeological sites in Missouri that have been gathered for over 70 years which are catalogued by county and section, township, and range and UTM coordinates. The SHPO GIS data includes overlays illustrating recorded archaeology sites and areas that have been the subject of previous cultural resource surveys. Other resources consulted 7

that contain important data include the state library in Jefferson City, the State Archives in Jefferson City, local historic societies when available, and the State Historic Society in Columbia. Other archaeologists and architectural historians, particularly those employed by the state that are involved with Section 106 procedures, are consulted regarding their knowledge of significant cultural resources in a project area.

Field Procedures The archaeological field component of the present study involved pedestrian coverage of the defined project area by ERC personnel. Transect width utilized ranged from 5 to 15 meters depending upon visibility and site potential based on terrain, streams, and other factors that have been shown to correlate with site presence/absence such as presettlement prairie or woodland setting. All vegetation-free zones are observed for presence of prehistoric cultural materials. Throughout most of Missouri, this can include lithic debitage (chert flakes and shatter), fire-cracked rock, pottery sherds and occasionally bone and shell fragments. Features such as fire hearths and burial tumuli may also be encountered. Where vegetation covers the surface for over 10 meters, shovel tests are implemented. This involves removal of around a 50 cm by 50 cm area of sod and then controlled removal of subsurface soil matrix to depths of up to 50 cm below surface. Soils are carefully observed to determine presence/absence of cultural evidence.

Where soil conditions allow, soils are screened through a portable 1/4 inch screen. Shovel testing that does not include screening of matrix is implemented where larger numbers of shovel tests are necessary and surface visibility conditions are poor. In this instance, soil matrix is removed by shovel and carefully scraped with a trowel to look for prehistoric/early historic evidence.

Where evidence of presence of an archaeological resource is defined, the location is noted on a U.S.G.S. quadrangle and a sketch map and description of the site area are field prepared. Where features or structures are encountered, photographs are taken. The field procedures incorporated in the pedestrian survey are directed toward two major goals: The first was the inventory of all possibly significant cultural resources within the project zone and the second the attempt to recover sufficient information to allow interpretation of NRH-P eligibility of these sites by the MoSHPO.

While subjective, ERC has developed a set of criteria for determining the presence of an archaeological resource, which are currently accepted by the SHPO as appropriate. These criteria are not presented as appropriate for all situations but as the general practice followed by ERC in making decisions regarding presence/absence of archaeological resources for cultural resource compliance purposes. One extreme would record a site where any evidence of cultural activity occurs. The other extreme would require a significant cultural resource to be present to result in recording a site. The present approach attempts to find a middle ground, which hopefully allows for further consideration for both the cultural resource and the proposed project action prior to threat to either.

8

An archaeology site is designated when evidence of prehistoric and/or early historic land use is present and at least one of the following specific criteria is met:

A. A prehistoric feature is present B. Two or more artifacts are identified within a 10 by 10mn or less area C. A shovel test recovers 2 or more artifacts.

Where a site is identified and when the landowner grants permission, materials recovered by the field investigation are placed in field site number marked collection bags. If permlission is not attained, materials are observed and potential diagnostics and tools measured, photographed and left in the field or given to the landowner when requested. When a permlanent site number is assigned, retained materials are curated with the site designation. Where material density at a site is obviously high only a representative sample is retained.

Historic architecture resources include structures and features. Where structures are present that are over 45 years old or exhibit some form of possible exceptional significance they are photographed and a description of architectural features is prepared along with preliminary evaluation of NRHIP eligibility when located within a direct impact project zone. Historic structures are not recorded where it is obvious that the structures are less than 45 years old and not significant in any other respect. Where an area of potential effect (APE)*has been established beyond the physical APE, architectural resources within this defined APE obviously 45 years or older are photographed and located on report maps.

Analysis Procedures Significance of cultural resources is interpreted from National Register of Historic Place eligibility criteria that are listed below:

"The quality of significance in American History, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:

A) that are associated with events thathave made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 9

C) that embody the distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishing entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history: (36 CFR Part 60.6).

Cultural resources that are identified during the Phase I survey are evaluated in terms of meeting one or more of the above criteria. In general, archaeological sites most often are evaluated with reference to D above. A statewide planning document was prepared by the DNR/HPP that allows minimal means for evaluation of potential significance of cultural resources (Weichman and Weston 1986). The statewide plan includes information regarding traditions, types of traditions expected, forms of data that may be potentially important, and research questions that can be incorporated in the interpretation of cultural resource significance where available. Generally, a cultural resource will be evaluated on the basis of types of materials recovered (uniqueness, affiliation, type), resource integrity (degree of disturbance), and material/feature density (density and quantity of artifacts and presence and number of potentially extant features such as hearths, house sites, and burial tumuli). Usually, if an archaeological site exhibits sub-plow zone integrity and produces diagnostic artifacts or features, the site is interpreted as significant in that it would very likely contain sufficient data to contribute to the understanding of the cultural history of the area and meet NRHP eligibility criterion D. The consultant makes recommendations regarding NRHP eligibility. The determination of eligibility process requires consultation with the SI-PO and the federal agency involved in the project.

Statement of Findings and Recommendations Where ERC locates a cultural resource within the designated project boundaries, recommendations of significance and justification are made to the MoSHPO and the federal agency involved. A decision regarding significance would be made at that level in terms of possible NRHP eligibility of the resource. Recommendations that may be made include "not eligible for NRiI-P status", "possibly eligible for NRHP status", or

"~eligible for NRHP status." Where a recommendation of not eligible is accepted by the SI-PO and federal agency a proposed compliance project can proceed as planned; a recommendation of possibly eligible results in agency request that the project be modified to avoid the resource or given further evaluation in order to establish NRHP eligibility; a recommendation of eligible results in a request to modify the project to avoid the cultural resource or proceed with the consultation process as outlined by 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties that governs the Section 106 review process established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended.

10

PROJECT SETTING Environmental Setting The project area lies on the border of the Dissected Till Plains to the north and Ozark Plateau on the south in Central Lowlands Province of North America. The bedrock in the area consists of Mississippian limestones covered with varying depths of clays and glacial drift as well as limestone residuum and colluvium and alluvium (cf.

B~ranson 1944; Stout and Hoffman 1973).

The project is located within a presettlement prairie zone (Kucera 1961; Schroeder 19891:7) in an upland divide between Cedar Creek on the east and Bonne Femme headwaters on the west. The area exhibited a wide variety of indigenous floral species in the past (Chapman 1975:12-16). Early surveyors list several species of oak, hickory, black walnut, hackberry, sycamore, elm, and elders in the bottoms along with open oak-hickory upland woodlands to the east, west, and south and grasses that would have included Big and Little Bluestem, Indian Grass, Switch Grass, Side-oats Grama, and pockets of Bluejoint and Canada Wild Rye in the project area (Allgood and Persinger 1979:60).

Some species of animals present during the pioneer period have been extirpated from their former ranges since the Euro-American settlement of the area. These species include gray wolf, elk, and bison (Chapman 1975). The mountain lion and black bear occur rarely in the forested regions of the interior Ozark Highlands (Wood and McMillan 1976). More common species in the drainage basin include white-tailed deer, gray fox, red fox, coyote, raccoon, beaver, bobcat, mink, opossum, muskrat, spotted skunk, squirrels, rabbit, and woodchuck. It is probable that the project area exhibited typical prairie/woodland ecotonal populations in which a variety of large and small game was available in both woodland and prairie settings.

The climate within the project area is midcontinental and experiences temperature extremes both seasonally and on a day-to-day basis. This area of Missouri is in the path of cold air moving down out of Canada, warm moist air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico, and dry air from the west. The mean annual precipitation in the area is around 40 inches which includes 12 to 17 inches of snow per year. The mean length of the growing season is around 187 days. The killing freezes generally begin between October 15 and 20 and end between April 15 and 20 (Chapman 1975).

The project area exhibits few characteristics suggesting high potential for presence of intensive or extensive prehistoric occupation. The counties north of the Missouri river exhibit an ecotonal situation that included a relatively high percentage of presettlement prairie and lesser amount of presettlement woodland (Schroeder 1981).

While Boone County was made up only of 16% presettlemnent prairie, the present project occupies the only expansive prairie zone in the county. Earlier studies have well 11

illustrated the finding that known prehistoric occupations in the region are almost entirely located within presettlement woodland zones with less than 3% of the known prehistoric sites found within presettlement prairie zones (cf. Sturdevant 1983). Another major consideration that appears to have entered into prehistoric site selection involved availability of cherts that were a primary raw material for much of the subsistence technology. Bedrock in the general area does include Missisippian age cherts that were utilized extensively by prehistoric occupants as raw material for tools. These cherts would not have been easily accessible in the project area. The project setting would have also lacked immediate availability of a consistent water supply necessary to support any intensive or extensive human habitation resulting in a low prehistoric site potential.

Cultural Setting The project is located in the Central Missouri Drainage Basin (Figure 2). The occupation of Missouri by prehistoric populations has been generally established to include nine to ten traditions (cf. Chapman 1975; 1980). These traditions apply in varying degree to the entire state with some traditions often not accounted for in specific drainages. These traditions are incorporated in what is called the cultural sequence which is a major factor utilized in interpretation of cultural data, particularly, regarding National Register of Historic Place (NRI-P) significance. These traditions are listed below in the sequence provided by Chapman (1975; 1980).

Paleo-Indian 12000 to 8000 B.C.

Dalton 8000 to 7000 B.C.

Early Archaic 7000 to 5000 B.C.

Middle Archaic 5000 to 3000 B.C.

Late Archaic 3000 to 1000 B.C.

Early Woodland 1000 to 500 B.C.

Middle Woodland 500 B.C. to A.D. 400 Late Woodland A.D. 400 to 900 Mississippian A.D. 900 to 1400 Paleo-Indian: With the exception of a possible earlier "Early Man" tradition, the Paleo-Indian is generally accepted as the earliest known occupation of Missouri. These specialized hunters lived in small nomadic bands or family groups and left some traces of their transitory settlement pattern in the forms of hunting camps, kill sites, quarry sites, and possibly small base camps (cf. Ford 1974:388). The major diagnostic materials associated with the occupation includes the Clovis and Folsom fluted spear/knife points.

Most fluted point finds have been located along major river valleys such as the Missouri River although some have been recovered along streams such as the Moreau River. This has been suggested to indicate that these nomadic hunters and gatherers followed these streams in their movement through the Midwest area. Chapman indicates that his division of the Northeast and Northwest Prairie region at a point in Cooper and Howard counties above Boonville on the Missouri River separates the major occupation zones of the 12

.30~IC'~ KOCA WA?

SCALE o 40 80MILES 0 30 80 00 120 KILOMETEAS

- ~PR1KOPL DROMAGA AASNS

- - tlIcs~o Figure 2.

DNR Study Unit/DrainageBasin Location of Project Paleo-Indian populations. That is, the steep bluffs below this point appear to have been more conducive to Paleo-Indian occupation than the more prairie related terrain above this point. Fluted points are generally more plentiful below thispoint toward St. Louis than above this point toward Kansas City (Chapman 1975:75). Chapman's review of Paleo-Indian diagnostics illustrates larger numbers of reported fluted points beginning in Howard County and continuing toward St. Louis with a small number reported from Callaway County (1975:67).

Dalton: Chapman characterizes the Dalton period as a time of transition from Paleo-Indian big game hunting to the hunting-foraging subsistence strategy of the following Archaic period (1975:96). All known Dalton sites in Missouri are small camps 13

and all apparently represent short-term utilization. The basic Paleo-Indian tool kit was still in use during Dalton times although tools associated with plant food processing were added. Point types with long flutes have been replaced by types with basal thinning and or short flutes. The major diagnostic includes the Dalton Serrated and perhaps the Dalton adze. Distribution roughly parallels the Paleo-Indian.

Early Archaic: By the Early Archaic the transition to a subsistence pattern based on foraging was well underway. Subsistence activities were broadened to exploit more ecological niches. Hunting and gathering continued as the major economic activities but emphasis was placed on aquatic resources and vegetal foods. Although nomadic wandering was being replaced by "a regular hunting-gathering range with specific base camp sites that were returned to at regular intervals" (Chapman 1975:135), the typical Early Archaic site continued to be a small hunting and or collecting camp. These are found in a variety of environmental settings throughout Missouri including upland ridges near small ephemeral streams, upland bluff edges, rock shelters, and the margins of high bottomland terraces. Diagnostics of Early Archaic include Graham Cave Notched that has been recovered in the general area (Chapman 1975). Hardin Barbed is also generally associated with Early Archaic occupation.

Middle Archaic: The Middle Archaic was basically a continuation and expansion of a forager tradition begun in the Dalton and Early Archaic. A drying climate forced greater reliance upon collecting vegetal foods and small animals as opposed to wet environment subsistence. Sites continued to be small, exhibiting semi-nomadic or seasonal occupation with no specific topographic location associated (Chapman 1975:159). The tool kit continued to expand, depending upon the extraction activity in the specific niche. The drying climate was reflected in the marked tendency for Middle Archaic sites to be located almost exclusively in or very near bottomland settings (Chapman 1975). There are no complexes associated with the period in this general area.

Collectors in the area often have Big Sandy forms in their collections. It is assumed that Middle Archaic was present but in an as yet poorly defined situation. Site forms for the drainage are inconclusive in terms of presence of Middle Archaic diagnostics.

Late Archaic: The Late Archaic is somewhat better known than earlier traditions.

This is a result of the greater population apparently represented by the Late Archaic which resulted in more expansive and numerous occupations. This period generally lacks the small dart point of the earlier traditions that suggests that hunting had become less important for subsistence. In addition, tool kit function appears to have expanded suggesting reliance on a much larger variety of potential foods requiring varied extraction and processing techniques. The Late Archaic began toward the climax of a warming trend that reached its height around 2000 B.C. (Cleland 1966), with a resultant diminishing of the faunal and floral forest species. The Late Archaic peoples had to adapt to new ecological niches with concomitant changes in subsistence related artifacts.

Emphasis was probably placed on a method of procurement that could effectively exploit various types of resources which were available in reliable quantities at varying seasons.

Using a central-based wandering settlement pattern in which the particular seasonal 14

resources available would determine the type and location of temporary camps radiating from more permanent occupation sites, Late Archaic settlement pattern appears to have been somewhat more restricted than previous foraging traditions. Diagnostic artifacts of this period include the Sedalia Lanceolate and Diggers, Clear Fork Gouge, Smith Basal Notch, Afton, Etley, Nebo Hill, Stone Square, as well as 3/4 groove granite axes.

Evidence of the Sedalia complex are often found just over the crown of the slope of high ridges (Chapman 1975:200). Late Archaic occupations are one of the more commonly identified traditions in the drainage according to ASM records.

Early Woodland: The Early Woodland period is identified by presence of Black Sand Incised pottery and is poorly represented throughout most of Missouri. In spite of intensive surveys in various areas of the state, only a few unquestionable Early Woodland sites have been identified and include Avondale, Renner, and Shields sites in the Kansas City area and a few in the northeast portion of the state. These and other possible Early Woodland sites are generally found in the major river valleys, particularly along the Missouri River.

Middle Woodland: The Middle Woodland period occupation in northern Missouri is focused on three related regional centers: The Havana center in the Lower Illinois River Valley and adjacent Mississippi River valley in the northeast, the Kansas City Hopewell, and Big Bend centers. The latter two are on the Missouri River.

Analyses of pottery from the three centers indicate there was an intrusion of people into the Big Bend and Kansas City areas from the Havana center to the east (Wedel 1943) although the initial intrusion appears to have been related to subsistence and/or political stress (Struever & Houart 1972) in the Havana center, contacts among the three centers was maintained throughout the Middle Woodland period (Chapman 1980). These continued contacts insured the Big Bend and Kansas City areas of a place in the Classic Middle Woodland's Hopewell Interaction Sphere. Evidence for a Middle Woodland occupation is very sparse outside of the areas noted. Some rock shelters and open habitation sites in the general area have produced Middle Woodland diagnostics and Chapman identified south Boone County as a major Middle Woodland center (1980).

There has been no corroborating evidence through field investigations regarding the assertion by Chapman. In general, with the exception of the Big Bend and Kansas City Hopewell, Middle Woodland diagnostics usually are interpreted from lithics such as Snyders points with ceramics reflecting Hopewellian occupation lacking but for the centers.

Late Woodland: The Late Woodland period exhibits the most numerous defined components within prehistoric sites in the general project area. The occupation in this portion of Missouri has sometimes been defined as a regression from the preceding traditions in that emphasis on horticulture developed earlier in the Woodland was supplanted by earlier hunting subsistence reliance. This pattern is seen in the increase in small temporary camps along with use of bow and arrow. Diagnostics include grit and limestone tempered pottery, arrow points, burial mounds, and shallow side notched points. Several Late Woodland sites have been identified in the county including both 15

open habitation sites and burial tumuli. A large number the archaeological sites identified in the general project area have exhibited Late Woodland diagnostics (Sturdevant 1978).

Mississippian: The Early Mississippian period is not well documented in the general area of the project. Steed-Kisker, an Early Mississippi phase, is located in the Kansas City area while Cahokia and the St. Louis area represent a climax associated with Early Mississippian (Chapman 1980). Diagnostics for this period include small triangular arrow points and shell tempered ceramics. Where Early Mississippian experienced climax levels, temples and towns were part of the settlement pattern. In the immediate area only triangular points and an occasional shell tempered sherd have been reported. Early Mississippian Steed-Kisker people apparently abandoned the Kansas City area around A.D. 1250 and around A.D. 1350 the Oneota cultural tradition appeared suddenly in the Big Bend area near the junction of the Grand, Chariton, and Missouri rivers. It is speculated that Oneota developed in northern Missouri and Iowa and its formation was stimulated by developments at the Cahokia center. While the extent of Cahokia influences remains unknown, cultural developments of the period in that area have been connected to the cultural background and growth of the historic Siouan-speaking people (Griffin 1960). The most prominent Oneota village in the Big Bend area is the Utz site and it was there the Utz phase, which documents the Oneota culture of the area, was defined. The Utz phase, and the Oneota occupation, began at about A.D.

1350 and lasted to the end of the Mississippian period (A.D. 1700) when Oneota blends into what is recognized as the Historic Missouri Indian tribe.

Historic Period: During the period from 1730 to 1790, the Missouri tribe was being depleted by smallpox and its power was continually being tested by its enemies to the north. By the 1780's, the Missouri became heavily dependent on their allies the Osage for protection. In spite of this, the Sac and Fox conquered and dispersed the Missouri tribe in the 1790's. Those who were not killed joined the Osage, Kansas, and Oto tribes. The great smallpox epidemic of 1823 reduced their numbers to less than one hundred and Missouri as a distinct cultural entity became extinct. The last full-blood Missouri Indian died on the Oto reservation in 1907 (Chapman 1946:29).

The lands encompassed by the project were but a small part of North American territory claimed by France until 1762 when it was transferred to Spain by secret treaty.

Spain retroceded the land to France in 1801 and France ended up selling it to the U.S. in 1803 as the Louisiana Purchase. In 1812, congress created the Territory of Missouri and in 1821 Missouri was recognized as the twenty-first state (March 1963). In general, the post-1800 history of central Missouri reflects both the general patterns of agricultural developments in the Midwest and specific influences which shaped the region. The process of early settlement and the struggle to producebeyond a meager subsistence, the expansion of the agricultural and commercial activities and creation of a stable society, followed by an era in which regional concerns were shaped by state and national trends, are all recognized as part of the evolution of the Midwest. In the case of northern Missouri, an understanding of its Euro-American past requires recognition of the 16

influence of the settlers themselves and of the land which they occupied. The early settlers came primarily from the Upper South, especially Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Prior to the Civil War, first tobacco and then corn played an important role in the agricultural economy of the region. The first permanent settlers began entering the area in the early 1800's, a process that really began only after the acquisition of the Louisiana territory by the U.S. in 1803. Congress created the territory of Missouri in 1812 and nine years later recognized Missouri as the twenty-first state (Meyer 1963).

The rapid development from uncharted wilderness to statehood stemmed directly from the massive westward movement of population during the early nineteenth century. Most of the settlers who came to mid-Missouri were attracted to the land. The fertile soil, adequate rainfall, and a growing season that averaged six months a year made the region particularly well-suited for agriculture. A rich, friable loam predominated, with substantial stands of timber which provided building materials and generally reminded the immigrants of the lands which they had left behind.

The background of the settlers made them receptive to cultivating a crop that would reproduce the agricultural patterns of their native states. Most of the early settlers came from the Upper South that included slave holding states. March (1967) suggests that within the "slave belt" through central Missouri, major crops included hemp and tobacco. These crops, particularly tobacco, demand intensive labor for productivity.

Tobacco is generally favored as a cash crop in that it produced a greater value in proportion to bulk when compared to grain crops. In areas such as the project, transportation would have been a problem prior to the railways. Cash crops such as tobacco in areas that did not provide viable river transportation soon shifted to local consumption crops such as corn and wheat. While not well documented at present, it is apparent that agricultural pursuits were almost entirely geared toward corn and wheat by the time of the Civil War. It is further apparent that slave holding had begun to drop at a relatively high rate prior to the Civil War (Campbell 1874). The land and its location, then, became major shaping forces of the economic system of the area, altering the previous patterns established in the southeast and brought to the Midwest. The coming of the railroad in the 1850's through the 1870's opened the interior to greater trade and agricultural products have been the major source of livelihood in the general area since this time.

17

INVESTIGATION FINDINGS Records and Literature Review Boone County, Missouri currently contains 49 National Register of Historic Places (NRI-lP) properties. These include the following:

Ballenger Building (Downtown Columbia. Missouri MPS), 27-29 South Ninth St.,

Columbia (1/21/04)

Bond's Chapel Methodist Episcopal Church, MO A, 2.5 mi. NE of Hartsburg, Hartsburg vicinity (9/09/93)

Boone. John W. ("Blind"), House (Social Institutions of Columbia's Black Community TR [see note*]), 4th St. between E Broadway and Walnut, Columbia (9/04/80)

Central Dairy Building (Dowtntown Columbia. Missouri MPS), 1104-1106 East Broadway, Columbia (1/20/05)

Chance, Albert Bishop. House and Gardens, 319 E Sneed St., Centralia (7/03/79)

Chatol (F. Gano Chance House, Chance Guest House), 543 5 Jefferson, Centralia (4/20/79)

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Building (Downtown Columbia, Missouri MPS), 10 Hitt St.,

Columbia (2/14/06)

Columbia Cemetery, 30 East Broadway, Columbia (2/01/07)

Columbia National Guard Armory, 701 E Ash St., Columbia (3/25/93)

Conley, Sanford F., House, 602 Sanford P1., Columbia (12/18/73)

Douglass, Fred, School (Social histitutions of Colunmbia'sBlack C~ommnunity TR [see note*]), 310 N Providence Rd. (9/04/80)

Downtown Columbia Historic District (Downtown Coliumbia, Missouri MPS; man [see note]), parts of 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, E. Broadway, Cherry, Hitt, Locust, and E. Walnut Streets, Columbia (11/08/06)

Downtown Columbia Historic District (Dowtntown Columbia, Missouri MPS; boundary increase), 10 19,1020,1023 & 1025-33 E. Walnut St., Columbia (5/08/08) 18

East Campus Neighborhood Historic District, roughly bounded by Bouchelle, College, University, and High Sts., including parts of Willis, Bass, Dorsey, and Anthony Sts.,

Columbia (2/16/96)

Eig~hth Broadway Historic District [Miller Building, Matthews Hardware, Metropolitan Building], 800-8 10 E. Broadway Blvd., Columbia (4/22/03)

Elkins, Samuel H. and Isabel Smith, House, 315 N 10th St., Columbia (9/12/96)

First Christian Church, 101 N 10th St., Columbia (10/29/91)

Francis Ouadrangle Historic District (Red Campus), bounded by Conley Ave., Elm, 6th and 9th Sts., Columbia (12/18/73)

Frederick Apartments, 1001 University Ave., Columbia (4/16/13)

Gordon, David. House and Collins Lo& Cabin (Gordon Manor, Fairmount, Cedar View), 2100 E Broadway, Columbia (8/29/83)

Gordon Tract Archaeological Site, address restricted (3/16/72)

Greenwood (Greenwood Heights), 3005 Mexico Gravel Rd., Columbia (1/15/79)

Guitar, David, House (Confederate Hill), 2815 Oakland Gravel Rd., Columbia (9/09/93)

Hackman, Samuel E.. Building, 30 S St., Hartsburg (12/10/98)

Hamilton-Brown Shoe Facto ry, 1123 Wilkes Blvd., Columbia (7/19/02)

Hunt, William B., House, 8939 W Terrapin Hills Rd., Columbia vicinity (1/09/97)

Kress Building (Downtown Columbia, Missouri MPS), 1025 E. Broadway, Columbia (3/09/05)

Maplewood, Nifong Blvd. and Ponderosa Dr., Columbia (4/13/79)

McCain Furniture Store (Downtown Columbia, Missouri MPS). 916 E. Walnut, Columbia (8/17/05)

Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad Depot, 402 E Broadway, Columbia (1/29/79)

Missouri State Teachers Association, 407 S 6th St., Columbia (9/04/80)

Missouri Theater, 201-215 S 9th St., Columbia (6/06/79) 19

Missouri United Methodist Church, 204 S 9th St., Columbia (9/04/80)

Mount Zion Church and Cemetery (Rural Church Architecture of Missouiri, c. 1819 to

c. 1945 MPS)., 11070 Mount Zion Rd., Hallsville vicinity (1/14/13)

North Ninth Street Historic District (Downtowvn Columbia. Missouri MPS) (m__mp [see note]), 5-36 North Ninth St., Columbia (1l/21/04)

Payne. Moses U.. House, 201 N Roby Farm Rd., Rocheport vicinity (10/07/94)

Pierce Pennant Motor Hotel (Candlelight Lodge), 1406 Old Hwy. 40 W, Columbia (9/02/82)

Rocheport Historic District, MO 240, Rocheport (10/08/76)

St. Paul's A.M.E. Church (Social histitutionsof Columbia'isBlack Community' TR [see note*]), 501 Park St. (9/04/80)

Sanborn Field and Soil Erosion Plots, University of Missouri Campus, Columbia (10/15/66; NHL 7/19/64)

Second Baptist Church (Social Institutions of Columbia'sBlack Community TR [see note*]), 407 E Broadway (9/04/80)

Second Christian Church (Social Institu.tions of Columbia'sBlack Commnunity TR [see note*]), 401 N 5th St. (9/04/80)

Senior Hall, Stephens College Campus, Columbia (8/02/77)

Stephens College, South Campus, 1200 E. Broadway, Columbia (11/25/05)

Taylor, John N. and Elizabeth, House, 716 West Broadway, Columbia (5/25/01 )

Tiger Hotel, 23 5 8th St., Columbia (2/29/80)

Virginia Building, 111 South Ninth Street, Columbia (3/13/02)

Wabash Railroad Station and Freight House (Norfolk and Western Depot), 126 N 10th St., Columbia (10/11/79)

West Broadway Historic District, 300-922 W. Broadway (except 800, 808, 812),

Columbia (4/27/10)

Wright Brothers Mule Barn, 1101-1107 Hinkson Ave. & 501-507 Fay St., Columbia (11/01/07) 20

There are no previously recorded prehistoric archaeology sites within the project boundaries (Figure 3). [Proprietary Information] The project area contains no recorded historic architecture or possibly significant historic events.

Review of 1 9 th and 2 0 th century plat maps and 2 0 th century USGS topographic quadrangles found no evidence of structures within the proposed project area. The 1967/81 USGS topographic quadrangle does not illustrate any structures in the project boundaries.

Field Investigation Findings The field investigation was carried out under generally mixed to poor surface visibility conditions averaging less than 20% in a grass/hay setting (Figure 4). Shovel tests were utilized in order to interpret presence/absence of cultural resources as described in the methods section of this report. The presence of erosion cuts and paths along with shovel tests allowed for a sample of subsurface soil matrix for interpretation of potential for presence/absence of buried cultural resources.

The field investigation failed to identify any evidence of the presence of prehistoric occupation of the area. Typically, this includes presence of chert debitage, fire-cracked rock, lithic artifacts, and occasionally ceramics. None of these materials were encountered on the surface or in shovel tests. No prehistoric sites have been recorded.

Historic resources include recently constructed roads which do not meet the investigators' historic site designation criteria. No historic sites have been recorded.

It is the finding of this Phase I cultural resources survey that Lot 15 in the Discovery Ridge development contains no possibly significant cultural resources.

21

[Proprietary Information]

22

r IFigure OM15tl4,Scale=--1:2758 lll l~lll soap Aerial Photographof ProjectArea Suweyed (YELLOW)

RECOMMENDATIONS During September 2013 a Phase I cultural resources survey was carried out for a 7.5 acre tract of land at Discovery Ridge, Boone County, Missouri. The area is the location of a proposed commercial development project.

There are no National Register of Historic Places (NRH-P) properties located within the proposed project area; DNR GIS records indicate presence of no recorded archaeology sites within the project boundaries; and no recorded Missouri DNR historic architectural sites are present within the project area of potential effect (APE). 19 th century plat maps do not illustrate any structures within the project area.

The field investigation was carried out under poor surface visibility conditions in a grass/hay setting. Shovel testing was implemented following guidelines described in this report. No evidence of the presence of prehistoric occupation was identified within the project area. No evidence of the presence of early historic occupation was identified within the project boundaries.

On the basis of the negative findings regarding presence of possibly significant cultural resources, it is the recommendation of this Phase I cultural resources survey that the proposed project proceed as planned in terms of Section 106 compliance concerns.

No significant cultural resources will be threatened by the proposed project actions.

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ailgood, F. P. and I. D. Persinger 1979 Missouri General Soil Map and Soil Association Descriptions.

Soil Conservation Service. Columbia.

Asch, D. I.

1976 The Middle Woodland Population of the Lower Illinois River Valley: A Study in Paleodemographic Methods.

Northwestern University Archaeological Program, Scientific Papers,*_ 1.

Baker, M.

1984 Analysis of Refuse Pits 23CO 156, Cole County, Missouri.

M.A. Thesis. UMC. Anthropology Department.

Boone County Land Assessment Book 1875 through 1931. State Archives.

Branson, E. B.

1944 The Geology of Missouri. University of Missouri Studies.

Vol. 19, No. 3. Columbia.

Broadhead, G. C.

1890 Prehistoric Evidences in Missouri. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for the Year 1878. Washington D.C.

Campbell, R. A.

1874 Gazetteer of Missouri. R.A. Campbell. St. Louis.

Chapman, C. H.

1975 The Archaeology of Missouri I. University of Missouri Press. Columbia.

1980 The Archaeology of Missouri II. University of Missouri Press.

Cleland, C. E.

1976 The Focal-Diffuse Model: An Evolutional Perspective on the Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations of the Eastern U. S. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology. 1:59-76.

25

Collier, J. E.

1955 Geographic Regions of Missouri. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 45 (4):368-92.

Conard, H. L.

1901 Encyclopedia of the History of Missouri. The Southern History Company. New York.

Denny, S. G.

1964 A Re-evaluation of the Boone Focus: A Late Woodland Manifestation in Central Missouri. M.A. Thesis, UMC.

Edwards Brothers 1875 Historical Atlas of Boone County, Missouri. Edwards Brothers Philadelphia.

Evans, D. R., E. G. Garrison, and D. J. Ives 1977 Cultural Resources Survey: Columbia, Missouri, Phase I Sewer Improvements. EPA.

Fowkes, G.

1910 Antiquities of Central and Southeastern Missouri. Smithsonian Institute, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 37. Washington D.C.

Grantham, L.

1977 Cultural Resources Survey Long Branch Lake: Archaeology Resources. COE.

Griffin, J. B.

1961 Some Correlations of Climate and Cultural Change in Eastern North American Prehistory. Annals New York Academy of Science. 95:710-717.

Haas, D.

1978 An Archaeological Survey of the Little Femme Osage River Hills Area and the Loutre River Valley. DNR.

Howe, W. B. and J. W. Koenig 1963 The Stratigraphic Succession in Missouri. Geological Survey and Water Resources Series 3.

Klippel, W. E.

1965 An Archaeological Investigation of the Lower Osage River Valley in Missouri. M.A. Thesis, UMC.

26

Kay, M.

1980 The Central Missouri Hopewell Subsistence - Settlement System. Missouri Archaeological Society.* Research Series No. 15.

March, D. D.

1967 The History of Missouri. Lewis Historical Company.

New York.

Martin, T.

1983 An Archaeological Survey in the Middle Drainage - Lamine River. DNR/H-PP Grant. Jefferson City.

Northup, B. B.

2001 We are Not Yet Conquered: The History of the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory. Turner PubI. Co. Paducah, Kentucky.

Northwest Publishing Co.

1898 Plat Map of Boone County, Missouri. Northwest Publishing Co.

Philadelphia.

O'Brien, M.

1984 Archaeological Testing of the Route 63, Boone County Project, Missouri. MoDOT.

Ogle, G. A.

1917 Standard Atlas of Boone County, Missouri. George A. Ogle & Co.

Chicago.

Raisz, I.

1957 Physiographic Regions of the U.S. Map.

Re eder, R. L., E. E. Voigt, and M. J. O'Brien 1983 Investigations in the Lower Perche - Hinkson Drainage.

EPA.

Rollins, J. S.

1853 Land Entry Atlas of 1853. Boone County, Missouri - State Archives.

Schmits, L. J.

1981 Archaeological Investigations at the Roddy Site (23BO966) and the Coates Sites (23BO965), Boone County, Missouri. EPA.

27

Schmits, L. et al.

1985 Prehistory of the Lower Perche- Hinkson Drainage Central Missouri Archaeological Investigations at the Columbia Regional Wastewater treatment Facility.

Shoemaker, F. C.

1943 Missouri and Missourians. Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago.

Stevens, W. B.

1915 Missouri the Center State, Vol. II. S. J. Clarke Publishing, St. Louis.

Struever, S. and G. I. Houart 1972 An Analysis of Hopewell Interaction Sphere: IN Social Exchange and Interaction. E. N. Wilmsen editor. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological P~apers. No. 3.

Sturdevant, C.

1976 Cultural Resource Survey, Algoa ReformatorY, Cole County, Missouri. DNR/HPP.

1989 Phase III Data Recovery, 23CY499, Callaway County, Missouri.

MoDOT.

Wedel, M. M.

1943 Archaeological Investigations in Platte and Clay Counties, Missouri. U__.

S. National Museum Bulletin No. 183.

Weichman, M. S. and D. Weston 1986 Master Plan for Archaeological Resource Protection in Missouri. DNR/IHPP. Jefferson City.

28

NWMI

• ..** NORTHWEST MEDICAL IOOE A TTA CHMENT B Description of the Proposed Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Radioisotope Production Facility NWMI is preparing an application for submission to the NRC to construct, operate, and decommission a Radioisotope Production Facility (RPF). This facility is proposed to be located at the University of Missouri System (UM System) Discovery Ridge Research Park in Columbia, Missouri. The proposed operations of the RPF includes fabrication of low enriched uranium (LEU) targets, deliver targets to a network of university research nuclear reactors for irradiation, receive irradiated targets, and extract and purify molybdenum-99 (99Mo) from the irradiated LEU. The LEU would be reclaimed and recycled into targets for delivery to the network of university research reactors. The 99M would be sold and distributed through the existing U.S. supply chain network.

Schedule

• Submit construction application to NRC ( 41h Q 2014)

• NRC review and approval (Expected 4 th Q 2015)

• Site preparation and construction: (2015 - 2016)

• Facility Operations (2017- 2045)

Site Location The proposed 7.5 acre site is situated in Boone County, Missouri, within the UM System, Discovery Ridge Research Park in Columbia, Missouri north of Discovery Ridge Drive (Figure B-l1). The approximate center of the NWMI RPF is Longitude: 92° 16'34.63"~ and Latitude: 38o54'3.31"~.

Site Description The proposed site is located on Lot 15 of the Phase II section of the Discovery Ridge Research Park. The site is all on property owned by UM System. The facility would be approximately 330 feet (ft) in the long dimension and 110 ft wide with a maximum height of 45 ft not counting the stacks (Figure B-2).

The site would include an outer fence perimeter and provide the necessary initial security barrier. The fenced area would include paved roads laid out for the turning radius of tractor/trailers used to transport the materials.

Additional information can be found at the UM System, Discovery Ridge Research Park website, httn://www.umnsvstem .edu/ums/aa/umrni/discovervrid~e.

29

.. ..%. IV V

• .NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES A Proposed Location Z]Proposed Building Lot (Lot 15)

Discovery Ridge L ... " Columbia City Limit am

• Miles Figure B-I. Proposed Location NWMI RPF - Discovery Ridge located in Columbia, Missouri 30

• .-;:,*. NI WM I

• ,-- *NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES A NWMI Site O 5Mile (8 kin) Radius from NWMI Site iInterstate

-Highways 4 1 r City Limits Miles Figure B-2. NWMI RPF General Layout.

31

This page intentionally left blank.

32

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA Chapter 19 - Environmental Review Appendix B MISSOURI STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CONSULTATION LETTER AND RESPONSE B-i

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA Chapter 19 - Environmental Review This page intentionally left blank.

B-ii

Environmental Research Center of Missouri, Inc.

1201 Moreau Drive Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 573.635.9569 craigsturdevant~dinchsi. corn October 7, 2013 Mr. Mark Miles Missouri Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Re: Cultural Resource Investigations, Phase I Survey, Lot 15 - Discovery Ridge, Boone County, Missouri

Dear Mark:

Please find one paper and an electronic copy of the above noted report. Please send your response to:

Carolyn Haass Vice President/Technical Program Director Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Vice President/Technical Program Director 815 NW 9th Aye, Suite 256 Corvallis, Oregon 97330 Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please call me.

Sincerely, Craig Sturdevant President/ERC

c. C. Haas J. Belier

Cultural Resource Investigations Phase I Survey Lot 15 - Discovery Ridge Boone County, Missouri Nuclear Regulatory Commission Project Prepared for:

Northwest Medical Isotopes L.L.C.

Prepared By:

Environmental Research Center of Missouri, Inc.

1201 Moreau Drive Jefferson City, Missouri Phone: 573-635-9569 Email: craiqstu rdevant(*,mchsi.com Principal Investigator:

Craig Sturdevant September 2013 ERG Project No. 3023 ERG

ABSTRACT During September 2013 a Phase I cultural resources survey was carried out for a 7.5 acre tract of land at Discovery Ridge, Boone County, Missouri. The area is the location of a proposed commercial development project.

There are no National Register of Historic Places (NRH-P) properties located within the proposed project area; State Historic Preservation Office (SI-PO) GIS records indicate presence of no recorded archaeology sites within the project boundaries; and no recorded SH-IPO historic architectural sites are present within the project area of potential effect. 19t century plat maps do not illustrate any structures within the project area.

The field investigation was carried out under poor surface visibility conditions in a grass/hay setting. Shovel testing was implemented following guidelines described in this report. No evidence of the presence of prehistoric occupation was identified within the project area. No evidence of the presence of early historic occupation was identified within the project boundaries.

On the basis of the negative findings regarding presence of possibly significant cultural resources, it is the recommendation of this Phase I cultural resources survey that the proposed project proceed as planned in terms of Section 106 compliance concerns.

No significant cultural resources will be threatened by the proposed project actions.

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 LIST OF FIGURES 3*

[NTRODUCTION 4 Purpose of Study 4 Project Personnel and Schedule 5 The Project 5 INVESTIGATION METHODS 7 Introduction 7 Records and Literature Review 7 Field Procedures 8 Analysis Procedures 9 Statement of Findings and Recommendations 10 PROJECT SETT[NG 11 Environmental Setting 11 Cultural Setting 12 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS 18 Records and Literature Review 18 Field Investigation Findings 21 RECOMMENDATIONS 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY 25 2

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.

USGS Quadrangle Location of Project Area Surveyed

& Cultural Resources 6 Figure 2.

DNR Study Unit Location of Project 13 Figure 3.

SHPO GIS Archaeology & Survey Layers in Relation to the Project 22 Figure 4.

Aerial Photograph of Project Area Surveyed 23 3

INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study In compliance with current environmental regulations and policies, Northwest Medical Isotopes L.L.C. entered into a contractual agreement with Environmental Research Center of Missouri, Inc. (ERC) to conduct a Phase I cultural resource survey of a 7.5 acre tract of land at Discovery Ridge in Boone County, Missouri. The study followed the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) "Guidelines for Cultural Resource Contract Reports and Professional Qualifications" and is submitted in accordance with current environmental regulations and policies and in agreement with the study contract.

The project actions included discussion of the project with Missouri Department of Natural Resources/Historic Preservation Program staff, a records and literature review, and an intensive pedestrian field investigation of the project area. The study methods used are described and the results of the findings of these actions are presented in terms of cultural resource descriptions, when present, and recommendations for cultural resource compliance in reference to the proposed project actions. The project area cultural and environmental settings are briefly described.

Under state and federal legislation and policies outlined by the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the 1986 Protection of Historic Properties and other regulations regarding specific activities such as strip mining, it is necessary to inventory archaeological and historical resources located within proposed project areas which may be threatened by federally regulated or funded actions and evaluate any disruptive effects these actions might have on resources that are present.

Briefly, the National Historic Preservation Act requires that an area threatened by a federally funded and/or regulated project consider cultural resources which might be impacted by project related actions; the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or federal agency involved may request that a cultural resource survey be conducted prior to granting permission to proceed with the proposed project actions. If any cultural resources are identified, they are evaluated in terms of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility criteria. Where NRIHP eligible sites are found to occupy compliance project areas, consultation is initiated which may include the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), the SIHPO, and the governmental agency involved in the project. If an eligible site cannot be avoided, a Memorandum of Agreement may be prepared which would stipulate specific compliance actions to be initiated prior to project actions. The project initiator, if not a federal agency, may be requested to concur. The present project is partially funded or regulated by a federal agency. As a result, cultural resource compliance has been implemented by a federal agency and Missouri SH-PO and the present survey has been carried out in order to meet NIHPA requirements.

4

Project Personnel and Schedule The present project was carried out during December 2010. Principal Investigator and report author is Craig Sturdevant. Sturdevant has a Master of Arts degree in Anthropology from the University of Iowa, Iowa City and meets state and federal requirements for Principal Investigator for cultural resource compliance projects. John Carrel, ERC research associate, was field technician for the project.

The Project The total proposed project area includes approximately 7.5 acres of land located south of Columbia on the east side of US 63 in the commercial area known as Discovery Ridge. A detailed project plan and profile was not included in the scope of work and it was assumed that any cultural resources located within area surveyed would be threatened by project actions. The project is located in Section 33, Township 48 North, Range 12 West, Boone County, Missouri (Figure 1).

The present investigation has been carried out utilizing Phase I survey procedures as outlined in the methods section of this report and available standard procedures for determining presence/absence of buried resources. Findings and recommendations are made with the understanding that it sometimes may not be possible to identify all possibly significant resources within a project area, particularly where vegetation is extremely heavy or valley settings with deep alluvium.

5

[Proprietary Information]

6

INVESTIGATION METHODS Introduction The major goal of the this investigation was the inventory and evaluation of cultural resources within the designated project zone through the use of currently accepted Phase I survey techniques and records and literature review. It is important that sufficient data are collected to allow development of appropriate recommendations concerning the significance of the identified cultural resources in the project zone in terms of National Register of Historic Places (NRH-P) eligibility criteria. The methods and techniques used during the present investigation allowed an intensity of coverage that should have identified all potentially significant cultural resources. Deeply buried sites and very low material density sites are possible to miss no matter how intensive the survey techniques. This study has been initiated in order to carry out federally mandated Section 106 compliance regulations. The scope of work placed emphasis upon identification of cultural resources within the project area along with recovery of sufficient data to allow the Missouri SH-IPO to make an informed determination of possible significance of those resources.

The following section includes a discussion of the methods that have been employed in this study. These consist of a pre-field evaluation of pertinent literature and records from which the field survey techniques and site designation criteria are developed, an intensive pedestrian survey of the project area, an attempt to recover sufficient data for site designation and evaluation in terms of NRHP eligibility requirements, notation of locational information regarding site provenience and physiographic setting, post-field activates involving data analysis, and report preparation.

The methods and techniques and justifications for interpretations are discussed below.

Records & Literature Review A review of relevant publications and records prior to the field component of the study is important in establishing an understanding of the cultural sequence and types of cultural resources which might be expected to occur. The process begins with review of cultural resource management (CRM) reports that have been produced for the areas near the project zone. These reports are housed in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Jefferson City, Missouri and are catalogued by county as well as author. The repository also includes historic -

architecture site forms for the state, NRH-P forms for Missouri, and correspondence regarding the proposed project. Archaeological Survey of Missouri (ASM) records located at the SHPO were also reviewed. The ASM files contain information on reported archaeological sites in Missouri that have been gathered for over 70 years which are catalogued by county and section, township, and range and UTM coordinates. The SHPO GiS data includes overlays illustrating recorded archaeology sites and areas that have been the subject of previous cultural resource surveys. Other resources consulted 7

that contain important data include the state library in Jefferson City, the State Archives in Jefferson City, local historic societies when available, and the State Historic Society in Columbia* Other archaeologists and architectural historians, particularly those employed by the state that are involved with Section 106 procedures, are consulted regarding their knowledge of significant cultural resources in a project area.

Field Procedures The archaeological field component of the present study involved pedestrian coverage of the defined project area by ERC personnel. Transect width utilized ranged from 5 to 15 meters depending upon visibility and site potential based on terrain, streams, and other factors that have been shown to correlate with site presence/absence such as presettlement prairie or woodland setting. All vegetation-free zones are observed for presence of prehistoric cultural materials. Throughout most of Missouri, this can include lithic debitage (chert flakes and shatter), fire-cracked rock, pottery sherds and occasionally bone and shell fragments. Features such as fire hearths and burial tumuli may also be encountered. Where vegetation covers the surface for over 10 meters, shovel tests are implemented. This involves removal of around a 50 cm by 50 cm area of sod and then controlled removal of subsurface soil matrix to depths of up to 50 cm below surface. Soils are carefully observed to determine presence/absence of cultural evidence.

Where soil conditions allow, soils are screened through a portable 1/4 inch screen. Shovel testing that does not include screening of matrix is implemented where larger numbers of shovel tests are necessary and surface visibility conditions are poor. In this instance, soil matrix is removed by shovel and carefully scraped with a trowel to look for prehistoric/early historic evidence.

Where evidence of presence of an archaeological resource is defined, the location is noted on a U.S.G.S. quadrangle and a sketch map and description of the site area are field prepared. Where features or structures are encountered, photographs are taken. The field procedures incorporated in the pedestrian survey are directed toward two major goals: The first was the inventory of all possibly significant cultural resources within the project zone and the second the attempt to recover sufficient information to allow interpretation of NRI-P eligibility of these sites by the MoSH-PO.

While subjective, ERC has developed a set of criteria for determining the presence of an archaeological resource, which are currently accepted by the SHPO as appropriate. These criteria are not presented as appropriate for all situations but as the general practice followed by ERC in making decisions regarding presence/absence of archaeological resources for cultural resource compliance purposes. One extreme would record a site where any evidence of cultural activity occurs. The other extreme would require a significant cultural resource to be present to result in recording a site. The present approach attempts to find a middle ground, which hopefully allows for further consideration for both the cultural resource and the proposed project action prior to threat to either.

8

An archaeology site is designated when evidence of prehistoric and/or early historic land use is present and at least one of the following specific criteria is met:

A. A prehistoric feature is present B. Two or more artifacts are identified within a 10 by 10Om or less area C. A shovel test recovers 2 or more artifacts.

Where a site is identified and when the landowner grants permission, materials recovered by the field investigation are placed in field site number marked collection bags. If permission is not attained, materials are observed and potential diagnostics and tools measured, photographed and left in the field or given to the landowner when requested. When a permanent site number is assigned, retained materials are curated with the site designation. Where material density at a site is obviously high only a representative sample is retained.

Historic architecture resources include structures and features. Where structures are present that are over 45 years old or exhibit some form of possible exceptional significance they are photographed and a description of architectural features is prepared along with preliminary evaluation of NRHP eligibility when located within a direct impact project zone. Historic structures are not recorded where it is obvious that the structures are less than 45 years old and not significant in any other respect. Where an area of potential effect (APE) has been established beyond the physical APE, architectural resources within this defined APE obviously 45 years or older are photographed and located on report maps.

Analysis Procedures Significance of cultural resources is interpreted from National Register of Historic Place eligibility criteria that are listed below:

"The quality of significance in American History, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:

A) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 9

C) that embody the distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishing entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history: (36 CFR Part 60.6).

Cultural resources that are identified during the Phase I survey are evaluated in terms of meeting one or more of the above criteria. In general, archaeological sites most often are evaluated with reference to D above. A statewide planning document was prepared by the DNRIHPP that allows minimal means for evaluation of potential significance of cultural resources (Weichman and Weston 1986). The statewide plan includes information regarding traditions, types of traditions expected, forms of data that may be potentially important, and research questions that can be incorporated in the interpretation of cultural resource significance where available. Generally, a cultural resource will be evaluated on the basis of types of materials recovered (uniqueness, affiliation, type), resource integrity (degree of disturbance), and material/feature density (density and quantity of artifacts and presence and number of potentially extant features such as hearths, house sites, and burial tumuli). Usually, if an archaeological site exhibits sub-plow zone integrity and produces diagnostic artifacts or features, the site is interpreted as significant in that it would very likely contain sufficient data to contribute to the understanding of the cultural history of the area and meet NRHP eligibility criterion D. The consultant makes recommendations regarding NRHP eligibility. The determination of eligibility process requires consultation with the SH-PO and the federal agency involved in the project.

Statement of Findings and Recommendations Where ERC locates a cultural resource within the designated project boundaries, recommendations of significance and justification are made to the MoSHPO and the federal agency involved. A decision regarding significance would be made at that level in terms of possible NRH-P eligibility of the resource. Recommendations that may be made include "not eligible for NRHP status", "possibly eligible for NRHP status", or "eligible for NRIHP status." Where a recommendation of not eligible is accepted by the SHPO and federal agency a proposed compliance project can proceed as planned; a recommendation of possibly eligible results in agency request that the project be modified to avoid the resource or given further evaluation in order to establish NRH-IP eligibility; a recommendation of eligible results in a request to modify the project to avoid the cultural resource or proceed with the consultation process as outlined by 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties that governs the Section 106 review process established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended.

10

PROJECT SETTING Environmental Setting The project area lies on the border of the Dissected Till Plains to the north and Ozark Plateau on the south in Central Lowlands Province of North America. The bedrock in the area consists of Mississippian limestones covered with varying depths of clays and glacial drift as well as limestone residuum and colluvium and alluvium (cf.

Branson 1944; Stout and Hoffman 1973).

The project is located within a presettlement prairie zone (Kucera 1961; Schroeder 19891:7) in an upland divide between Cedar Creek on the east and Bonne Femme headwaters on the west. The area exhibited a wide variety of indigenous floral species in the past (Chapman 1975:12-16). Early surveyors list several species of oak, hickory, black walnut, hackberry, sycamore, elm, and elders in the bottoms along with open oak-hickory upland woodlands to the east, west, and south and grasses that would have included Big and Little Bluestem, Indian Grass, Switch Grass, Side-oats Grama, and pockets of Bluejoint and Canada Wild Rye in the project area (Allgood and Persinger 1979:60).

Some species of animals present during the pioneer period have been extirpated from their former ranges since the Euro-American settlement of the area. These species include gray wolf, elk, and bison (Chapman 1975). The mountain lion and black bear occur rarely in the forested regions of the interior Ozark Highlands (Wood and McMillan 1976). More common species in the drainage basin include white-tailed deer, gray fox, red fox, coyote, raccoon, beaver, bobcat, mink, opossum, muskrat, spotted skunk, squirrels, rabbit, and woodchuck. It is probable that the project area exhibited typical prairie/woodland ecotonal populations in which a variety of large and small game was available in both woodland and prairie settings.

The climate within the project area is midcontinental and experiences temperature extremes both seasonally and on a day-to-day basis. This area of Missouri is in the path of cold air moving down out of Canada, warm moist air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico, and dry air from the west. The mean annual precipitation in the area is around 40 inches which includes 12 to 17 inches of snow per year. The mean length of the growing season is around 187 days. The killing freezes generally begin between October 15 and 20 and end between April 15 and 20 (Chapman 1975).

The project area exhibits few characteristics suggesting high potential for presence of intensive or extensive prehistoric occupation. The counties north of the Missouri river exhibit an ecotonal situation that included a relatively high percentage of presettlement prairie and lesser amount of presettlement woodland (Schroeder 1981).

While Boone County was made up only of 16% presettlement prairie, the present project occupies the only expansive prairie zone in the county. Earlier studies have well l1

illustrated the finding that known prehistoric occupations in the region are almost entirely located within presettlement woodland zones with less than 3% of the known prehistoric sites found within presettlement prairie zones (cf. Sturdevant 1983). Another major consideration that appears to have entered into prehistoric site selection involved availability of cherts that were a primary raw material for much of the subsistence technology. Bedrock in the general area does include Missisippian age cherts that were utilized extensively by prehistoric occupants as raw material for tools. These cherts would not have been easily accessible in the project area. The project setting would have also lacked immediate availability of a consistent water supply necessary to support any intensive or extensive human habitation resulting in a low prehistoric site potential.

Cultural Setting The project is located in the Central Missouri Drainage Basin (Figure 2). The occupation of Missouri by prehistoric populations has been generally established to include nine to ten traditions (cf. Chapman 1975; 1980). These traditions apply in varying degree to the entire state with some traditions often not accounted for in specific drainages. These traditions are incorporated in what is called the cultural sequence which is a major factor utilized in interpretation of cultural data, particularly regarding National Register of Historic Place (NRHP) significance. These traditions are listed below in the sequence provided by Chapman (1975; 1980).

Paleo-Indian 12000 to 8000 B.C.

Dalton 8000 to 7000 B.C.

Early Archaic 7000 to 5000 B.C.

Middle Archaic 5000 to 3000 B.C.

Late Archaic 3000 to 1000 B.C.

Early Woodland 1000 to 500 B.C.

Middle Woodland 500 B.C. to A.D. 400 Late Woodland A.D. 400 to 900 Mississippian A.D. 900 to 1400 Paleo-Indian: With the exception of a possible earlier "Early Man" tradition, the Paleo-Indian is generally accepted as the earliest known occupation of Missouri. These specialized hunters lived in small nomadic bands or family groups and left some traces of their transitory settlement pattern in the forms of hunting camps, kill sites, quarry sites, and possibly small base camps (cf. Ford 1974:388). The major diagnostic materials associated with the occupation includes the Clovis and Folsom fluted spear/knife points.

Most fluted point finds have been located along major river valleys such as the Missouri River although some have been recovered along streams such as the Moreau River. This has been suggested to indicate that these nomadic hunters and gatherers followed these streams in their movement through the Midwest area. Chapman indicates that his division of the Northeast and Northwest Prairie region at a point in Cooper and Howard counties above Boonville on the Missouri River separates the major occupation zones of the 12

SCALE O 4o 88 Ult.IS O 30 GO 00 120 KILOM(TI[RS SAgSIS tPOIGOPtORAI~GAG Figure 2.

DNR Study Unit/DrainageBasin Location of Project Paleo-Indian populations. That is, the steep bluffs below this point appear to have been more conducive to Paleo-Indian occupation than the more prairie related terrain above this point. Fluted points are generally more plentiful below this point toward St. Louis than above this point toward Kansas City (Chapman 1975:75). Chapman's review of Paleo-Indian diagnostics illustrates larger numbers of reported fluted points beginning in Howard County and continuing toward St. Louis with a small number reported from Callaway County (1975:67).

Dalton: Chapman characterizes the Dalton period as a time of transition from Paleo-Indian big game hunting to the hunting-foraging subsistence strategy of the following Archaic period (1975:96). All known Dalton sites in Missouri are small camps 13

and all apparently represent short-term utilization. The basic Paleo-Indian tool kit was still in use during Dalton times although tools associated with plant food processing were added. Point types with long flutes have been replaced by types with basal thinning and or short flutes. The major diagnostic includes the Dalton Serrated and perhaps the Dalton adze. Distribution roughly parallels the Paleo-Indian.

Early Archaic: By the Early Archaic the transition to a subsistence pattern based on foraging was well underway. Subsistence activities were broadened to exploit more ecological niches. Hunting and gathering continued as the major economic activities but emphasis was placed on aquatic resources and vegetal foods. Although nomadic wandering was being replaced by "a regular hunting-gathering range with specific base camp sites that were returned to at regular intervals" (Chapman 1975:135), the typical Early Archaic site continued to be a small hunting and or collecting camp. These are found in a variety of environmental settings throughout Missouri including upland ridges near small ephemeral streams, upland bluff edges, rock shelters, and the margins of high bottomland terraces. Diagnostics of Early Archaic include Graham Cave Notched that has been recovered in the general area (Chapman 1975). Hardin Barbed is also generally associated with Early Archaic occupation.

Middle Archaic: The Middle Archaic was basically a continuation and expansion of a forager tradition begun in the Dalton and Early Archaic. A drying climate forced greater reliance upon collecting vegetal foods and small animals as opposed to wet environment subsistence. Sites continued to be small, exhibiting semi-nomadic or seasonal occupation with no specific topographic location associated (Chapman 1975:159). The tool kit continued to expand, depending upon the extraction activity in the specific niche. The drying climate was reflected in the marked tendency for Middle Archaic sites to be located almost exclusively in or very near bottomland settings (Chapman 1975). There are no complexes associated with the period in this general area.

Collectors in the area often have Big Sandy formls in their collections. It is assumed that Middle Archaic was present but in an as yet poorly defined situation. Site forms for the drainage are inconclusive in terms of presence of Middle Archaic diagnostics.

Late Archaic: The Late Archaic is somewhat better known than earlier traditions.

This is a result of the greater population apparently represented by the Late Archaic which resulted in more expansive and numerous occupations. This period generally lacks the small dart point of the earlier traditions that suggests that hunting had become less important for subsistence. In addition, tool kit function appears to have expanded suggesting reliance on a much larger variety of potential foods requiring varied extraction and processing techniques. The Late Archaic began toward the climax of a warming trend that reached its height around 2000 B.C. (Cleland 1966), with a resultant diminishing of the faunal and floral forest species. The Late Archaic peoples had to adapt to new ecological niches with concomitant changes in subsistence related artifacts.

Emphasis was probably placed on a method of procurement that could effectively exploit various types of resources which were available in reliable quantities at varying seasons.

Using a central-based wandering settlement pattern in which the particular seasonal 14

resources available would determine the type and location of temporary camps radiating from more permanent occupation sites, Late Archaic settlement pattern appears to have been somewhat more restricted than previous foraging traditions. Diagnostic artifacts of this period include the Sedalia Lanceolate and Diggers, Clear Fork Gouge, Smith Basal Notch, Afton, Etley, Nebo Hill, Stone Square, as well as 3/4 groove granite axes.

Evidence of the Sedalia complex are often found just over the crown of the slope of high ridges (Chapman 1975:200). Late Archaic occupations are one of the more commonly identified traditions in the drainage according to ASM records.

Early Woodland: The Early Woodland period is identified by presence of Black Sand Incised pottery and is poorly represented throughout most of Missouri. In spite of intensive surveys in various areas of the state, only a few unquestionable Early Woodland sites have been identified and include Avondale, Renner, and Shields sites in the Kansas City area and a few in the northeast portion of the state. These and other possible Early Woodland sites are generally found in the major river valleys, particularly along the Missouri River.

Middle Woodland: The Middle Woodland period occupation in northern Missouri is focused on three related regional centers: The Havana center in the Lower Illinois River Valley and adjacent Mississippi River valley in the northeast, the Kansas City Hopewell, and Big Bend centers. The latter two are on the Missouri River.

Analyses of pottery from the three centers indicate there was an intrusion of people into the Big Bend and Kansas City areas from the Havana center to the east (Wedel 1943) although the initial intrusion appears to have been related to subsistence and/or political stress (Struever & Houart 1972) in the Havana center, contacts among the three centers was maintained throughout the Middle Woodland period (Chapman 1980). These continued contacts insured the Big Bend and Kansas City areas of a place in the Classic Middle Woodland's Hopewell Interaction Sphere. Evidence for a Middle Woodland occupation is very sparse outside of the areas noted. Some rock shelters and open habitation sites in the general area have produced Middle Woodland diagnostics and Chapman identified south Boone County as a major Middle Woodland center (1980).

There has been no corroborating evidence through field investigations regarding the assertion by Chapman. In general, with the exception of the Big Bend and Kansas City Hopewell, Middle Woodland diagnostics usually are interpreted from lithics such as Snyders points with ceramics reflecting Hopewellian occupation lacking but for the centers.

Late Woodland: The Late Woodland period exhibits the most numerous defined components within prehistoric sites in the general project area. The occupation in this portion of Missouri has sometimes been defined as a regression from the preceding traditions in that emphasis on horticulture developed earlier in the Woodland was supplanted by earlier hunting subsistence reliance. This pattern is seen in the increase in small temporary camps along with use of bow and arrow. Diagnostics include grit and limestone tempered pottery, arrow points, burial mounds, and shallow side notched points. Several Late Woodland sites have been identified in the county including both 15

open habitation sites and burial tumuli. A large number the archaeological sites identified in the general project area have exhibited Late Woodland diagnostics (Sturdevant 1978).

Mississippian: The Early Mississippian period is not well documented in the general area of the project. Steed-Kisker, an Early Mississippi phase, is located in the Kansas City area while Cahokia and the St. Louis area represent a climax associated with Early Mississippian (Chapman 1980). Diagnostics for this period include small triangular arrow points and shell tempered ceramics. Where Early Mississippian experienced climax levels, temples and towns were part of the settlement pattern. In the immediate area only triangular points and an occasional shell tempered sherd have been reported. Early Mississippian Steed-Kisker people apparently abandoned the Kansas City area around A.D. 1250 and around A.D. 1350 the Oneota cultural tradition appeared suddenly in the Big Bend area near the junction of the Grand, Chariton, and Missouri rivers. It is speculated that Oneota developed in northern Missouri and Iowa and its formation was stimulated by developments at the Cahokia center. While the extent of Cahokia influences remains unknown, cultural developments of the period in that area have been connected to the cultural background and growth of the historic Siouan-speaking people (Griffin 1960). The most prominent Oneota village in the Big Bend area is the Utz site and it was there the Utz phase, which documents the Oneota culture of the area, was defined. The Utz phase, and the Oneota occupation, began at about A.D.

1350 and lasted to the end of the Mississippian period (A.D. 1700) when Oneota blends into what is recognized as the Historic Missouri Indian tribe.

Historic Period: During the period from 1730 to 1790, the Missouri tribe was being depleted by smallpox and its power was continually being tested by its enemies to the north. By the 1780's, the Missouri became heavily dependent on their allies the Osage for protection. In spite of this, the Sac and Fox conquered and dispersed the Missouri tribe in the 1790's. Those who were not killed joined the Osage, Kansas, and Oto tribes. The great smallpox epidemic of 1823 reduced their numbers to less than one hundred and Missouri as a distinct cultural entity became extinct. The last full-blood Missouri Indian died on the Oto reservation in 1907 (Chapman 1946:29).

The lands encompassed by the project were but a small part of North American territory claimed by France until 1762 when it was transferred to Spain by secret treaty.

Spain retroceded the land to France in 1801 and France ended up selling it to the U.S. in 1803 as the Louisiana Purchase. In 1812, congress created the Territory of Missouri and in 1821 Missouri was recognized as the twenty-first state (March 1963). In general, the post-1800 history of central Missouri reflects both the general patterns of agricultural developments in the Midwest and specific influences which shaped the region. The process of early settlement and the struggle to produce beyond a meager subsistence, the expansion of the agricultural and commercial activities and creation of a stable society, followed by an era in which regional concerns were shaped by state and national trends, are all recognized as part of the evolution of the Midwest. In the case of northern Missouri, anl understanding of its Euro-American past requires recognition of the 16

influence of the settlers themselves and of the land which they occupied. The early settlers came primarily from the Upper South, especially Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Prior to the Civil War, first tobacco and then corn played an important role in the agricultural economy of the region. The first permanent settlers began entering the area in the early 1800's, a process that really began only after the acquisition of the Louisiana territory by the U.S. in 1803. Congress created the territory of Missouri in 1812 and nine years later recognized Missouri as the twenty-first state (Meyer 1963).

The rapid development fr-om uncharted wilderness to statehood stemmed directly from the massive westward movement of population during the early nineteenth century. Most of the settlers who came to mid-Missouri were attracted to the land. The fertile soil, adequate rainfall, and a growing season that averaged six months a year made the region particularly well-suited for agriculture. A rich, friable loam predominated, with substantial stands of timber which provided building materials and generally reminded the immigrants of the lands which they had left behind.

The background of the settlers made them receptive to cultivating a crop that would reproduce the agricultural patterns of their native states. Most of the early settlers came from the Upper South that included slave holding states. March (1967) suggests that within the "slave belt" through central Missouri, major crops included hemp and tobacco. These crops, particularly tobacco, demand intensive labor for productivity.

Tobacco is generally favored as a cash crop in that it produced a greater value in proportion to bulk when compared to grain crops. In areas such as the project, transportation would have been a problem prior to the railways. Cash crops such as tobacco in areas that did not provide viable river transportation soon shifted to local consumption crops such as corn and wheat. While not well documented at present, it is apparent that agricultural pursuits were almost entirely geared toward corn and wheat by the time of the Civil War. It is further apparent that slave holding had begun to drop at a relatively high rate prior to the Civil War (Campbell 1874). The land and its location, then, became major shaping forces of the economic system of the area, altering the previous patterns established in the southeast and brought to the Midwest. The coming of the railroad in the 1850's through the 1870's opened the interior to greater trade and agricultural products have been the major source of livelihood in the general area since this time.

17

INVESTIGATION FINDINGS Records and Literature Review Boone County, Missouri currently contains 49 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties. These include the following:

Ballenger Building (Downtown Columbia, Missouri MPS), 27-29 South Ninth St.,

Columbia (1/21/04)

Bond's Chapel Methodist Episcopal Church, MO A, 2.5 mi. NE of Hartsburg, Hartsburg vicinity (9/09/93)

Boone. John W. ("Blind"). House (Social Institutions of Columbia'sBlack Comm unity TR [see note*]), 4th St. between E Broadway and Walnut, Columbia (9/04/80)

Central Dairy Building (Downtown Columbia, Missouri MPS), 1104-1106 East Broadway, Columbia (1/20/05)

Chance, Albert Bishop. House and Gardens. 319 E Sneed St., Centralia (7/03/79)

Chatol (F. Gano Chance House, Chance Guest House), 543 S Jefferson, Centralia (4/20/79)

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Building (Downtown Columnbia. MissouriMPS), 10 Bitt St.,

Columbia (2/14/06)

Columbia Cemetery, 30 East Broadway, Columbia (2/01/07)

Columbia National Guard Armory, 701 E Ash St., Columbia (3/25/93)

Conley, Sanford F.. House, 602 Sanford P1., Columbia (12/18/73)

Douglass, Fred, School (Social Institu~tions of Columbia'sBlack Community TR [see note*]), 310 N Providence Rd. (9/04/80)

Downtown Columbia Historic District (Downtown Coluimbia, Missouri MPS; ma [see note]), parts of 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, E. Broadway, Cherry, Hitt, Locust, and E. Walnut Streets, Columbia (11/08/06)

Downtown Columbia Historic District (Downtown Columbia, Missouri MPS; boundary increase), 1019,1020,1023 & 1025-33 E. Walnut St., Columbia (5/08/08) 18

East Campus Neighborhood Historic District, roughly bounded by Bouchelle, College, University, and High Sts., including parts of Willis, Bass, Dorsey, and Anthony Sts.,

Columbia (2/16/96)

Eighth Broadway Historic District [Miller Building, Matthews Hardware, Metropolitan Building], 800-8 10 E. Broadway Blvd., Columbia (4/22/03)

Elkins, Samuel H. and Isabel Smith, House, 315 N 10th St., Columbia (9/12/96)

First Christian Church, 101 N 10th St., Columbia (10/29/91)

Francis Ouadrangle Historic District (Red Campus), bounded by Conley Ave., Elm, 6th and 9th Sts., Columbia (12/18/73)

Frederick Apartments, 1001 University Ave., Columbia (4/16/13)

Gordon, David, House and Collins Lo2 Cabin (Gordon Manor, Fairmount, Cedar View), 2100 E Broadway, Columbia (8/29/83)

Gordon Tract Archaeological Site, address restricted (3/16/72)

Greenwood (Greenwood Heights), 3005 Mexico Gravel Rd., Columbia (1/15/79)

Guitar, David, House (Confederate Hill), 2815 Oakland Gravel Rd., Columbia (9/09/93)

Hackmnan, Samuel E., Building, 30 S St., Hartsburg (12/10/98)

Hamilton-Brown Shoe Factory, 1123 Wilkes Blvd., Columbia (7/19/02)

Hunt, William B., House, 8939 W Terrapin Hills Rd., Columbia vicinity (1/09/97)

Kress Building (Downtown Cohumbia, Missouri MPS), 1025 E. Broadway, Columbia (3/09/05)

Maplewood, Nifong Blvd. and Ponderosa Dr., Columbia (4/13/79)

McCain Furniture Store (Downtown Cohumbia, Missouri MPS), 916 E. Walnut, Columbia (8/1 7/05)

Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad Depot, 402 E Broadway, Columbia (1/29/79)

Missouri State Teachers Association, 407 S 6th St., Columbia (9/04/80)

Missouri Theater, 201-2 15 S 9th St., Columbia (6/06/79) 19

Missouri United Methodist Church, 204 S 9th St., Columbia (9/04/80)

Mount Zion Church and Cemetery (Rural Church Architecture of Missouri, c. 1819 to

c. 1945 MPS), 11070 Mount Zion Rd., Hallsville vicinity (1/14/13)

North Ninth Street Historic District (Downtown Columbia. Missouri MPS) (_map_ [see note]), 5-36 North Ninth St., Columbia ( 1/21/04)

Payne, Moses U., House, 201 N Roby Farm Rd., Rocheport vicinity (10/07/94)

Pierce Pennant Motor Hotel (Candlelight Lodge), 1406 Old Hwy. 40 W, Columbia (9/02/82)

Rocheport Historic District, MO 240, Rocheport (10/08/76)

St. Paul's A.M.E. Church (Social Institutions of Cohumbia'sBlack Community TR [see note*]), 501 Park St. (9/04/80)

Sanborn Field and Soil Erosion Plots, University of Missouri Campus, Columbia (10/15/66; NHL 7/19/64)

Second Baptist Church (Social Institutions of C'olumbia'sBlack Community, TR [see note*]), 407 E Broadway (9/04/80)

Second Christian Church (Social Institutions of Columbia'is Black Comm unity TR [see note*]), 401 N 5th St. (9/04/80)

Senior Hall, Stephens College Campus, Columbia (8/02/77)

Stephens College. South Campgus, 1200 E. Broadway, Columbia (11/25/05)

Taylor. John N. and Elizabeth, House, 716 West Broadway, Columbia (5/25/01)

Titer Hotel, 23 S 8th St., Columbia (2/29/80)

Virginia Building~, 111 South Ninth Street, Columbia (3/13/02)

Wabash Railroad Station and Freight House (Norfolk and Western Depot), 126 N 10th St., Columbia (10/11/79)

West Broadway Historic District, 300-922 W. Broadway (except 800, 808, 812),

Columbia (4/27/10)

Wright Brothers Mule Barn, 1101-1107 Hinkson Ave. & 501-507 Fay St., Columbia (11/01/07) 20

There are no previously recorded prehistoric archaeology sites within the project boundaries (Figure 3). [Proprietary Information] The project area contains no recorded historic architecture or possibly significant historic events.

Review of 1 9 th and 2 0 th century plat maps and 2 0 th century USGS topographic quadrangles found no evidence of structures within the proposed project area. The 1967/81 USGS topographic quadrangle does not illustrate any structures in the project boundaries.

Field Investigation Findings The field investigation was carried out under generally mixed to poor surface visibility conditions averaging less than 20% in a grass/hay setting (Figure 4). Shovel tests were utilized in order to interpret presence/absence of cultural resources as described in the methods section of this report. The presence of erosion cuts and paths along with shovel tests allowed for a sample of subsurface soil matrix for interpretation of potential for presence/absence of buried cultural resources.

The field investigation failed to identify any evidence of the presence of prehistoric occupation of the area. Typically, this includes presence of chert debitage, fire-cracked rock, lithic artifacts, and occasionally ceramics. None of these materials were encountered on the surface or in shovel tests. No prehistoric sites have been recorded.

Historic resources include recently constructed roads which do not meet the investigators' historic site designation criteria. No historic sites have been recorded.

It is the finding of this Phase I cultural resources survey that Lot 15 in the Discovery Ridge development contains no possibly significant cultural resources.

21

[Proprietary Information]

22

I IFigure ap Scale 4,

= 1s275 Aerial Photographof Project Area Surveyed (YELLOW)9

RECOMMENDATIONS During September 2013 a Phase I cultural resources survey was carried out for a 7.5 acre tract of land at Discovery Ridge, Boone County, Missouri. The area is the location of a proposed commercial development project.

There are no National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties located within the proposed project area; DNR GIS records indicate presence of no recorded archaeology sites within the project boundaries; and no recorded Missouri DNR historic architectural sites are present within the project area of potential effect (APE). 19 th century plat maps do not illustrate any structures within the project area.

The field investigation was carried out under poor surface visibility conditions in a grass/hay setting. Shovel testing was implemented following guidelines described in this report. No evidence of the presence of prehistoric occupation was identified within the project area. No evidence of the presence of early historic occupation was identified within the project boundaries.

On the basis of the negative findings regarding presence of possibly significant cultural resources, it is the recommendation of this Phase I cultural resources survey that the proposed project proceed as planned in terms of Section 106 compliance concerns.

No significant cultural resources will be threatened by the proposed project actions.

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aligood, F. P. and I. D. Persinger 1979 Missouri General Soil Map and Soil Association Descriptions.

Soil Conservation Service. Columbia.

Asch, D. I.

1976 The Middle Woodland Population of the Lower Illinois River Valley: A Study in Paleodemographic Methods.

Northwestern University Archaeological Program, Scientific Papers. 1.

Baker, M.

1984 Analysis of Refuse Pits 23CO 156, Cole County, Missouri.

M.A. Thesis. UMC. Anthropology Department.

Boone County Land Assessment Book 1875 through 1931. State Archives.

Branson, E. B.

1944 The Geology of Missouri. University of Missouri Studies.

Vol. 19, No. 3. Columbia.

Broadhead, G. C.

1890 Prehistoric Evidences in Missouri.. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for the Year 1878. Washington D.C.

Campbell, R. A.

1874 Gazetteer of Missouri. R.A. Campbell. St. Louis.

Chapman, C. H.

1975 The Archaeology of Missouri I. University of Missouri Press. Columbia.

1980 The Archaeology of Missouri II. University of Missouri Press.

Cleland, C. E.

1976 The Focal-Diffuse Model: An Evolutional Perspective on the Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations of the Eastern U. S. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology. 1:59-76.

25

Collier, J. E.

1955 Geographic Regions of Missouri. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 45 (4):368-92.

Conard, H. L.

1901 Encyclopedia of the History of Missouri. The Southern History Company. New York.

Denny, S. G.

1964 A Re-evaluation of the Boone Focus: A Late Woodland Manifestation in Central Missouri. M.A. Thesis, UMC.

Edwards Brothers 1875 Historical Atlas of Boone County, Missouri. Edwards Brothers Philadelphia.

Evans, D. R., E. G. Garrison, and D. J. Ives 1977 Cultural Resources Survey: Columbia, Missouri, Phase I Sewer Improvements. EPA.

Fowkes, G.

1910 Antiquities of Central and Southeastern Missouri. Smithsonian Institute, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 37. Washington D.C.

Grantham, L.

1977 Cultural Resources Survey Long Branch Lake: Archaeology Resources. COE.

Griffin, J. B.

1961 Some Correlations of Climate and Cultural Change in Eastern North American Prehistory. Anal New York Academy of Science. 95:710-717.

Haas, D.

1978 An Archaeological Survey of the Little Femme Osage River Hills Area and the Loutre River Valley. DNR.

Howe, W. B. and J. W. Koenig 1963 The Stratigraphic Succession in Missouri. Geological Survey and Water Resources Series 3.

Klippel, W. E.

1965 An Archaeological Investigation of the Lower Osage River Valley in Missouri. M.A. Thesis, UMC.

26

Kay, M.

1980 The Central Missouri Hopewell Subsistence - Settlement System. Missouri Archaeological Society, Research Series No. 15.

March, D. D.

1967 The History of Missouri. Lewis Historical Company.

New York.

Martin, T.

1983 An Archaeological Survey in the Middle Drainage - Lamine River. DNR/HPP Grant. Jefferson City.

Northup, B. B.

2001 We are Not Yet Conquered: The History of the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory. Turner Publ. Co. Paducah, Kentucky.

Northwest Publishing Co.

1898 Plat Map of Boone County, Missouri. Northwest Publishing Co.

Philadelphia.

O'Brien, M.

1984 Archaeological Testing of the Route 63, Boone County Project, Missouri. MoDOT.

Ogle, G. A.

1917 Standard Atlas of Boone County, Missouri. George A. Ogle & Co.

Chicago.

Raisz, I.

1957 Physiographic Regions of the U.S. Map.

Reeder, R. L., E. E. Voigt, and M. J. O'Brien 1983 Investigations in the Lower Perche - Hinkson Drainage.

EPA.

Rollins, J. S.

1853 Land Entry Atlas of 1853. Boone County, Missouri - State Archives.

Schmits, L. J.

1981 Archaeological Investigations at the Roddy Site (23BO966) and the Coates Sites (23BO965), Boone County, Missouri. EPA.

27

Schmits, L. et al.

1985 Prehistory of the Lower Perche- Hinkson Drainage Central Missouri Archaeological Investigations at the Columbia Regional Wastewater treatment Facility.

Shoemaker, F. C.

1943 Missouri and Missourians. Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago.

Stevens, W. B.

1915 Missouri the Center State, Vol. II. S. J. Clarke Publishing, St. Louis.

Struever, S. and G. I. Houart 1972 An Analysis of Hopewell Interaction Sphere: IN Social Exchange and Interaction. E. N. Wilmsen editor. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology. Anthropological Papers. No. 3.

Sturdevant, C.

1976 Cultural Resource Survey, Algoa Reformatory, Cole County, Missouri. DNR/I-IPP.

1989 Phase IIl Data Recovery, 23CY499, Callaway County, Missouri.

MoDOT.

Wedel, M. M.

1943 Archaeological Investigations in Platte and Clay Counties, Missouri. U. S. National Museum Bulletin, No. 183.

Weichman, M. S. and D. Weston 1986 Master Plan for Archaeological Resource Protection in Missouri. DNR/HPP. Jefferson City.

28

t *. * ,* Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon. Governor

• Sara Parker Paudey, Director

.... T OF NATURAL RESOURCES

• .*.*;www.dnr.mo

• .*. gov October 10, 2013 Carolyn Haas Vice President/Technical Program Director Northwest Medical Isotopes. LLC 815 NW 9m Avenue, Suite 256 Corvallis, Oregon 97330 Re: Lot 15, Discovery Ridge (NRC) Boone County, Missouri

Dear Ms. Haas:

Thank you for submitting information on the above referenced project for our review pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (P.L.89-665, as amended) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulation 36 CFR Part 800, which requires identification and evaluation of cultural resources.

We have reviewed the September 2013 report entitled CulturalResource Investigations, Phase / Survey, Lot 156- Discovery Ridge, Boone County, Missouri by the Environmental Research Center of Missouri, Inc. Based on this review it is evident that a thorough and adequate cultural resources survey has been conducted of the project area. We concur with the investigators recommendation that there will be no historic properties affected and, therefore, we have no objection to the initiation of project activities.

Please be advised that, should project plans change, information documenting the revisions should be submitted to this office for further review. In the event that cultural materials are encountered during project activities, all construction should be halted, and this office notified as soon as possible in order to determine the appropriate course of action.

If you have any questions, please write Judith Deel at State Historic Preservation Office, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 or call 5731751-7862. Please be sure to include the SHPO Log Number (003-B0-14) on all future correspondence or inquiries relating to this project.

Sincerely, STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE Mark A. Miles Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer MAM:jd c Larry W. Camper, NRC Craig Sturdevant, ERC Rt c)frtd 3

Pale~r

This page intentionally left blank.