ML18025B170: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML18025B170
| number = ML18025B170
| issue date = 06/30/2015
| issue date = 06/30/2015
| title = Official Exhibit - NRC-006H-MA-CM01 - Northwest Medical Isotopes, Llc, Construction Permit Application - Psar, NWMI-2013-021, Rev. Oa, Chapter 19, Beginning Through 19-130 (Jun. 2015)
| title = Official Exhibit - NRC-006H-MA-CM01 - Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Construction Permit Application - PSAR, NWMI-2013-021, Rev. Oa, Chapter 19, Beginning Through 19-130 (Jun. 2015)
| author name =  
| author name =  
| author affiliation = NRC/OGC
| author affiliation = NRC/OGC
Line 13: Line 13:
| document type = Legal-Exhibit
| document type = Legal-Exhibit
| page count = 154
| page count = 154
| revision = 0
}}
}}
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of:            NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, LLC (Medical Radioisotope Production Facility)
Commission Mandatory Hearing Docket #: 05000609 NRC-006H Exhibit #: NRC-006H-MA-CM01                Identified: 1/23/2018 Admitted: 1/23/2018                        Withdrawn:
Rejected:                                    Stricken:
Other:
Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review NWMI                    NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Radioisotope Production Facility NWMI-2013-021, Rev. QA June 2015 Construction Permit Application for
                    @0.
                          *OoOO.
Prepared by:
o°
                        .ooO0...*
Aye, Suite 256 S
I00 Corvallis, Oregon 97330
: o. 00 o~
o*.
Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 9th 815 NW
O
* S*°
* S. O    o 0..0 o00 o*O*O
: o. @OooOo
                    .0 O 0
00.
0.
NWMI NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A June 2015 Prepared by:
Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 815 NW    9th Ave, Suite 256 Corvallis, Oregon 97330
* S. g    g
              .00
                .O OO 0 gOo
                        *Oo~ . NWMI NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A June 2015 Prepared by:
Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 815 NW 9th Ave, Suite 256 Corvallis, Oregon 97330
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0 ISOTOPES Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review
. .,..NORTHWEOSTMEDIAL This page intentionally left blank.
  *;JI!!NWM I                                                      NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Chapter 19.0            -  Environmental Review Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMI-2013-021, Rev. QA Date Published:
June 29, 2015
==Title:==
Chapter 19.0, Environmental Review Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility Approved by Carolyn Haass              Signature:  C wtiY      c*
                                                                  * #o-
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
  !NWM I I.:
ORTHWdEST MEDCAL SOTAPES Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review This page intentionally left blank.
* e.B WMI
    ,NORTHWEST MEDCIO TOE Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
                                                                      - Environmental Review Rev                  Date        Reason for Revision                    Revised By 0              1/5/2015            Initial Report                      Not required OA              6/29/20 15 Update due to maturation of design              C. Haass
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
:!::!NWM I
* ,.          MEDCALISOTOPS
    ...5ORTHWEST Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review This page intentionally left blank.
:      l                                                            ChaperI1NWM-2013-o2, Chpter 9.0 -Environmental Rev.      OA Review
  * ... NORTHWEST MREDICAL ISOTOPES CONTENTS 19.0      ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .............................................................. 19-1 19.1 Introduction............................................................................. 19-1 19.1.1 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................ 19-3 19.1.1.1 Background...................................................... 19-3 19.1.1.2 Molybedum-99 History......................................... 19-4 19.1.1.3 Molybdenum Today ............................................ 19-6 19.1.2 Regulatory Provisions, Permits and Required Consultations............. 19-7 19.1.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency....................... 19-7 19.1.2.2 U.S. Department of Transportation............................ 19-9 19.1.2.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers............................... 19-10 19.1.2.4 Occupational Safety and Health Administration ........... 19-10 19.1.2.5 Missouri State Agencies ...................................... 19-10 19.1.2.6 Local Governments............................................ 19-14 19.1.2.7 Permit and Approval Status .................................. 19-17 19.1.3 Consultation and Coordination............................................. 19-21 19.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................... 19-23 19.2.1 Description of Proposed Action and Connected Actions ................ 19-23 19.2.1.1 Schedule........................................................ 19-24 19.2.1.2 Affected Land.................................................. 19-24 19.2.1.3 Personnel, Materials, and Equipment Required During Project Phases.................................................. 19-24 19.2.1.4 Applicant for the Proposed Action........................... 19-25 19.2.2 Radioisotope Production Facility Site Location and Layout ............ 19-25 19.2.2.1 Site Location ................................................... 19-25 19.2.2.2 Site Layout ..................................................... 19-29 19.2.2.3 Infrastructure Improvements.................................. 19-31 19.2.2.4 Existing Infrastructure ........................................ 19-3 1 19.2.2.5 Other Nearby Facilities/Buildings ........................... 19-3 1 19.2.2.6 Monitoring Stations ........................................... 19-31 19.2.3 Radioisotope Production Facility Description............................ 19-32 19.2.3.1 Process Description............................................ 19-37 19.2.3.2 Facility Areas .................................................. 19-40 19.2.4 Water Consumption and Treatment ....................................... 19-47 19.2.4.1 Water Consumption ........................................... 19-47 19.2.4.2 Water Sources Independent of Municipal or Commercial Supply ........................................... 19-48 19.2.4.3 Water Treatment............................................... 19-48 19.2.5 Cooling and Heating Dissipating Systems ................................ 19-48 19.2.5.1 Cooling Water Systems ....................................... 19-48 19.2.5.2 Heating Systems ............................................... 19-49 19.2.5.3 Heat Dissipation Systems..................................... 19-49 19.2.6 Auxiliary Systems........................................................... 19-49
NWM'
:lvChater19.0
  .... NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES ChpeIWI-030                    ev. O
                                                                                      - Environmental Review 19.2.7 Waste Systems............................................................... 19-49 19.2.7.1  Process System Liquid Wastes............................... 19-50 19.2.7.2  Process System Solid Waste.................................. 19-50 19.2.7.3  Waste Handling Process Systems............................ 19-5 1 19.2.7.4  Construction Waste............................................ 19-52 19.2.7.5 Recycling and Reclamation .................................. 19-52 19.2.8 Storage, Treatment, and Transportation of Radioactive and Nonradioactive Materials, including Fuel, Waste, Radioisotopes, and Any Other Materials................................................... 19-54 19.2.8.1  Storage and Treatment ........................................ 19-54 19.2.8.2  Transportation of Material.................................... 19-55 19.3    Affected Environment................................................................ 19-58 19.3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources............................................ 19-58 19.3.1.1  Land Use ....................................................... 19-58 19.3.1.2  Visual Resources............................................... 19-65 19.3.2 Air Quality and Noise....................................................... 19-75 19.3.2.1  General Regional Climate .................................... 19-75 19.3.2.2  Air Quality ..................................................... 19-83 19.3.2.3  Noise............................................................ 19-85 19.3.3 Geologic Environment...................................................... 19-86 19.3.3.1  Regional Geology ............................................. 19-86 19.3.3.2  Geology at the Proposed Site................................. 19-89 19.3.3.3  Site-Specific Volcanic Hazard Analysis..................... 19-93 19.3.3.4  Onsite Soil Types.............................................. 19-93 19.3.3.5  Prime Farmland................................................ 19-96 19.3.3.6  Shrink-Swell Potential ........................................ 19-98 19.3.3.7  Erosion ......................................................... 19-98 19.3.3.8  Previous Geological Studies by Others...................... 19-98 19.3.3.9  Regional and Local Tectonics ................................ 19-99 19.3.3.10 Seismic Hazard Assessment ................................ 19-102 19.3.3.11 Other Geologic Hazards ..................................... 19-106 19.3.3.12 Tectonic Uplift and Subsidence............................. 19-107 19.3.3.13 Earthquake Ground-Shaking Amplification............... 19-107 19.3.3.14 Earthquake-Induced Landslides............................. 19-107 19.3.3.15 Liquefaction .................................................. 19-107 19.3.3.16 Caves and Sinkholes......................................... 19-108 19.3.4 Water Resources ........................................................... 19-109 19.3.4.1  Surface Hydrology........................................... 19-109 19.3.4.2  Groundwater Resources ..................................... 19-118 19.3.4.3  Preexisting Environmental Conditions..................... 19-120 19.3.4.4  Historical and Current Hydrological Data ................. 19-122 19.3.4.5  Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Water Use.. 19-122 19.3.4.6  Water Rights and Resources ................................ 19-122 19.3.4.7  Quantitative Description of Water Use..................... 19-123 19.3.4.8  Contaminant Sources ........................................ 19-124 ii
:  W I                                                      Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
                                                                            - Environmental Review 19.3.5  Ecological  Resources...................................................... 19-131 19.3.5.1  Wetlands...................................................... 19-131 19.3.5.2  Offsite Areas.................................................. 19-132 19.3.5.3  Onsite Areas .................................................. 19-134 19.3.5.4  History......................................................... 19-136 19.3.5.5  Places and Entities of Special Interest ..................... 19-136 19.3.5.6  Aquatic Communities and Potentially Affected Water Bodies......................................................... 19-138 19.3.5.7  Terrestrial Communities..................................... 19-139 19.3.5.8  Wildlife ....................................................... 19-139 19.3.5.9  Protected Species and Habitats ............................. 19-141 19.3.6 Historical and Cultural Resources ........................................ 19-144 19.3.6.1  Cultural Setting............................................... 19- 145 19.3.6.2 Recent History - Discovery Ridge ......................... 19-148 19.3.6.3  Previous Investigations...................................... 19-149 19.3.6.4  Recent Cultural Resources Surveys ........................ 19-149 19.3.6.5  Literature Review ............................................ 19- 149 19.3.6.6  Pedestrian Survey ............................................ 19-151 19.3.6.7  Previously Recorded Historic Structures and Districts.. 19-153 19.3.6.8  Native American and State Agency Consultation ........ 19-155 19.3.7 Socioeconomics ............................................................ 19-155 19.3.7.1  Boone County ................................................ 19-156 19.3.7.2  Local Schools................................................. 19-158 19.3.7.3  Population Map............................................... 19-159 19.3.7.4  Transportation Systems...................................... 19-159 19.3.7.5  Taxes .......................................................... 19-161 19.3.7.6  Public Recreation Facilities ................................. 19-16 1 19.3.8 Human Health.............................................................. 19-163 19.3.8.1  Sensitive Receptor Locations ............................... 19-163 19.3.8.2  Major Sources and Levels of Background Radiation .... 19-165 19.3.8.3  Major Sources and Levels of Chemical Exposure ........ 19-168 19.3.8.4  Occupational Injury Rates ................................... 19-170 19.3.9 Connected Action - University Reactor Network ...................... 19-17 1 19.3.9.1  University of Missouri Research Reactor.................. 19-17 1 19.3.9.2  Oregon State University Radiation Center Complex.....19-17 1 19.3.9.3  Third Reactor................................................. 19-172 19.4 Impacts of Proposed Construction Operations, and Decommissioning ........ 19-173 19.4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources .......................................... 19-173 19.4.1.1  Land Use...................................................... 19-173 19.4.1.2  Visual and Aesthetics Resources ........................... 19-175 19.4.2 Air Quality and Noise ..................................................... 19-180 19.4.2.1  Air Quality.................................................... 19-180 19.4.2.2  Monitoring.................................................... 19-191 19.4.2.3  Noise .......................................................... 19-193 iii
:"      NW M
  *".."""NORTHWEST MEDICAL IS0TOPES Chapter 19.    - niomna Review 19.4.3 Geologic Environment .................................................... 19-195 19.4.3.1  Soils and Bedrock............................................ 19-195 19.4.3.2 Large-Scale Geologic Hazards .............................        19-196 19.4.4 Water Resources............................................................ 19-196 19.4.4.1 Surface Water................................................. 19-196 19.4.4.2 Groundwater..................................................      19-197 19.4.4.3 Monitoring.................................................... 19-198 19.4.5 Ecological Resources...................................................... 19-198 19.4.5.1 Impacts of Construction ..................................... 19-198 19.4.5.2 Impacts of Operation......................................... 19-199 19.4.5.3 Impacts of Decommissioning...............................        19-199 19.4.5.4 Monitoring.................................................... 19-199 19.4.6 Historical and Cultural Resources ........................................ 19-199 19.4.7 Socioeconomics ............................................................ 19-200 19.4.7.1  Population .................................................... 19-200 19.4.7.2 Housing ....................................................... 19-202 19.4.7.3 Public Services ............................................... 19-202 19.4.7.4 Public Education ............................................. 19-203 19.4.7.5 Tax Revenues................................................. 19-203 19.4.7.6 Transportation ................................................ 19-204 19.4.8 Human Health.............................................................. 19-205 19.4.8.1 Nonradiological Impacts.....................................      19-205 19.4.8.2 Radiological Impacts ........................................ 19-2 10 19.4.8.3 Radiological Impacts During Decommissioning..........            19-2 12 19.4.8.4 Radiological Monitoring Program..........................        19-2 12 19.4.9 Waste Management........................................................      19-216 19.4.10 Transportation.............................................................. 19-2 16 19.4.10.1 Transportation Mode and Projected Distances ............          19-217 19.4.10.2 Incident-Free Radiological Dose ...........................      19-2 18 19.4.11 Postulated Accidents....................................................... 19-224 19.4.11.1 Accident Categories.......................................... 19-225 19.4.11.2 Postulated Accident Impacts ................................ 19-230 19.4.12 Environmental Justice ..................................................... 19-230 19.4.12.1 Methodology ................................................. 19-231 19.4.12.2 Minority Population.......................................... 19-232 19.4.12.3 Household Income ...........................................      19-232 19.4.12.4 Assessment of Disproportionate Impacts ..................        19-232 19.4.13 Connected Actions - University Reactor Network .....................        19-234 19.4.13.1 Irradiation Services .......................................... 19-234 19.4.13.2 Transportation ................................................ 19-239 19.4.13.3 Waste Management ..........................................      19-239 19.4.14 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................... 19-240 19.4.14.1 Methodology.................................................. 19-240 19.4.14.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects........................................................ 19-24 1 19.4.14.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts ..........................        19-259 iv
  *.N V INWMI-03-2IRe.O MEDCALChapter                                                            19.0 - Environmental Review 19.5    Alternatives .......................................................................... 19-263 19.5.1    The No-Action Alternative ............................................... 19-263 19.5.2 Reasonable Alternatives................................................... 19-263 19.5.2.1    Site Alternatives.............................................. 19-263 19.5.2.2    Screening ....................................................... 19-264 19.5.2.3    University of Missouri Research Reactor Site Evaluation .................................................... 19-267 19.5.2.4 Process Alternatives..........................................        19-271 19.5.3 Cost-Benefit of the Alternatives ..........................................        19-273 19.5.4 Comparison of the Potential Environmental Impacts...................              19-277 19.6    Conclusions .......................................................................... 19-279 19.6.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action ...................................................................... 19-279 19.6.1.1    Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts of Construction .................................................. 19-279 19.6.1.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts of Operations .................................................... 19-28 1 19.6.2 Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the Environment.........................................      19-284 19.6.2.1    Construction of the Radioisotope Production Facility and Long-Term Productivity ................................        19-284 19.6.2.2 Operation of the Radioisotope Production Facility and Long-Term Productivity.....................................        19-285 19.6.2.3    Summary of the Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity ................................        19-285 19.6.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Used to Support the Proposed Action ............................................      19-286 19.6.3.1 Irreversible Environmental Commitments of Resources.                  19-286 19.7    References............................................................................ 19-288 APPENDICES Appendix A - Consultation Letters.................................................................... A-i Appendix B - Missouri State Historic Preservation Office Consultation Letter and Response ........................................................................... B-i v
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
* e.*.NRHWESMDICOOPE                                                    Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review FIGURES Figure 19-1.            General Molybdenum-99 Process Flow and Distribution ..................... 19-3 Figure 19-2.            Historical Timeline of U.S. and Worldwide Molybdenum-99 Production Industry.......................................... 19-6 Figure      19-3.        Overview of Current Molybdenum-99 Worldwide Process................... 19-7 Figure      19-4.        200 km (124-mi) Radius with Cities and Roads .............................. 19-26 Figure      19-5.        Illustration of 8 km (5-mi) Radius from the Center of the Facility.......... 19-27 Figure      19-6.        Radioisotope Production Facility Site Boundary ............................. 19-30 Figure      19-7.        Radioisotope Production Facility Site Layout ................................ 19-32 Figure      19-8.        General Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility..................... 19-33 Figure      19-9.        Preliminary Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility First Level Floor Plan......................................................................... 19-34 Figure 19-10.            Preliminary Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility Second Level Floor Plan ................................................................. 19-35 Figure      19-11.      Radioisotope Production Facility Hot Cell Details ........................... 19-36 Figure      19-12.      Radioisotope Production Facility Block Flow Diagram ..................... 19-37 Figure      19-13.      First-Level Confinement of the Radioisotope Production Facility.......... 19-45 Figure      19-14.      Layout of Discovery Ridge Research Park Showing Lot 15, the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site.............................. 19-58 Figure 19-15.            Land Use and Cover within the 8 km (5 mi) Region of Influence of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site.............................. 19-62 Figure 19-16.            Special Land Use within the Region of Influence of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site ......................................... 19-63 Figure 19-17.            September 2013 Visual Reconnaissance Photo Locations ................... 19-67 Figure 19-18.            View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Intersection of Rolling Hills and Bass Roads, Photo Location #1........... 19-68 Figure 19-19.            View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Gans Road, approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) North Photo Location #2 .............. 19-68 Figure 19-20.            Direct View of Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Discovery Parkway near the Overpass, Photo Location #3 .............................. 19-69 Figure 19-2 1.          View of Radioisotope Production Facility Site from the North Edge of Perry Phillips Lake, Photo Location #4 ....................................... 19-69 Figure 19-22.            View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Boys and Girls Town of Missouri, Photo Location #5 .................................. 19-70 Figure 19-23.            View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from S. Lenoir and Roosevelt Avenue, Photo Location #6.................................... 19-70 Figure 19-24.            View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Intersection of New Haven and Rolling Hills Roads, Photo Location #7 .. 19-71 Figure 19-25.            View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Route WW at Old Hawthorne, Photo Location #8 ........................... 19-71 vi
NWI                                                          Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA
                                                                                -  Environmental Review Figure 19-26. Wind Rose from South Farm, 2000-2010 (University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station)............................................... 19-80 Figure 19-27. Wind Rose from Automatic Weather Station, Columbia, Missouri, 2007-2012 (Western Regional Climate Center)............................... 19-81 Figure 19-28. Geologic Features within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site ......................................................... 19-90 Figure 19-29. Map of Missouri Quaternary Age Geology ................................... 19-9 1 Figure 19-30. Soil Map within a 1.6 km (1-mi) Radius of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site ......................................................... 19-94 Figure 19-31. Map Showing U.S. Department of Agriculture Prime Farmland .............            19-97 Figure 19-32. Geologic Faults Map........................................................... 19-101 Figure 19-33. Hazard Mitigation Map........................................................ 19-105 Figure 19-34. Streams of Southern Boone County, Missouri............................... 19-110 Figure 19-35. Map Showing Bonne Femme Watershed .................................... 19-111 Figure 19-36. lInpaired Streams Map......................................................... 19-1 16 Figure 19-37. Aquifer Map .................................................................... 19-119 Figure 19-38. Region of Influence in Relation to Ecoregions and Subregions ........... 19-133 Figure 19-39. Wetlands Map .................................................................. 19-135 Figure 19-40. Archeology and Survey Layers Map in Relation to the Radioisotope Production Facility Site ........................................................ 19-150 Figure 19-41. Sensitive Receptors ............................................................ 19-164 Figure 19-42. Radioisotope Production Facility Visualization............................. 19-176 Figure 19-43. Research and Diagnostic Laboratory Facility Located at Discovery Ridge ............................................................................ 19-176 Figure 19-44. ABC Laboratories Facility Located at Discovery Ridge ................... 19-177 Figure 19-45. Stack Potentially Visible Areas ............................................... 19-178 Figure 19-46. Location of On-site Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeters and Continuous Air Monitors...................................................... 19-2 15 Figure 19-47. Molybdenum-98 Bombarded with Neutrons to Form Molybdenum-99... 19-272 Figure 19-48. Molybdenum-100 High Energy Reactions to Form Molybdenum-99 .... 19-272 vii
NWI P.
O
    ,NRTCWESI MWCALISOTOPE$
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review TABLES Table 19-1.            De Minimis Emission Levels of 10 CSR 10-6.020(3)(A).................... 19-11 Table 19-2.            Emission Levels of Common Air Pollutants .................................. 19-11 Table 19-3.            Required Stream Buffer Width, Identified by Stream Type ................. 19-16 Table 19-4.            Regulatory Compliance Status (4 pages)...................................... 19-17 Table 19-5.            Consultation Required for Construction and Operation Status (2 pages)              ... 19-2 1 Table 19-6.            Resources Required During Radioisotope Production Facility Phases ....                19-24 Table 19-7.            Estimated Materials Consumed During Construction Phase ................ 19-25 Table 19-8.            Northwest Medical Isotopes Ownership Summary ........................... 19-25 Table 19-9.            Sensitive Populations (2 pages) ................................................ 19-28 Table 19-10.          Facility Areas and Respective Confinement Zones .......................... 19-44 Table 19-11.          Radioisotope Production Facility Water Flow Rates and Consumption Information ....................................................................... 19-48 Table 19-12.          Liquid Waste Produced Annually from the Radioisotope Production Facility............................................................................ 19-50 Table 19-13.          Solid Waste Produced at the Radioisotope Production Facility ............. 19-50 Table 19-14.          Summary of Radioactive Materials and Wastes Required or Generated at the Radioisotope Production Facility for Ongoing Operations ........... 19-57 Table 19-15.          U.S. Geological Survey Land Use Categories for the 8 km (5-mi)
Region of Influence Surrounding the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility .............................................................. 19-6 1 Table 19-16.          Discovery Ridge Viewshed ..................................................... 19-66 Table 19-17.          Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart............................... 19-73 Table 19-18.          Scenic Quality Rating, by View................................................ 19-74 Table 19-19.          Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Temperature Summary, 1969-2012............................................ 19-76 Table 19-20.          Columbia, Missouri, Five-Year Temperature Summary, 2008-20 12 ..... 19-77 Table 19-21.          Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Precipitation Summary, 1969-2012............................................ 19-78 Table 19-22.          Relative Humidity Data for Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012............... 19-78 Table 19-23.          Mean Wind Speed for Columbia, Missouri, from 2008-20 12 .............. 19-79 Table 19-24.          Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scales Used to Determine Tornado Intensity........................................................................... 19-82 Table 19-25.          Listing of Severe Weather Events from 1950 to 2010 within an 80 km (50-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site................ 19-82 Table 19-26.          Summary of Notable Storm Events In and Near the Region of Influence, Recorded from 1996 to 2013....................................... 19-83 Table 19-27.          National Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable in Missouri........... 19-84 Table 19-28.          Description of Soil Type, Mexico Silt Loam, 1-4 percent Slopes, Eroded ............................................................................ 19-95 viii
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWM I                                                        Chapter 19.0  - Environmental Review Table 19-29. Site Soil Chemical Characteristics for Boone County, Missouri............ 19-96 Table 19-30. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance .................... 19-98 Table 19-3 1. Plasticity and Liquid Limit Testing ............................................ 19-99 Table 19-32. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (3 pages) .......................... 19-102 Table 19-33. Projected Earthquake Hazards for Boone County........................... 19-106 Table 19-34. General Stream Water Properties by Site (2 pages)......................... 19-112 Table 19-35. Average Fecal Coliform and E. coli Concentrations........................ 19-114 Table 19-36. State-Regulated Facility ....................................................... 19-12 1 Table 19-37. Water Use in Boone County, 2000 ........................................... 19-123 Table 19-38. Missouri Dam Report, by County ............................................ 19-124 Table 19-39. Major Surface Water Pollution Sources in Missouri Classified Waters... 19-126 Table 19-40. Major Contaminants in Missouri Classified Waters ........................ 19-127 Table 19-41. Missouri Waters Protected for Various Uses ................................ 19-128 Table 19-42. Major Sources of Groundwater Contamination in Missouri................ 19-129 Table 19-43. Missouri Department of Natural Resources Missouri Groundwater Contamination Summary...................................................... 19-130 Table 19-44. Federal and State Listed Endangered/Threatened, or Species of Special Concern ................................................................ 19-141 Table 19-45. Boone County Listings on the National Register of Historic Places (3 pages)......................................................................... 19-153 Table 19-46. Population Growth in Boone County from 1960 (Estimated) through 2030.............................................................................. 19-157 Table 19-47. Public Schools and Enrollment within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site............................. 19-159 Table 19-48. Traffic Volume on Local Road Systems ..................................... 19-159 Table 19-49. Parks within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site ..................................................................... 19-162 Table 19-50. Total Personnel Dose to University of Missouri Research Reactor Facility Employees............................................................. 19-170 Table 19-5 1. Activity Parameters for Earth Moving ....................................... 19-182 Table 19-52. PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emission Factors for Earth-Moving Activities During Construction............................................................ 19-182 Table 19-53. Annual PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emissions from Earth-Moving Activities During Construction............................................................ 19-183 Table 19-54. Annual PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emissions from Wind Erosion of Bare Ground .......................................................................... 19-183 Table 19-55. Total PM-b1 and PM-2.5 Emissions from Construction ................... 19-183 Table 19-56. Total Mileage Estimates for On-Road Vehicles............................. 19-184 Table 19-57. On-Road Vehicle Emissions (During Construction) ........................ 19-185 Table 19-58. Air Pollutant Emissions Factors for Off-Road Construction Equipment. 19-186 ix
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA
* I.;,. NWRrNISME[LISOE                                                      Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Table 19-59.            Anticipated Gaseous Effluents and Their Associated Air Quality Parameters for Construction................................................... 19-186 Table 19-60.            Emissions for Standby Emergency Diesel Generator....................... 19-188 Table 19-61.            Natural Gas-Fired Boiler Total Annual Emissions.......................... 19-189 Table 19-62.            AERSCREEN Model Total Annual Emissions ............................. 19-189 Table 19-63.            Vehicle Emissions During Operations ....................................... 19-190 Table 19-64.            Expected Green House Gas Emissions from Radioisotope Production Facility Project ................................................................. 19-192 Table 19-65.            Workforce Required for Construction........................................ 19-201 Table 19-66.            Workforce Required for Operations .......................................... 19-201 Table 19-67.            Estimated Annual Tax Payments ............................................. 19-204 Table 19-68.            Chemical Inventory for the Radioisotope Production Facility............. 19-207 Table 19-69.            General Route Information.................................................... 19-219 Table 19-70.            Route Segment Information................................................... 19-220 Table 19-71.            Unirradiated Target Shipment Source Term................................. 19-221 Table 19-72.            Irradiated Targets for Oregon State University and Third Reactor Radiological Characteristics................................................... 19-221 Table 19-73.            Irradiated Targets for University of Missouri Research Reactor Radiological Characteristics................................................... 19-222 Table 19-74.            Low-Enriched Uranium Radiological Characteristics ...................... 19-223 Table 19-75.            Estimated Waste Radiological Characteristics............................... 19-223 Table 19-76.            Molybdenum-99 Product Radiological Characteristics..................... 19-223 Table 19-77.            Chemical Dose Analysis Results ............................................. 19-230 Table 19-78.            Percent Population Distribution by Race..................................... 19-23 3 Table 19-79.            Estimated Household Income Within Various Distance Bands and Within State and County (2 pages) ........................................... 19-233 Table 19-80.            Annual Occupational Dose Summary for MURR Reactor Operations Group (typically 28 people badged within the group) ...................... 19-236 Table 19-81.            Annual Occupational Dose Sunmmary for MURR Reactor Health Physics Group (typically 8 people badged within the group) .............. 19-23 6 Table 19-82.            Annual Occupational Dose Summary for the Shipping Group (typically 8 people badged within the group)............................................ 19-236 Table 19-83.            Summation of the Annual Dose Equivalent for the MURR Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeters............................. 19-237 Table 19-84.            Annual Summary of Occupational Doses Received at the Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor.................................................... 19-238 Table 19-85.            Total Annual Dose Equivalent Measured at the Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor Fence Line................................................... 19-239 Table 19-86.            Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages) .... 19-241 Table 19-87.            Summary of Site-Specific Scoring Criteria (2 pages)....................... 19-264 x
NWI                                                        Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
                                                                                - Environmental Review Table 19-88. Evaluation of Alternative Sites ............................................... 19-266 Table 19-89. Cost-Benefit Summary of the Alternatives (4 pages)....................... 19-273 Table 19-90. Comparison of the Potential Construction Impacts of the Discovery Ridge Site and Alternatives.................................................... 19-277 Table 19-9 1. Comparison of the Potential Operational Impacts of the Discovery Ridge Site and Alternatives.................................................... 19-278 Table 19-92. Construction-Related Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts (2 pages)......................................................................... 19-279 Table 19-93. Operations-Related Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts (3 pages)......................................................................... 19-282 xi
    . W      I                                              Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
                                                                            - Environmental Review TERMS Acronyms and Abbreviations 41 7Be Ar                  argon-4 1 beryllium-7 14 C                    carbon- 14 cesium- 137 1311                    iodine- 13 1 132I                    iodine- 132 potassium-40 98 Mo                  molybdenum-98 99 Mo                  molybdenum-99
'OOMo                  molybdenum-l100 63 Ni                  nickel-63 palladium-i 112 lO6 Rh                  rhodium- 106 99 Tc                  technetium-99 99 m~Tc                technetium-99m tellurium- 132 235 U                  uranium-235 237U                    uranium-237 238 U                  uranium-23 8 133 Xe                  xenon- 133 ABC Laboratories        Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc.
A.D.                    Anno Domini ADUN                    acid-deficient uranyl nitrate AECL                    Atomic Energy of Canada. Ltd AEGL                    Acute Exposure Guideline Level ALARA                  as low as reasonably achievable ANSTO                  Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization B.C.                    Before Christ BLM                    Bureau of Land Management BMP                    best management practice BRR                    BEA Research Reactor BTEX                    benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes CAM                    continuous air monitor CATSO                  Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization CDBG                    Community Development Block Grant CEQ                    Council on Environmental Quality CERCLIS                Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CFR                    Code of Federal Regulations CNSC                    Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission CO                      carbon monoxide CO 2_                  carbon dioxide COLT                    Columbia Terminal CSR                    Code of State Regulations CWA                    Clean Water Act DBA                    design basis accident DEQ                    Division of Environmental Quality Discovery Ridge        Discovery Ridge Research Park xii
  ;:NWM I                                                        NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review DOA          Department of Administration DoD          U.S. Department of Defense DOE          U.S. Department of Energy DOT          U.S. Department of Transportation EF scale    enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale EPA          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPCRA        Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act ER          environmental review ERPG        Emergency Response Planning Guideline F scale      (original) Fujita tornado intensity scale FDA          U.S. Food and Drug Administration FEMA        Federal Emergency Management Agency FSAR        Final Safety Analysis Report GCRA        Gans Creek Recreation Area GHG          greenhouse gas GIS          Geographical Information System HAP          hazardous air pollutant HEPA        high-efficiency particulate air HEU          high-enriched uranium HFR          High-Flux Reactor HIC          high-integrity container HVAC        heating, ventilation, and air conditioning HWMC        Hazardous Waste Management Commission ICP-MS      inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry IPaC        information, planning, and conservation IRE          Institute of Radioelements IRU          iodine retention unit IX          ion exchange Kr          krypton LEU          low-enriched uranium LLMW        low-level mixed waste LLC          limited-liability company LQG          large-quantity generator LUST        leaking underground storage tank Mallinckrodt Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
MAR          material at risk MDC          Missouri Department of Conservation MDNR        Missouri Department of Natural Resources MHA          maximum hypothetical accident MHP          mobile home park MIDUS        Medical Isotope Depleted Uranium Shielded MMI          Modified Mercalli Intensity MMRPC        Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission MNRC        McClellan Nuclear Research Center MoDOT        Missouri Department of Transportation MOI          maximally exposed off-site individual MU          University of Missouri MURR        University of Missouri Research Reactor NAAQS        National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAS          National Academy of Sciences NEPA        National Environmental Policy Act xiii
lviChptr NOEW.ETMEIA iSOOE                                            hpe  9.0NWM,-2013-021,
                                                                        -Environmental Rev.
Review 0A NESHAP            National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NMSZ              New Madrid Seismic Zone NO 2              nitrogen dioxide NOAA              National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOx                nitrogen oxides NPDES              National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL                National Priority List NRC                U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRCS              Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP              National Register of Historic Places NRU                National Research Universal NSR                new source review NWMI              Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 03                ozone OPAL              Open Pool Australian Lightwater ORNL              Oak Ridge National Laboratory OSHA              Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSTR              Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor OSU                Oregon State University PAC                Protective Action Criteria PAH                polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon Pb                lead PCB                polychlorinated biphenyl PCCE              private common collector elimination PM                particulate matter PM-2.5            particulate matter, 2.5 micron PM-b1              particulate matter, 10 micron PPE                personal protective equipment PSAR              preliminary safety analysis report PTE                potential to emit QA                quality assurance RADIL              Research and Diagnostic Laboratory RCRA              Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROI                region of influence RPF                radioisotope production facility RSAC              Radiological Safety Analysis Code SAFARI-b          South African Fundamental Reactor Installation 1 SHPO              State Historic Preservation Office SHWF              State hazardous waste facility SLA                street light addition SMART              Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique SO 2              sulfur dioxide SOx                sulfur oxides SPCC              spill prevention, control, and countermeasure SRS                Savannah River Site SVOA              semivolatile organic analyte SWPPP              stormwater pollution prevention plan TDD                Transportation Development District TDS                total dissolved solid TEEL              Temporary Emergency Exposure Limit Terracon          Terracon Consultants, Inc.
xiv
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review TLD          thermoluminescent dosimeter TMDL          total maximum daily load TPH          total petroleum hydrocarbon U            uranium UC Davis      University of California at Davis Union Carbide Union Carbide Nuclear Corporation UO2          uranium dioxide U.S.          United States U.S.C.        United States Code USDA          U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS          U.S. Geological Survey VKM          vehicle kilometer traveled VMT          vehicle miles traveled VOA          volatile organic analyte VOC          volatile organic compound WCS          Waste Control Specialists WNA          World Nuclear Association WWTP          wastewater treatment plant Xe            xenon Units
°C            degrees Celsius 0F            degrees Fahrenheit micron microgram microsiemens b            barn Ci            curie cm            centimeter cm2          cubic centimeters dB            decibel dBa          A-weighted decibel ft            feet ft2          square feet ft3          cubic feet g            gram gal          gallon ha            hectare hr            hour in.          inch kg            kilogram km            kilometer km 2          square kilometers kn            knots kV            kilovolt kW            kilowatt L            liter lb            pound m            meter square meter XV
:l:Chptr MEDCAL.SO.PA                              Captr 9.0 -Environmental Rev.
NWMII**-20o3-02,                          oA Review m3                cubic meter mCi                      millicurie mEq                      milliequivalent mg                        milligram Mgal                      million gallons mi                mile ml-                      square mile min                      minute mL                        milliliter ML                        million liters mmho                      millimho mR                        milliroentgen mrem                      millirem mSv                      millisievert MT                        metric ton MW                        megawatt MWD                      megawatt days NTU                      nephelometric turbidity unit oz                        ounce pCi                      picocurie ppb                      parts per billion ppm                      parts per million sec                      second Sv                        sievert t                        tonne (metric) wt%                      weight percent yd3                      cubic yard yr                        year xvi
Chapter    NWM,-2013-021, Rev. 0A IIVYChVpter19.0                                                                - Environmental Review 19.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
==19.1 INTRODUCTION==
Licensing Background Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) is applying to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to obtain a license for a production facility under Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 50 (10 CFR 50), "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." Embedded in the 10 CFR 50-licensed facility will be several activities subject to 10 CFR 70, "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material," to receive, possess, use, and transfer special nuclear material and 10 CFR 30.
"Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material," to process and transport molybdenum-99 ( 99M0) for medical applications.
NWMI intends to submit a single 10 CFR 50 license application for the radioisotope production facility (RPF) following the guidance in NUREG- 1537, Guidelinesfor Preparingand Reviewing Applicationsfor the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors - Formatand Content, that encompasses activities regulated under different NRC requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 70 and 10 CFR 30.), in accordance with 10 CFR 50.3 I, "Combining Applications." and 10 CFR 50.32, "Elinmination of Repetition.'"
The NRC has determined that a radioisotope separation and processing facility, which also conducts separation of special nuclear material, will be considered a production facility and as such, will be subject to licensing under 10 CFR 50. A significant portion of the NWMI RPF is focused on the disassembly of irradiated low-enriched uranium (LEU) targets, separation and purification of fission product 99Mo, and the recycle of LEU that is licensed under 10 CFR 50. The RPF will also include the fabrication of LEU targets, which will be licensed under 10 CFR 70. These targets will be shipped to NWMI's network of research or test reactors for irradiation (.considered a connected action) and returned to the RPF for processing. The LEU used for the production of the LEU target materials will be obtained from the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) and from LEU reclaimed from processing the irradiated targets.
NWMI's licensing approach for the RPF defines the following unit processes and areas that fall under the following NRC regulations:
10 CFR 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities"
          -    Irradiated LEU Target receipt (from network of university research or test reactors)
          -    Irradiated LEU Target disassembly and dissolution
          -    Mo recovery and purification
          -    Uranium recovery and recycle
          -    Waste management
          -    Associated laboratory and support areas
* 10 CFR 70, "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material"
          -    Receipt of fresh LEU (from DOE)
          -    LEU target fabrication
          -    Associated laboratory and support areas Any byproduct materials produced or extracted in the RPF will be licensed under 10 CFR 30.
19-1
NW lviChptr MI                                                      Cate    9.0NWM,-2013-021,
                                                                                      -Environmental Rev. 0A Review Introduction In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50 and supporting guidance, NWMI is providing this Applicant's Environmental Report - Construction Permit Stage (ER) in support of an application to construct and operate an RPF at Discovery Ridge Research Park (Discovery Ridge) in Columbia, Missouri. This ER is consistent with the content and organization of NRC-201 1-0135, FinalInterim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, "Guidelinesfor Preparingand Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors," Parts 1 and 2, for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilitiesand Homogeneou~s Reactors (NRC, 2012a), Chapter 19.
The ER supports the regulatory review that is performed by the NRC under 10 CFR 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Review," which requires that environmental impacts from the project be evaluated and described in a concise, clear, and analytical manner. This document also provides information for the NRC to conducts its environmental review in accordance with 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, "National Environmental Policy Act - Regulations Implementing Section 102 (2)."
This ER addresses the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) actions needed to support activities that will be provisions incorporated in the requested 10 CFR 50 license, including certain activities regulated under 10 CFR 70 and 10 CFR 30.
An overview of the assessment of the environmental effects of construction, operation, and decommissioning of the RPF on the site and surrounding areas is provided in the ER. The document is structured as follows:
      *Section 19.1 presents the purpose and need of the proposed action, and the regulatory provisions, permits, and required consultations.
      *Section 19.2 presents the proposed action. This section includes the proposed site location and layout; facility description; process description; operations and systems descriptions; water consumption and treatment; cooling and heat dissipating systems; waste systems, storage, and treatment; and transport of the radioactive and nonradioactive materials, and the schedule associated with the major phases of the project.
      *Section 19.3 presents the affected environment. This section describes existing conditions at the site of the proposed action and serves as the baseline to measure changes in the affected environment caused by the proposed action. Resources applicable to the scope of the action are presented and include land use, visual resources, air quality, meteorology, noise, geologic environment, water resources, ecological resources, historical and cultural resources, socioeconomics, and human health.
      *Section 19.4 presents the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects/impacts to the resources described in Section 19.2.1.3 associated with construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed action. Data and analyses presented in this section are commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or referenced.
This section also discusses postulated accidents and environmental justice.
      *Section 19.4.13 presents the alternatives and associated costs and benefits. This section discusses the costs and benefits of each alternative and the proposed action, including a qualitative discussion of environmental impacts.
      *Section 19.6 presents the conclusions, which address the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources used to support the proposed action.
      *Section 19.7 provides a list of references cited within this chapter.
19-2
NW MvIihpe          : :                                                                    Capter19.0NWMI-2013-021,
                                                                                                                    - Environmental Review Rev. 0A 19.1.1    Purpose and Need for Action NWMI has formed a team of United States (U.S.) universities and companies to cost-effectively address the need for a domestic 9Mo supply. NWMI intends to provide approximately 50 percent of the 99Mo demand in North America and has developed an approach, including manufacturing and processing, using a "total LEU solution" to be implemented by 2017.
As set forth in Section 19.2.1, the proposed action is the issuance of an NRC license under 10 CFR 50, with provisions for 10 CFR 70 and 10 CFR 30 that would authorize NWMI to construct and operate the RPF for the production of 99Mo at a site located in Columbia, Missouri. Proposed RPF activities include:
* Receiving LEU from DOE
* Producing LEU target materials and fabrication of targets
* Packaging and shipping LEU targets to the university reactor network for irradiation
* Returning irradiated LEU targets for dissolution, recovery, and purification of 99Mo
* Recovering and recycling LEU to minimize radioactive, mixed, and hazardous waste generation
* Treating/packaging wastes generated by RPF process steps to enable transport to a disposal site For purposes of complying with NEPA requirements, two or more university research reactors are assumed to obtain a license amendment authorized by the NRC to irradiate LEU targets. The ER includes an evaluation of irradiating LEU targets in a reactor. For a specific university research reactor to irradiate LEU targets, 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.
Figure 19-1 illustrates the NWMI's general                      99Mo  process and distribution flow.
Fresh LEU From DOE Ship            Ship Unirradiated    Irradiated I    t  LEUTargets      LEUTargets I                I                I            i                      o r ut  I              i LE agt        I  LEU Tagat  !      Irradiated g LEU Target  !  ~ PtdC      Product          Ship geo        Medcal FEU Targett                        Target Receipt !  Mattera  !      *        !iw Con~on    ! Product to    Co unt abia io          R~eactor    & aaaaelti!      Dacldulla  I    ificaton i    &Packaging    DIsXbuor
                  .....  . ...        Uranium
                                        .    .. ..Recyle Figure 19-1.              General Molybdenmn-99 Process Flow and Distribution The NWMI process to manufacture 99Mo is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
No direct approvals from the FDA to manufacture 99Mo for commercial use at the RPF will be needed.
However, each pharmaceutical distributer of Technetium-99m (99r11Tc) generators desiring to purchase 99Mo from NWMI may need to seek FDA approval of NWMI as a manufacturer of the 99Mo used in the 99 manufacturer's            mTc    generators.
19.1.1.1 Background 99 mTc is used for over 40 million nuclear medicine procedures annually. The characteristics of 99mTC allow high quality images with low radiation exposure to patients. 99nTc is very versatile for attaching to different chemical substances used to target different organs and diseases, as required by different diagnostic procedures. The two most widely used 99mTc-based procedures are for imaging blood flow to heart muscles (e.g., myocardial perfusion imaging) and mapping the spread of cancer to bones (e.g.,
skeletal metastases imaging).
19-3
lviChptr                                                              9.0 -Environmental Review The medical use of 99 m~Tc has grown significantly since the early 1990s and is expected to have a moderate overall growth of 3-5 percent per year, with stronger growth in countries expanding healthcare programs (NAS, 2009).
Due to the short half-life of 9 9 nrTc of about 6 hours (hr), its parent isotope, 99Mo, which has a 66-hr half-life, is the key supply chain product. 99Mo is produced by bombarding uranium-235 (235U) targets with neutrons from a nuclear reactor, with the resulting fission reaction producing 99Mo and more than 250 other isotopes. After irradiation, targets are transferred to a processing facility and go through a number of extract and purification steps to produce 99Mo. From the processing facility, the 99M0 is shipped to radiopharmaceutical distributors (e.g., Lantheus Medical Imaging, Mal linckrodt Pharmaceuticals (Mallinckrodt), and GE Healthcare). The distributors then purify to FDA standards and package the 99Mo in a radionuclide generator. This generator is called a 99 mTc Generator Kit or "moly cow." The packaged kit is then shipped to nuclear pharmacies to be prepared for individual patient administration. Due to the short half-life, the 99Mo must be efficiently processed and distributed.
The nuclear pharmacy uses the generator to facilitate the decay process from 99Mo to 99mTc, extract the 99 mTC doses, and bind the doses to compounds specific for an individual test needs. The 99 mTTc-compounded drug is then injected into the patient for various diagnostic-scanning purposes. This entire process usually takes place within six to nine days.
19.1.1.2      Molybedum-99 History Beginning with the discovery of the 99mTc isotope by Emilio Segr* and Glenn Seaborg in 1938, the relationship between 99Mo and 99 mWTCwas clearly evident. As an observable fission product of 235U in one of Segr*'s later experiments, 99Mo, having a half-life of about 66 hr, was observed emitting beta particles in its progression to a more stable state. In 1958, Walter Tucker and Margaret Green, two scientists under the direction of Powell Richards at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, hypothesized, based on their work with iodine-132 (132I) and tellurium-132 (' 32Te), that a "generator" could be developed using 99Mo to produce 99mTc. In 1960, Richards became the first to suggest using 99mTc as a medical radionuclide tracer.
Benefitting from advancements in gamma camera technology, the production and medical use of 99mTc grew rapidly in the 1960s. Nuclear Consultants, Inc. and Union Carbide Nuclear Corporation (Union Carbide) began to manufacture commercial 99 mlTc generators. Mallinckrodt first undertook the production of 99Mo using the research reactor at the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR); however, the size and flux capacity of the MURR reactor was insufficient to sustain a constant supply, and production of the isotope was stopped in the early 1980s. From 1968 to 1972, Union Carbide successfully developed a process using high-enriched uranium (HEU) targets at its Cintichem Facility in Tuxedo, New York, which permitted easy separation of the products of the fission process, thus, beginning domestic 99Mo production in 1980.
Separating from Union Carbide, Cintichem Inc. became the sole producer of domestic 99Mo during the 1980s.
International production began in the same timeframe (e.g., Canada and Australia). A balance within the production-supply chain soon existed between the U.S., Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, and Australian production facilities, each having a share in the market and working collaboratively to help fill shortages created by a number of varying effects, including maintenance, inspection, and plant modifications.
In 1989, the Cintichem Facility had an underground leak of radioactive products that affected the surrounding environment. Due to this release, the surrounding community pressured the New York State government to have the Cintichem Facility cease production of 99Mo. In May 1990, the Cintichem Facility closed and filed for decommissioning of its 99Mo production facility, essentially shifting all production to Canada and Europe.
19-4
:--.'-                                                              Chptr1MII-03-2,Rev. O Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review
    **',. "NOAI"EWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES During the same timeframe, the use of 99mTc in diagnostic scanning continued to grow. In compliance with national regulatory agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency recommendations, six reactor facilities sustain the HEU production supply:
* National Research Universal (NRU), Ontario, Canada
* High-Flux Reactor (HFR), Petten, Netherlands
* Belgian Reactor 2 (BR2), Mol, Belgium
* OSIRIS, near Paris, France
* MARIA, near Warsaw, Poland
* South African Fundamental Reactor Installation 1 (SAFARI-I), Pelindaba, South Africa Two reactor facilities sustain the regional LEU production supply: Open Pool Australian Lightwater Reactor (OPAL, South Sydney, Australia) and RA-3 (Buenos Aires, Argentina). With a relatively constant supply and demand using all of the production facilities, the industry was able to produce the quantity of 99Mo needed to fill generator orders from nuclear pharmacies all over the world. However, as these production facilities began to age, additional maintenance and facility improvements became inevitable, requiring temporary shutdowns for individual production facilities.
The first significant worldwide shortage came in November 2007, when the NRU reactor was shutdown for about month for routine maintenance. While the reactor was offline for repairs, the managing agency (Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd [AECL]) decided to install an additional seismically qualified emergency power system for the two cooling pumps in the reactor, as required by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) operating license (amended in 2006). Instead of allowing for full inspections and testing of the new pumps, the Canadian House of Commons passed emergency legislation, without the consent of the CNSC, to restart NRU for commercial production with only one of the two seismic connections complete. With a 120-day grace period of operation issued by the Canadian House of Commons, NRU completed the second seismic connection in February 2008.
The most significant impact on 99Mo production began in 2009, when the NRU reactor was shutdown during an unplanned shutdown of the HFR. ln May 2009, a small heavy water leak was detected in the NRU reactor. While originally seen as a routine production stoppage, because of new regulations passed in January 2009, all operating reactors had to undergo intensive design reviews to comply with new safety standards to obtain a license renewal from the CNSC for commercial isotope production. Compliance with the new regulations consequently evolved from an anticipated 90-day renovation into a 17-month complete restructuring and redesign of the reactor and facility. With two-fifths of the world's 99Mo supply facilities rendered inoperative for that period, production shifted to the Netherlands and other 99Mo production sites.
As with the Canadian plant, the plant in the Netherlands faced renewal of its license in May 2010. With the supply of 99Mo already depleted, the closing of the Dutch production plant placed a heavy strain on the worldwide production of 99Mo. Nearly two-thirds of the production supply of 99Mo for medical applications went offline for about six months. While the market did cope with the severe shortages by shifting production to other facilities and finding new ways to produce 99mlTc through other isotope decay, the worldwide shortage exposed the large variability and fragility within the production process.
The National Research Council (NAS, 2009) documented the history of the development of the 99 Mo international isotope production industry and the U.S. role. This history is summarized in Figure 19-2.
The report identified 99Mo production before 2009.
19-5
N
.::.;;i;. ......... lvi.i                                                                                    hpe hpe 19.0NWMI-2013-021,
                                                                                                                                    - Environmental Rev. GA Review 1980s                                    2007 US Cintichem (NY) Facility        1" major shutdown -
Early 1960s                Becomes Sole Producer;              Canadian NRU site 1940:                            Commercial                  Controls Majority of                  (40%wolwd vvTc first                      Development in                Worldwide Market                  supply) closes for
      *rdiscovered                    *r    Sand Worldwide                  .....-......                        maintenance -,    .\
14s  I O11    s      I SO1  s    I      f197Os    I      11        I                    I                    I 9  '                  ........ ,r.....J              *r1989                          20092010 First ve*Tc                          1970s                        Cintichem facility        2 *d major closing of Canadian generator                  Commercial Efforts                    detects cooling            NRU site due to heavy water leak proposed                      Grow Worldwide                      water leak; closes        (closure 17 months); Petten also (eg., Petten Constructed)                in 1990 and all            closes due to safety concems -
production shifts          66% of world supply offline for internationally            6 months (Feb. 2010-Aug.2010)
Figure 19-2.            Historical Timeline of U.S. and Worldwide Molybdenum-99 Production Industry 19.1.1.3            Molybdenum Today There are currently no domestic suppliers of 99Mo. The U.S. supply chain structure includes six major reactors, four major processors, and two U.S. generator manufacturers. The irradiators, all using HEU targets, are spread across three continents and include: NRU in Canada (operating since 1957), owned by AECL; HFR in the Netherlands (operational since 1961), owned by the Institute of Energy of the Joint Research Center of the European Commission; OSIRIS owned by the French Atomic Energy Commission; BR-2 owned by the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre; MARIA owned by the Polish Institute of Atomic Energy; and SAFARI-i owned by the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa.
Only the OPAL reactor in Australia, owned by Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, and the RA-3 reactor in Argentina, owned by lINVAP S.E., currently produce 99Mo from LEU.
The HEU processors include Nordion Inc. in Canada, National Institute of Radioelements (IRE) in Belgium, Mallinckrodt (previously known as Covidien) in the Netherlands, and NTP Radioisotopes SOC Ltd, a subsidiary of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation. The LEU processors include the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO) and INVAP S.E. The current U.S.
radiopharmaceutical distributors manufacture the 99~ generator kits and distribute them to hospitals and clinics. ANSTO is the only LEU 99Mo producer that provides 99Mo in very small quantities to the U.S.
through Lantheus Medical Imaging.
The entire reactor network is currently operating at or near capacity. Any unscheduled maintenance or other production disruption immediately translates into a supply disruption. Reliance on such a limited and aging resource results in an extremely delicate supply chain, the vulnerability of which was highlighted late in 2009 when an extended shutdown of the NRU reactor led to a critical 99Mo shortage in North America, and the shutdown of the HFR reactor in August 2008 and November 2013 to the present has caused 99Mo shortages in North America and Europe.
An estimated 40-50 kilograms (kg) (107-134 pounds [lb]) of HEU are used per year for the production of 99Mo worldwide. In the past several years, nuclear non-proliferation and security concerns have led to increased worldwide pressure to mandate migration of HEU targets towards LEU targets by 2016.
Conversion from HEU to LEU targets is both expensive and technically challenging for current producers of 99Mo. This LEU mandate further exacerbates the risk of assured 99Mo supply. Only the OPAL reactor in Australia currently produces 99Mo from LEU. NWMI proposes to replace foreign HEU reactor irradiation with a domestic network of university reactors using LEU targets and a domestic processing facility for the extraction and purification of 99M0.
19-6
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA
  *",.::::NRTWESMEICAIOD                                                                        Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Figure 19-3 presents an99overview of the worldwide nuclear reactors and radioisotope production facilities that currently produce Mo.
Physics                                    Chemistry                                              Medicine Step 3: Radiopharmnaceutical Step 4: Radiopharmacies    Step 5: Physicians Step 1: Reactor              Step    2: "Mo Producers    -
Manufacturers - *""Tc Irradiation - Irradiation    "Mo purified and then                                      and Hospitals  - Unit      and Patients - Critical of UO2 targets to            shipped to manufacturing generator ("Mo cow)              dose compounding and        physiological diagnosis produce isotopes              facility and distribution to manufacturing and            distribution to hospitals  enabling informed radiopharmaceutical          distribution to nuclearl    and clinics                therapeutic decisions manufactures                  radiopharmacies and hospitals HEU Reactors                  World-Wide HEU                North American              Primary U.S. Nuclear        Hospitals
* NRU (Canada) - 1957          Processing Facility          Distributors                Pharmacy                    Clinics
* HFR (The Netherlands)  -
* Nordion (Canada)
* Mallinckrodt              CardinalHealth Services 1961
* HFR (The Netherlands) Pharmaceuticals                  GE Heatthcare
* BR2 (Belgium) - 1961
* IRE (Belgium)
* Lantheus Medical Imaging  Tnad Isotopes
  *MARIA (Poland) - 1974        *NTP (South Africa)
* GE Healthcare
* OSIRIS (France) -1966
* SAFARI-1 (SOuth Africa)  -  Regional LEU Facility 19655                        *ANSTO (Austraia)
* INVAP (Argentina)
LEU Reactors
* OPAL (Australia) - 2006
* RA-3 (Argentina) -1961 2013-021_002r0 Figure 19-3.          Overview of Current Molybdenum-99 Worldwide Process 19.1.2 Regulatory Provisions, Permits and Required Consultations In addition to NRC licensing and regulatory requirements, a variety of Federal, State, and local environmental requirements apply to the RPF. Some require construction and operating permits or approvals, and others require facility compliance demonstrations. The following sections summarize the environmental requirements applicable to the RPF by the various regulatory agencies. Permits, approvals, and consultations necessary for RPF construction and operation are identified in Section 19.1.2.7 and Section 19.1.3.
19.1.2.1        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary authority for implementing the environmental requirements discussed in the following sections. The state of Missouri is delegated the authority to issue permits on behalf of EPA, and to administer and enforce many of the requirements applicable to the RPF, except for requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (42 U.S.C. Chapter 116 § 11001-11050).
19-7
      , ,NDRTHWEST lviChater19.0 MEDICAL ISOTOPIES Chapter    NWM,-2013-021,
                                                                                        - Environmental Rev. OA Review 19.1 .2.1.1      Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) establishes regulations to ensure air quality and authorizes individual states to issue and manage air quality permits. The Act requires (1) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the public health, (2) national standards of performance for new or modified stationary sources of atmospheric pollutants, (3) evaluation of specific emission increases for prevention of significant deterioration in air quality, and (4) standards for the releases of hazardous air pollutants, including radionuclides. Implementing regulations include the following:
* 40 CFR 50,      "National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards"
* 40 CFR 60,      "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources"
* 40 CFR 61,      "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants" (NESHAP)
* 40 CFR 63,      "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories" 19.1.2.1.2        Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) requires states to set water quality standards for bodies of water within their boundaries, and directs EPA to regulate stormwater and wastewater discharges per the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. The EPA issues discharge permits under the requirements of 40 CFR 122, "EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System." The permit program controls water pollution by regulating point source discharges of pollutants into U.S. surface waters.
The NPDES construction stormwater program applies to sites with land disturbance of 0.4 hectares (ha)
(1 acre) or more, including smaller sites in a larger common plan of development or sale. The NPDES industrial program applies to 10 categories of industrial activities conducted at facilities. Applicants may apply for either individual or a general NPDES permits. Individual permits are specifically tailored to the individual facility, and general permits cover multiple facilities with a specific category of discharges (e.g., stormwater discharges). NPDES permits specify the control technology applicable to each pollutant, the effluent limitations, and the deadline for compliance.
Wastewater generated from any facility or structure must be disposed through wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Facilities that discharge to a municipal or publically owned treatment works do not have NPDES permits but must meet pretreatment regulations. The pretreatment regulations require industrial users to obtain permits or authorizations and to use pollutant control mechanisms prior to discharging to the publically owned treatment works.
1 9.1 .2.1.3    Safe Drinking Water Act The Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. § 300I1f] et seq.) was enacted in 1974 to establish minimum national standards for public water supply systems. This Act authorizes EPA to set national standards for drinking water; provides guidance, assistance, and public information about drinking water; collects drinking water data; and oversees State drinking water programs. Primary and secondary drinking water regulations and regulations applicable to drinking water systems are identified in 40 CFR 141 and 142, "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation," and 40 CFR 143, "National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations." The EPA and states work together to ensure that these standards are met.
19-8
  *.. :NW MI~f      i                                                                WM-0321Rev. 0 Chapter 19.0 -Environmental Review 19.1.2.1.4    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) requires EPA to define and identify hazardous waste; establish standards for transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal; and require permits for persons engaged in hazardous waste activities. RCRA regulations are found in 40 CFR 260, "Hazardous Waste Management System: General," through 40 CFR 282, "Approved Underground Storage Tank Programs."
"Mixed waste" is hazardous waste containing radioactive material. This waste is regulated by RCRA and the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.). In 40 CFR 266, "Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities," EPA conditionally exempts low-level mixed waste (LLMW) from the definition of hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261.3, "Definition of Hazardous Waste." The conditional exemption applies to (1) waste generated under a single NRC license that meets certain conditions for management, and (2) stored and treated tanks or containers meeting substantive RCRA requirements. LLMW that meets the applicable treatment standards in 40 CFR 268, "Land Disposal Restrictions," may also be exempt from RCRA transportation and disposal requirements.
19.1.2.1.5    Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act The EPCRA establishes the requirements for Federal, State, and local governments; Indian Tribes; and industry regarding emergency planning and community right-to-know reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The EPCRA is implemented by:
* 40 CFR 355, "Emergency Planning and Notification"
* 40 CFR 370, "Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right-To-Know"
* 40 CFR 372, "Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-To-Know"
* 40 CFR 373, "Reporting Hazardous Substance Activity When Selling or Transferring Federal Real Property" EPCRA requires a submission of: (1) a list of hazardous chemicals present at the facility in excess of 10,000 lb for which material safety data sheets are required, (2) an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form (Tier II Form) identifying the inventory of hazardous chemicals present during the preceding year, and (3) notification to the State Emergency Response Commission and the local Emergency Planning Committee of any accidental releases of hazardous chemicals in excess of reportable quantities.
The list of hazardous chemicals and the Tier II Form are submitted to regional fire departments. Facilities also must submit a toxic chemical release report to the EPA and the resident state if toxic chemicals are used at the facility in excess of established threshold amounts.
19.1.2.2    U.S. Department of Transportation The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (49 U.S.C. §§ 5 101-5127) regulates transportation of hazardous material in and between states. States may regulate the transportation of hazardous materials as long as the State requirements are consistent with the Act or U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. DOT regulations of interest to this action include the following:
* 49 CFR 107, "Hazardous Materials Program Procedures," Subpart G, "Registration and fee to DOT as a person who offers or transports hazardous materials"
* 49 CFR 171, "General Information, Regulations, and Definitions"
* 49 CFR 172, "Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements and Security Plans" 19-9
N      MEIA NORTHCEapteri19.0 ISOOE                                            hpe      NWI212,Rev.            O
                                                                                      - Environmental Review
* 49 CFR 173, "Shippers    - General Requirements for Shipments and Packages"
* 49 CFR 175, "Carriage by Aircraft"
* 49 CFR 177, "Carriage by Public Highway" 19.1.2.3      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Both the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly administer Section 404 of the CWA, which requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. The requirements for Section 404 permits are identified in 40 CFR Subpart 230.404(b)(I), "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material." States are responsible for issuing Section 401 certifications for NPDES and Section 404 permits that certify the permitted activity complies with all applicable State water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions.
19.1.2.4      Occupational Safety and Health Administration The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. §§ 657-658) is designed to increase the safety of workers in the workplace. The Act stipulates that the U.S. Department of Labor is expected to recognize the dangers that may exist in workplaces and establishes employee safety and health standards.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates mitigation requirements and mandates proper training and equipment for workers as established in 29 CFR 1910, "Occupational Safety and Health Standards."
19.1.2.5      Missouri State Agencies Several programs responsible for protection and management of the environment and public health in Missouri are applicable to the proposed RPF. These programs are managed by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), the Department of Health and Senior Services, and the Department of Conservation.
The proposed facility site is located at the Discovery Ridge on property owned by the University of Missouri (MU) System headquartered in Columbia, Missouri. Discovery Ridge is being developed under the guidance of the Discover', Ridge Master Plan and Protective Covenants (MU, 2009). Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 has extended drinking water services to the site and sewer lines. The Master Plan requires tenant compliance with the Discovery Ridge Master Storm Water Management Plan that is developed on a project-by-project basis and is based on regional accepted practices for stormwater management, including MDNR regulations (MDNR, 201 2a). General environmental requirements and permits for new facilities are discussed in the following sections. Integration with the existing services or plans of Discovery Ridge is discussed, as applicable.
19.1.2.5.1      Missouri Department of Natural Resources The Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ), within the MDNR, includes the Air Pollution Control Program, Water Protection Branch, Hazardous Waste Program, Public Drinking Water Branch, and State Historic Preservation Office. The following sections summarize these programs.
19.1.2.5.1.1        Air Pollution Control Program The Air Conservation Commission administers the air quality standards and requirements within the Code of State Regulations (CSR), specifically 10 CSR Division 10, "Air Conservation Commission."
19-10
NW MIChapter
        ** . .NOTWSMEDICAL IDOTOPDSR 19.0-    n      iromna Rev.iew ve Construction permits - Construction permits are also called new source review permits and are issued by the Air Conservation Commission. Construction permits allow for construction and operation of an air emission source and are required prior to commencing construction of an air emission source. All new installations built with the potential to emit (PTE) a regulated air pollutant in an amount equal to or greater than the de minimis (threshold) level are required to obtain a construction permit.
A construction permit is not required if potential emissions of the entire installation are less than regulatory de minimis levels or potential emissions of the proposed project are below the insignificance levels. Permit exemptions are detailed in 10 CSR 10-6.061, "Construction Permit Exemptions."
The regulated air pollutants, de minimis emissions levels, and insignificance levels for determining exemptions and new source review thresholds are listed in Table 19-1 and Table 19-2.
Table 19-1. De Minimis Emission Levels of 10 CSR 10-6.020(3)(A)
Carbon monoxide (CO)                        90.71    100    IAsbestos                              0.0064    0.007 Particulate matter                          22.67    25      Sulfur acid mist                        6.35      7 Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 )                      36.28    40      Hydrogen sulfide                        9.07      10 Lead                                        0.544    0.6    Reduced sulfur compounds                9.07      10 (including hydrogen sulfide)
Beryllium                                0.00036 0.0004 Sum of hazardous air pollutants              22.67      25 Source: 10 CSR 10-6.020, "Definitions and Common Reference Tables," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.
VOC        =    volatile organic compound.
Table 19-2. Emission Levels of Common Air Pollutants PM-10          0.45        1.00    13.6        15          90.7            100            226.8            250 NOx            1.25      2.75    36.29        40          90.7            100            226.8            250 CO              3.12      6.88      90.7        100          90.7            100            226.8            250 aOr  the hazardous emission threshold as established in Subsection (12)(J) of 10 CSR 10-6.060, "Construction Permits Required," whichever is less.
CO          =  carbon monoxide.                            PM-10      =  particulate matter, 10 ~i.
HAP        =  hazardous air pollutant.                    SOx        =  sulfur oxides.
NOx        = nitrogen oxides.                              VOC        = volatile organic compound.
NSR        = new source review.
19-11
EIOTPESChptr
:ChptrMEDCA                              NWMI-130,Re.A                        9.0 -Environmental Review The PTE of the RPF project will be calculated based on the maximum design capacity of the equipment, assuming continuous operation (24 hr/day, 365 days/year). In the Construction Permit Application, the RPF may request emission limits that, if accepted by the Missouri Air Pollution Control Program, will become part of the constraints in the construction permit. The proposed limits could change the type of RPF construction permit issued and the operating permit status.
Operating permits - Operating permits are issued by the Air Pollution Control Program in accordance with Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and implementing regulations in 40 CFR 70, "State Operating Permit Programs." All sources with a PTE-regulated air pollutant above de minimis levels are required to obtain an operating permit. There are three classes of operating permits in Missouri:
40 CFR 70 operating permit - This is required for installations with potential emissions exceeding 91.7 tonne per year (t/yr) (100 tons per year [tons/yr]) of any criteria pollutant, (9.07 t/yr) 10 tons/yr of any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or 22.7 t/yr (25 tons/yr) of combined HAPs; or if the EPA Administrator requires a 40 CFR 70 permit as part of a Federal rulemaking. These emissions levels are calculated after control devices and are called the major source threshold.
      *Intermediate (or synthetic minor) operating permit - These permits may be obtained by installations with a PTE above the major source threshold that request a voluntary limit on operations to keep emissions below the major source threshold. Conditions could include absolute emissions limits, recordkeeping of operating hour limits, or production limits.
      *Basic State operating permit - This permit is required if the PTE is between de minimnis and major levels. All incinerators must obtain an operating permit, regardless of the level of emissions.
Sources of nonradioactive criteria air pollutants or HAPs from RPF construction may include fugitive dust and vehicle emissions (on-road and off-road vehicles). Vehicle emissions are also a source of greenhouse gases (GHG). Operation of the RPF may generate criteria air pollutants, HAPs, and GHGs from diesel-fired boilers, electric diesel generators, and facility chemical usage.
The NRC implements the primary radiation protection standards for RPF air emissions. Radioactive air emissions will be addressed in the license application and subject to the dose limits and requirements of 10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation."
19.1.2.5.1.2    Water Protection Branch The MDNR Clean Water Commission administers water quality standards and requirements in 10 CSR Division 20, "Clean Water Commission." The Clean Water Commission issues construction and operating permits as required in 10 CSR 20-6.0 10, "Construction and Operating Permits," to persons who build, erect, alter, replace, operate, use, or maintain existing point sources, or intend these actions for a proposed point source, water contaminant sources, or wastewater treatment facilities. These permits enforce the Missouri Clean Water Law and regulations and administer the NPDES program. Nonpoint source discharges and service connections to wastewater sewer systems are exempt from permitting requirements.
The proposed lot for the RPF at Discovery Ridge is approximately 3.0 ha (7.4 acres). An NPDES construction stormwater management permit is required for disturbances of greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre) of land. The RPF would either operate under a Missouri General Operating Permit MO-RIOA000 for land disturbance on new sites or conform to the criteria and standards of the Discovery Ridge Master Storm Water Management Plan under a stormwater management permit issued to the site.
19-12
IIVVChapter
    **....NORIhWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Chptr1MWI-0I-21                ev. O 9.0 -Environmental Review The Clean Water Commission issues a 401 Water Quality Certification to any facility requiring a Federal Section 404 (of the CWA) permit. This includes facilities that place material or fill into the jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The Section 401 certification is verification by the state of Missouri that the project would not violate water quality standards. The construction, operation, and decommissioning of the RPF is not anticipated to need a Federal Section 404 permit or Section 401 certification from the Commission.
Under 10 CSR 20-6.0 10, facilities that discharge wastes into a sewerage system are not required to obtain an NPDES permit if the owner of the sewerage system has a valid NPDES permit. The RPF would not discharge process wastewater into the Discovery Park sewer system. Sanitary wastewater would be discharged in accordance with Boone County sewer regulations.
19.1.2.5.1.3          Hazardous Waste Program The Hazardous Waste Management Commission (HWMC) administers the hazardous waste standards and requirements in 10 CSR Division 25, "Hazardous Waste Management Commission."
The HWMC regulates hazardous waste and administers a permitting program for owners and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. 10 CSR Division 25 hazardous waste management rules incorporate by reference, unless otherwise modified, the Federal hazardous waste management regulations. The effective date for rules for mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes in Missouri was March 12, 1993.
Under 10 CSR 25-7.270, "Missouri Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit Program," a permit is required for the treatment, storage (generated onsite and stored beyond the timeframes allowed without a permit pursuant to 10 CSR 25-5.262, "Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste") or disposal of hazardous waste. Resource recovery of hazardous waste is regulated by 10 CSR 25-9.020, "Hazardous Waste Recovery Processes," and an owner or operator of a facility that uses, reuses, or recycles hazardous waste must be certified under 10 CSR 25-9, "Resource Recovery," or permitted under 10 CSR 25-7, "Rules Applicable to Owners/Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities."
A permit is not required for an elementary neutralization unit or a wastewater treatment unit that receives hazardous waste generated onsite and demonstrates compliance with the requirements of 10 CSR 25-7.270(2)(A)3 to the satisfaction of the HWMC.
The RPF would generate hazardous, universal, and mixed waste (hazardous waste containing radioactive material) from facility processes. The waste may exhibit hazardous characteristics (e.g., corrosivity or toxicity) and contain spent regulated solvents. Waste would generally be managed under requirements of 10 CSR 25-5.262 and 10 CSR 25-16.273, "Standards for Universal Waste Management." Treatment, including elementary neutralization or resource recovery of solvents, may occur without a permit, subject to certification and demonstrations required under 10 CSR 25-9 and 10 CSR 25-7.270(2)(A)(3).
LLMW generated by the RPF would be managed to meet the storage and treatment conditional exemption in 10 CSR 25-7.266, "Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities" (incorporating 40 CFR 266, Subpart N, "Conditional Exemption for Low-Level Mixed Waste Storage, Treatment, Transportation, and Disposal"). The RPF mixed waste would be exempt from the definition of hazardous waste in 10 CSR 25-3.260, "Definitions, Modifications to Incorporations, and Confidential Business Information," as the waste would be generated under a single NRC license, stored, and treated in a tank or container, and managed according to conditions that include the following:
* NWMI would notify MDNR, in writing and by certified delivery, to claim a conditional exemption for LLMW stored in the facility.
19-13
NOTWETMEIL ISOOE                                                  hpe        NWM,-2013-021, Rev. 0A
    . NWChapte                                                                    19.0 - Environmental Review
* LLMW would be stored and treated in tanks or containers in compliance with the license requirements that apply to the proper storage of LLMW (not including those requirements that relate solely to recordkeeping).
        *LLMW would be stored and treated in tanks or containers in compliance with chemical compatibility requirements.
        *Inventory of the stored conditionally exempt LLMW would be conducted at least annually and be inspected at least quarterly for compliance with 10 CSR 25-7.
        *Facility personnel who manage stored conditionally exempt LLMW would be certified and trained in a manner to ensure that the conditionally exempt waste is safely managed; this includes training in chemical waste management and hazardous materials incident response that meets the personnel training standards.
        *An emergency plan would be maintained and provided to all local agencies that may respond to a fire, explosion, or release of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents.
19.1.2.5.1.4      Public Drinking Water Branch The Safe Drinking Water Commission administers the public drinking water standards and requirements in 10 CSR Division 60, "Safe Drinking Water Commission." The mission of the Public Drinking Water Program is to provide safe and adequate public drinking water supplies for residents of and transients in the state. Drinking water for the RPF would be provided through service connections in accordance with the Columbia Code of Ordinance requirements (City of Columbia, 2013a).
19.1 .2 .5.1.5    Department of Health and Senior Services The Department of Health and Human Services administers a radiation control program under the requirements of 19 CSR 20-10, "Protection Against Ionizing Radiation." Exemptions to the regulations are identified in 19 CSR 20-10.020, "Exemptions from Requirements of this Chapter," and include use of radioactive sources licensed by the NRC to installations in Missouri. Radioactive sources, as applicable to the RPF, would be managed under requirements of the NRC license and excluded from Missouri regulation.
19.1.2.5.1.6      Department of Conservation The Department of Conservation is charged with the protection and management of Missouri fish, forest, and wildlife resources. Conservation requirements are identified in 3 CSR Division 10, "Department of Conservation." The department maintains two references relating to the status of listed plants and animals in Missouri: The Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation Concern Checklist (State of Missouri, 2014), and Wildlife Code of Missouri (3 CSR 10-4.110, "General Prohibition; Applications,"
and 3 CSR 10-9.11l0[l1][B], "General Prohibition; Applications"). The Conservation Concern Checklist is used mostly for planning and communication purposes.
All birds, fish, crayfish, mussels, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, or other forms of wildlife, including other invertebrates listed in the checklist, are protected by the Wildlife Code. Collection or harvest of these species during RPF construction, operation, or decommissioning would only be performed according to applicable permits as prescribed in Chapter 5 of the Wildlife Code.
19.1.2.6      Local Governments The RPF would be located in Columbia, Missouri, in Boone County. The following sections summarize how local jurisdictions implement environmental requirements for land disturbances, stormwater management, sewer discharges, and drinking water connections.
19-14
I*.iIVVIVIw::*.;=z;*Chapter Iwu                                                Chpe9.0 1iiNWM,-2013-021.
                                                                                          - Environmental Rev. OA Review
    **'.'""NORIhWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES 19.1.2.6.1          Boone County The Boone County Resource Management Department centralizes the engineering, planning, and inspection services provided by the county. County requirements address stormwater management, stream buffers, floodplain regulations, driveway location, road design, subdivision requirements, and building construction. Boone County requires a land disturbance permit prior to land-clearing activities equal to or greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre) or within close proximity to an environmentally sensitive area.
If not covered under Discovery Ridge land disturbances permits, NWMI would request a land disturbance permit through the Resource Management Department. The department also offers an electronic stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for land disturbance projects disturbing 0.4 ha (1 acre) or more. The SWPPP template would guide NWMI through the SWPPP development process to help ensure that the SWPPP addresses all the necessary elements stated in the Missouri State General Permit and Boone County regulations (Boone County, 2013a).
The Boone County Regional Sewer District provides wastewater management services to Discovery Ridge. The NWMI facility must comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 2 of the Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations, including Section 2.12, "Unlawful Dischargers," establishing pollutant limits and pretreatment requirements, and Section 2.17.2, "Operating, Inspection, and Monitoring," which is for industrial users (Boone County, 2013b).
The Missouri State Legislature (Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 64.850, "County commission may prescribe zoning regulations") delegated the responsibility to local governmental units to adopt floodplain management regulations designed to protect health, safety, and general welfare. This ordinance applies to all lands within the jurisdiction of Boone County, identified as numbered and unnumbered A, AE, AO, and AH zones on Panel 290 19CINDOA of the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Boone County (Boone County, 2011). A floodplain development permit must be acquired for all proposed construction or other development, including the placement of manufactured homes, in those zones. The RPF site is not located within any of these zones.
19.1.2.6.2          City of Columbia Potable water connections - The Columbia Water Treatment Plant is owned and operated by the City of Columbia and the Water and Light Department. The system supplies water to approximately 45,500 customers. The water system has approximately 46,250 service connections, and the average daily consumption is 47.69 million liters (ML)/day (12.6 million gallons per day ([IMgal/day]). The Columbia Water Treatment Plant is in compliance with all State and Federal drinking water regulations.
The plant is in the Northeast Regional Office district of the MDNR. Requests for drinking water connections would be made in accordance with Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27, "Utilities for the City of Columbia" (City of Columbia, 2013a). Code of Ordinances, Chapter 6, "Buildings and Building Regulations" (City of Columbia, 2013b), adopts the 2009 Edition of the International Building Code (IBC, 2009) by reference with amendment, and would be the building standard for the RPF.
Stormwater regulation - The City of Columbia and Boone County adopted stormwater regulations in response to requirements mandated by EPA as part of implementing Phase II of the CWA (MDNR, 2012a).
These regulations were adopted by the city in 2007 and the county in 2010. Two components are within each set of regulations: Stormwater Management Standards, and Stream Buffer Standards.
Storm water management - The adopted city and county regulations address the water quantity and water quantity that leaves a development site. The regulations specify that the volume of post-development runoff cannot exceed that of a site's predevelopment state. Therefore, many new developments require significant on-site detention and filtration facilities. Previous regulations allowed stormwater to be discharged directly into the creeks (MDNR, 2012a). Under the city stormwater regulations, subdivisions preliminarily platted prior to September 2007 are exempt from the new regulations (City of Columbia, 2013a).
19-15
  .,    NWMIChapter                                                                    NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A The goal of the new city regulations is to mitigate flooding, erosion, pollution of streams, and personal property damage caused by development activities.
Stream buffers    - A major component of the City of Columbia and Boone County stormwater regulations is the stream buffering requirement. Stream buffers are natural vegetation areas that serve as boundaries between disturbed land and local waterways. The buffers act as filtration systems for stormwater            Table 19-3. Required Stream Buffer Width, runoff entering creeks and protect aquatic habitat.                    Identified by Stream Type Stream buffers also stabilize stream banks, mitigate flooding, and preserve natural areas that serve as vital habitat and corridors. Stream buffers are                -
measured from the ordinary high-water mark and                    1          Perennial        31        100 vary in width depending on stream type. The three                2          1~in              52      5 regulated stream types identified in the city and                3Ehmrl                      92        3 county regulations are shown in Table 19-3.
Stream buffers were expanded to include slopes greater than 15 percent that are adjacent to outer buffers.
City and county regulations include a 61 meter (in) (200-foot [ft]) buffer from karst features (e.g.,
sinkholes). The inner half of stream buffers must be left as undisturbed natural vegetation. In Columbia, but not in Boone County, accessory structures (e.g., sheds) may be built within the outer half of these buffers. Trails and maintained lawns may be situated within the outer buffer.
Landscaping regulations      - Landscaping and screening standards exist as part of the city zoning ordinance. These provisions are intended to accomplish the following:
* Establish healthy environmental conditions by providing shade, air purification, oxygen regeneration, groundwater recharge, stormwater runoff retardation, erosion control, and noise, glare, and heat abatement
* Provide visual buffering from streets, to buffer potentially incompatible land uses and to generally enhance the quality and appearance of a development site
* Encourage the preservation of existing trees and vegetation
* Supplement the land disturbance permit requirements The landscaping standards apply to all new development and new parking lots exceeding a minimum threshold size. There are several exclusions to the landscaping requirements, which are explained in the zoning ordinance (City of Columbia, 1998).
Tree preservation regulations      - While City of Columbia requires tree preservation, Boone County has no specific tree preservation ordinance. However, with the recent adoption of the county stream buffer regulations, there exists an opportunity to implement the first ongoing regulation that would have a direct effect on tree preservation.
According to the MDNR, tree preservation has been most effective on unsubdivided parcels greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre) inside the city limits. This is the result of the city requirement that a tree survey be conducted to determine what climax forest exists on a site prior to land-clearing activities.
19-16
:    :                                        Chpter 9.0  - Environmental Review
    * .=..
        "NOThwESr
          ,    MEWICALISOTQPIS 19.1.2.7        Permit and Approval Status A final determination of permits and approvals applicable to the RPF would be made with appropriate regulatory interface. Consultations will ensure that applications or certifications are prepared and submitted in accordance with requirements, and approved in a timely manner. Permits and approvals necessary for RPF construction and operation are identified in Table 19-4.
Table 19-4. Regulatory Compliance Status (4 pages) 19-17
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWMI                                        Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-4. Regulatory Compliance Status (4 pages) 19-18
N W*. lv'i-,-i                                                    hate 19.0NWMI-2013-021, Chapter      -Environmental Rev. 0A Review Table 19-4. Regulatory Compliance Status (4 pages)
Resource Conservation    Notification of    Obtain Missouri          Registration to be
      *and    Recovery Act        Regulated Activity  identification number    filed 90 days prior to Missouri Revised Statute                    for generation of        generating hazardous Chapter 260                                  hazardous waste          waste 10 CSR Division 25      Certified Resource  Reuse, reclamation, or    Application to be Recovery Facility  recycling 1,000 kg        submitted 90 days Application        (2,204.6 lb) or more of  prior to operations site-generated hazardous waste in a month Notification to    Notify MDNR in            Notification to be MDNR of            writing and by certified  submitted 90 days Conditional        delivery of the claim of  prior to operations Exemption          a conditional exemption for LLMW stored and treated in the facility Hazardous Waste                              Not required Treatment, storage or Permit              disposal of hazardous waste Clean Water Act          Stormwater          Stormwater                Application to be Missouri Revised        Discharge Permit    management                submitted 30 days Statute, Chapter 64                                                    prior to construction Boone County                                                          Application to be Land Disturbance    Activity disturbing Stormwater Ordinance    Permit              0.4 ha (1 acre) or more  submitted 30 days of land or disturbing    prior to construction 278.7 m2 (3,000 ft2) in environmentally sensitive areas Clean Water Act          Sanitary sewer      Building connection to    Required information Missouri Revised Statute connection approval District wastewater      to be submitted Chapter 250                                  treatment works          30 days prior to Chapter 2 of Boone                                                    construction County Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations 19-19
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA I
* *..*. :" mo*+4wssxMSg4CALISOtO*S                                                Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-4.      Regulatory Compliance Status (4 pages) a Full references are provided in Section 19.7.
b Only required when oil is stored in a tank or shell with a capacity over 1,320 gallons (gal), and the oil could reasonably reach navigable water.
CFR              =    Code of Federal Regulations.                  NRC      =  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
CSR              =    Code of State Regulations.                    RCRA      =  Resource Conservation and Recovery EPA              =    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.                      Act.
HVAC              =    heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. RPF      =  radioisotope production facility.
LLMW              =    low-level mixed waste.                        SPCC      =  spill prevention, control, and MDNR              =    Missouri Department of Natural Resources,                  countermeasure.
NPDES            =    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination      U.S.      =  United States.
System.
19-20
    "i:NWMI S-.
      . NORThW*ST Mli*AL I3OTOPB NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review 19.1.3 Consultation and Coordination Table 19-5 lists the consultations required for construction and operation of the proposed RPF. The table provides the following information for each consultation, as applicable, including the name of the responsible regulatory agency; applicable law, ordinance, or regulation; required consultation; summary of any surveys required to complete the consultation; and status.
Table 19-5.        Consultation Required for Construction and Operation Status (2 pages)
Federal State of Missouri Missouri              Rules of Department of        None                      None        Consultation letter was Department of Conservation (3 CSR 10)                                                    submitted to the MDC on Conservation                                                                              July 14, 2014. No response has been received.
Osage Nation
* National Environmental                                            Consultation letter was Consultation regarding    None Policy Act                protection of traditional            submitted to the Osage
* National Historic          Native American                      Nation on July 14. 2014.
Preservation Act          religious and cultural                No response has been
* Native American Graves      resources                            received.
Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.)
19-21
NWMI-2013.-021, Rev. 0A
~yNWMI                                                                      Chapter 19.0  - Environmental Review Table 19-5.      Consultation Required for Construction and Operation Status (2 pages)
Kaw Nation
* National Environmental    Consultation regarding    None          Consultation letter was Policy Act                protection of traditional                submitted to the Kaw
* National Historic          Native American                          Nation on July 14, 2014.
Preservation Act          religious and cultural                    No response has been
* Native American Graves    resources                                received.
Protection and Repatriation Act Omaha Tribe
* National Environmental    Consultation regarding    None          Consultation letter was Policy Act                protection of traditional                submitted to the Omaha
* National Historic          Native American                          Tribe on July 14, 2014. No Preservation Act          religious and cultural                    response has been received.
* Native American Graves    resources Protection and Repatriation Act a Full references are provided in Section 19.7.
b Unless noted otherwise, copies of the consultation letters submitted/received are provided in Appendix A.
CSR        =  Code of State Regulations.                  U.S.C.    =  United States Code.
IPaC      =  information, planning, and conservation. USFWS      =  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
MDC        =  Missouri Department of Conservation.
19-22
ChaperI1NWM-2013-o2, Rev.              OA flIVChapter                                                                          9.0 - Environmental Review 19.2 PROPOSED ACTION As described in Section 19.2.1, the proposed action requires authorization by the NRC for NWMI to construct and later operate the proposed RPF at Discovery Ridge to commercially produce 99Mo using LEU.
Section 19.2.1 also describes actions that are connected to the proposed action. Connected actions fall within the scope of the actions evaluated in an environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1508.25, "Scope").
19.2.1    Description of Proposed Action and Connected Actions The proposed action is the issuance of an NRC Construction Permit and Operating License under 10 CFR 50 and provisions of 10 CFR 70 and 10 CFR 30 that would authorize NWMI to construct and operate a 99Mo RPF at a site located in Columbia, Missouri. Proposed RPF activities include:
* Receiving LEU from DOE
* Producing LEU target materials and fabrication of targets
* Packaging and shipping LEU targets to the university reactor network for irradiation
* Returning irradiated LEU targets for dissolution, recovery, and purification of 99Mo
* Recovering and recycling LEU to minimize radioactive, mixed, and hazardous waste generation
* Treating/packaging wastes generated by RPF process steps to enable transport to a disposal site The RPF is being designed to have a nominal operational processing capability of one batch per week of up to 12 targets from MURR for up to 52 weeks per year and approximately 30 targets from the Oregon State University (OSU) TRIGA1 Reactor (OSTR) or a third university reactor for eight weeks per year per reactor. The impacts analyzed for this ER were based on the bounding scenario of MURR operating 52 weeks per year, with both the OSTR and third reactor operating eight weeks per year, for a total of 68 batches of irradiated LEU targets processed at the RPF annually.
For the proposed RPF to fulfill its function, other "connected actions" would also occur. The RPF connected action is the use of a network of university research reactors for the irradiation of LEU targets. The ER evaluates transport of the unirradiated LEU targets to each university research reactor, irradiation of the LEU targets at each reactor, and transport of the irradiated LEU targets back to the RPF. License amendments associated with university research reactors irradiating LEU targets would be completed by each reactor organization and would be separate from this proposed action.
NWMI has currently identified two university research reactors to be part of the irradiation network:
MURR and OSTR.reactor will be added to the network that is similar to OSTR. An analysis to recommend the third university reactor is currently underway. The university reactors being considered include [Proprietary Information]. NWMI has bounded the decision for the third reactor by the university reactor that is the [Proprietary Information].
The primary activities to be completed during construction, pre-operation, operation, and decommissioning are described below.
Construction - During the construction phase of the RPF, the following types of construction activities would be completed, including land clearing, set up of equipment laydown areas, utility installation, buildings, parking lots, and roads.
Pre-Operations - Prior to commercial operations, the RPF would go through a commissioning phase to ensure that the facility functions as designed and meets all NRC license and State and local requirements.
The commissioning process comprises the integrated application of a set of engineering techniques and procedures to check, inspect, and test every operational component of the project, from individual functions (e.g., instruments and equipment), to complex modules, subsystems, and systems.
STRIGA (Training. Research. Isotopes. General Atomics) is a registered trademark of General Atomics. San Diego. California.
19-23
  ,,. N Wlvii;.°.  'Chaper.                                                          hate NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A 9.0 -Environmental Review Operations - The RPF would have the operations capacity to produce 50 percent of the U.S. 99 Mo demand. 99Mo produced from the proposed NWMI RPF would indistinguishable from 99Mo from the 99 existing fleet of nuclear reactors and would not require redesign of the                  Mo generator technology in the U.S. supply chain.
Decommissioning        - The process of closing and securing a nuclear facility would provide adequate protection from radiation exposure and to isolate radioactive contamination from the environment.
Activities include surveillance, maintenance, decontamination, and/or dismantlement. These actions are taken at the end of the life of a facility to retire it from service, with adequate regard for the health and safety of workers and the public and protection of the environment.
19.2.1.1      Schedule The schedule for proposed RPF construction, operation, and decommissioning is as follows:
* Start date of site preparation/construction: First quarter 2016
* End date of construction: First quarter 2017
* Start date of facility startup and cold commissioning (pre-operational): Second quarter 2017
* Date of hot commissioning and commercial operations: Third quarter 2017
* Date of decommissioning: 2047 19.2.1.2      Affected Land During construction the total affected land would 3.0 ha (7.4 acres) or 100 percent of the site. The entire site (3.0 ha [7.4 acres]) would be permanently affected as a result of operational activities.
19.2.1.3      Personnel, Materials, and Equipment Required During Project Phases All work completed prior to receiving the Construction Permit Application for the proposed RPF would be completed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10(a)(2), "License Required; Limited Work Authorization."
Table 19-6 provides an estimate of the resources required during each of the major facility phases (construction, pre-operation, operation, and decommissioning) of the proposed action.
Table 19-6.        Resources Required During Radioisotope Production Facility Phases il-~S~l lll                        l1  il  [0] II -  l ,I1    StIi    SSl i        *li~lli 3-lel i0 li    *i Average workforce                                      38                21                  98                    15 Delivery trucks (per week)                              20241 Fuel (diesel), L/month (gal/month)              "1,647 (435)        b 1 8 9 (50)          b 18 9 (50)        1,647 (435) a The majority of the diesel fuel is consumed during the first three months of construction.
b Diesel fuel is used for backup generator.
C LEU  needed for hot commissioning and initial RPF startup.
d LEU needed in Operation [Proprietary Information] for addition of second university reactor.
eLEU needed in Operation [Proprietary Information] for addition of third university reactor.
19-24
  *.NWMI
      .4o** NOAR*hSMEOICAISOTQPIfS NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Materials consumed during the construction phase are shown in Table 19-7.
Table 19-7.          Estimated Materials Consumed During Construction Phase Concrete                                  3,257 m3          4,260 yd3                Asphalt                                            245 m3        320 yd3 363 t          400 tons                Stone gr~n~uli~r materii~1                        1~300~'      1~700yd 3 Miscellaneous steel                            45 t            50 tons                Roofing                                          4,645 m2    50,000 ft2 t~#r                                  l2Tt            140 toni              IIPre~ast c~                                          435t      4U~ohs 50,000 ft2 4,645 m2 19.2.1.4 Applicant for the Proposed Action NWMI is an Oregon limited-liability company (LLC). The company was formed solely to provide                                                                99Mo to the medical industry. NWMI's owners are listed in Table 19-8.
Table 19-8.      Northwest Medical Isotopes Ownership Summary Samaritan Health Services, Inc.                          Oregon, not-for-profit corporation                                          [Proprietary Information]
Orion Ventures, LLC                                      Oregon, limited-liability company                                            [Proprietary Information]
[PoreayIfrain Talents Venture Fund                                    Delaware, limited-liability company
[Proprietary Information]
aOther
*I *J*      * *  *  =i *£P* i* ..... *= *  * %*  I¸ *i* *  =*I*i*=
* ii * * *i # L* £ii*I*iiW
                                                                                              *L*X* * * * *
* c<*$* i*? *=i*i*&#xb8;
                                                                                                                            *i *I{*i8 a    Membership interests are less than 2 percent.
19.2.2          Radioisotope Production Facility Site Location and Layout 19.2.2.1            Site Location The proposed 3.0 ha (7.4-acre) RPF site is situated within Discovery Ridge, north of Discovery Ridge Drive. Discovery Ridge is located in the City of Columbia, Boone County, Missouri. The site is situated in central Missouri, approximately 201 kilometer (kin) (125 miles [mi]) east of Kansas City and 201 km (125 mi) west of St. Louis. The site is 7.2 km (4.5 mi) south of U.S. Interstate 70, just north of U.S.
Highway 63 (Figure 19-4). The Missouri River lies 15.3 km (9.5 mi) west of the site. The site is located 5.6 km (3.5 mi) southeast of the main MU campus.
The approximate center of the RPF is longitude 920 16' 34.63" and latitude 380 54' 3.31" (NAD 83, 1983).
Figure 19-5 illustrates the 8 km (5-mi) radius from the center of the facility and shows highways, rivers, and other local bodies of water.
19-25
.*-.WMlIkII                                                            NWMI.-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review A  RPF Site                                                  Major River Q  200kmn (124 mile) Radius frmRPF St                        State Boundaries City Interstate Highways 60        90        120 Miles                    Mark Twain National Forest Figure 19-4. 200 km (124-mi) Radius with Cities and Roads 19-26
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
  *~.NWMI FtORTHWS MW A SOOPS Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review A RPF Site                                        Interstate Highways 0*  8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site        -Highways
(      City Limits Mark Twain National Forest 0  0.5    1              2    3        4
              ,          ,      ,Miles Figure 19-5. Illustration of 8 km (5-mi) Radius from the Center of the Facility 19-27
NMAIM                                                                          NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.2 .2.1 .1 Population The 2010 Census reported that Columbia had a population of 108,500, which increased by 20.1 percent over the 10 preceding years (USCB, 2010a/b). Ashland is located approximately 14.5 km (9 mi) south of the proposed RPF site and had a 2010 Census population of 3,707, which increased 50 percent over the 10 preceding years. The population of Columbia resides primarily north-northwest of the proposed site.
The 2010 Census Boone County population was 162,642 (USCB, 2010a/b). In the fall of 2012, MU had a population of approximately 34,748 students (MU, 2013).
19.2.2.1.1.1    Sensitive Populations Table 19-9 provides a list of the sensitive populations (e.g., schools, daycares, retirement homes) within a 5-mi radius of the proposed RPF site. The list was developed using multiple sources and surveys.
Google Earth was used to determine the distances from the site.
Table 19-9. Sensitive Populations (2 pages)
Nearest full-time resident  0.43  0.27 South        IISunset Mobile Home Park          0.93  0.58 Northwest Rock Bridge High School      5.25  3.26 West        IHickman    High School            8.52  5.3 Northwest Rock Bridge Elementary      5.12  3.18 West          Field Elementary School          7.96 4.95 Northwest School Cedar Ridge Elementary      4.08  2.54 North                                          7.85  4.88 Northwest Grant Elementary School School Western Governors University Missouri          2.16                    I 1.34 Northwest jSteven's College                    6.92  4.3  Northwest Little Miracles Preschool    2.8  1.74 North      IIFr. Tolton Catholic School              High        1.42- 0.88 Southwest 19-28
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA
:. NWMfI                                                                Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Table 19-9. Sensitive Populations (2 pages)
I      -                                              I  .    -
Green Meadows Preschool        6.92  4.3  West        Tiger Tots Child Development  7.43  4.62 Northwest Center L9~ Southeast      Bi~d of>~be ~aip~ow Luke's Child Care and          3.62 2.25 North          Academy of Early Childhood    5.46 3.39 North Preschool                                              Learning Down to Earth Preschool          5.8  3.6 West 0.91 Northwest IColumbia Manor Care Center Lenoir Woods Senior Living      1.46                                                  2.99  1.86 West Bluff Creek Terrace            2.53  1.57 Northwest Providence Urgent Care        5.38  3.34 West IGreen Meadows Pediatric and    5.95    3.7 West Adolescent Medicine Missouri Orthopedic            5.83  3.62 Northwest    University of Columbia        6.13  3.81 Northwest Institute                                              Hospital Peditri Suger, Plsti 616    .83Northwest    University of Missouri, Mohs 5.95      3.7 Northwest University    of Missouri Children's HospitalJ                                    & Dermatology Surgery Clinic 19.2.2.2        Site Layout The RPF site is 3.0 ha (7.4-acre) and is located entirely on property owned by MU. Figure 19-6 shows a footprint of the major structures, site layout, fence line, and site boundary (Lot 15). The major structures include the RPF, Waste Staging and Shipping Building, and Diesel Generator Building. Additionally, the site has an Administration Building and Security Stations. These major facilities also receive, store/hold, or process chemicals, oil, diesel fuel, and other hazardous and radioactive materials. The site presently consists of grass fields and is primarily relatively flat surfaces at an elevation of 231 m (758 ft). Access to the site is provided from Discovery Drive and Discovery Parkway.
19-29
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
      .NWMI                                                                                    Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review f*  Rough Estimate of Operations Boundary and Eme~rgency Planning lone SSite Boundary. Area l*retly Under the NRC Facility Operating l~icensc. Controlled Area Miles Figure 19-6.          Radioisotope Production Facility Site Boundary 19-30 I.=
    '. il-.V............                                                Chptr 9.0- Environmental Review The RPF main building is approximately 106.7 m (350 ft) long and 56.4 m (185 ft) wide. The height above grade is 14 m (46 ft) for the mechanical/electrical bay roof, 19.8 m (65 ft) for the high bay roof, and 22.9 m (75 ft) for the facility stacks. The site is enclosed by perimeter fencing to satisfy safeguards and security and other regulatory requirements. The total fenced area includes paved roads laid out as appropriate for the turning radius of tractor/trailers used to transport the irradiated target shipping and waste handling casks.
19.2.2.3      Infrastructure Improvements Discovery Ridge has the infrastructure (power, sewer, and water) required to support the proposed RPF.
Sanitary sewer, electric power, municipal water, and natural gas are installed from the facility to the utility connections presently located at the southwest corner of the site.
19.2.2.4      Existing Infrastructure The RPF site has no existing underground storage tanks, wells, pipelines, water supply, sewage, or stormwater systems.
19.2.2.5      Other Nearby Facilities/Buildings Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories - Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. (ABC Laboratories),
is located approximately 0.48 km (0.3 mi) west of the proposed RPF within Discovery Ridge. ABC Laboratories is a contract research organization that delivers a broad array of product development and analytical testing services to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, animal health, crop protection, and chemical industries. The facility is an 8,361 square meter (in 2 ) (90,000-square foot [ft2]) facility that includes chemical and biochemical laboratories and associated systems and equipment. The facility is a RCRA large quantity generator-permitted facility.
Research and Diagnostic Laboratory Facility        - The Research and Diagnostic Laboratory (RADIL) facility, located approximately 0.16 km (.0.1 mi) northwest of the proposed RPF within Discovery Ridge.
RADIL is owned by IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., who purchased the facility from the MU College of Veterinary Medicine. The 5,667 m-2 (61,000 ft2) facility provides health monitoring and diagnostic testing services to bioresearch customers. The facility is a RCRA small quantity generator-permitted facility.
19.2.2.6      Monitoring Stations The need for monitoring stations is discussed in the following sections:
* Air monitoring - Section 19.4.2.2
* Groundwater monitoring - Section 19.4.4.3
* Surface water monitoring - Section 19.4.4.3
* Meteorological monitoring - Section 19.4.2.2.5
* Ecological monitoring - Section 19.4.5.4
* Radiological monitoring  - Section 19.4.8.4 19-31
:i; N.,..Chaper        * ,;-.,;*                                                                Chater 9.0NWMI-2013-021,
                                                                                                                    - Environmental Rev. GA Review 19.2.3    Radioisotope Production Facility Description The proposed RPF would support target fabrication, recovery and purification of the 99Mo product from irradiated LEU targets that would be generated by irradiation in multiple university research reactors, and uranium recovery and recycle to produce 99Mo. Figure 19-7 shows the proposed site layout, including the RPF, adjacent administration and support buildings, security buildings and associated security fence.
DISC*OVIERY RI)]I      O  15                        , F RE WATIER PU[JMP SKID) 7.4 ACRES      *\/                        ,WASTE MANAGEMEINT BIDC P.L C.IgVE\                    //WASTE MANAGIEMENT CANOPY R-105.42'    *\                            /SIDE  SETBACK -IS FEET SPACE RESERVIED PO      FIRE WA11      ...
PARKING LOT 32 TOTA*L-    --
FRN STAC.-,35 FEET N' P!, CURVE -J L-I117.75'...                                                          UA*    OEE    N    lIO R,,74.30'                                                              TRAP AREA
                                            *(z~r        sm*.c*                *-    C**(T*ZL)SITE                    PLAN
                                        = 5F~                              *,PARKXING LOT E4TOTAL              0        100'      200' L,-359.S4' R=154,283' Figure 19-7.            Radioisotope Production Facility Site Layout Figure 19-8 is first level general layout of the RPF. Figure 19-9 and Figure 19-10 are preliminary layouts of the first level and second level, respectively, of the RPF. A mezzanine area above a portion of the process area would be for utility, ventilation and offgas equipment. The following sections provide a description of the major rooms included in the facility layout.
The first level (excluding the tank pit area) and second levels of the RPF are currently estimated to contain approximately 4,282 m2 (46,088 ft 2) and 1,569 m2 (16,884 ft2) of floor space, respectively. The processing hot cell and waste management temporary storage floor space area is approximately 544 m2 (5,857 ft2). The maximum height of the building is 19.8 m (65 ft) with a maximum stack height of 22.9 m (75 ft). The depth of the processing hot cell belowgrade, without footers, is 4.6 m (15 fi) of enclosure height in rooms containing process equipment.
19-32
(. NWMI NSST~ S MESS A SOS ES NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review II    II          II  II Figure 19-8. General Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility 19-33
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
* e.e"NORTHWEST MEDICAL SOTOPES Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review
[Proprietary Information]
Figure 19-9. Preliminary Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility First Level Floor Plan 19-34
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
.;;@NWMI
* .. i.e.&deg;." ' NORTHWEST MEOICA(.ISOTOPES                                      Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review
[Proprietary Information]
Figure 19-10. Preliminary Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility Second Level Floor Plan 19-35
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
    ..,,o;*NRTWESMEICAIOO                                                Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Figure 19-11 illustrates the hot cell details for target disassembly dissolution, Mo recovery and purification, uranium recovery and recycle, and waste management.
[Proprietary Information]
Figure 19-11. Radioisotope Production Facility Hot Cell Details 19-36
    .:*;..j,..N      MI.                                                                              Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
                                                                                                                      -  Environmental Review 19.2.3.1 Process Description A flow diagram of the primary process to be performed by the proposed RPF is provided in Figure 19-12.
IrradiatedTarget Disassembly Target Fabrication                                                                                and Dissolution
:0 Target U'
S    Unardae                                                                                    Claddin to Solid Waste Irradiated                            Handing Target Shqsn                                            Target I  to Urversity                                        Shipping  and Receivin 8                      Reactor I!
Fissio Product Soluteoitto Lqiad Waste H anllng trrp Sat 1Reactor Operations ILegend                                                            Product Cask SRPF Operations Customner 9
gMo Production Figure 19-12.        Radioisotope Production Facility Block Flow Diagram RPF operations include the following general process steps (which correspond with the above figure).
o        LEU target material is fabricated using a combination of fresh LEU and recycled uranium.
    &sect;        Target material is encapsulated using metal cladding to contain the LEU and fission products produced during irradiation.
* Fabricated targets are packaged and shipped to university reactors for irradiation.
o        After irradiation, targets are shipped back to the RPF.
* Irradiated targets are disassembled and metal cladding is removed.
O Targets are then dissolved into a solution for processing.
99 O Dissolved LEU solution is processed to recover and purify                                      Mo.
99 O Purified            Mo    is packaged in certified shipping containers and shipped to a radiopharmaceutical distributor.
* LEU solution is treated to recover uranium and remove trace contaminants and is recycled back to Step 1 to be made into new targets via the target fabrication system.
19-37
    .N      W
        .......... M ISOOE lvii:                                                Catr hpe    19.0 -WM-031Rev.        Q Environmental Review All process wastes that contain unwanted isotopes are converted to a disposal form by the waste handling system, where the wastes are placed in casks for shipment to a disposal site. Offgases are captured and treated through appropriate treatment systems and then released through a stack.
1 9.2 .3.1.1      Target Fabrication Summary (Steps 0, 0, and 0)
The target fabrication process converts fresh and recycled uranium into LEU target material, which is then loaded into target hardware for shipping to the reactors for irradiation. The material being processed in the target fabrication area requires no shielding; the equipment is contact-handled.
LEU target material production (Step 0) - LEU target material is produced using an internal gelation process. The material is produced from a combination of recycled uranyl nitrate, fresh uranium metal, and uranium compounds recycled from various points in the target fabrication system. The recycled uranyl nitrate is converted to acid-deficient uranyl nitrate (ADUN) using a solvent extraction process, which selectively removes nitrate ions from the solution. The resulting ADUN is mixed with the uranyl nitrate produced by dissolution of fresh uranium. This ADUN is evaporated to achieve the desired uranium concentration, and is then chilled before mixing with urea and hydroxymethyltetramine (HMTA) to form the gelation broth. This broth is injected into a column of heated silicone oil. At the base of the column, the LEU target material is filtered from the oil and washed with a solvent, ammonium hydroxide and water. The target material is then reduced in a stream of dilute hydrogen within a furnace. The LEU target material is sampled and analyzed to ensure that it meets quality requirements before routing to the target fabrication system.
Encapsulation (Step 0) - LEU target material is loaded into the target hardware. This hardware is prefabricated and cleaned before entering the facility. The targets are filled with LEU target materials and helium cover gas. Once the targets have been loaded and welded, they undergo inspection and quality assurance (QA) checks, including leak testing. Targets that pass the QA checks are shipped to the university reactors for irradiation. Targets that fail the QA checks are disassembled. The LEU target material is recycled, and the hardware is cleaned and disposed of as nonradioactive scrap.
Target packaging and shipment (Step 0) - Assembled targets are loaded into shipping casks for transport to the university reactors. Transport will be via ground transportation.
19.2 .3.1.2      Irradiated Target Receipt, Disassembly, and Dissolution Summary (Steps 0, 0, and 0)
Target receipt and disassembly (Steps 0 and 0) - The irradiated targets are received in shielded shipping casks. The irradiated LEU targets are moved into the hot cell via a below-grade tunnel to the hot cell access point that mates up with either the shipping cask or a transfer cask. The targets are disassembled by puncturing the target, collecting any fission product gases, severing the target in half, and transferring the irradiated LEU target material into a transfer container. The spent target are inspected and disposed of as solid waste.
Target dissolution (Step 0) - The target dissolution process is operated in a "batch" fashion, with the irradiated LEU target material transferred into a dissolver. The LEU material is dissolved in hot nitric acid. The offgas containing the fission product gases goes through a series of cleanup columns. The nitrogen oxides (NO0 ) is removed by a reflux condenser and several NO0 absorbers, the fission product gases (noble and iodine) are captured on absorbers, and the remaining gas is filtered and discharged into the process ventilation header. The dissolver solution is diluted, cooled, filtered, and pumped to the 99Mo system feed tank. Only one of the two dissolvers is planned to be actively dissolving LEU target material at a time.
19-38
  ."*i'.
  .      INWMI AIflNWMI-2013-021,                                          Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Rev. 0A Review 19.2 .3.1 .3    Molybdenumn-99 Product Recovery and Purification System (Steps Gand 0)
The dissolver solution from the target dissolution operation is processed to purify the 99Mo. The uranium-containing solutions from the 99Mo ion exchange (IX) columns are transferred to the uranium recovery system. The remaining waste solutions are sent to low- or high-dose waste storage tanks.
Mo recovery and purification (Step 0) - The dissolver solution from the target dissolution operation is pumped through the first TX column (Mo recovery). The 99Mo and trace components are absorbed onto the media. The uranium and most of the fission products and other contaminates flow through the column and are sent to the lag storage tanks in the uranium recovery and recycle system. The 99Mo is eluted from the first column and purify in the second and third IX columns. The product purification process primarily consists of a series of chemical adjustments and IX columns to remove unwanted isotopes from the 99Mo product solution.
99Mo      product packaging and shipping (Step 0) - Product solution is sampled to verify compliance with acceptance criteria after a final chemical adjustment. The product solution in small vials is then placed into shipping containers that are sequentially loaded into shipping casks. The casks are removed from the hot cell, surveyed, and manifested for transport to the customer. 99Mo product is transported via air or ground transportation depending on which radiopharmaceutical distributor is receiving the shipment.
19.2.3.1.4      Uranium Recovery and Recycle Summary (Step 0,)
The uranium process system consists of solution storage vessels, TX columns, and concentrators for uranium recovery and recycle. The lag storage tanks minimize upstream processing delays and provide several weeks of decay time before the material is processed through the system.
First cycle uranium recovery - The LEU stream from the first cycle molybdenum TX column is held in lag storage tanks to allow selected radionuclides to decay. The solution is then diluted and pumped through the first TX columns to separate the bulk of the fission product contaminants from the uranium.
The waste is sampled and sent to the high-dose liquid waste accumulation tank. The uranium is eluated from the TX columns, and a concentrator/condenser is used to control the volume of the uranium interim product. The condensate is send to the low-dose liquid waste accumulation tank.
Second cycle uranium recycle - The interim uranium product solution is processed through a second stage TX column to remove trace contaminates. The waste is sampled and sent to the high-dose liquid waste accumulation tank. The uranium is eluated from the TX columns, and a concentrator/condenser is used to control the volume of the recycled uranium product. The condensate is sent to the low-dose liquid waste accumulation tank. The final uranium product solution is sampled to confirm that it meets the recycle specification.
Product uranium lag storage - This subsystem consists of a series of solution storage vessels. The vessels allow the time necessary for uranium-237 (237 U) to decay to contact-handled levels in the uranium product solutions. The decayed uranium product is returned to target fabrication.
19.2.3.1.5      Waste Management System Description The waste management system is divided into three subsystems: (1) the liquid waste system, (2) the solid waste system, and (3) specialty waste systems.
Liquid waste system - The liquid waste disposal system consists of storage tanks for accumulating waste liquids and adjusting the waste composition. Liquid waste is split into high-dose and low-dose streams by concentration. The high-dose fraction is further concentrated, adjusted, and mixed with adsorbent material. A portion of the low-dose fraction is expected to be suitable for recycle to selected systems as process water. Water that is not recycled is adjusted and then mixed with an adsorbent material. Both solidified streams are held for decay and shipped to a disposal facility.
19-39
NODW.ETMEIA
:lvChater19.0 ISOOE                                                    hpe        NWM-2013-02,
                                                                                        - Environmental Rev. QA Review Solid waste system - The solid waste disposal system consists of an area for collection, size reduction, and staging of solid wastes. The solids are placed in a waste drum and encapsulated by adding a cement material to fill voids remaining within the drum. The solidified waste is held for decay and shipped to a disposal facility.
Specialty waste system    -  A specialty waste disposal system is based on addressing small quantities of unique wastes generated. The goal is to reuse as much of the material as possible. Examples of these processes may include organic and non-organic reclamation processes and silicone oil waste accumulation. These waste streams are containerized, stabilized, as appropriate, and shipped offsite for treatment and disposal.
19.2 .3.1.6 Process Offgas Systems The process offgas subsystem is connected directly to the process vessels and maintains a negative pressure within the vessels. Process vessel ventilation systems include a set of subsystems that are specialized to the equipment that the subsystems support. These systems merge together at the process offgas filter train.
Dissolver offgas subsystem      - The dissolver offgas subsystem is connected directly to the process vessels associated with the irradiated target dissolution process. There are two primary features of this system:
(1) recover NOx from the nitric acid dissolution of irradiated targets, and (2) capture fission product gases released from the irradiated targets. This subsystem is installed in the remote hot cell.
Iodine potential offgas subsystem      -  The iodine potential offgas subsystem is connected directly to process vessels or equipment that contain tellurium isotopes that decay and form iodine isotopes. Within this subsystem, an iodine capture system is included to ensure that any iodine evolving from the process is captured on the treatment media. After iodine treatment, the subsystem merges with the other process ventilation subsystems.
LEU targetltarget fabrication offgas subsystem        - The microsphere/target offgas subsystem is connected directly to the process vessels and equipment that are associated with the wet portion of the microsphere/target fabrication process. Filtration is required for this subsystem prior to merging with the other process ventilation subsystems. There are controls/design features in place to maintain the reducing gas within flammability limits.
19.2,3.2    Facility Areas 19.2 .3.2.1    Irradiated Target Receipt Bay The irradiated target receipt bay is used to receive irradiated fuel elements in shipping casks loaded on semi-truck trailers. The traveling bridge crane is used to transfer a shipping cask from the trailer onto a transfer cart for transfer to the hot cells. The shipping cask/transfer cart is transferred from the receipt bay airspace through a doorway into the hot cell operating gallery. The cask is introduced to a shielded transfer port in the hot cell, where the cask is remotely opened and targets are removed and staged within the hot cell for disassembly.
19.2 .3.2 .2 Remote Hot Cells Irradiated target processing is performed using equipment that is located in shielded hot cells to protect operating personnel from doses generated by radioactive materials. The hot cells provide remote operation and maintenance capabilities with features such as (1) shielding windows and in-cell and through-wall manipulators for equipment operation and maintenance, (2) access via cover blocks and bridge crane to support remote maintenance activities, and (3) equipment (e.g., pumps and valves) that remotely operated from outside the hot cell.
19-40
: :                                                                  Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review The hot cells and associated ventilation equipment also provide containment and confinement for the potential release of radioactive materials from a process vessel during maintenance activities or off-normal operating conditions. The hot cell area will have a criticality favorable floor/sump geometry configuration and high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters on the ventilation inlets and outlets. The hot cell is divided up into the following areas:
* LEU target disassembly and dissolution area
* Mo recovery and purification area
* Uranium recovery and recycle area
* Operating gallery area
* Maintenance areas
* Remote support systems areas Low-Enriched Uranium Target Disassembly and Dissolution Area The disassembly area has a feature that mates with the shielded cask and enables the target basket with irradiated LEU targets to be placed in the hot cell. Two disassembly stations are currently envisioned as semi-automated devices that pick one target at a time from the shipping basket, puncture and delid the target, and pour target material into a transfer container. The spent target is inspected to ensure that it is empty, passed through to the waste management area, and disposed of as solid waste. The area also contains the dissolver vessels, dissolver offgas treatment equipment, and fission gas capture columns.
The disassembly stations are supported with leaded windows and/or cameras and master-slave manipulators.
Molybdenum-99 Recovery and Purification Area Cells are included in the remote hot cell to house equipment associated with the Mo recovery and purification system. The cells include a series of small LX columns with containers, peristaltic pumps, and collection tanks. Operations and maintenance of the process are performed by the through-wall manipulators. An egress point is included for load-in and load-out of the 99Mo shipping cask. This area of the hot cell will have design features that support FDA requirements.
Uranium Recovery and Recycle Area Equipment associated with the LEU recovery and recycle system is also located within the remote hot cell area. This equipment will be much larger than the small Mo recovery and purification equipment, and use a large portion of the remote hot cell. The process equipment includes a series of LX columns; lag storage, feed, and product tanks to support operation of IX columns; and concentrator systems.
The process equipment is skid-mounted, which enables remote replacement and ensures critically safe spacing between skids.
Operating Gallery Area The operating gallery is situated adjacent to the hot cell. The operating gallery is an area used by personnel to physically operate remote wall-mounted manipulators. Local control stations are provided in the operating gallery to support process operations. The operating gallery width is sufficient to allow removal of a wall-mounted manipulator for maintenance or repair. After removal from the wall, a manipulator is transported via a cart system to the maintenance area where actual repairs are performed.
Maintenance Areas Two maintenance areas are used for facility equipment maintenance: the maintenance shop and the manipulator repair room.
19-41
lviChptr NOhWETMEICA                                                      hpe        NWI212,Rev. O 9.0- Environmental Review Remote Support Systems Remotely operated equipment is used to perform the core operations of processing irradiated targets, recovering 99Mo for shipment to customers, and recycling LEU for fabrication into targets for future irradiation. These operations are backed by remotely operated support systems, including the main crane and manipulator arms. These two systems provide the ability to keep the process in operation for years.
Along with the manipulator arms, the main crane provides the heavy-lifting capacity needed to lift the hot cell cover blocks, remove nonfunctional items from the remote hot cell, and bring in replacement components. An additional crane is provided for remote operations and lifting waste packages in the waste management area.
19.2 .3.2 .3    Target Fabrication Area The target fabrication area contains equipment associated with the LEU target material and target fabrication systems. Material processed by the system is unirradiated LEU, obtained as feed from DOE, and LEU recycled from processing irradiated targets. Recycled LEU is purified in the remote hot cell and transferred as a solution to the microsphere fabrication vessels. Verification measurements are performed on the purified recycled LEU solutions prior to transfer into the fabrication area to confirm that the recycled LEU material satisfies criteria that allow processing in the unshielded process enclosures.
The microsphere/target fabrication area includes the following sub-areas:
Target fabrication wet area - The wet area contains the process equipment for conversion of uranium compounds to LEU target material. Most of the equipment processes aqueous solutions of uranium. The equipment includes concentrators, dissolvers, liquid-liquid contactors, lag storage and blending tanks, columns for forming and washing LEU target materials, a filter system, furnace boat loading and transfer systems, and furnaces for drying and reducing the LEU target material. The LEU target material is manually transferred from the wet area to the dry area.
      *Target fabrication dry area - The dry area is used to encapsulate LEU target material in the target hardware. Activities performed in this area are primarily receipt and inspection of target hardware components, loading LEU target material into the target, filling the target with helium, and seal welding the targets.
      *Target fabrication QA/laboratory area - This area is used to perform the various tests and inspections for monitoring and QA of the target fabrication processes. Tests are performed on liquid solutions, LEU target material, and assembled targets.
      *Storage areas - These are secure rooms within the target fabrication area that store materials used by the above processes. These rooms contain storage racks that segregate raw and in-process materials from the final product.
19.2.3.2.4      Waste Management Area The waste management area includes shielded enclosures for tanks collecting liquid waste and containers used to stage solid wastes generated by the process systems. Portions of the waste management system that are dedicated for high-dose liquid waste are included in the remote hot cell. There are three shielded areas in the waste management area: (1) the high-integrity container (HIC) vault, where filled waste containers are held for several months to allow short-lived radioisotopes to decay to lower doses, (2) the hot cell solid waste export area, where equipment and empty targets are passed out of the hot cell, and (3) the solidification cell, where liquid waste is processed/mixed with materials to prepare waste packages for disposal.
19-42
* I.i...V.......... Ihptr                                                      9.0- Environmental Review The solid waste is moved to the waste loading area, where the waste is loaded into a shipping cask (typically already on a truck trailer) to be transported to a disposal site. The waste management area is serviced by a bridge crane.
19.2 .3.2 .5 Mechanical/Electrical Rooms The mechanical/electrical rooms are located on the second floor on both sides of the hot cell. The mechanical/electrical rooms house electrical systems, motor control centers, pumps, boilers, air compressors, and ventilation supply equipment. The heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) chillers are located outside of the facility, in the same area as the process water chillers. The mechanical room over the laboratory/chemical make-up areas houses the exhaust fans and filter trains.
19.2 .3 .2.6 Process Offgas Room The process offgas room is connected directly to the process vessel and process offgas subsystems to treat the stream and maintain negative pressure within the vessels. The process offgas room contains absorbers, filters trains, and fans. Process offgas is discharged from the primary building exhaust system.
19.2.3.2.7    Laboratory and Research and Development Hot Cell An analytical laboratory and research and development hot cell area support the production of the 99Mo product and recycle of uranium. Samples from the process are collected, transported to the laboratory, and prepared in the laboratory hot cell.
Other laboratory features include the following:
* Hoods and/or gioveboxes to complete sample preparation, waste handling, and standards preparations
* Rooms with specialty instruments, including an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)--a gamma spectroscopy system, an alpha spectroscopy system, a liquid scintillation system, and a beta-counting system
* Chemical and laboratory supplies storage
* Bench-top systems (e.g., balances, pH meters, ion-chromatography) 19.2 .3.2 .8 Chemical Make-up and Gas Storage Room The chemical make-up room includes tanks supplying aqueous chemicals to the process systems, flammable material storage cabinets used to segregate incompatible materials, and storage of chemical solids used in the process systems. The gas distribution room serves as a location for storage of small quantity gases (stored in gas cylinders) and distribution manifolds. Large quantities of gases are stored outside of the RPF in appropriate storage tanks or trailers. These areas are designed to segregate incompatible chemicals.
19.2 .3 .2.9 Raw Materials and Molybdenum-99 Product Shipping and Receiving Areas Two separate access points are proposed to move process materials into and out of the facility and ship 99Mo product to the radiopharmaceuticai distributors. Both access points are truck bays that interface with process areas near the chemical make-up room. The 99Mo product bay functions as an airlock as part of the confinement ventilation control strategy for exporting the casks transported by a cargo vehicle.
The second access point next to the 99Mo product area is a shipping/receiving room and loading dock for the movement of smaller packages using handcarts or forklift. This area is the planned location for the receipt of chemicals and will have a pad/berm for spill protection and collection.
19-43
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. QA NMI
    **,.. 'NORTHW1EST MEDICALISOTOPES Chapter 19.0  -  Environmental Review 19.2.3.2.10 Support Staff Areas The support staff areas are an annex to the RPF and include various areas supporting the process. The support staff areas include a shift office, health physics office, break room, support offices/workroom, change rooms/bathrooms, storage areas, and personnel airlock.
19.2.3.2.11 Control Room The control room houses the process control system for operating and monitoring the facility. The control room door into the facility is equipped with controlled access. The control console has two or three operator interface stations or human-machine interfaces (one being a dedicated engineering interface), a master programmable logic controller or distributed controller, and all related and necessary cabinetry and subcomponents (e.g., power supplies and uninterruptable power supply). This control system is supported by a data highway of sensing instrument signals in the facility process areas that are gathered throughout the facility by an Ethernet conmmunication-based interface backbone and brought into the control room and onto the console displays.                  T~shla  10.11l~f l~ilit      Arois  annd lRpSnpptivp Dedicated controllers and human-machine                                          Confinement Zones monitoring interfaces or stations for other equipment systems are also in the control room. A control              Hot cells (production)                                  I panel for all facility on-site and off-site (if required)    Tank hot cell                                          I communications (e.g., telephone, intercom) will              Solid waste treatment hot cell                          I potentially be located in the control room.                  High-dose waste solidification hot cell                I 19.2.3.2.12 General Ventilation System                      Uranium decay and accountability hot cell              I HIC vault                                              I The facility ventilation system maintains a series          Analytical laboratory gloveboxes                        I of cascading pressure zones to draw air from the            R&D hot cell laboratory hot cells                      I cleanest areas of the facility to the most                  Target fabrication room and enclosures                  II contaminated areas. Zone IV is a clean zone and is            Utility room                                          II independent of the other ventilation zones.
Analytical laboratory room and hoods                    II Zone IV will be slightly positively pressurized R&D hot cell laboratory room and hoods                II with respect to the atmosphere. Zone III is the Waste loading hot cell                                  II cleanest of the potentially contaminated areas, with Maintenance gallery                                    II each subsequent zone being more contaminated and having lower pressures. Table 19-10 defines the              Manipulator maintenance room                            II ventilation zone applicable to major spaces.                Exhaust filter room                                    II Figure 19-13 graphically presents the ventilation            Airlocksa                                            II, III zone for the first level of the RPF.                          Irradiated target basket receipt bay                  III Waste loading truck bay                                III A common supply air system provides 100 percent Operating gallery and corridor                        III outdoor air to all Zone III areas and some Zone II Electrical/mechanical supply room                      III areas that require make-up air in addition to that Chemical supply room                                  III cascaded from Zone III. Three separate exhaust Corridors                                              III systems maintain zone pressure differentials and Decontamination room                                  III containment: (1) the Zone I exhaust system Loading docks                                          IV services the hot cell, waste loading areas, target fabrication enclosures, and process offgas                  Waste management loading bay                          IV subsystems in Zone I; (2) the Zone I1/III exhaust            Irradiated target receipt truck bay                  IV system services exhaust flow needs from Zone II              Maintenance room                                      IV and Zone III in excess of flow cascaded to interior          Support staff areas                                  IV zones; and (3) a laboratory exhaust system services                  Confinement zone of airlocks will be dependent on the two adjacent zones being connected.
fume hoods in the laboratory area.
HIC        = high-integrity container.
R&D        = research and development.
19-44
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWI                                                  Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review
[Proprietary Information]
Figure 19-13. First-Level Confinement of the Radioisotope Production Facility 19-45
lviChptr NOhWETMEICSOOEChpe1                                                          9.0NWMI-2013-021,
                                                                                        -Environmental Rev. OA Review The supply air is conditioned using filters, heater coils, and cooling coils to meet the requirements of each space. Abatement technologies (primarily HEPA filtration and activated carbon) are used to ensure that air exhausted to the atmosphere meets NESHAP and applicable State law. A stack monitoring system is employed to demonstrate compliance with the stated regulatory requirements for exhaust.
The systems and components of the main ventilation system are described in the following subsections.
Supply Air Subsystem The supply air system provides filtered and conditioned air to all Zone III spaces and some Zone II spaces at a ventilation rate of 100 percent outside air. The three supply air handling units are sized at 50 percent capacity each, for redundancy. Two of the three units will be operating, while the third is on standby.
Each unit consists of an outdoor air louver, filters, a cooling coil, a heating coil, a heat recovery coil, isolation dampers, and a fan.
Variable-speed fans are modulated to control the pressure in the common air plenum. The heating and cooling coils in each air-handling unit are controlled based on a common supply air temperature sensor.
Reheat coils are provided in the supply ducts to each space, as required, to further condition the supply air, based on space temperature thermostats.
Exhaust Air Subsystems Four exhaust air subsystems are provided: Zone I exhaust, Zone I111II exhaust, laboratory exhaust, and process offgas exhaust. Each exhaust system is provided with two 100 percent capacity exhaust fans and filter trains for complete redundancy on all exhaust subsystems. This redundancy is important to ensure confinement ventilation pressure differentials are maintained at all times. Each exhaust filter train consists of prefiiters, two stages of HEPA filters, carbon adsorbers, and isolation dampers. Exhaust ducts upstream of the filter trains are round to minimize areas where contamination can accumulate, and are sized to minimize particulate settling in the duct. Each exhaust system has a separate stack, with the exception of the process offgas subsystem, which merges with the Zone I exhaust stream. A stack monitoring system is provided on each stack to demonstrate compliance with applicable State law.
Zone I Exhaust Subsystem The Zone I exhaust system serves the hot cell, HIC loading area, and solid waste loading area. This exhaust system maintains Zone I spaces at negative pressure with respect to atmosphere. The disassembly station is maintained at a slightly lower pressure due to the increased likelihood of contamination in that area. All make-up air to Zone I spaces are cascaded from Zone II spaces. Space temperature control is not provided for Zone I spaces unless thermal loads are expected to cause temperatures to exceed equipment operating ranges without additional cooling. HEPA filters are included on both the inlet and outlet ducts to Zone I. The outlet HEPA filters minimize the spread of contamination from the hot cell into the ductwork leading to the exhaust filter train. The inlet HEPA filters prevent contamination spread in case of an upset condition that results in positive pressurization of Zone I spaces with respect to Zone II spaces. The process offgas subsystem enters the Zone I exhaust subsystem just upstream of the filter train.
Zone II/III Exhaust Subsystem The Zone 111111 exhaust system serves the Zone II spaces and those Zone III spaces that do not provide cascaded air flow into Zone II. This exhaust system maintains Zone II spaces at negative pressure and Zone III spaces at a less negative pressure with respect to atmosphere. Make-up air to Zone II spaces is either cascaded from Zone III spaces or supplied from the supply air subsystem to meet additional space conditioning needs. All make-up air to Zone III spaces is provided from the supply air subsystem.
19-46
EUVVChapter19.0 m.NORTHWEST MEOICAL ISOTOPES ChptrMWM-2I302,Rev.
                                                                                        - Environmental ReviewoA Laboratory Exhaust Subsystem The laboratory exhaust system provides fume hood and glovebox exhaust capability. This essentially is a Zone I system, but is separate from the main Zone I exhaust system to accommodate the large flow fluctuations from changing fume hood positions. These highly variable flow conditions are controlled better through a separate exhaust system. This exhaust system minimizes the potential pressure perturbations and control difficulties that could result from including the fume hoods on the main Zone I exhaust system. Make-up air for increased fume hood exhaust flow is supplied from the common supply air system.
Cleanroom Subsystem The cleanroom subsystem is designed to provide filtered and conditioned air at an exchange rate to meet the standards of an ISO 14644-1, "Cleanrooms and Associated Controlled Environments--Part 1:
Classification of Air Cleanliness," Class 8 cleanroom. The cleanroom is maintained at a slightly positive pressure relative to its surroundings to ensure that unfiltered air does not infiltrate the cleanroom. Air inside the cleanroom is continually recirculated through a dedicated filtration system to remove internally generated contaminants. Air would be 100 percent recirculated, with the only air exchange with the surroundings of the cleanroom occurring through exfiltration and make-up air entering on the suction side of the fan. The cleanroom air handling unit and filters are located inside the hot cell and, therefore, must be remotely maintainable. Periodic cleanroom certification testing also needs to be performed remotely with permanently installed instrumentation.
19.2.3.2.13 Other Radioisotope Production Facility Support Buildings External waste management storage and shipping building - The waste management building is approximately 111.5 m2 (1,200 ft2) and will provide additional waste storage and shipping preparation for radioactive waste prior to disposal.
Diesel generator building        - The diesel generator building houses the RPF backup generator, which is used for temporary operation and safe shutdown of the RPF if required. The diesel fuel tank is stored aboveground next to the building, with an approximate volume of 3,785 liters (L) (1,000 gallons [gal]).
Security buildings        -  The RPF will have to two security buildings, one for personnel access and one for shipping and receiving of materials and waste. NWMI will establish, implement, and maintain its authorization program in accordance with NRC requirements.
19.2.4 Water Consumption and Treatment 19.2.4.1      Water Consumption The water supply source for the proposed RPF is the municipal water system. Connection to this system will comply with applicable State or local requirements. Required ancillary equipment (e.g., pressure regulators, backflow preventers) is installed as required by local ordinances.
The demineralized water system supplies demineralized water to the process for water addition, flushing, and chemical dilution. The demineralized water system can also potentially provide make-up water to the steam boilers. Wash water is used to washdown the tractor/trailers.
Final flow rates and process needs are determined on completion of performance testing (e.g., fire protection systems). Additional pumps and regulators may be installed to meet the performance needs of the systems. Where appropriate, water recycle or reuse systems are employed. Lavatory and office supply water systems are provided. These systems are designed and installed in accordance with local code.
19-47
l.ii ;,,...,-.*,              ""Chater19.0              Chapter    NWMI-2013-021,    Rev. GA
                                                                                    - Environmental Review The RPF water flow rates and consumption data is summarized in Table 19-11. The chilled water and steam systems are closed-loop systems and require water during startup, with minimal make-up water requirements during operation.
Table 19-11.      Radioisotope Production Facility Water Flow Rates and Consumption Information Target disassembly and dissolution                    1,500            400--
Uranium recovery and recycle system                500,410        132,200--
Laboratory facilities                                2,000            530--
Total                                            530,910        140,260        360,000          95,100 aThese  numbers do not account for planned process recycle.
bAssumes    260 days of operation per year.
19.2.4.2    Water Sources Independent of Municipal or Commercial Supply The RPF will not use water sources independent of the municipal or commercial supply.
19.2.4.3  Water Treatment Potable water is provided through the public utility system and will require no additional treatment.
Contaminated process wastewater storage and treatment systems are addressed in Section 19.2.7.3.
19.2.5  Cooling and Heating Dissipating Systems 19.2.5.1  Cooling Water Systems The process chilled water system provides cooling for the process equipment. Cooling is required for condensing offgas from the concentrators and for cooling the process stream. Chilled water is delivered to cooling jackets in a closed loop system. Redundancy is provided for components that present a single-point failure risk in the process chilled water system to ensure that cooling remains available for continued production.
Air-cooled chillers are located outside of the RPF. These chillers are expected to be typical commercial HVAC chillers. Redundancy for cooling capacity is provided by sizing each of the three chillers at 50 percent of the design cooling capacity. Chilled water is circulated from the chillers to an intermediate heat exchanger in the secondary loop. The primary loop then circulates and distributes chilled water from the heat exchanger to the various process loads in a closed loop. The chilled water pumps are typical centrifugal pumps used in HVAC systems.
19-48
:    UVChapter                                                      ChaperI1NWM,-2013-021, 9.0 -Environmental Rev. OA Review
    *  ?..."
ORTH4WEST MIEOICAL ISOTOPE$
The intermediate heat exchanger is provided to minimize the risk of contamination spread outside of the facility in case of a process system leak into the chilled water system. To further minimize this risk, pressure differentials are maintained to ensure that flow is from lower contaminated systems into higher contaminated systems. The primary loop is maintained at a higher pressure than the process equipment, and the secondary loop is maintained at a higher pressure than the primary loop.
Some process cooling loads (e.g., the fission gas-trap and target fabrication equipment) require lower supply temperatures (e.g., below 0 degrees Celsius [&deg;C]). These loads are served by standalone process chillers.
The RPF is designed to have zero liquid discharge from the radiologically controlled area (i.e., no liquid would be released from the facility).
19.2.5.2      Heating Systems Process steam is used to provide heating for process equipment. Heating is required for the concentrators and process stream. The steam from the boilers flows to an intermediate heat exchanger in the secondary loop. The primary loop then circulates and distributes steam from the heat exchanger to the various process loads in a closed loop. The steam is assumed to be supplied to the heating jacket, condensed, and returned to the intermediate heat exchanger in a closed loop system. Redundancy is provided for components that present a single-point failure risk in the process steam system to ensure that heating remains available for continued production. Three electric boilers are located in the mechanical room of the facility. The boilers are assumed to be standard, commercially available, packaged high-pressure steam boilers. Each boiler is sized at 50 percent of the design capacity to provide redundancy for heating.
19.2.5.3      Heat Dissipation Systems The RPF has no additional heat dissipation systems, besides the process chilled water system described in Section 19.2.5.1.
19.2.6        Auxiliary Systems The compressed air system supplies instrument-quality (dry and oil-free) air to power air-actuated valves and dampers and for instruments that require compressed air (e.g., bubbler tube-level indicators). The compressed air system can also provide process air, although these loads are undefined.
The system is assumed to consist of a packaged air compressor system, with the compressor mounted on the receiver tank with associated filters, coolers, and pressure relief. A separate modular, heatless desiccant-type air dryer is provided. Process air can be taken directly from the air receiver, prior to drying and further filtering.
The HVAC chillers are located outside the facility, in the same area as the process chilled water chillers.
The hot water boilers are located in the mechanical room. Pumps and supporting distribution system equipment for both systems are located in the mechanical room.
19.2.7 Waste Systems The waste management area includes shielded enclosures for tanks collecting liquid waste and containers used to stage solid wastes generated by the other process systems. Liquid waste is mixed with a sorbent (or solidification agent) material in a HIC that is stored and eventually loaded into a shielded waste transport cask. The solid waste is size-reduced, placed in a drum, and encapsulated by adding a cement material. The drum is then closed and loaded into a shielded waste transport cask.
There is no solid or liquid waste disposal at the RPF site. Air effluents are discussed in Section 19.4.2.1.
19-49
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
    ~.NWMI~q                                                                      Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review
_, WOfIhWEST MEWC*AI ITOS 19.2.7.1      Process System Liquid Wastes Where practicable, liquid wastes are                  Table 19-12. Liquid Waste Produced Annually from condensed and/or treated or recycled to                              the Radioisotope Production Facility reduce the environmental impacts associated with disposal. The liquid waste streams generated during the processing operations are handled with the aqueous waste-handling system discussed in                          aTarget disassembly and dissolution              1,500      396 Section 19.2.7.3.1. The individual liquid wastes generated during processing are                sy ste............m summarized in Table 19-12.                            aUranium recovery/recycle system              - 1,120,000 295,873
                                                          ..t..e?
19.2.7.2      Process System Solid Waste Where practicable, solid wastes are                  Laboratory facilities                            2,000      530 condensed and/or packaged to reduce the environmental impacts associated with                      a    Annual waste transferred to waste processes for disposal. The individual solid waste streams          concentration and solidification. These numbers do not account generated during the processes are                    for planned process recycle.
bWastes processed do not produce liquid waste other than summarized in Table 19-13.
small quantities of specialty wastes.
Table 19-13. Solid Waste Produced at the Radioisotope Production Facility Target fabrication              aNA                                                                  NA bMo recovery and                Exchange resins and other solid waste                            20 L (5 gal) purification
-Waste management                Solid wastes encapsulated in cement                          8,000 L (2,113 gal)
High-dose solidified liquids                              200,000 L (52,834 gal)
Low-dose solidified liquids                              150,000 L (39,625 gal)
Facility support                Municipal waste (e.g., paper)                              26,000 L (6,868 gal)
Potentially contaminated waste                            40,000 L (10,566 gal)
(e.g., decontamination materials, PPE) a Solid waste generated during target fabrication is anticipated to be decontaminated and free-released.
b Transferred to waste processing system for final disposition.
c The waste quantities current bounding estimates. Optimization of waste processing should reduce the volume of liquid waste generation.
NA        =      not applicable.                                  PPE    =    personal protective equipment.
19-50
* R..;.NORTHWEST  ISOTOPES MEDICAL Chptr1MWI-0I-21 Chapter                        ev. O 9.0 -Environmental Review 19.2.7.3        Waste Handling Process Systems Solid and liquid waste generated by the other system operations discussed in Section 19.2.3.1.5 is processed by the waste handling process system. The waste handling process consists of three major subsystems:
* Liquid waste handling and disposal
* Solid waste handling and disposal
* Specialty waste handling and disposal 19.2.7.3.1        Liquid Waste Handling and Disposal System The liquid waste handling system includes two subsystems: high-dose liquid waste solidification, and low-dose liquid waste solidification.
        *High-dose liquid waste solidification          - Accumulation tanks provide the needed handling capacity to match the volume of wastewater generated by the upstream processes. Caustic solution is added as needed to neutralize the excess acidity. The liquid is forwarded to a package concentrator in which water is evaporated from the high-dose liquid, condensed, and directed to a condensate holding tank. The concentrated high-dose liquid is directed to a concentrate holding tank.
From the concentrate tank, the high-dose liquid is metered into a specialty inline mixer that melds together the high-dose liquid and a powder solidification agent (sorbent or solidification agent).
A vibratory motor ensures that the mixture falls from the inline mixer into a HIC. With time, the mixture solidifies. The filled HIC is moved via remote equipment to one of several decay stations where the waste is held for several months. During that time, the short-lived radioisotopes in the waste that cause the container to register a very high dose rate decay to much lower levels. Afterward, the HIC is moved into a transport cask on a trailer. Cask operational steps are completed prior to shipment offsite for disposal.
        *Low-dose liquid waste solidification        -  Accumulation tanks provide the needed handling capacity to match the volume of wastewater generated by the upstream processes. Condensates are held in a storage/recycling tank that provides make-up water to the LEU recovery process.
Excess condensate, along with all the other low-dose liquid, is forwarded to a staging tank. In this heated tank, the liquid is held at elevated temperatures, and high rates of ventilation air pass through the tank. The heated tank contents, plus the high ventilation, cause a significant amount of the water to evaporate from the low-dose liquid.
The excess low-dose liquid is then metered into a specialty inline mixer that melds the liquid and a powder solidification agent together. A vibratory motor ensures that the mixture falls from the inline mixer into a waste container. With time, the mixture will solidify. The waste container is then shipped for disposal offsite.
19.2.7.3.2        Solid Waste Handling and Disposal System The solid waste disposal system includes areas for collection, size reduction, and staging of solid wastes.
The solids are placed in a 208 L (55-gal) waste drum and encapsulated by adding a cement material to fill voids remaining within the drum. The drum is then loaded in a cask for transfer to a disposal site. The radioactive solid wastes have been identified and include:
* Hardware from target disassembly
* Resins and exchange media from the Mo recovery and purification process
* Resins from the uranium recovery and recycle process 19-51
N
:ES NO    MEIAIOOEChpe1                                            Chaper    9.0NWM,-2013-021,
                                                                                      -Environmental Rev. 0A Review
* Low-dose solid waste from the hot cell and support areas
* Slightly contaminated hardware (low levels of LEU) from the target fabrication area
* Instruments, connectors, jumpers, and other hardware Solid waste encapsulation - High-dose solid wastes are remotely moved in the hot cell to a staging area in the waste handling facility area. Size-reduction and handling tools are envisioned to place the wastes into a disposal container. Nominally of 454 L (120-gal) capacity, the container holds four weeks of wastes generated from the process. When practicable, the accumulated wastes are encapsulated with a fluid cement. The material solidifies and provides the needed stabilization to meet disposal criteria. The filled container is remotely moved to a transport cask via a shielded loading cask. The appropriate cask operational steps are completed prior to shipment for disposal offsite.
Support system waste - Spent filters containing suspended solids from dissolver solutions are disposed as solid waste. The number of filters to be disposed has not been determined, but is expected to be no more than one per batch of targets. Empty target hardware containing trace contamination is disposed as solid waste.
1 9.2.7.3.3    Specialty Waste Handling and Disposal System A specialty waste disposal system addresses small quantities of unique wastes generated by other processes. A reclamation process is included to recycle trichloroethylene from waste liquid. Specialty wastes are assumed to be shipped offsite for treatment and disposal. These wastes include:
* Used silicone oil
* Solvent waste
* Facility maintenance fluids (e.g., paints, lubricants)
* Spent batteries, spent fluorescent lighting tubes, and others
* Personal protective equipment (PPE) waste
* Laboratory waste for expired chemicals and expired radioactive sources 19.2.7.4      Construction Waste During construction, efforts are made to minimize the environmental impact. Erosion, sedimentation, dust, smoke, noise, unsightly landscape, and waste disposal are controlled to practical levels and applicable regulatory limits. The wastes generated during site preparation and construction are varied, depending on the activities in progress. The bulk of the waste consists of nonhazardous materials such as packing materials, paper, and scrap lumber. These wastes are transported offsite to an approved landfill.
These wastes that are generated are handled by approved methods and shipped offsite to approved disposal sites.
Best management practices (BMP) are used during construction to minimize the possibility of spills of hazardous substances, minimize environmental impacts of any spills, and ensure prompt and appropriate remediation.
19.2.7.5      Recycling and Reclamation With a continued focus on managing economic and environmental cost and impacts, proposed RPF processes involve recycling throughout each step. The following subsections summarize the systems designated for specific recycling efforts. Paper, plastic, and other administrative supplies are also recycled as appropriate.
19-52
:      UVChapter                                                                  9.0 -Environmental Review
* e.e:,NORTHIWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Solvent recovery          -  Forming of the LEU target material requires use of a common solvent (trichioroethylene). Used solvent falls under the F-code type of waste disposal, making the solvent a potentially costly disposal and treatment path. Because most solvents are not spent after their use, the solvent could be recovered for reuse to minimize the final waste volume that is sent offsite for treatment and disposal. Standard industrial units are available for solvent reclamation. The used solvent from the process is loaded into the unit and vaporized, and then condensed to yield reclaimed solvent ready for reuse. The residue is contained in a concentrated solvent heel that is sent offsite for treatment and disposal.
Uranium - A major portion of hot cell operations is to recover and recycle uranium. This approach significantly reduces the amount of waste that has to be disposed. Section 19.2.3.1.4 discusses the recovery and recycle of uranium. The target fabrication process also recycles the uranium scrap generated during processing.
Process water          -  The waste management system segregates and recycles process condensates to be used back in the processes as make-up and flush water. The recycle will reduce the low level waste generated by about 50 percent.
19.2. 7.5.1        Direct Radiation Sources Stored Onsite the Radioisotope Production Facility Direct radiation sources stored onsite          - The waste listed in Table 19-14 is stored onsite for a period of time to allow decay before the waste is shipped offsite. The frequency of shipments for each type of waste is also provided in Table 19-14.
19.2. 7.5.2        Direct Radiation Sources Stored at Nearby Operating Facilities Facilities that handle and store radioactive materials in the area of the RPF are discussed in Section 19.2.2.5 and 19.3.8.2.2.
19.2. 7.5.3        Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization Program Pollution prevention and waste minimization activities promote practices that maximize beneficial effects and minimize harmful effects on the surrounding environment. These activities include efforts to prevent pollution by minimizing the "kindsand amounts of waste generated. The RPF will have a pollution prevention and waste minimization program that includes the following:
* Employee training and education
* Waste minimization and recycling programs for various phases (e.g., construction, operations)
* Recognition of employees for improved environmental conditions
* Responsibilities and requirements to consider in day-to-day activities Pollution prevention involves source reduction, or preventing pollution at its source, before it is generated. Source reduction includes any practice that reduces the quantity and/or toxicity of pollutants entering a waste stream prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal. Examples include equipment or technology modifications, substitution of less toxic raw materials, and improvements in work practices, maintenance, worker training, and inventory control.
Waste minimization refers to the use of source reduction and/or environmentally sound recycling methods prior to energy recovery, treatment, or disposal of wastes. Waste minimization does not include waste treatment (i.e., any process designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological composition of waste streams).
19-53
NdRW.ETMEIAIOPEChpe1 lviChptr                                                          9.0NWM,-2013-021,
                                                                                      -Environmental Rev. 0A Review 19.2.8    Storage, Treatment, and Transportation of Radioactive and Nonradioactive Materials, including Fuel, Waste, Radioisotopes, and Any Other Materials 19.2.8.1    Storage and Treatment Storage, handling, and treatment of materials, product, and wastes are performed in a time-sensitive manner, in assigned areas, and using approved waste management, security, health and safety, and shielding procedures. This approach ensures that appropriate volume reduction is achieved, while minimizing the risk of exposure to the worker, public, or the environment.
19.2.8.1.1    Storage of Chemicals and Supplies A chemical management plan, product handling plan, or radioactive materials management plan is developed to ensure that:
* Noncompatible chemicals are separated
* Flammable chemicals/items are stored in a flameproof cabinet, as applicable
* Oxidizers are stored separate from flammable chemicals and reducers
* Radioactive sources or supplies are stored in locked cabinets/areas such that any potential exposure is kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)
* New feed and recycled LEU is stored in an appropriate configuration and in a locked storage area until needed in the process 19.2.8.1.2    Treatment and Temporary Storage of Waste Onsite Treatment and temporary storage of radioactive and mixed wastes are performed predominantly onsite within the RPF.
      *Liquid waste that is not recycled/reused is eventually concentrated and mixed with sorbent material in the waste management area.
* High-dose material, solidified (if necessary) and encapsulated, is held in a shielded enclosure in the RFP, interim-stored for radioactive decay to meet shipping and disposal requirements, and then loaded into a cask and shipped to a disposal site.
* Low-dose stream, mixed with sorbent, is placed in drums, moved to the external waste management building for staging, and then shipped to a disposal site.
* Solid waste is typically size-reduced as necessary, placed in containers, encapsulated, moved to the external waste management building for staging, and then shipped to a disposal site.
      *Target fabrication solvent reclamation area allows reuse of key materials. Any spent solvent is treated and packaged for shipment to a treatment and disposal facility.
* Other industrial or commercial wastes (e.g., chemicals, paper products) will be managed in an environmentally and economically responsible manner. Recycling programs are used as needed.
19.2.8.1.3    Capacity of Onsite Radioisotope Production Facility Materials Storage Materials needed for LEU target fabrication (e.g., solvents, silicon oil, cladding) are received and stored.
Finished LEU targets are interim-stored until shipped to a university reactor system for irradiation.
19-54
NWMI                                                              Chapter 19.    -WEnvironmenta Review Because of the short half-life of 99Mo, there is almost no accumulation of 99Mo product. The 99Mo product is shipped out twice per week. Chemicals and process supplies are stored according to the chemical management plan or facility procedures to ensure the lowest risk of exposure/contamination or accidental release.
19.2.8.2    Transportation of Material The transport of radioactive materials and waste and other hazardous materials associated with the RPF must comply with applicable NRC and DOT regulations. DOT specifies the requirements for marking, labeling, placarding, providing emergency response information, and training hazardous material transport personnel in 49 CFR 172. Specific packaging requirements for radioactive materials are provided in 49 CFR 173, Subpart I, "Class 7 (Radioactive) Materials." These requirements invoke the NRC packaging requirements for radioactive material per 10 CFR 71, "Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material." The DOT requirements for truck transportation of radioactive and other hazardous materials are specified in 49 CFR 177 and 49 CFR 397, "Transportation of Hazardous Materials; Driving and Parking Rules." Requirements affecting the shipment of 99Mo are specified in 49 CFR 175 and are the responsibility of the air carrier chosen to transport the 99Mo product.
19.2.8.2.1    Packaging Systems The majority of the radioactive components being shipped to and from the RPF require special container systems to ensure that protection of the public and the environment is achieved. Each of these containers is designed to meet certain NRC and DOT standards. Although the irradiated targets are not identified as a spent nuclear fuel shipment, NWMI will also use the guidance provided in NUREG-0561, Physical Protection of Shipments of lrradiatedReactor Fuel.
The primary radioactive materials and wastes that require a specialty container or cask are as follows:
Fresh LEU - Fresh LEU will be shipped from the DOE Y- 12 Program Office in Oak Ridge, Tennessee to the NWMI RPF using an ES-3 100 Package (Certificate of Compliance No. 9315)
(NRC, 2005). The DOE Y-12 Program Office routinely uses the package, which is currently licensed for the NWMI feed materials. DOE has a dedicated QA program for package use and maintenance, and all procedures are in a mature state.
The ES-3 100 package is a cylindrical container that is approximately 110 centimeter (cm)
(43 inches [in.]) in overall height and 49 cm (19 in.) in overall diameter, and has an outer drum assembly and an inner containment vessel. The containment vessel is placed inside the drum and surrounded by a cement-based borated neutron absorber, Catalog 277-4. The purpose of the ES-3 100 is to transport bulk high enriched or LEU uranium in various forms.
* Unirradiated targets - Unirradiated targets will be shipped using the ES-3 100 or similar package, as described above. Unirradiated targets will be shipped to the network of university research reactors.
* Irradiated targets - Irradiated targets will be received from the university reactors in a BEA Research Reactor cask or similar (Certificate of Compliance No. 9341) (INL, 2011). Within the cask, the irradiated targets are contained in basket structures that are specifically designed for NWMI's target and provide for optimum heat rejection and criticality control.
19-55
  *..NWMCape
    *,.., .NORTHNWEST lviChater19.0 MEDICAL ZSOTOPES NWMI-2013-021,
                                                                                            - Environmental Rev. QA Review The BEA Research Reactor cask is a truck-mounted cask designed for the shipment of research reactor fuel. The cask fully loaded weighs approximately 14,515 kg (32,000 lb). The overall height of the package with impact limiters is 3.04 m (119.5 in.). The outer diameter of the body is 0.97 m (38 in.). The outer diameter of the impact limiters is 1.52 m (60 in.), and each weighs approximately 1,043 kg (2,300 lb). The cask body is shielded with 20.3 cm (8 in.) equivalency of lead. The inner cavity of the BEA Research Reactor cask is 0.46 m (16 in.) in diameter and 1.70 m (67 in.) in height.
The cask currently is designed to hold four different baskets for the different fuel families.
NWMI will need to obtain a license amendment for transport of irradiated targets in the BEA Research Reactor cask.
99                      99
* Mo product - The        Mo product will be placed into a Medical Isotope Depleted Uranium Shielded (MIDUS) Type B(U) container (Certificate of Compliance USA/9320/B(U)-96) (NRC, 2008a) or similar. The MIDUS container is currently used by U.S. and other radiopharmaceutical 99 Mo producers worldwide.
          *Radioactive waste - High-dose radioactive waste will be loaded in HICs and shipped in a cask, such as the Model 10-160B cask (ES, 2012). This type of cask is a lead-shielded carbon steel cask with a double-lid, bolted closure and is top-loaded. The cask is shipped vertically, with removable top and bottom polyurethane foam-filled impact limiters. Low-dose radioactive waste will be loaded into 208 L (55-gal) waste drums.
          *Contact-handled waste - Standard industrial waste drums or other appropriate containers will be used to dispose of contact-handled radioactive waste. Contact-handled waste is defined as waste that is less than 2 millisievert (mSv)/hr (200 millirem per hour [mrem/hr]) on contact and 0.1 mSv/hr (10 mrem/hr) at 1 m (3.3 ft). These containers must be handled according to the facility radioactive waste management plan to ensure that dose is kept ALARA. These waste containers generally do not require shielded casks or special shielding for transportation purposes.
19.2.8.2.2          Estimated Type and Quantity of Radioactive Materials and Wastes The estimated type and quantity of radioactive materials and wastes, number of shipments, shipment type, distance, and destination are summarized in Table 19-14. These distances and times may vary depending on available shipping routes or weather conditions. The number of shipments per year may also vary depending on what reactor is used for irradiation.
19-56
NW II NORTJ4WS MO A Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
                                                                                              - Environmental Review Table 19-14. Summary of Radioactive Materials and Wastes Required or Generated at the Radioisotope Production Facility for Ongoing Operations Fresh LEU                Solid                    ES-3 100      2 (operations    From DOE Y- 12      953 (592)
Annually                                            cask      annual average)        (Oak Ridge,
[Proprietary Initial need                    Information]                                        Tennessee)
Operation                        S[Proprietary
[Proprietary                    Information]
Information]
Operation                          d[Proprietary
[Proprietary                    Information]
Information]                      e[Proprietary (U30 8 or metal)
Information]
0 Irradiated LEU            Solid    [Proprietary    BRR cask            104            From MURR            9.6 (6) targets                            Information]
Solid    [Proprietary  aBRR cask            16            From OSTR        3,320 (2,0(
Information]
63)
Solid    [Proprietary  aBRR cask            16              From third      [Proprieta ry Information]                                            reactor      Informatio )n]
Spent LEU                Solid    [Proprietary    ES-3 100            2                To SRS          1,345 (836)
Information]      cask aPackage type identified can be changed to another similar package.
b  Only includes road miles traveled.
cLEU needed for hot commissioning and initial RPF startup.
d LEU needed in Operation (Proprietary Information] for addition of second reactor.
e LEU needed in Operation [Proprietary Information] for addition of third reactor.
BRR          =  BEA Research Reactor.                        OSTR          = Oregon State University TRIGA DOE          =  U.S. Department of Energy.                                    Reactor.
LEU          =  low-enriched uranium.                        SRS          = Savannah River Site.
MIDUS        =  Medical Isotope Depleted Uranium Shielded. MURR          = University of Missouri Research Reactor.
19-57
NW IRENM-0301
  *..t;UVV--iiChapter                                                                  19.0 -Environmental Rev. O Review
      '.&deg;
      *. ORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES 19.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 19.3.1        Land Use and Visual Resources 19.3.1.1        Land Use This section characterizes land use associated with the proposed RPF. The facility is proposed to be sited at Discovery Ridge, located on property owned by MU. The university occupies a 505 ha (1,250-acre) campus and is located 4.8 km (3 mi) southeast of Discover Ridge, which is just south of downtown Columbia. Land uses are within an 8 km (5-mi) region of influence (ROD. The ROI is the geographic area associated with each resource that could potentially be affected by the proposed action. The land use for the site was analyzed using data from the National Land Cover Database (Fry et al., 2011).
19.3.1.1.1        Site  - Description of the Proposed Property The RPF would be located in Lot 15 of the Discover Ridge Phase II section. The Phase II area is 22.2 ha (54.9 acres) and, as shown in Figure 19-14, is bounded by the Phase III area to the north, Discovery Parkway and the Phase I section to the west/northwest, Discovery Drive to the south/southwest, Lot 14 and stormwater management areas to the east, and private property to the south.
            -      .0A Phln 13O Ph..U 5A*
                                                                                                                '1 F-212AM Source: MU 01, "Phasing Overview," Maps and Roads, Research Parks & Incubators, Discovery Ridge, www.umsystem.edu/umrpi/discoveryridge/maps, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, accessed July 2013.
Figure 19-14. Layout of Discovery Ridge Research Park Showing Lot 15, the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site 19-58
MEIA STPSCatr1NWMI-0i-21 IIVYChapter ev. O 9.0 - Environmental Review Lot 15 is 3.0 ha (7.4 acres) and contains no existing structures (MU, 2011). Currently, the 46.1 ha (114-acre) research park is being developed under the guidance of the Discovery Ridge Master Plan and Protective Covenants (MU, 2009). Figure 19-6 shows the site boundaries and proposed structures.
Dimensions of the RPF are approximately 106.7 x 56.4 m (350 x 185 ft) by 19.8 m (65 ft) in height abovegrade (maximum). The facility would occupy a rectangular area approximately 213 x 91 m (700 x 300 ft) at the outer perimeter and cover approximately 1.95 ha (4.8 acres) on Lot 15. The restricted area would be the area inside the fence surrounding the facility. The unrestricted area would be the area outside the fence surrounding the main building.
19.3.1.1.2    Major Population Centers and Infrastructure - Local Setting The proposed site resides entirely within the Columbia city limits and is approximately 200 km (124 mi) south of St. Louis (population 319,294); 203 km (126 mi) east of Kansas City (population 459,787); and 45 km (28 mi) north of Jefferson City (population 43,088) (USCB, 2010a). The proposed site lies in Boone County (population 162,642) (USCB, 2010~b).
19.3.1.1.3    Transportation Infrastructure Section 19.3.7 provides a description of the regional air, road, and rail transportation systems.
The Missouri River is one of the largest river systems in the U.S. and the largest river in Boone County.
The river originates in south central Montana and generally flows in an easterly and southeasterly direction before entering the Mississippi River in eastern Missouri, a length of about 4,345 km (2,700 mi). The river lies approximately 11.7 km (7.3 mi) to the west of the proposed RPF and forms the southwestern border of Boone County. The Missouri River is the only river system in Boone County large enough for commercial navigation; however, there are no ports that directly service Columbia (MU, 2006a).
19.3.1.1.4    Local Setting Discovery Ridge lies at the crossroads of U.S. Highway 63 and Gans Road, which is near the MU main campus, U.S. Interstate 70, Columbia Regional Airport, University Hospital, Columbia Regional Hospital, downtown Columbia, and Jefferson City. Discovery Ridge, when fully developed, will occupy 223 ha (550 acres) and is bounded by East Sugar Grove Road to the north, South Rolling Hills Road to the east, U.S. Highway 63 to the south, and Sunset Mobile Home Park to the west. Perry Phillips Park (57 ha [140 acres] and a 16 ha [40-acre] lake) and the Frank G. Nifong Memorial Park (23 ha [58 acres])
are located nearby to the west. The MU Bradford Research and Extension Center (a 239 ha [591-acre]
research farm) lies to the north of Discovery Ridge. Figure 19-5 shows the local setting for the proposed RPF site.
19.3.1.1.5    Regional Setting The ROI is defined as the area within an 8 km (5-mi) radius of the proposed facility centerpoint (Figure 19-5). The ROI includes nearly half of Columbia and the entire MU area. The MU student population, when in full session, is approximately 34,658 (MU, 2013).
19-59
: :                                              ChaperI1NWM,-2013-021, Chpter 9.0 - Environmental Rev. 0A Review
        * .. TWETMEOICAL 0 .N    ISOTOPES Existing land uses in a concentric ring pattern around the RPF can generally be described as follows (MU, 2006a):
      *0-1 km (0-0.6 mi) - There is very little residential development within the immediate area of the proposed RPF. Most of the land is owned and operated by MU. Recreational areas include a golf course to the west and a park to the south. Three MU sports venues are located within this area:
Memorial Stadium/Faurot Field, Mizzou Arena, and Hearnes Center.
* 1-2 km (0.6-1.3 mi)        - 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 the MU 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.
      *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, comprised mainly of government offices and retail, commercial, and business uses, is located to the northeast. Development is expected to continue within this area, probably to the south of the proposed RPF.
      *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 nonresidential 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 nonresidential development.
19.3.1.1.6        Land Use and Cover within the Regional Setting There are 20,342 ha (50,265 acres) in the 8 km (5-mi) ROI surrounding the proposed RPF. According to the data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Fry et al., 2011), approximately 25 percent of the land is developed (i.e., residential, commercial). Forest and pasture land are the next highest uses at 31 and 30 percent, respectively. Cultivated cropland follows next at 9 percent. The remaining land use types total less than l percent of each category and include barren land, evergreen forest, grassland/herbaceous, mixed forests, open water, scrub, and woody and emergent herbaceous wetlands.
19-60
    ""NWMI
    * .,. 4'NORTHW ST  CA *lO MEO4 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Land use, as categorized by the USGS, is presented in Table 19-15. Figure 19-15 shows the distribution of these land uses within the ROI. Most developed lands lie to the northwest, while agricultural lands lie to the east and southeast. Deciduous forest is interspersed throughout the ROI.
Table 19-15. U.S. Geological Survey Land Use Categories for the 8 km (5-mi)
Region of Influence Surrounding the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Barren land                                                              16.19        93.66              0.19 463, I Deciduous forest                                                    6,365.64    15,729.81              31.29 Developed, low intensity                                            1,892.74    4,677.06              9.30 2,79 Developed, open space                                                1,666.96    4,119.15              8.19 Evergreen forest                                                      216.30      534.48              1.06 139.6 Mixed forests                                                          189.75      468.87              0.93 Pasture/hay                                                          6, 134.34  15,158.25              30.16 Woody wetlands                                                          146.95      363.13              0.72
                                                    **&#xb8;2&#xb8;&#xb8;&#xb8;&#xb8;&#xb8; Source: 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, 2001.
19.3.1.1.7          Special Land Uses Special land uses within the ROI include public stewardship lands and prime farmlands (farmland is discussed in Section 19.3.1.1.10). There is no Federal land held in trust for American Indian tribes within the ROI. Approximately 7 percent (1427 ha [3,527 acres]) of the land is public stewardship lands (e.g.,
parks, conservation areas) that primarily lie southwest of the proposed RPF. There are no military reservations or Federally designated wild and scenic rivers, national parks, national forests, or coastal zone areas within the ROI. Figure 19-16 shows the location and extent of the special land uses.
19-61
  ~NWMI                                                                          Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
                                                                                                - Environmental Review A RPF Site                                          Land Use              ~ZEvergreen Forest 0*      8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site                Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands V]Deciduous Forest
__Wodelad                              Barren Land ra=ItrsaeHghas*                      Cultivated Crops                  Developed High Intensity
  ---      Highways                                        J Pasture/i lay                    Devcloped, Medium Intensity g3 City Limits                                    K i Grassland/Ilerbaceous              Developed, Low Intensity 3Shrub/Scrub                    [I]Developed, Open Space 0                                      0.5 3      4n                1        2
                      ,,,Miles                                Mixed Forest                  *1Open Water Land Use Calo~n: USGS 2006 Naioa Lend Cover Databae* CONUS Len Cover dIgglal datai: httpit*www mdc.gov Figure 19-15. Land Use and Cover within the 8 km (5 mi)
Region of Influence of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site 19-62
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA NWMI                                                      Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review A        RPF Site C8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site                      MDOC Conservation Management Areas Columbia City Parks
        ---- Interstate Highways
      --    Highways 71 MDNR Wild Areas Q*f        City Limits                                    MDNR State Parks 00.45 0.9        1.8    2.7    3.6 Mark Twain National Forest Miles I Special tLand Use Figure 19-16. Special Land Use within the Region of Influence of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site 19-63
NW KI MOTJVVSMDALilChapter                                                    19.0NWMI-2013-021,
                                                                                      -Environmental Rev.
Review 0A 19.3.1.1.8      Applicable Land Use Plans and Guidance Discovery Ridge was developed under Section 172.273 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, which provided that "the Curators of the University of Missouri may establish research, development, and office park projects in order to promote cooperative relationships and to provide for shared resources between private individuals, companies and corporations, and the University of Missouri, for the advancement of the University in carrying out its educational mission and such projects are declared to be in furtherance of the purposes of the University."
The Discovery Ridge Master Plan an~d Protective Covenants (MU, 2009) is the applicable land use guidance for the research park. Discovery Ridge is zoned commercial in the A-1 district (City of Columbia, 2012a), under the Section 29-18 provision, Board of Adjustment (City of Columbia, 2012b).
The Columbia Code (Section 29-18) has height restriction for A-i of 10.7 m (35 ft).
Missouri Revised Statute, Section 172.273, exempts university research parks, including Discovery Ridge, from local land development regulations. This allows MU to develop Discovery Ridge to its own master plan and to include non-agriculture-related structures with sizes in excess of the A-I zoning requirements, provided MU gives Columbia courtesy review of the plan and design drawings and addresses the city's comments and concerns. The master plan and covenants for the development do not specify height restrictions.
"Columbia Imagined, The Plan for How We Live & Grow" is the current comprehensive plan for Columbia (City of Columbia, 201 3c), and the Boone Count, Master Plan (Boone County, 1996) guides development of lands outside of city limits but within the county.
19.3.1.1.9      Future Development Only a few tenants currently occupy Discovery Ridge. According to the master plan and covenants (MU, 2009), the future and growth of Discovery Ridge itself will be market-driven. Future tenants are expected to be businesses that are compatible and synergistic with the research programs at MU. Tenants obtain a ground lease from the university and construct their own facilities. Facilities are designed to conform to uniform building codes and design standards listed in the "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements for Discovery Ridge" (MU, 2009). Expansion and/or property acquisition beyond the 223 ha (550 acres) currently defining Discovery Ridge is possible in the future and requires approval by the MU Board of Curators.
Nearby future development includes a city park and a large commercial and residential development that is planned for the west side of U.S. Highway 63, adjacent to the overpass that provides access to the Discovery Ridge Parkway. According to Columbia (20 13c)," the city's planning staff is studying steering employment to developing office and industrial centers, which includes Discovery Ridge, in response to citizen goals and objectives offered through the city's comprehensive plan planning process. This approach is being considered as the city continues to study and identify anticipated future economic growth.
19.3.1.1.10 Agricultural Resources and Facilities The principal agricultural products of Boone County, as estimated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), are corn for grain, corn silage for greenchop, spring/winter wheat for grain, and oats and barley for grain (USDA, 2007). Livestock also has significant importance because much of the land is not suited for row crops.
19-64
: Eli;..
        ..............                                                  ChptrWWM-03-2,Rev.
Chpe                              Q 19.0 - Environmental Review Agriculture resources nearest to the RPF site are associated with MU and include the following:
South Farm - A 588 ha (1,452-acre) complex that supports research, outreach, and teaching missions of animal science, plant science, veterinary science, biology, botany, and other disciplines. The farm is home to the Swine Research Complex, Beef Research and Teaching Farm, Turf Center, USDA Agricultural Research Service, and Horse Farm. The complex also supports research and demonstration projects in entomology, poultry, and maize genetics. The Missouri Foundation Seed Program uses South Farm to increase the sales of newly developed seed varieties to dealers. Hands-on teaching is provided to more than 1,500 students annually.
* Jefferson Farm and Gardens - A 27 ha (67-acre) educational facility that provides information on farming, gardening, and conservation.
      *Bradford Research and Extension Center - A 239 ha (591-acre) research farm that provides land, equipment, and facilities to assist university and USDA scientists and extension personnel in performing research in crop, soils, entomology, pathology, turf, and other disciplines on more than 25,000 plots.
A number of privately owned farms also lie in the surrounding area.
19.3.1.1.1 1 Mineral Resources According to the EPA Western Ecology Division's Ecoregions of Missouri (Chapman et al., 2002), the proposed RPF site is part of the Claypan Prairie Level IV ecoregion, which is located within the Central Irregular Plains Level III ecoregion.
Well-developed claypan soils on glacial till typify the Claypan Prairie ecoregion. This region has a more level, gently rolling topography than surrounding regions. Expansive cropland and pastureland, with an emphasis on livestock production, is common. The potential natural vegetation is tall grass prairie with less woodland than surrounding regions. Streams run generally west to east, draining into the Mississippi River, in contrast to the northwest-to-southeast drainage of ecoregions to the west.
The Claypan Prairie ecoregion was glaciated in the pre-Illinoian time period. The continental drift, largely derived from limestone and shale, is composed of clay with a high percentage of rock fragments.
Groundwater tends to be saline, unlike the freshwater of ecoregions to the southeast. The mix of land-use activities includes mining operations of high-sulfur bituminous coal. Although, historically, mining was more widespread, a few new mines continue to open. The disturbance of these coal strata in southern Iowa, areas of northern and southwestern Missouri, and southeastern Kansas has degraded water quality and affected aquatic biota (Chapman et al., 2002).
19.3.1.2      Visual Resources A viewshed is an area of land, water, sky and associated environmental elements that is visible to the human eye from a fixed vantage point. Viewsheds often contain relatively large expanses of natural areas such as watersheds, unfragmented habitat, and unobstructed views. Viewsheds typically are spaces that are readily visible from public areas such as from roadways, parks, or high-rise buildings. The beauty of these areas contributes to the short-term and long-term quality of life for the people and communities who experience them. In urban areas, appealing viewsheds attract people and businesses and are associated with higher property values.
Visual resource management is the identification of visual values and establishment of objectives for managing those values. NRC (20 12a) identifies the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Visual Resource Management System (BLM, 1986) as the method for rating the aesthetic/scenic quality of a proposed site.
19-65
NWMI                                                                  Catr              ~R The BLM process involves a scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, and a delineation of distance zones. Based on these three factors, lands are categorized by their relative visual value, which provides the basis for considering these values and impacts during the planning process. The BLM process is considered the standard for visual resource management. In overview, the process involves the following steps:
* Inventory - An inventory provides written descriptions and photos of the views or open space of concern. The inventory may also include site information regarding distinguishing characteristics, parcel size, ownership, access points for best view, and potential threats to preservation.
* Rating - For each inventory item, a rating is assigned that considers such factors as scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance zones. Based on the rating, lands are categorized into visual resource importance classes. The classifications typically range from most valued to least valued classes and assign value to the visual resource.
        *Protection level - Levels provide the basis for considering visual values in the planning process.
For example, during an environmental analysis, a project that is found to impact highly important visual resources might be redesigned, relocated, or resituated to lessen its impact.
The process of determining the affected environment for visual resources begins with a description of the visual setting and the regulatory requirements affecting the setting.
19.3.1.2.1      Description of the Visual Setting Discovery Ridge is located on the edge of Columbia in a suburban/rural interface setting where farmland, parks, and natural areas are widespread and interspersed with residential dwellings, community and transportation infrastructure, and business establishments. Discovery Ridge is minimally developed at this time.
A Phase I environmental site assessment included a cursory visual reconnaissance and description of the area that included Lots 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, and adjoining properties (Terracon, 201 la). The assessment describes the overall visual setting in which Lot 15 lies; the lot on which the proposed RPF would be located. All except Lot 5 are vacant; that lot is developed with a storage building. The ground is generally grass-covered, with portions of cultivated fields in the vicinity of Lot 16. The general topography slopes slightly to moderately downward toward the south and west (Terracon, 201 la). Table 19-16 presents information from the site assessment that describes the viewshed from Discovery Ridge boundaries.
Table 19-16. Discovery Ridge Viewshed North        Ed's Mobile Home Park and Sunset Mobile Home Park to the northwest, and farmland with University of Missouri storage buildings, farmland, and Sugar Grove Lane to the north and northeast South        Lenoir Street, a residential house, U.S. Highway 63, Ponderosa Drive, and farmland Source: Terracon, 201 la, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 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.
19-66
NWMI~~
ftfri  UDo NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Photos were taken from the locations indicated on Figure 19-17 toward the proposed RPF in September 2013. Figure 19-18 through Figure 19-25 show the views. Most views are of undeveloped or minimally developed areas, with occasional trees, roads, power lines, and farmland.
                                                    -T O Photopoints                                -    Highways RPF Site                              -    Interstate C3      8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site          C    Lmt 0      0.25    0.5          1          1.5          2 Miles Figure 19-17. September 2013 Visual Reconnaissance Photo Locations 19-67
.'NWIV,'                                                              NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Figure 19-18. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Intersection of Rolling Hills and Bass Roads, Photo Location #1 Figure 19-19. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Gans Road, approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) North Photo Location #2 19-68
NWI                                                            NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Figure 19-20. Direct View of Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Discovery Parkway near the Overpass, Photo Location #3 Figure 19-21. View of Radioisotope Production Facility Site from the North Edge of Perry Phillips Lake, Photo Location #4 19-69
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWMI                                                Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Figure 19-22. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Boys and Girls Town of Missouri, Photo Location #5 Figure 19-23. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from S. Lenoir and Roosevelt Avenue, Photo Location #6 19-70
"NWMIV
.OH.M.IS M,...                                                          NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Figure 19-24. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Intersection of New Haven and Rolling Hills Roads, Photo Location #7 Figure 19-25. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Route WW at Old Hawthorne, Photo Location #8 19-71
N      MDILISOPSCatr1 lviChptr                                                                WM-0321Re.A 9.0 -Environmental Review 19.3.1.2.2    Tallest Structures The tallest structural components of the RPF would be the three exhaust stacks, which extend 22.9 m (75 ft) high. The next highest portion of the building, the high bay, would be the second story above the process area, at 19.8 m (65 ft). The stacks would be visible from approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) away.
The scenic vistas of the nation's national parks and wilderness areas are protected under amendments of the Clean Air Act. Protected areas are "knownas Federal Class 1 areas. Congress declared the following as a national visibility goal for these areas:
The prevention of any fu~ture, and th~e remedying of any existing impairmen~t of i'isibilit, in mandatory class I Federalareas which impairment resultsfrom, manmade airpollution.
(42 U.S.C. &sect; 7491 Section 169A)
To address the problem of long-range transport of regional haze and to meet this goal, the EPA adopted regulations, known as the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51, "Regional Haze Regulations"), to address visibility impairment caused by one or a small group of human-made sources generally located in close proximity to a specific Class I area. States are required to improve visibility in these areas incrementally over the next 60 years. The first milestone is to develop a regional haze plan to reduce causes of haze to make reasonable progress by 2018.
There are no Federal Class I areas, as defined by 40 CFR 81.416, "Identification of Mandatory Class I Federal Areas where Visibility is an Important Value, Missouri," within Boone County, Columbia, the ROI, or anywhere near the proposed RPF site. The site lies within the BLM Northeastern States Field Office planning district, which covers 20 states. The Milwaukee Field Office administers the nearest public land to the RPF site. Within that area, there are no BLM-managed acres that are classified as Class I. The RPF site also lies within the Forest Service Eastern Region. The Forest Service manages the only two Class I areas in the state. These Class I areas include the Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, a 4,983.7 ha (12,315-acre) area approximately 352.4 km (219 mi) south of Columbia, and the Mingo Wilderness Area, a 3,237.5 ha (8,000-acre) area approximately 420 km (261 mi) southeast of Columbia.
19.3.1.2.3    Aesthetic and Scenic Quality Rating The scenic quality of the proposed site was rated using the BLM Visual Resource Management System (BLM, 1986). The scenic quality classification is the rating of the visual appeal of the land designated for the site and is based on an evaluation of seven key factors: landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications. Notes are taken at the observation points describing these characteristics and scored according to the criteria shown in Table 19-17. The RPF site scoring and photographs were used to determine the visual quality of the site. Scenic quality is classified as either A, B, or C, based on total score, with A being a high-quality visual classification and C being a low-quality visual rating. Table 19-18 shows the scoring and the final NWMI site determination as a C classification.
19-72
  ~.NWM      I                                                                        NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-17. Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart
    -  . S
* S    -  -    5    0~
Landform      High vertical relief as expressed in      Steep canyons, mesas,          Low rolling hills, prominent cliffs, spires, or massive      buttes, cinder cones, and      foothills, or flat valley rock outcrops; or severe surface          drumlins; or interesting      bottoms; or few or no variation or highly eroded formations,    erosional patterns or variety  interesting features including major badlands or dune          in size and shape of systems; or detail features dominant      landforms; or detail features and exceptionally striking and            that are interesting though intriguing, such as glaciers              not dominant or exceptional Score: 5                        Score: 3                      Score: 1 Water        Clear and clean appearing, still, or      Flowing, or still, but not    Absent or present, but not cascading white water, any of which        dominant in the landscape      noticeable are a dominant factor in the landscape Score: 5                        Score: 3                      Score: C3
                                                                                                                    )
Influence of  Adjacent scenery greatly enhances          Adjacent scenery              Adjacent scenery has little adjacent      visual quality                            moderately enhances overall or no influence on overall scenery                                                  visual quality                visual quality Score: 5                        Score: 3                      Score: 0 Cultural      Modifications add favorably to visual      Modifications add little or    Modifications add variety modifications variety while promoting visual            no visual variety to the area  but are very discordant harmony                                    and introduce no discordant    and promote strong elements                      disharmony Score: 2                        Score: 0                    Score: -4 19-73
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-18.      Scenic Quality Rating, by View Photo Loc. #3,          1                                            Level to rolling topography, agriculture-related Figure 19-20                                                          structures in the background 1                                      Grass area, shrubs in foreground, trees in background 0                                  None Little contrast in vegetation tones, mainly monochromatic 0                        Adjacent scenery is similar 1                      Common for the area 0            Agriculture structures, utility pad 4 C  A=l19 or more; B =12-18; C =11or less Photo Loc. #4,          I                                            Level to rolling topography, agriculture-related Figure 19-21                                                          structures and utility poles in the background 1                                      Grass in foreground, dirt in background, trees in distance 0                                  None Contrast in soil, rock, and vegetation; not unique 0                        Adjacent scenery is similar I                      Common for the area 0            Agriculture structures, power lines 4    C  A=19ormore;B=12-18;C=llorless ill...........................................
Photo Loc.#7,            1                                            Level topography, farm field and trees in the Figure 19-24                                                          background I                                      Pavement and grass in foreground, agriculture fields in background 0                                  None 1                            Contrast in crop color is similar to contrast in grass area 0                        Adjacent scenery is similar Common for the area facility.0            Pavement, power lines, signs production radioisotope 4      C  A=19 or more; B =12-18; C =11or less
                                                =
RPF RPF            =  radioisotope production facility.
19-74
lvii-.
o*........
ChptrWMI-03-2,Rev.
hpe 19.0 -Environmental Review O
The sensitivity level, a measurement of the public concern for scenic quality, was also analyzed using six different indicators of public concern: types of users, amount of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, special areas, and other factors. The sensitivity level of the public concern for scenic quality is rated on a high (H), moderate (M), or low (L) scale. The site has an L sensitivity rating, as an area with low scenic values resulting from a low sensitivity to changes in visual quality by the type of users in the area, a low amount of use by viewers, low public interest in changes to the visual quality of the site, and a lack of special natural and wilderness areas.
19.3.2 Air Quality and Noise 19.3.2.1    General Regional Climate Geomorphic, or physiographic, regions are broad-scale subdivisions of the nation that are based on terrain texture, rock type, geologic structure, and history. There are eight regions, subdivided into 25 provinces, and further subdivided to 85 sections within the U.S. (Fenneman, 1946). The characteristics and locations of these landforms influence local and regional climate and weather patterns.
The proposed RPF site lies at the southern edge of the Central Lowlands physiographic province, within a very few miles of the adjacent Ozark Plateau province, both of which lie within the larger Interior Plains physiographic region. The Central Lowlands includes most of the Corn Belt and lies within the heartland of America.
The proposed RPF location places the facility in the Humid Continental-Warm Summer climatic zone.
This type of climate has a characteristic long, warm summer with moderate relative humidity. The winters are cool to cold and mark a period of lower precipitation than during the remainder of the year.
Because of its geographical location far inland, the region is subject to significant seasonal and daily temperature variations. Air masses moving over the state during the year include cold continental polar air from Canada, warm and humid maritime tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, and dry eastward flowing air masses from the Rocky Mountains located to the west. Prolonged periods of extreme hot or cold temperatures are unusual (MU, 2006b).
The general geostrophic airflow pattern and the prevailing jet stream track shuttle precipitation-producing mid-latitude cyclones (lows) across the state from west-to-east throughout the year. Consequently, precipitation events in all seasons move through from a westerly direction (MU, 2006b).
Spring, summer, and early fall precipitation occurs in the form of rain and thunderstorms. Severe thunderstorms typically occur during the period from mid- to late-spring through early summer. Hail may be expected as a product of these storms. Wind speeds of up to 97 km/hr (60 mi/hr) or more may be experienced once or twice a year during a severe thunderstorm (MU, 2006b). Winter precipitation is generally light to moderate and occurs in the form of rain or snow or a mixture of both with an occasional, though infrequent, thunderstorm. Occasional heavy snowfall episodes occur infrequently, and when they do occur, the accumulation does not last for any significant duration. Surface temperature conditions sometimes produce freezing rain or drizzle, although normally not more than a couple times each season.
The historical climate data within this section were obtained primarily from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) High Plains Regional Climate Center historical climate data summaries for Columbia (NOAA, 2013a and 2013b). In addition, MU has a weather station at South Farm, less than 1.6 km (1 mi) away from the proposed site and approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) from Columbia. The weather station is used in conjunction with the MU agricultural program. The university makes the weather data available via its website. Simple searches may be performed and various averages can be obtained through this database.
19-75
* 14  Qo'.:*.*.-Chapter                                    19.0 - Environmental Review Other sources were used as needed (e.g., Decker, 2013) to augment NOAA data, particularly to better understand the immediate area around the proposed site.
19.3.2.1.1    Temperature Though temperatures reached a record high of 41.7&deg;C (107 degrees Fahrenheit [0 F]) in 2012, in general, temperatures rarely exceed 38&deg;C (I100&deg;F) in the summer and rarely fall below -18&deg;C (0&deg;F) in the winter.
The mean maximum temperatures in Columbia, collected from the reporting station at the Columbia Regional Airport (Station 231791) over a 43-year period, ranged from 2.8&deg;C (37.2&deg;F) in January to 31 .4&deg;C (88.5&deg;F) in July. Daily temperatures during that period showed a wider variance, from -28.8&deg;C
(-20&deg;F) in December to 44&deg;C (Ill &deg;F) in July. A summary of average and extreme temperature data for 1969 through 2012 is shown in Table 19-19.
Table 19-19. Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Temperature Summary, 1969-2012 Average max.    &deg;C    2.9  6.1          12.7  18.9 23.6 28.5  31.4  30.7  26.0  19.6    12.0  5.1      18.1 0
temperature      F 37.2  43.0        54.9  66.1 74.4 83.3  88.5  87.3  78.8  67.2  53.6  41.2    64.6 Daily extreme  c&deg;C 23.3  27.8        29.4  32.2 33.3  a89  43.9  43.3  38.3  34.4  28.3  24.4    43.9 high            OF 74.0    82.0        85.0  90.0 92.0 a107  111.0 110.0 101.0 94.0  83.0  76.0    111.0 Average mean &deg;C      -1.9  0.9          6.9  12.9 17.8 22.8  25.4  24.6  19.9  13.5    6.7    0.4      12.5
                  'F 28.5  33.6        44.5  55.2 64.1 73.0  77.8  76.3  67.8  56.3  44.1  32.7      54.5 Source: WRCC, 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.
a Occurred during 2008-2012 time period.
Average temperature data for the Columbia, Missouri, weather station was reviewed for the most recent five years having data available (2008 to 2012). The lowest average temperature was -4. I&deg;C (24.65&deg;0F),
recorded in January 2010, and the highest average temperature was 29.5&deg;C (85 .06&deg;F), recorded in July 2012. The five-year annual average temperature was 13.1 &deg;C (55.58&deg;F).
A five-year temperature summary is presented in Table 19-20. The five-year average temperature for the same time period, reported at the South Farm weather station, was 12.3&deg;C (54.2&deg;F). The average minimum temperature was 6.9&deg;C (44.5&deg;F), and the average maximum temperature was 17.9&deg;C (64.3&deg;F)
(MU, 2014).
19-76
ST...
lvi:..II I!                                          ChpeI Chapter 9.0NWMI-2013-021,
                                                                                    - Environmental Rev. OA Review Table 19-20. Columbia, Missouri, Five-Year Temperature Summary, 2008-2012
          &deg;C            -3.1    2.4  8.1 11.7 17.9  23.3  22.5  21.9  18.6  10.2  9.8  -1.1    11.8 2009 OF          26.5    36.3 46.5 53.1 64.2  73.9  72.5  71.4  65.5  50.3  49.6  30.0      53.3 0
C          -3.9    -0.1  6.6 14.0 16.9  24.0  27.5  24.9  17.6  14.2  8.9    3.1    12.8 2011      0F            24.9    31.9 43.9 57.2 62.5  75.1  81.6  76.7  63.7  57.5  48.1  37.5      55.0
          'C            -2.0    0.6  8.6 13.7 18.3  24.0  25.9  24.2  18.9  12.8  8.5  -0.2    13.1 Mean
          'F            28.4    33.1 47.5 56.6 64.9  75.3  78.7  75.5  66.1  55.0  47.3  31.7    55.6 Source: WRCC, 2013b, "Station Monthly Time Series, Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012, Station 231791 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.edulcgi-bin/wea..mnsimts.pl?IaKCOU, Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed August 2013.
19.3.2.1.2            Precipitation According to the historical data from Station 231791, precipitation in the Columbia area averages approximately 103.1 cm (40.6 in.) per year. Of that amount, the mean snowfall is 57.7 cm (22.7 in.) per year. The city has measurable amounts of precipitation 111 days per year. The maximum annual precipitation of 159 cm (62.49 in.) was measured in 1993, and the minimum annual precipitation of 60 cm (23.66 in.) was measured in 1980. On a monthly basis, rainfall amounts range from a high of 12.4 cm (4.89 in.) in May to a low of 4.62 cm (1.82 in.) in January (WRCC, 2013a).
According to the historical data from Station 231791, snow falls from November through April. During that period, a high of 16 cm (6.3 in.) was recorded in February 2011, and a low of 1.5 cm (0.6 in.) was recorded in 1980. A summary of average and extreme precipitation data for 1969 through 2012 is shown in Table 19-21.
19-77
                                        ...            *.Chapter.NWMI-2013-021,                                                            Rev. 0A
  *.o        .
I'.,V.o                    vhaper19.0                                                                          -Environmental Review Table 19-21. Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Precipitation Summary, 1969-2012 i  kTl['a*. I,."111I[*11 iI*.i i III                                                                                            v Average                      cm      4.62          5.44  8.10  11.23    12.42  10.24 9.58    10.06    9.53    8.28    7.72    6.02  103.12 total precipitation in                      1.82          2.14  3.19    4.42    4.89  4.03  3.77    3.96    3.75    3.26    3.04    2.37  40.60 cm      0.13          0.28  1.98  2.26    a3.33  0.89  0.61    0.53    1.14  "0.91    1.07    1.22  60.10 Low in      0.05          0.11  0.78    0.89    a 1.31  0.35  0.24    0.21    0.45  a 0.36  0.42    0.48  23.66 Average                      cm      15.75        a 16.00 7.37    1.52    0.00  0.00  0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    4.57    12.70    57.66 total snowfall                      in      6.20          a6.3  2.90    0.60    0.00  0.00  0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    1.80    5.00  22.70 Source: WRCC, 2013a, "Period of Record General Climate Summary                              - Temperature, 1969 to 2012, Station 231791 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl?mo 1791, Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed August 2013.
a Occurred during 2008-2012 time period.
A recent five-year precipitation summary of the station data was obtained and reviewed. For each month during this time period, a portion of the data was missing, with the missing data ranging from approximately 15-30 percent of the total data. Precipitation data from the South Farm weather station was also reviewed. The averages shown on the site were different than the Columbia weather station by a factor of five. Thus, the Columbia weather station historical summary serves as the more complete picture of precipitation at the proposed RPF site.
19.3.2.1.3                      Humidity Average relative humidity data for the Columbia, Missouri, weather station was reviewed for 2008 to 2012. The lowest average relative humidity was 51.89 percent, recorded in August 2012, and the highest average relative humidity was 82.13 percent, recorded in September 2008. The five-year annual average was 69.18 percent. The five-year relative humidity data summary is shown in Table 19-22.
Table 19-22. Relative Humidity Data for Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012 2008                60.51          72.02          66.68 64.85    69.49 71.40 74.38    78.87    82.13  77.52    65.87 71.48      71.18 2010                75.69          73.42 70.33            61.24    74.71 76.64 79.19    75.19 76.17      58.65    64.86 72.85      71.58
                                          ...........                                          .1.                                ]l 2012                64.05          63.72          63.58  65.03    61.33 54.89 52.96 51.89        69.64 66.76      62.25 70.91      61.46 Source: 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.
19-78
goE.,.o NO.T      lviCatr1NWMI WCLI                                                Chapter      - Environmental Rev.
9.0,M-20o3-o2,            GA Review 19.3.2.1.4          Wind Extreme wind speeds are uncommon in central Missouri. When they do occur, they are usually caused by pressure gradients and temperature contrasts present in the mid-latitude cyclones that pass through the state. These cyclones may spawn storms that produce high winds from gust fronts, microbursts, and tornadoes. Non-storm-related extreme winds are rare. Occasionally, cold high-pressure air filling in behind a front causes high wind, especially in the winter when temperature contrasts are large.
Average wind speed data for the Columbia, Missouri, weather station was reviewed for 2008 to 2012.
The lowest mean wind speed was 8.8 km/hr (5.47 milhr) in August 2008, and the highest was 19.1 km/hr (11.87 mi/hr) recorded in December 2008. The five-year annual average was 14.25 km/hr (8.86 mi/hr).
The five-year mean wind speed data summary is shown in Table 19-23.
Table 19-23. Mean Wind Speed for Columbia, Missouri, from 2008-2012 208(km/br) 18.85 17.03 16.96 17.53 15.76      13.97  11.28  8.80    10.01  11.59 14.32 19.10      14.93 (mi/hr) 11.71 10.58 10.54 10.89 9.79  8.68  7.01  5.47    6.22  7.20    8.90  11.87  9.28 200(km/br) 13.74 13.73 15.96 17.06 12.79      11.43  10.06  9.88    12.17 16.30 14.73 13.41      13.10 (mi/br) 8.54 8.53 9.92 10.60 7.95    7.10  6.25  6.14    7.56 10.13 9.15 8.33          8.14 202(krn/hr) 16.98 15.64 16.53 15.19 13.42    13.68  10.56  11.35  11.57 13.79 14.97 14.18      13.97 (mi/br) 10.55 9.72 10.27 9.44 8.34    8.50  6.56  7.05    7.19 8.57 9.30 8.81          8.68 Source: 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.
Wind data from the South Farm weather station was also reviewed. The average shown on the site was different than the Columbia weather station by a factor of two. Thus, the Columbia weather station data provides a more comprehensive study of wind activity at the proposed site.
Two wind roses are presented to show the general historic wind flow patterns in the immediate area and the ROI. Figure 19-26 shows the wind pattern as measured at South Farm, located immediately north of the proposed RPF site. These data were collected by MU. Figure 19-27 shows the wind patterns recorded at the Columbia Remote Automatic Weather Station.
Both wind roses show that the prevailing surface wind direction is from the south. The South Farm wind rose shows a total average wind speed of 11.3 km/hr (7 milhr), while the Columbia wind rose shows a total average speed of 14.16 km/hr (8.8 mi/hr). Both wind roses show that the average frequency of higher speed winds falls into the 24-40 km/hr (15-25 mi/hr) range.
19-79
NWI                                                        NWMI-2013-021, Rlev. OA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Rleview WIND SPEED (mph)
* o0- 150 10.0-50 c~~.0    J%
Figure 19-26. Wind Rose from South Farm, 2000-2010 (University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station) 19-80
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Q NOTWESMEICtSTI$                                                  Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Station        : C!OLUMBIA 14O                                                                  1.3  -  4 Latitude      :    *&deg; 49' 0I" N Longitude : 9: 2" 13' 06" W                                                                      4-8 8 -13 Elevation : 0 ft.                                                                              13 - 1.9 Eleuent        : 144 Pan Wind Soeed                                                            19 -25" 2532 47 47 w/
E Start                    1,, 20Q7*W.,,.                                      Subinterval Wrndw:
End Date:
Date: Aug'.
Iec..31,    2Q12      -                                                Start      End
@ of Days : 1910 of 1910                                                        Date:    Jai. 01Dec.
V obs:poss: 44105 of 47520                          S                          hour:        00      23 V)Western Region~al Climate Center Figure 19-27.      Wind Rose from Automatic Weather Station, Columbia, Missouri, 2007-2012 (Western Regional Climate Center) 19.3.2.1.5 Extreme Weather The American heartland has the distinction of also being known as "tornado alley," a nonmeteorological term that references the area where 90 percent of tornadoes have occurred as a result of the mixing of cold, dry air from Canada and the Rocky Mountains with warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico and hot, dry air from the Sonoran Desert. This area exhibits considerable atmospheric instability, heavy precipitation, and many intense thunderstorms.
19-81
N, VI.:.
.,. 'EDIo;L."                                                          Chapter 19.0NWMI-201  3-021, Rev. 0
                                                                                    - Environmental Review Tornados are extreme wind speed events that are classified according to the enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale (EF scale). The scale matches wind speeds to the severity of damage caused by a tornado.
The process involves determining the degree of damage according to a predefined damage scale of 28 indicators. The observed damage is associated with estimated wind speeds during the storm, and an EF scale number is assigned. Measuring tornadoes from EF-1 to EF-5, the scale uses more specific structural damage guidelines than the original Fujita tornado intensity scale (F scale), which was established in 1971. Table 19-24 shows the F and EF scales.
Table 19-24. Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scales Used to Determine Tornado Intensity 0        64- 116      40-72        72- 126    45-78        0        105- 137            65-85 2    182-253      113- 157      189-259 118- 161          2      178-217            111-135 4        334- 418    208 -260      337 -420  210- 261        4      266- 322          166- 200 EF scale = enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale.
F scale = Fujita tornado intensity scale.
According to compiled information from several extreme weather databases, including the U.S. Tornado and Weather Extremes database (1950 to 2010), a total of 625 tornado events that had a recorded magnitude of two or above were documented in Missouri (World, 2013). Of that total, 50 tornado events of the same magnitude were recorded within 80 km (50 mi) of Columbia. A listing of severe weather events is shown in Table 19-25. Columbia, in a ranking of 1,237 other Missouri cities, ranked 810 for tornados. The tornado index value is calculated based on historical tornado events data and is an indicator of the tornado level in a region. According to this ranking, 809 Missouri cities have a higher chance of tornado events than Columbia (World, 2013).
Table 19-25. Listing of Severe Weather Events from 1950 to 2010 within an 80 km (50-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site Blizzard                                                Iesom25 Dense fog                              29              Thunderstorm winds                  1,236 Flood                                  466              Winter storm                          84 Heat                                    72              Other                                86 Source: 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.
19-82
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
  ~. r~I~f~J                                                            Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review According to the NOAA National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database (NOAA, 201 3b), for the time period January 1996 to May 2013, there were 420 severe storm events (defined as an individual type of storm event) recorded in either Boone County or the Boone Zone. The most notable of the 420 events are summarized in Table 19-26.
Table 19-26. Summary of Notable Storm Events In and Near the Region of Influence, Recorded from 1996 to 2013 Blizzard                                          1,            1    51 cm (20 in.) of snow recorded Excessive heat (heat                                              14 wave)
Funnel cloud                        '                            1    -
Heavy rain                          1'                            1    7.6-15.2 cm (3-6 in.) recorded Ice storm                                          ,/            4    0.64-1.27 cm (0.25-0.5 in.) recorded Thunderstorm wind                  vf                          118    50-75 kn recorded Winter storm                                      1,          25    --
Source: NOAA, Atmospheric          2013b, "Storm Administration,        EventsD.C.,
Washington,  Database,"
accessedwww.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents, August 2013.                  National Oceanic and aAs rated with the enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale.
19.3.2.2    Air Quality Missouri is located in EPA Region 7. The Missouri DEQ is the regulatory agency responsible to protect and enhance the quality of the Missouri environment and its citizens. 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 consists of State and local air monitoring stations, special purpose monitoring stations, and national core monitoring consistent with requirements in 40 CFR 58.10, "Annual Monitoring Network Plan and Periodic Network Assessment."
19-83
  *,.*oIJv,;..      -  -o    o++.;..."Chapter                                        19.0NWMI-2013-021,
                                                                                            - Environmental Rev. 0 Review The only MDNR air monitor in Boone County is located at Finger Lakes and monitors for ozone (03) from May to October each year. The MDNR continuous air monitors nearest to the proposed RPF site, also in similar urban locales, are at the following locations:
* Mark Twain State Park - In Stoutsville, Monroe County, approximately 103 km (64 mi) northeast of the RPF site. Monitors for sulfur dioxide (SO 2), 03, and inhalable particulates PM-10 (particulate matter, 10 micron [*t]) and PM-2.5 (particulate matter, 2.5 *t).
* El Dorado Springs - In Cedar County, approximately 261 km (162 mi) southwest of the site.
Monitors for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), inhalable particulate PM-2.5, and 03.
Both air monitoring locations are well outside of the ROI.
The EPA has set national air quality standards for six common pollutants (also referred to as "criteria" pollutants). These standards are known as NAAQS. Missouri DEQ monitors for CO, NO2 , 03, total suspended particulate, inhalable particulates (PM-10 and PM-2.5), and lead (Pb). Other pollutants or compounds are measured as part of air toxics or particulate speciation sampling. Legal descriptions of the standards are available in the 6 CSR Division 10, "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.
Table 19-27. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable in Missouri Carbon            1 hr      Not to be exceeded more than once per year                    35 ppm          -
monoxide          8 hr      Not to be exceeded more than once per year                      9 ppm          -
Nitrogen          1 hr      3-year average of the maximum daily    9 8 th percentile      100 ppb      None dioxide                      1-hr average Annual      Annual arithmetic mean                                          53 ppb      S3 ppb PM-2.5          24 hr      98th percentile of the 24-hr values determined for            35 ~ig/m 3  35 ~ig/m 3 each year; 3-year average of the 98th percentile values Annual      3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean                  15 jtg/in 3 15 jig/mn3 Sulfur          24 hr      NA                                                            0.14 ppm      None dioxide          1 yr      NA                                                            0.03 ppm      None 1 hr/3 yr    To attain the 1-hr/3-yr standard, the 3-yr average of          75 ppb      None the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hr average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb Source: MDNR, 2013a, "National Ambient Air Quality Standards," dnr.mo.gov/env/esp/aqm/standard.htm, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Quality, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed August 2013.
NA        = not applicable.                            NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
19-84
    .. ,vi. A 50;1&deg;0FChater                                        Chapter.1NWMI-2013-021, 9.0 - Environmental Rev. 0A Review Nonattainment means that a geographic area has not consistently met the clean air levels set by the EPA in the NAAQS. There are several nonattainment areas in Missouri; however, none of them are within Boone County, Columbia, the ROI, or anywhere near the proposed RPF site. Most nonattainment areas are located in St. Louis (201 km [125 mi] to the southeast) and in the nearby counties of Dent, Franklin, Iron, Jefferson, Reynolds, St. Charles, and St. Louis.
Maintenance areas are geographic areas that had a history of nonattainment, but are now consistently meeting the NAAQS. Maintenance areas have been redesignated by EPA from "nonattainment" to "attainment with a maintenance plan," or designated by the Environmental Quality Commission. There are no maintenance areas within Boone County, Columbia, the ROI, or anywhere near the proposed RPF site. The closest maintenance area (for Pb) is located in Bixby, Missouri (Iron County), 238 km (148 mi) to the southeast. Other maintenance areas are found in the cities of Herculaneum (Pb), St. Louis (CO),
and Kansas City (03).
19.3 .2 .2.1  Greenhouse Gases There are currently no programs or policies established or drafted related to operations at Discovery Ridge. NWMI will develop a comprehensive program to avoid and control GHG emissions associated with the RPF. This program will include elements such as:
* Developing a GHG emission inventory
* Investigating and implementing methods for avoiding or controlling the GHG emissions identified in the inventory
* Encouraging carpooling or other measures to minimize GHG emissions due to vehicle traffic during construction and operation of the RPF
* Conducting periodic audits of GHG control procedures
* Implementing corrective actions when necessary 19.3.2.3    Noise Noise is generally defined as "unwanted sound." At high levels, noise can damage hearing, cause sleep deprivation, interfere with communication, and disrupt concentration. In the context of protecting the public health and welfare, noise implies adverse effects on people and the environment.
Sound is the result of a source inducing vibration in the air, creating sound waves. These waves radiate in all directions from the source and may be reflected and scattered or, like other wave actions, may turn corners. Sound waves are a fluctuation in the normal atmospheric pressure, which is measurable. This sound pressure level is the instantaneous difference between the actual pressure produced by a sound wave and the average or barometric pressure at a given point in space. The fundamental method of measuring sound is in decibel (dB) units. The most commonly used noise metric for measuring noise is A-weighted decibels (dBA).
The following sections discuss the baseline noise conditions within the ROI. The ROI for noise is the 8 km (5 mi) radius from the centerline of the RPF site.
19-85
  *~*NWMI: :                                                            Chapter 19.0NWI21-2,Rev.
                                                                                      - Environmental Review G 19.3.2.3.1    Baseline Noise Conditions As discussed in Section 19.3.1, the proposed RPF site is located on Lot 15 of the Discovery Ridge industrial park near the MU campus, and is currently an agricultural field. Existing noise sources in the area consist of agricultural equipment (e.g., tractors, forklifts), HVAC systems associated with existing buildings, and traffic noise from U.S. Highway 63 and the surrounding areas. The highest noise levels in the area originate from the intermittent operation of agricultural equipment associated with the MU School of Agriculture, and range from 80 to 100 dBA (Baker, 1997). When agricultural equipment is not running, noise levels are similar to that of a suburban community area, typically around 55 dBA (Berger et al., 2003).
Traffic-related noise sources include airports, railways, and highways. The Columbia Regional Airport is approximately 12 km (7.5 ml) from the proposed NWMI site, and the Columbia Terminal (COLT), a freight-only railway, is approximately 2.7 km (1.7 mi) from the proposed site (Terracon, 2006). Both the airport and railway are located a sufficient distance from the proposed RPF site to attenuate the noise associated with these locations to background levels. U.S. Highway 63 is approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) from the proposed site. Based on the most recent peak 1-hr traffic count summary from the Missouri Department of Transportation, the expected noise levels at the proposed RPF site resulting from traffic on U.S. Highway 63 range from 54 to 58 dBA (MoDOT, 2009).
Noise receptors include nearby residents, commercial workers at ABC Laboratories and RADIL, agricultural students and faculty present in the agricultural research areas, recreational users of the three sports venues in the area, site visitors, and domesticated and research wildlife.
19.3 .2 .3.2 Past Noise Studies There are no known noise studies that have been performed in the audible range of the proposed RPF site.
1 9.3 .2.3.3  Sound Level Standards Permissible noise levels in Discovery Ridge are governed by both the Discovery Ridge Master Plan and Protective Covenants (MU, 2009) and the Columbia Code of Ordinances (City of Columbia, 201 3d).
Section 2.2 of the Covenants document specifies that buildings cannot be used for "excessive noise," and Section 3.3 requires that preliminary building plans specify the extent of noise that may be created by operation of the building (MU, 2009). Section 16-265 of the Ordinances states that site preparation and building construction cannot be performed outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays without a special permit from the Director of Public Works.
Sections 16-264 and 16-266 of the Ordinances prohibit the creation of "excessive noise" in connection with loading or unloading any vehicle, or in the vicinity of schools, hospitals, churches, and courts (City of Columbia, 2013d).
19.3.3    Geologic Environment 19.3.3.1    Regional Geology This section provides summary descriptions of geomorphic provinces and their tectonic development.
The glacial history responsible for surface topography features found today in Missouri is also described.
The descriptions are based on a review of relevant, readily available published reports and maps and, where available, records and unpublished reports from Federal and State agencies. Information on the site conditions has been acquired from these same sources and from site-specific investigations, including geotechnical field studies.
19-86
    ..          ii  :.;o..                                              Chapter Chpter19.0NWMI-2013-021,      Rev. 0A
                                                                                        - Environmental Review 19.3.3.1.1    Geomorphic Provinces Missouri is divided into three geomorphic provinces:
* Interior Plains Province - Also referred to as the Central Lowland Province (northern Missouri, north of the Missouri River)
* Interior Highlands (central Missouri, south of the Missouri River)
* Atlantic Plains - Also referred to as the Coastal Plains Province (the "boot heel" or southeastern corner of Missouri)
The proposed RPF site is located north of the Missouri River within the Interior Plains Province. The Interior Plains are defined by the general texture of the surface terrain, rock type, and geologic structure.
The province is characterized by moderately dissected, glaciated, flat-to-rolling plains that slope gently toward the Missouri and Mississippi River valleys. Local relief is 6.1-50.3 m (20-165 ft). Drainage is dendritic; current geomorphic processes are fluvial erosion, transport and deposition, and minor mass wasting. Elevations range from 183-457 m (600-1,500 ft) above mean sea level, with the proposed RPF site averaging 245 m (805 ft) above mean sea level (USGS, 2013a).
19.3.3.1.1.1    Interior Plains Province The Interior Plains Province is a vast region spread across the stable core (craton) of North America. This area formed when several small continents collided and welded together over a billion years ago, during the Precambrian Era. Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks now form the basement of the Interior Plains and make up the stable core of North America. Throughout the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras, the low-lying Interior Plains remained relatively unaffected by mountain building and tectonic collisions in the western and eastern margins of the continent. During the Mesozoic Era, the majority of the North American continental interior was above sea level, with two notable exceptions. The first occurred during the Jurassic Era (208-144 million years ago), when rising seas flooded the low-lying areas of the continent, and most of the Interior Plains were eventually submerged beneath the shallow Sundance Sea.
The second exception occurred during the Cretaceous Period, when record high sea levels flooded the continental interior with shallow seas. During this time, the Interior Plains continued to receive deposits from the eroding Rocky Mountains to the west and Appalachian and Ouachita-Ozark Mountains to the east and south throughout the most recent Cenozoic Era. The flatness of the Interior Plains is a reflection of the platform of mostly flat-lying marine and stream deposits laid down in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras. The overlying sedimentary rocks are composed mostly of limestone, sandstone, and shales (USGS, 2013a).
19.3.3.1.1.2    Interior Highlands Province The southern portion of Missouri, south of the Missouri River, is located within the Interior Highlands Province. The Interior Highlands includes the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains of southern Missouri, Arkansas, and eastern Oklahoma. The rocky outcrops that make up the core of the Interior Highlands are Paleozoic age carbonates and other sedimentary rocks that were originally deposited on the sea floor. In the Ouachita Mountains, these ancient marine rocks are now contorted by folds and faults. The ancient, eroded mountains of the Interior Highlands stand surrounded by nearly flat lying sedimentary rocks and deposits of the Interior and Atlantic Plains provinces.
The Interior Highlands consist of thick bedrock units of sandstone and shale, with lesser amounts of chert and novaculite (a fine-grained silica rock, like flint), deposited in a deep sea that covered the area from Late Cambrian through Early Pennsylvanian time. The area was then folded and faulted in such a manner that resistant beds of sandstone, chert, and novaculite now form long, sinuous mountain ridges that tower 152-457 m (500-1,500 ft) above adjacent valleys formed in easily eroded shale (USGS, 2013a).
19-87
N..,VIVII
      .NWMI-201    .  *o  o*,,.*..Chapter                                      19.0 -
3-021, Rev.
Environmental      0A Review 19.3.3.1.13    Atlantic Plains Province The Atlantic Plain Province is the flattest of all the provinces and stretches over 3,540 km (2,200 mi) from Cape Cod to the border of Mexico and southward another 1609 km (1,000 mi) to the Yucatan Peninsula. The Atlantic Plains slope gently seaward from the Interior Highlands in a series of terraces.
The gentle sloping continues far into the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, forming the continental shelf.
Eroded sediments from the Interior Highlands were carried east and southward by streams and gradually covered the faulted continental margin, burying it under a wedge composed of layered sedimentary and volcanic debris thousands of feet thick. The sedimentary rock layers that lie beneath much of the coastal plain and fringing continental shelf remain nearly horizontal or tilt gently toward the sea (USGS, 2013b).
19.3.3.1.2 GlacialHistory The MDNR describes the glacial history of the area as follows:
Recent studies of ice cores, stalagmites, and other temperaturedating methods have concluded that there have been 30 sustainedperiods of frigid temperaturesin the last 3 million years. Of the classicalglacialperiods, only two: pre-Illinoian(Nebraskan-Kansan) and Illinoian are now recognized as having left glacialdeposits in the state of Missouri. The pre-lllinoian was the most severe. Amongst its legacy was the changing of the course of the Missouri River to its present location, the scouring andfilling of Northern Missouri topography, and extensive outwash gravels left to the south of the present Missouri River. Although the Ozarks were not glaciated in the recent past, a cover of Pleistocene loess of varying thicknesses extends over all of the state except for the highest parts of the Ozark Mountains. Residuum, otherwise known as soil, clay, and rock fragments degradefrom exposed and subsurface bedrock. Gravity and streams move this residuum, depositing it in sometimes graded layers (MDNR, 201 3b).
In Boone County, the glacial till averages over 43 m (140 ft) thick in the northeastern portion of the county, and the loess material reaches a maximum depth of 6.1 m (20 ft) along the Missouri River Bluffs (Boone County, 2013a).
19.3 .3.1.3  Local Topography and Soils of Boone County The topography of Boone County ranges from highly dissected hills to flat floodplains and nearly flat uplands. Elevations range from approximately 274 m (900 ft) above mean sea level along the northern boundary of Boone County to approximately 165 m (540 ft) above mean sea level in the southern tip of the county. Several areas of the county contain well-developed cave and sinkhole formations.
Ordovician to middle Pennsylvania age dolomite, limestone, sandstone, coal, and shale deposits are visible throughout Boone County in geologic outcrops and roadcuts. The Mississippian age Burlington Limestone is easily weathered by acidic groundwater and contains some unique natural resources of Boone County, including the most famous Devil's Ice Box cave system, located approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) southwest of the proposed RPF site. There are numerous caves in Boone County and 418 documented sinkholes (Boone County, 2013a).
19-88
:.. . NWK1,hapte GTSV~  lvii..*"Cape                                                          NWMI-2013-021, 19.0- Environmental Rev. 0A Review Pennsylvanian age deposits are overlaid by glacial till and loess. The soils of Boone County are included in parts of two major land resource areas:
Central Claypan Area - The Central Claypan Area soils were formed in glacial till and cover the northeastern and east-central portions of Boone County. Claypan soils display extreme variability within the soil profile and across the landscape; therefore, plant growth within these soils must contend with distinctively contrasting physical, chemical, and hydrologic properties at different soil depths. The depth to the claypan soils varies from approximately 10 cm (3.93 in.)
on ridge tops up to 100 cm (39.4 in.) on back slopes. The soil horizons preceding the claypan are depleted of clay minerals, cations, and have a very low pH. The claypan horizon typically has an abrupt upper boundary with 100 percent more clay than the preceding horizon, and very low permeability.
          *Central Mississippi Valley Wooded Slopes          - This major land resource area consists of a dissected glacial till plain composed of rolling narrow ridge tops and hilly to steep ridge slopes.
The small streams in this area have narrow valleys with steep gradients. The major rivers have nearly level broad floodplains, and the valley floors are tens of meters below the adjoining hilltops. Most of the soils within the central Mississippi Valley wooded slopes area are found in silty loess or glacial till, are moderately to fine-grained in texture with a mixed mineralogy, and are well-drained to moderately well-drained. These soils are typically observed on ridge tops and support forest flora (Boone County, 2013a).
19.3.3.2        Geology at the Proposed Site The ROI for the geologic resource is defined as the 8 km (5 mi) radius surrounding the RPF site. The geologic units that underlie the proposed RPF site and/or properties within the ROI, from youngest to oldest, are as follows:
* Quaternary Age Holocene Series (Qal)
* Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Marmaton Group (Pm)
* Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Cherokee Group (Pc)
* Mississippian Age Osagean Series Burlington Formation (Mo)
* Mississippian Age Kinderhookian Series (Mk)
* Late to Early Devonian Age (D)
* Early Ordovician Age Ibexian Series (Ojc)
Figure 19-28 provides a map of the features within the ROI.
19.3.3.2.1        Quaternary Age Holocene Series (Qal)
The surface topography of the proposed RPF site and surrounding properties consists of Quaternary age bedrock overburden characterized by upland areas covered by a thin loess blanket and glacial drift.
"Highly plastic clays that exhibit volume change with variations in moisture are commonly encountered near the ground surface" (Terracon, 201 lb). The surface topography of the proposed RPF site and surrounding properties consists of upland areas covered by a thin loess blanket and glacial drift. Previous investigations of Discovery Ridge noted that "Highly plastic clays that exhibit volume change with variations in moisture are commonly encountered near the ground surface" (Terracon, 201 lb).
Figure 19-29 depicts the Quaternary age bedrock overburden at the proposed RPF site as clay loam till (No. 27). Clay loam till is also depicted on all adjacent properties to the north, east, south, and west.
Additional Quaternary age deposits located within an 8 km (5-mi) radius of the proposed RPF site include alluvium (No. 10), loess (No. 18), sandy clay (No. 40), and thin, cherty clay solution residuum (No. 41).
19-89
, : "*'o*,*.
".*.q .:-"    RIIAIA/I I
'.'.;..;,..-I 1111111 11111                                                                      NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
* +*..',  ; " NOflTHWEST MI*mCALISOTOIpE$
Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review JA        RPF Site                                          Geologic Fcatures lIJ 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site                        Label, Rock Type I. Rock Type 2 D, limestone, sandstone
          - -Interstate Highways                                        Mk, limestone, siltstone
  * '-          Highways                                              Mo, limestone, chert
    *'..Q City Limits                                                  Ojc, dolostone (dolomite), sandstone N          Pc, shale, sandstone Pmo, limestone, shale 0 0.5            1                  2 3        Miles              Qal, clay or mud, silt Figure 19-28. Geologic Features within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site 19-90
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
::NWMI oOe    ThwOO                                                                                  Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review
  ,A        RPF Site                                                                      Quaternary Geology of Missouri 1J          8km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site                                              DESCR! PTION
      --- Highways                                                                              10 - Alluvium 27 - Clay loam till
      --"Interstate Highways
(,*'      City Limits                                                                          18 - Loess 40 - Sandy clay 00.51                    2            3        4
                ,, ,                              Miles                                        41 - Thin cherty clay solution residuum US(S 1996. MO 1996 Quakeman* Geolo* ISLIPP Idigital datal Ap~m~lis missouri cdu pub (ic*~ aI (iop  icaI MO( 1996 Q~uatcrman (icog) shp tip Figure 19-29.          Map of Missouri Quaternary Age Geology 19-91
                    ""Chapter                                                        NWM,-2013-021, Rev. GA
    .*,,..                                                                ChapterI19.0 - Environ mental Review The typical Quaternary age groundcover found in Boone County consists of alluvial (stream-deposited) clays, sand, and gravels (with a few poorly consolidated sandstones); glacial tills (sand and well-sorted gravels); and eolian (windblown) clays and loess (an extremely fine "rock flour," which forms solid masses) (MDNR, 2013c).
These glacial deposits mantle the upland areas and consist of a heterogeneous mixture of clay, sand, and pebbles of diverse rock types. The deposits vary greatly in thickness and are as much as 42.7 m (140 ft) thick in the northern portion of Boone County. This material is relatively impermeable and supplies very little water to wells (MU, 2006a).
19.3 .3.2 .2 Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Marmaton Group (Pm) and Cherokee Group (Pc)
Pennsylvanian age strata (both Marmaton and Cherokee Groups) consists largely of clay and shale with minor accounts of coal and thin, impure limestone beds. The total thickness may be as much as 33.5 m (110 ft). These beds produce only small quantities of water and are not used in this area as a source of supply. The water found in this unit is usually high in iron and sulfur content (MU, 2006a).
Limestone and shale beds are generally thin and very widespread lateral units. Pennsylvanian deposits are quite extensive across Missouri, and they usually form thin to medium-bedded layers of distinctive composition, called cyclothems. A cyclothem results when a sea transgresses and regresses very rapidly along a coastal area, and in a repeating pattern. Often, this pattern consists of a sandstone (beach), silty shale or siltstone (tidal), freshwater limestone (lagoon), underclay (terrestrial), coal (terrestrial swampy forest), shale (near shore tidal), limestone (shallow marine), and black shale (deep marine). This sequence can then repeat itself as the sea first regresses from the land, and then transgresses again (MDNR, 201 3c).
19.3.3.2.3      Mississippian Age Osagean Series Burlington Formation (Mo)
The Mississippian age Burlington Formation stratum is the most extensively studied Mississippian age strata in Missouri. This crystalline, extremely fossiliferous limestone covers most of the state and extends into Iowa and Arkansas. Typical characteristics include white-to-gray, medium-to-coarsely grained layers of chert nodules, and a coarse-grained sedimentary structure called "styolites" formed from pressure solution. The pores in the styolites are often filled with chert or quartz deposits (MDNR, 2013d).
Burlington limestone is the principle limestone exposed in quarries, creek banks, and road cuts near and around Columbia. The limestone is approximately 49 m (160 ft) thick in the Columbia area, but the thickness can be variable. The limestone may also contain minor amounts of pyrite and limonite. This formation has historically been economically important as a limestone resource where exposed and as host rock for lead and zinc deposits in the presently inactive Tri-State mining district of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma (MU, 2006a).
Burlington limestone contains many relatively shallow drilled wells and yields sufficient quantities of relatively hard water for rural domestic supplies. The limestone is relatively soluble and contains many caverns and solutions passages. Solution features, including caves and sinkholes, are commonly present in this formation (MU, 2006a). Terracon reported the following:
No caves or sinkholes are known to exist, or are published to exist within approximately I mi of the Discovery Ridge Research Park. However, several areasof known karst activity are present west and southwest of this project areaand are in various stages of development.
Site grading and drainagemay alter site conditions and could possibly cause sinkholes in areas that have no history of this activity. (Terracon, 201 lb) 19-92
    *  ;          lviiChaper ML Th_.T.MENW                                                      Chptr9.0 1NWMI-2013-021,
                                                                                        -Environmental Rev. 0A Review 19.3 .3 .2.4 Mississippian Age Kinderhookian Series Chouteau Limestone (Mk)
The Mississippian age Chouteau Limestone stratum is a very fine-grained carbonate and, for the most part, is an evenly bedded bluish gray limestone. The upper part is somewhat massive and high in magnesium. Chouteau limestone is relatively impermeable due to its fine texture, restricting the movement of water to joints and small fissures. This unit is a poor source of water but yields small quantities to a few wells (MU, 2006a).
19.3.3.2.5      Late to Early Devonian Limestone (D)
Devonian limestone strata deposits greatly vary in lithology, and range from very fine-grained to coarsely textured beds. Some of the beds are slightly sandy. In some areas of Columbia, Missouri, the Devonian limestone beds are approximately 9 m (30 ft) thick; in other well locations this limestone bed is completely absent. Devonian limestone is not a valuable water producer (MU, 2006a).
19.3.3.2.6      Early Ordovician Age Ibexian Series Dolomites (Ojc)
Ordovician age deposits found in the Columbia area include the following, from youngest to oldest (MU, 2006a):
      *St. Peter Sandstone - This formation, which is a very important aquifer in eastern and northern Missouri, has no importance in the Columbia area. The formation is present only as localized masses in the depressions of older rocks.
      *Jefferson City Formation - This predominantly dolomite formation averages approximately 122 m (400 ft) in thickness in the Columbia area, and wells drilled into the formation produce moderate quantities of relatively hard water. The formation probably has more rural domestic wells terminating in it than any other formation is this area.
      *Roubidoux Formation - This formation consists of alternating sandstone and dolomite beds and averages approximately 30.5 m (100 ft) in thickness. This formation is a very dependable water producer.
      *Gasconade Formation - This unit consists of mostly light-gray dolomite with sandstone (Gunter) at the base. The thickness is approximately 85.3 m (280 ft). This dolomite unit is very cavernous and contains many interconnected solution passages. The sandstone is approximately 4.6 m (15 ft) thick, is very permeable, has a wide aerial extent, and is a good source of water.
19.3.3.3      Site-Specific Volcanic Hazard Analysis The proposed RPF site is located in a tectonically stable region of the North American continental plate, identified as the Interior Plains Province. Volcanoes tend to cluster along narrow mountainous belts, where folding and fracturing of the rocks provide channelways to the surface for the escape of magma.
The lack of magma forming in the Interior Plains Province prevents the formation of volcanoes in the region.
19.3.3.4      Onsite Soil Types The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic database for Boone County (NRCS, 2014) lists the soil type beneath the proposed RPF site as the Mexico Silt Loam, 1-4 percent slopes (Map No. 50059). In addition to the Mexico silt loam, 27 other soils types are located within a 1.6 km (1-mi) radius of the proposed site, as depicted in Figure 19-30.
19-93
* WW.I                                                                                                                                            NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review I
60*'023.Vo+elertol bats, S    o 9% does eroded 5.Ik+t MapN          -I        plo 6*002+9-Wdlkt r4bas. tod          ispls 210m9%. olopes 60033- Wro*sgassoill l~oe.. $50  t~o10esstl' dope. oo 3+*0002Ko-
                *tok-              t0, outo2%
slt Iatm            109%
                                                    $*      o 1+401034.Ve++'.m.ja*aill day koare.k*es. 50, 4 10*o dopes. a't, odad 5010    Mexoo.,-It,. bladaompIe 00, 2%      %lp                                    6i003_5. Wrs-npassl-Ulst latl aorpelst+910t    14% t*opes 60)
(037.- Wiestgas oill losn,. 910t 14% t*olse 900
* K',akuh      olay      9 5014%t.lgop to..
103- FrdopsusiItossda.ss      +      o+ p x. 4125%slp%
6601.00. M  roall 04hlos.., 0102% .Iopes. ooaooI) Iloodest 6(019 (- *oI~toa*d.LI. ; oo5-R so.A.              o..l. 5 o7%omo      se*oyoa 60022 - l+oo    rl,.
l lemm 2os, 6'. lolpes, ero&lki 67000. W.Osto o+ ill    s.., I 10 1% slolpes.rael+ flooded 66*026- Wdkr *l l oelst bool        2 to 5%+dopes                                      99001.+Wales LocalOn Map A    RPF- Site C,,,,,,-Interstate 5Mile ( kmn)Radius fo              P i4 O    0.1  02      m    04--              00          08I*        ,.*r*
Highways Highways City l~imits Figure 19-30. Soil Map within a 1.6 km (1-mi) Radius of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site 19-94
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
  -e          JeAI                                                        Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review 19.3 .3.4.1    Site Soil Physical Characteristics The soils were formed primarily from glacial processes that occurred in the region. Reworked loess is the primary parent material of the soil. The site soil composition, physical characteristics, and typical profile for the Mexico Silt Loam, 1-4 percent slopes (Map No. 50059) are listed in Table 19-28.
Table 19-28. Description of Soil Type, Mexico Silt Loam, 1--4 percent Slopes, Eroded Map Unit Setting                                  Map Unit Composition Landscape: Till plains, uplands                    Mexico and similar soils: 85%
Elevation: 183 -396 m (600-1,300 ft)              Minor components: 15%
Mean annual precipitation: 94-119 cm (37-47 in.)
Mean annual air temperature: 52-57&deg;F Frost-free period: 184-228 days Typical profile                                    Minor Components 0 -17.8 cm (0-7 in): Silt loam                    Leonard 17.8- 30.5 cm (7-12 in): Silty clay loam          Percent of map unit: 5%
30.5 - 66.4 cm (12-26 in): Silty clay              Landform: Hills 66.4 - 86.4 cm (26-34 in): Silty clay loam        Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder 86.4 - 203 cm (34-80 in): Silty clay loam          Landform position (three-dimensional): Head slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Ecological site: Mollic loess upland prairie (R 11 3XY002MO)
Other vegetative classification: Mixed/transitional (mixed native vegetation) a Source: USDA, 2013a, "Web Soil Survey," Online Mapping Tool, websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., accessed July 10, 2013.
19-95
:      :Chapter                                              19.0 - Environmental Review 19.3.3.4.2    Site Soil Chemical Characteristics The site soil chemical characteristics of the Mexico Silt Loam, 1-4 percent slopes (Map No. 50059) and the definitions of each chemical characteristic are listed in Table 19-29.
Table 19-29. Site Soil Chemical Characteristics for Boone County, Missouri
* 17.8-30.5      7-12      14-20        12-18    5.2-7.1    0          0    0.0-2.0      0 66.4-86.4    26-34    2 1-36        2 1-28    4.7-6.8    0          0    0.0-2.0      0 Source: NRCS, 2014, "Soil Data Mart," soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/ReportViewer.aspx?Eile=a27391c0-b6ab-4278-871 f-6f091I cc 147fa.PDF&Name= Chemical_SoiLProperties&Wait= 1, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., accessed July 16, 2013.
19.3.3.5    Prime Farmland Prime farmland, as defined by the USDA, is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is available for these uses.
Prime farmland can be cultivated land, pastureland, forestland, or other land, but is not urban or built-up land or water areas. The soil qualities, growing season, and moisture supply are those needed for the soil to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when properly managed, including management of water and applying acceptable farming methods (NRCS, 2013).
In general, prime farmland has an adequate and dependable supply of moisture from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, an acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. The land is permeable to water and air. Prime land is not excessively erodible or saturated with water for long periods, and is either not frequently flooded during the growing season or is protected from flooding. Areas of prime farmland in Missouri that do not require draining or flooding protection are comprised largely of Weller silt loam, Jemerson silt loam, and Lenzburg silty clay loam.
Farmland that is considered of statewide importance is land, in addition to prime farmlands, that is of statewide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. Criteria for defining and delineating this land are to be determined by the appropriate State agency or agencies.
Generally, additional farmlands of statewide importance include those that are nearly prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce as high a yield as prime farmlands if conditions are favorable. In some states, additional farmlands of statewide importance may include tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by State law. Farmlands of statewide importance in Missouri primarily include the Weller silt loam, Weller-Urban land complex, Wrengart silty clay loam, and Hatton silt loam (NRCS, 2013). Of these, the predominant soil type found in both prime farmland and farmlands of statewide importance is Weller silt loam. Approximately 4218 ha (10,424 acres), or one-fifth of the 8 km (5-mi)
ROI, are prime or important farmland (NRCS, 2013). The proposed RPF site and the research park lie in areas not listed as prime farmland (Figure 19-31).
19-96
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA
  *. NWSTMEICA  STP                                                                                      Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Ad RPF Site                                                  USDA Prime Farmland Dec~ription Location MaD)
D* 8 km (S mile) Radius from RPF Site
    -"Interstate Highways                                            Primec Farmland if Drained
--    Highways                                                      Farmland of Statew ide rntportanec
(?City Limits                                                      All Areas are Prime Farmland Prime Farmland if Protected from Flooding 0      0.15 0.3              0.6              0.9                1.2                                  N m m                                                  Miles Prime Farmland Citation: NRCS 2012 S.nI/Nun'rv (~r~raph,("
dutabase for &s*m' "(onmn;Mos.oors [digital data!: http: a*otldatnlmarr.nrcs~us[a.gos
                                                                                                      +/-
Figure 19-31.            Map Showing U.S. Department of Agriculture Prime Farmland 19-97
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
      ++NWMI                                                                        Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-30 shows the breakdown of prime                Table 19-30. Prime Farmland and Farmland of farmland and farmland of statewide importance Statewide Importance within the ROI.
19.3.3.6    Shrink-Swell Potential There are moderate to highly plastic clays at Discovery Ridge from approximately 0.9-3.7 m            Not listed as prime farmland                              2,305                    933 (3-12 ft) below ground surface (Terracon, 201 lb).              . . . . .....  .........      <
                                                                                              ; + ++*4 Such soils are commonly referred to as
  ''expansive'' or ''swelling'' soils because they        Farmland of statewide                                    9,102                3,683 expand or swell as their moisture content                importance increases. These soils, in turn, contract or shrink as their moisture content decreases. Footings,          Prime farmland if protected                              2,793                1,130 floor slabs, and pavements supported on expansive        from flooding soils will often shift upward or downward causing
                                                                                                      !=i*i i ]=i===
ili=    I{*il[ii+ iiii;:*ii +++i*]
* I=</* i*i iii ;i!!!i
                                                                                                                                                      =&#xa3; possible distortion, cracking, or structural damage (Terracon, 201 lb).                                          Source: NRCS, 2013, "National Soil Survey Handbook," soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/
19.3.3.7    Erosion                                    contents/part622.html, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, Erosion is a naturally occurring process that is        D.C., accessed July 25, 2013.
unnaturally accelerated by land development. The highest risks for erosion occur in areas with fine soils, on steep slopes, and in areas undergoing active construction activities. Impervious surfaces do not allow water infiltration into the soils and instead cause increased stormwater runoff.
Soils denuded of vegetation and impervious surfaces are two potential effects of land development that contribute to greater peak flows, longer duration of high flows, and increased sedimentation. Eroded material is often deposited downstream where the material decreases culvert and channel capacity.
The soils beneath the proposed RPF site are Mexico silt loam and are listed as hydrologic soil Group D (NRCS, 2014). Group D soils have a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet, leading to high runoff potential. Mexico Silt Loam consists chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential and have a high water table (NRCS, 2013).
19.3.3.8    Previous Geological Studies by Others 19.3.3.8.1    Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation In 2011, Terracon completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Discovery Ridge Certified Site Program, which included Lot 2 and Lots 5 through 18 of Discovery Ridge (Terracon, 201 lb). The proposed RPF site (Lot 15) is within the investigation area. The purpose of the investigation was to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, and pavements for Discovery Ridge properties. As part of the study, nine soil borings (B-1 through B-9) were installed to depths ranging from 4-6 m (13-20 ft) below ground surface to determine shallow subsurface soil geotechnical properties and shallow groundwater depth. Soil boring B-5 is nearest to the proposed RPF site, along the eastern boundary between Lots 14 and 15.
19-98 i
    ,lviioNWMI  o...
                      -Chapter                                                          1 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA hpe9.0 -Environmental Review Discovery Ridge surface soils from 0.6-0.15 m (0.2-0.5 ft) below ground surface were found to be brown, friable topsoil with significant amounts of organic matter. Subsurface soils from approximately 0.9-3.6 m (3-12 ft) below ground surface were lean clay, lean-to-fat clay, and fat clay with moderate-to-high plasticity. Material beneath 3.6 m (12 ft) is listed only as limestone. Plasticity and liquid limit tests were completed for soils encountered from only four soil borings, as shown in Table 19-31.
Table 19-31. Plasticity and Liquid Limit Testing B-I1              0.9-1.5                    3-5                43              15              28 B-5                0.3-0.9                    1-3                31              21              10 Source: Terracon, 2011 b, PreliminaryGeotechnical Engineering Report Discovery Ridge-CertifiedSite ProgramLots 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.
At the time of drilling, some of the soils displayed moisture levels greater their measured plastic limits.
"Soils with moisture levels above their measured plastic limits may be prone to rutting and can develop unstable subgrade conditions during general construction operations" (Terracon, 201 lb). Moderate to high plasticity clays were observed at the site. Such soils are commonly referred to as "expansive" or "swelling" soils because they expand or swell as their moisture content increases. These soils in turn, contract or shrink as the moisture content decreases. Footings, floor slabs, and pavements supported on expansive soils often shift upward or downward causing possible distortion, cracking, or structural damage.
19.3.3.9        Regional and Local Tectonics The most significant seismological feature in Missouri is the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), located in the southeastern corner of the state and extending into parts of the contiguous states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Illinois. The NMSZ is the most seismically active region in the U.S. east of the Rocky Mountains and is located approximately 483 km (300 mi) southeast of the proposed RPF site.
During the winter of 1811-1812, the NMSZ was the location of some of the highest intensity seismic events ever noted in U.S. history. Hundreds of aftershocks, some severely damaging, continued for years.
Records show that since 1900, moderately damaging earthquakes have struck the NMSZ every few decades. Prehistoric earthquakes similar in size to those of 1811-1812 occurred in the middle 1400s and around 900 A.D. Strongly damaging earthquakes struck the southwestern end of the NMSZ near Marked Tree, Arkansas, in 1843 (magnitude 6.0), and the northeastern end near Charleston, Missouri, in 1895 (magnitude 6.6) (USGS, 2011 a).
The NMSZ is made up of reactivated faults that formed when what is now North America began to split or rift apart approximately 500 million years ago. The resulting rift system died out before an ocean basin was formed, but a deep zone of weakness was created, referred to as the Reelfoot rift (USGS, 201 lb).
This fault system extends 241 km (150 mi) southward from Cairo, Illinois, through New Madrid and Caruthersville, Missouri, down through Blytheville, Arkansas, to Marked Tree, Arkansas. The Reelfoot rift dips into Kentucky near Fulton and into Tennessee near Reelfoot Lake, extending southeast into Dyersburg, Tennessee. The rift then crosses five state lines and crosses the Mississippi River in at least three places. The fault system is buried beneath as much as 8 km (5 mi) of sediment for much of the fault length and typically cannot be seen at the surface (USGS, 201 Ib).
19-99
NW MI.*,;,,,.Chapter                                                    19.0NWI21301            ev.
                                                                                    - Environmental Review Four of the largest faults are recognized as alignments of abundant small earthquakes, and movements along two of these faults dammed rivers and created lakes during the earthquakes of 1811-1812. A few more deeply buried faults were detected during oil and gas exploration, and a few small faults are known from geologic mapping (USGS, 201 lb).
The remainder of the state, including the proposed RPF site located in central Missouri, is typical of the stable midcontinent U.S. However, this area is not immune to seismic activity.
19.3 .3.9.1  Local Fault Zones There is one major fault zone located within the ROI of the proposed RPF site (Figure 19-32). The Fox Hallow Fault is located approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) southeast of the site. The Fox Hollow Fault is a small fault, striking northeast and fades into a monocline at its two ends. The fault is reportedly a normal fault with a throw of approximately 37 m (120 ft) down to the southwest, and shows Mississippian age Chouteau limestone beds faulted against Ordovician age Jefferson Dolomite (Union Electric Company, 2008).
19-100
NW IV!j NOUlIWES  M Si A NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review A      RPF Site                                                    Fault Structures O*      8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site                          NAME
              -'-Interstate Highways
                                                                                      '*""Bonne Femme Creek graben
        ---        Highways C)      City Limits                                                  - A- -  A- Fox Hollow fault and monocline o0O5 1                    2        3            4                                      Sapp monocline Miles M~oDNR 2010 MO 2010 Tedcrnk: Fault Stn*~    (SHP)
MoDNR DOLS (iSP Idiglt1 datl] lOp imtdi ns,,ounr edApu~b (ca'olo*&#xa2;*I (ieopOlyiculMO 2010 Tewonic Fluhl SIn~t+ureo*Shp. tip Figure 19-32. Geologic Faults Map 19-101
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWMI                                                            Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.3.3.10 Seismic Hazard Assessment Earthquakes occur on faults within bedrock, usually several miles deep. According to the USGS, earthquakes in the central and eastern U.S. typically are felt over a much broader region than in the western U.S. East of the Rocky Mountains, an earthquake can be felt over an area ten times larger than a similar magnitude earthquake on the west coast.
The written record of earthquakes in Missouri prior to the nineteenth century is virtually nonexistent.
Historical earthquakes along the NMSZ in southeastern Missouri have been some of the largest in U.S.
history since European settlement. The Great New Madrid Earthquake of 1811-1812 was a series of over 2,000 earthquakes that caused destruction over a very large area. According to information from Missouri's State Emergency Management Agency Earthquake Program, some of the earthquakes measure at least 7.6 in magnitude and five of them measured 8.0 or greater (USGS, 201 Ia). The 1811-1812 series changed the course of the Missouri River, and some shocks were felt as far away as Washington, D.C.,
and Boston, Massachusetts (MMRPC, 2010). The NMSZ has experienced numerous earthquakes since the 1811-1812 series, and at least 35 aftershocks of Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) of V (i.e., felt by nearly everyone, many awakened) or greater that have been recorded Missouri since 1811. Numerous earthquakes originating outside of Missouri boundaries have also affected the state. Table 19-32 lists the historical earthquakes that have affected Missouri.
Table 19-32. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (3 pages) 12/16/1811 New Madrid              7.7      Generated great waves on the Mississippi River causing (1811-1812 Region,                            major flooding, high river back cave-ins. Topographic series)    Missouri                      changes affected an area of 78,000 to 130,000 km 2 (30,116 to 50,193 mi 2). Later geologic evidence indicated that the epicenter was likely in northeast Arkansas. The main shocks were felt over an area covering at least 5,180,000 km2 (2,000,000 mi 2). Chimneys were knocked down in Cincinnati, Ohio, and bricks were reported to have fallen from chimneys in Georgia and South Carolina. The first shock was felt distinctively in Washington, D.C.,
1,127 km (700 mi) away.
2/7/1812 New Madrid,              7.7      Three main shocks reaching MMI of XII, the maximum on (1811-1812 Missouri                          scale. Aftershocks continued to be felt for several years series)                                  after the initial tremor. Historical accounts and later evidence indicate that the epicenter was close to the town of New Madrid, Missouri. This quake produced the largest liuuefactions fields in the world.
19-102
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
  ...NWMI                                                        Chapter 19.0  - Environmental Review Table 19-32. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (3 pages)
I.
* 0                                        -. 0*~OO.      .S~
4/24/1867  Eastern Kansas    Not listed Reports indicated that an earthquake occurred in eastern Kansas and was felt as far eastward as Chicago, Illinois.
The earthquake may have been noticeable in Columbia.
10/31 /1895 Charleston,          6.6    Largest earthquake to occur in the central Mississippi River Missouri                    valley since the 1811-1812 series. Structural damage and liquefaction phenomena were reported along a line from Bertrand, Missouri, in the west to Cairo, Illinois, to the east. Sand blows were observed in an area southwest of Charleston, Puxico, and Taylor, Missouri; Alton, and Cario, Illinois; Princeton, Indiana; and Paducah, Kentucky. The earthquake caused extensive damage (including downed chimneys, cracked walls, shattered windows, and broken plaster) to schools, churches, and private residences. Every building in the commercial area of Charleston was damaged. Cairo, Illinois, and Memphis, Tennessee, suffered significant damage. Near Charleston, 1.6 ha (4 acres) of ground sank and a lake formed. The shock was felt over all or portions of 24 states and in Canada. Ground shaking was recorded along the Ohio River Valley.
4/9/1917  St. Genevieve/    Not listed A sharp disturbance at St. Genevieve and St. Mary' s, St. Mary's                  Missouri. According to the Daily Missourian, No. 187, Area, Missouri              dated April 9, 1917, the earthquake was not felt in Columbia. However, on the following day, several people reported feeling the shock and attributed it to an explosion.
No damage was reported in Columbia. Reportedly felt over a 518,000 km 2 (200,000 m12) area from Kansas to Ohio and Wisconsin to Mississippi.
8/19/1934  Rodney,          Listed as  At nearby Charleston, windows were broken and chimneys Missouri          strong    collapsed or were damaged. Similar effects were observed in Cairo, Mounds, and Mounds City, Illinois, and at Wickliffe, Kentucky. The area of destructive intensity included more than 596 km 2 (230 mi2) 19-1 03
    .NWM::
I VIVI                                                                        NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-32. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (3 pages)
I.                  *          .6    *!--                            *i  S.  *@
3/3/1963      Near              Not listed    MMI of III was recorded in Columbia. The approximately Menorkanut,                      distance from the epicenter to Columbia was 317 km Mi~niiri                          (197 miV 11/9/1968      Wabash Valley          5.4      Strongest magnitude in central U.S. since the 1895 Seismic Zone,                    earthquake. Moderate damage to chimneys and walls at southern                        Hermann, St. Charles, St. Louis, and Sikeston, Missouri.
Illinois                        Shaking was felt. Areas include all or portions of 23 states from Minnesota to Georgia and from Pennsylvania to Kansas, and in multi-story buildings in Boston, Massachusetts and southernmost Ontario. Canada.
2002        Wabash Valley          4.6      Moderate earthquake caused chimney damage and cracked Seismic Zone,                    windows in and near Evansville, Indiana. Shaking was Posey County,                    reported in seven states, including Missouri.
SW Indiana Sources:
USGS, 201 3c, "Three Centuries of Earthquakes Poster," pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-28 12/i-28 12.jpg, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed July 23, 2013.
USGS, 2002, "Earthquakes in the Central United States 1699 -2002," pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-2812/i-2812.jpg, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, June 18, 2002.
MU, 2006a, Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) Safety Analysis Report, MU Project# 000763, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, August 18, 2006.
MMI        =  Modified Mercalli Intensity.
In 2002, the USGS released the following projected hazards for Boone County, if an earthquake occurred along the NMSZ in the following 50 years (USGS, 2003):
25 to 40 percent chance of a magnitude 6.0 and greater earthquake S    7 to 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.
According to the Boone County HazardMitigation 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.
19-104
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
  ""+NWMI          AISOTOIES
  . ,'t NOlThAE$MIEDAL Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Missouri Seismic Hazards Map A RPF Site O* 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site      Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
+N                                        -- State Boundaries
                                      -Highways County Boundaries V - Rather Strong nVI - Strong Svii - Very Strong City VIII - Destructive 0        20      40                80              120          160e Miles              IX - Ruinous (C'moH.,w, 202Uq. r(    tH:  .t+tt  *I'*2 X - Disastrous Figure 19-33. Hazard Mitigation Map 19-1 05
    *  :.hpe                                                                            19.0 -Environmental Review The pertinent earthquake hazard information for Boone County is summarized in Table 19-33.
Table 19-33. Projected Earthquake Hazards for Boone County 6.7              25-40%            VI, strong    Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors, walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken; books fall off shelves; some heavy furniture moved or overturned; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.
Mid-Missouri1Regiona PlanigCmmstrongtt oifMissulrtisad          EmegencyMant agmetAgenc                ry, orhbandly Missouri, 15,wals,2010.~an Julyadbe                                                ousa NMSZ New Madrid
                            = Seeismicoa Zone.chmney The UGS Ntiona Seimic azardMapsdispak          earthquakiesg            icns for toarios poabdigity orond te US.
levls  cros nd re ppled n sismcpovisdions l;oof ebikbuildings;ds      41fo nurnert stucues, groudfauts, shkingeismcity andgeodsy.Theresul              etingmaps anddamaged;from soimc sandand curvs caculaed n a rid f sies crosgtheU. ~thatl ecibeuk        the        irqun.yoxedigasto Scource:g MMRCt010    Boone County Hazard Mitigation Planfo 2010 MMRPCorg),the-regobontie-countyia Mirissouri Rfegisona PanningthCommission,                            EmrenyMaaeent Acyl bpashicland, State ofZ rasnahMissouri ampiissouin  July 15, s        RPC2010.)
NMSZ..1          Ntew    ari Seismgic azone.
TheoiuSGSf      Natinal seismideceHzrapipaerhuk        ground-saigmotiainlnsions,          for viueartious preobailt rskecassessments, andsoither pubich policyake.UdThes svtoo these      masicroaterd newpfndins on        seaerthquakers grncldin shaing faultssloeismicityon, anrgodesiy. tohe resultin mapshqare mantderived        from syeisfcthazr paroposaed        OPstheri weloithntchraowslarhuk  hazardsrsntiaartevroneanwth pieak acceleratountynpotentalsn      of2-(UsGsur2008)lThi categor      an indicates.a siae              oiotlgon            hkn ee ewe -n10t 19-106
    ""NWMI      ISOTOPESChapter lv.i,........ihpe NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A 19.0- Environmental Review 19.3.3.12 Tectonic Uplift and Subsidence Faulting due to compressive forces elevates rocks of the up-thrown side of the fault, while the down-thrown side of the fault undergoes tilting and subsidence. A regional example of this is the Ozark Plateau.
19.3.3.13 Earthquake Ground-Shaking Amplification Earthquakes generate seismic waves at a wide variety of frequencies, and certain frequencies may be amplified by site-specific soil conditions. Soils and soft sedimentary rocks near the surface can modify bedrock ground shaking caused by an earthquake. This modification can increase (or decrease) the strength of shaking or change the frequency of the shaking. The nature of the modification is determined by the thickness of the geologic materials and their physical properties (e.g., stiffness).
Areas with thin sedimentary deposits experience less severe amplification than areas with thick deposits.
In areas with thick sedimentary deposits, low frequency seismic energy is amplified, yielding slow, rolling-type shaking that can damage tall buildings, bridges, and overpasses. Areas with thin sand and gravel layers deposited on top of bedrock amplify high-frequency seismic waves that yield intense ground vibrations causing more damage to shorter buildings (USGS, 201 lb).
Lateral spreading can occur during periods of extended seismic ground shaking. This is commonly seen in areas with saturated soils near bays or rivers. During the 1811-1812 New Madrid series of earthquakes, lateral spreading produced extensive ground deformation along the banks of the Mississippi River (USGS, 2009).
19.3.3.14 Earthquake-Induced Landslides Earthquake-induced landslides are secondary hazards that occur from ground shaking, primarily in areas with steep slopes. Not all earthquake-induced landslides occur in the first few minutes following an earthquake, some can occur days later. A landslide occurs when the force that is pulling the slope downward exceeds the strength of the earth materials that compose the slope.
Large areas between the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers are blanketed by Pleistocene loess and glacial drift. Particularly susceptible to slumps and earth flows are loess along major river valleys and their tributaries, clayey till on slopes underlain by shale, and some Pennsylvanian shale units in southwestern Iowa, northwestern Missouri, and eastern Oklahoma.
The 1811-1812 earthquakes caused many types of ground failures, including landslides along the Mississippi River bluffs from Mississippi to Kentucky (USGS, 2009).
19.3.3.15 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts as a fluid when exposed to strong seismic shaking. The shaking causes the grains to lose grain-to-grain contact, so the sediment tends to flow. Liquefaction most likely occurs in loose sandy soil with a shallow water table (which is common for areas around floodplains or bays). Liquefaction often leads to overpressured fluids that can erupt to the surface, forming features known as sand blows. The 1811-1812 earthquakes caused ground subsidence by soil liquefaction across the Mississippi River flood plain and along tributaries to the Mississippi River over at least 15,000 square kilometers (kin 2) (9,320.6 square miles [mi2 ]). Liquefaction along the Mississippi River Valley during the 1811-1812 earthquakes created one of the world' s largest sand-blown fields. According to the USGS, recent sand blows dot the landscape surrounding New Madrid, Missouri (USGS, 201 lb).
19-1 07
IMI203-2,oRv. ChptrM                                Q IUVV                                                            Chaper 9.0- Environmental Review 19.3.3.16 Caves and Sinkholes In the U.S., the most damage in areas composed of karst terrain tend to occur in the states of Florida, Texas, Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania. Karst, as defined by the USGS, "is a terrain with distinctive landforms and hydrology created from the dissolution of soluble rocks, principally limestone and dolomite. Karst terrain is characterized by springs, caves, sinkholes, and a unique hydrogeology that results in aquifers that are highly productive but extremely vulnerable to contamination" (MMRPC, 2010).
According to the MDNR, 59 percent of the state is underlain by thick, carbonate rock units that host a wide variety of karst features (MDNR, 201 3c). The Missouri Speleological Survey reports that there are now more than 6,000 known caves in Missouri (MSS, 2013). Of those recorded, the most famous is the Devil's Ice Box in Rock Bridge State Park. According to the Boone County Stormwater Program (Boone County, 2013a), there are 418 documented sinkholes with a depth of 6.1 m (20 ft) or greater within the county. All of these sinkholes are relatively stable but some do discharge into the cave system and groundwater. About 290 of these sinkholes are located between U.S. Interstate 70 and Ashland, Missouri, in the southwestern corner of Boone County. The karst regions of the southwestern portion of the county make the area a prime location for this hazard. Development on karst terrain can present certain hazards such as unstable soil foundation for structures, flooding, groundwater contamination, and public safety hazards related to sinkhole collapses.
Sinkholes, like landslides, are a form of ground movement that can happen suddenly and without warning, causing major damage. Sinkholes are common where the bedrock below the land surface is composed of limestone, dolomite, or gypsum that can naturally be dissolved by circulating groundwater (USGS, 2007).
While many sinkholes occur as circular, bowl-shaped depressions, others are not readily visible on the surface because voids are plugged or capped with soil or thin layers of rock. The sinkholes begin with slow soil piping (erosion) over a long period. When the soil above the void can no longer support itself, the soil collapses to reveal a deep hole that connects to an underlying bedrock opening. These voids may be discovered during excavation, by drilling or through geophysical exploration. Residential and commercial development in a karst area can pose environmental and logistical problems. Aside from structurally impacting foundations of homes and other buildings, sinkholes often serve as direct conduits for rapid surface water infiltration into the underlying groundwater aquifer. Contaminants near or at the surface can quickly enter the aquifer and pollute drinking water supplies. Increased stormwater runoff resulting from parking lots, highways, and household guttering often is diverted into sinkholes. The increased inflow of water not only can transport contaminants but also can lead to the accelerated development and growth of sinkholes (MDNR, 2013e).
Sinkholes vary in size. They can be small and have little impact on people, or they can be catastrophic and destroy property, underground utilities, buildings, lagoons, and contaminate groundwater resources (USGS, 2007).
During the geotechnical investigation conducted by Terracon in 2011, there was no evidence of shallow bedrock, karst features, and/or extensive pervious deposits of water-bearing sand observed in the soil cuttings from Boreholes B-i through B-9. In addition, Terracon reported that they did not observe evidence of subsidence or sinkholes within the Discovery Ridge project area (Terracon, 201 Ib).
19-108
    ... NO.,.,E."
i                                                Chapter  1  NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA 1S9.0 - Environmental Review CEhapterSOT 19.3.4      Water Resources The ROI for the water resource is defined as the 8 km (5-mi) radius surrounding the RPF site. About 66 percent of Missouri water resources are obtained from surface water bodies, and the remaining 34 percent are obtained from groundwater wells. During a normal precipitation year, approximately 45.4 trillion L (12 trillion gal) of water are supplied to Missouri by runoff from precipitation within the state. Rainfall averages approximately 97 cm (38 in.) statewide, with approximately 25.4 cm (10 in.)
becoming surface water runoff or groundwater recharge. The remaining 71 cm (28 in.) are returned to the atmosphere by evaporation or plant use.
Surface water sources provide the bulk of water withdrawals statewide. In 1990, freshwater surface water withdrawals in Missouri were estimated at 1,866 ML/day (493 Mgal/day), compared to 700 ML/day (185 Mgal/day) from groundwater sources. The majority of these withdrawals came from surface water intakes along major streams and rivers where streams have adequate low flows. The Missouri and Mississippi Rivers supply municipal water to approximately one-third of the state population (DuCharme and Miller, 1996).
More than 500,000 Missourians rely on other surface water sources, including human-made reservoirs, for their water needs. Although many of the state's larger reservoirs (e.g., Truman Reservoir, Mark Twain Lake) serve some water supply purposes, a substantial segment of the population uses much smaller lakes constructed specifically to meet local water needs. Sufficient water supplies from these locations are readily available for local public water supply districts and municipalities. Approximately 123 reservoirs are currently in use as public water supply sources in Missouri, and all but eight of these reservoirs are located in northern and western Missouri (DuCharme and Miller, 1996).
Missouri groundwater resources come primarily from two sources: bedrock aquifers and shallower alluvial aquifers. Most public water supply facilities currently operating in Missouri rely, to some extent, on groundwater wells as a source of water supply. Most self-supplied residential, commercial, and industrial water withdrawals are extracted via groundwater wells.
19.3.4.1          Surface Hydrology Surface waters in central and southern Boone County drain into the Missouri River through a number of tributaries, including Bonne Femme, Cedar, Little Cedar, Hinkson, Jemerson, and Perche Creeks (Figure 19-34). The other major drainage feature in the county is a system of karst topography west and south of Columbia. Numerous sinkholes, some filled with water, overlie a complex network of caves and springs. Gans Creek, which drains Discovery Ridge and the proposed RPF site, is located within the Bonne Femme Watershed.
19.3.4.1.1          Bonne Femme Watershed The Bonne Femme Watershed is comprised of two major sub-watersheds: the Bonne Femme and the Little Bonne Femme. Topographical contours of the land define the Bonne Femme Watershed, which encompasses approximately 241 km 2 (93 mi2) (approximately 15 percent) of Boone County, including the proposed RPF site (BFSC, 2007). The RPF site is located within the northern portion of this watershed (Little Bonne Femme sub-watershed) and is approximately 0.4 km (1/4A-mi) north of Gans Creek (see Figure 19-35).
19-1 09
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
*..eNW"m~mSMOCAIOO*                                                              Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review RPF Site cA 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site      '%'-Streams Interstate Highways                      *Lakes Highways 4-                                                  City Limits 0      0.5      1                2          3    4
* Miles 1.4.1.1J.I. Ag.~ma, hralru cA. pit  mnLn..nc.1 Figure 19-34. Streams of Southern Boone County, Missouri 19-110
:"" NW MI
    , 5o5Th S m NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review A    RPF Site                          Subwatershed t3    8km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site Name Bonne Femme Creek
                      ""Interstate Highways                      Callahan Creek-Perche Creek Fowler Creek-Cedar Creek Highways                              SLittle Bonne Femme Creek-Missouri River "r;'  City Limits                            Little Cedar Creek Lower Hinkson Creek Middle llinkson Creek Millers Creek-Cedar Creek 0  I.        2          3        4 Miles                      Rocky Fork Creek Figure 19-35. Map Showing Bonne Femme Watershed 19-111
* IIV VIINWMI-2013-021,
        '*t~T*h.        * :.;.:=;,.!Chapter                              Chpe 1I9.0 - Environmental Rev. 0A Review
* E"3*?ME1NCALI*SlJO Both the Bonne Femme and Little Bonne Femme creeks flow from east to west in a dendritic alignment into the Missouri River and are interconnected by the Devil's Icebox Cave Branch. Where Gans Creek meets Clear Creek, the Little Bonne Femme begins and flows south toward the Mayban Branch. The Little Bonne Femme enters the Missouri River approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south of this confluence.
To the south, the Bonne Femme meets with the Fox Hollow Branch and then flows into the Missouri River (BFSC, 2007).
The most distinctive characteristic of the Bonne Femme Watershed is its karst topography. Within the karst terrain, the hydrology becomes complex because of losing and gaining sections of streams. Rough estimates show approximately 33 stream segments composing approximately 37 km (23 mi) of losing streams (143 km [89 mi] of gaining stream) within the watershed. There are two main recharge areas tied to these losing and gaining sections of stream, including (1) Devil's Ice Box recharge zone (3,397 ha
[8,394 acres] of drainage), and (2) Hunter's Cave recharge zone (3,330 ha [8,228 acres] of drainage)
(BFSC, 2007).
A mixture of land uses occurs within the Bonne Femme watershed. The predominant land use accounting for 61.5 percent of the watershed is agricultural activities, including row crop productions, pasture, and range lands. Forested areas make up nearly one-third of the watershed, mainly within the central and western portion of the watershed. These forested areas also encompass most of the publicly owned lands, including Rock Bridge Memorial State Park and Three Creeks Conservation Area (BFSC, 2007).
19.3.4.1.2      Water Quality of Bonne Femme Watershed Water quality monitoring studies began in the Bonne Femme Watershed in 1999 and included two sites:
Hunters and Devil's Icebox Spring Branches. In 2001, the monitoring program was expanded to include six surface sub-watersheds (Clear Creek, Upper Bonne Femme Creek [at U.S. Highway 63], Turkey Creek, Lower Bonne Femme Creek [at Nashville Church Road], Little Bonne Femme Creek, and Fox Hollow Creek), and the two cave systems. In 2003, two additional sub-watersheds (Gans Creek and Bass Creek) were included to the monitoring plan (BFSC, 2007).
19.3.4.1.2.1      General Stream Parameters Samples were collected quarterly from the eight sites beginning with the third quarter of 2004. Samples were analyzed for general stream parameters, including temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity (BFSC, 2007). The results of the monitoring are listed in Table 19-34.
Table 19-34. General Stream Water Properties by Site (2 pages)
Clear Creek                  13.1  55.6  7.88      525            11.84        111.2            3.6 Devils Icebox                11.6  52.9  7.53      424            11.05        101.7            22.9 Cave Turkey Creek                  13.8  56.8  7.49      586            12.04        117.1            22.7 Bass Creek                    13.7  56.7  7.80      455            14.39        140.3            12.6 19-112
NWMICatr1
:'lvii."                                                                Cate        9.0-W    I21-01 Review Environmental  e.Q Table 19-34. General Stream Water Properties by Site (2 pages)
Lowter Bonne              12.8    55.0      7.47          408        11396            108.6            12.1 Femme Creek Average across            12.9    55.2      7.61        465          11.54            109.0            15.4 the sites Source: BFSC, 2007, Bonne Femme Watershed Plan, www.cavewatershed.org/plan.asp, Bonne Femme Stakeholder Committee, Boone County Planning and Building Department, Columbia, Missouri, February 2007.
a This value is the minimum difference between sites to be considered statistically different.
b NS not significantly different across sites. Data are averaged over 10 quarters (third quarter 2004 to fourth quarter 2006).
NTU          = nephelometric turbidity units.
The following excerpt from the 2007 Bonne Femme Watershed Plan provides greater detail regarding the results of data analysis and general stream parameters for the sites listed in Table 19-34.
The pH concentrationin the Upper Bonne Femme Creek site was lower than all other sites.
This result is likely due to the fact that the Upper Bonne Femme Creek sub-watershed is primarily utilizedfor row crops (67% of the sub-watershed), and the lower pH may reflect the impact of fertilizer usage. The Upper Bonne Femme Creek and Turkey Creek occasionally had very high specific conductance levels exceeding 700 pS/cm. These results may have been due to the use of salt on U.S. Highway 63 during the winter months. Eight of ten sites had average dissolved oxygen levels that were at or near 100% saturation. The lowest observed dissolved oxygen levels occurred in the third quarterof each year when the stream water temperature was highest. The lowest dissolved oxygen level observed was 5.11 mg/L (62.6% saturation);therefore, no site was under the state standardlevel of 5.0 mg/L.
The high saturationlevels observed at Turkey and Bass Creeks reflected the persistent nuisance algal growth conditions at these sites. Turbidit~y measures the clarity of the water and, thus, both suspended sediment and algae can contribute to lower clarity and higher turbidity.
Highest turbidity was observed under runoff conditions when the suspended sediment content of the water is high. Turbidity levels were occasionally elevated under low flow conditions, suggesting that algal growth was negatively impacting water clarity, especially in the second and third quartersof the year. (BFSC, 2007)
Bacteria analyses      - Two indicator groups of waterborne pathogens (fecal coliform and E. coli) were monitored in the streams within the Bonne Femme Watershed. Both groups are considered indicator organisms associated with improper waste management. Fecal coliforms represent a broad array of bacterial species present in mammal feces, while E. coli is a single bacterial species that is also present in mammal feces. These indicator bacteria generally do not survive long in soils or water; thus, their consistent detection in water over time indicates one or more sources of continual input.
19-113
                    .*.*.*Chapter.NWMI-2013-021,                                                            Rev. 0A
    -'IUVV
      -        lvChater19.0                                                                - Environmental Review The two sites with the highest fecal coliform concentrations, Turkey Creek and Fox Hollow, had statistically greater concentrations than the five sites with the lowest concentrations (Clear Creek, Gans Creek, Bass Creek, Hunters Cave, and Lower Bonne Femme Creek). Table 19-35 lists the average concentrations.
Table 19-35. Average Fecal Coliform and E. coli Concentrations Clear Creek                                            1.72                                      1.54 Devils Icebox Spring Branch                            2.30                                    2.06 Turkey Creek                                          2.46                                    2.38 Bass Creek                                            2.00                                      1.84 Little Bonne Femme Creek                              2.14                                      1.94 Average across the sites                              2.13                                      1.95 Source: BFSC, 2007, Bonne Femme Watershed Plan, www.cavewatershed.org/plan.asp, Bonne Femme Stakeholder Committee, Boone County Planning and Building Department, Columbia, Missouri, February 2007.
aStatistical analysis was performed on log transformed data.
b This value is the minimum difference between sites to be considered statistically different.
According to the 2007 Bonne Femme Watershed Plan:
The three sub-watershedswith the highest levels of bacterial contamination (Turkey Creek, Fox Hollow, and Devil's Icebox Spring Branch) have consistently greaterinputs offecal bacteria compared to the other sites. Although these data do not indicate the source of the fecal bacteria, there are three likely sources in the Bonne Femme watershed - onsite sewers, livestock, and wildlife. (BFSC, 2007)
Specific water-borne pathogens - In the third quarter of 2005, the USDA Agricultural Research Service conducted additional analyses of three specific water-borne pathogens: E. coli 0157:H7, salmonella, and shigella. These three organisms are known human pathogens capable of causing food-borne gastrointestinal illnesses, but they are also associated with feces and, therefore, may contaminate streams and lakes, causing disease through oral contact or ingestion of contaminated water. Like fecal coliforms and generic E. coli, these disease-causing bacteria can enter surface waters through sewage overflows, polluted stormwater runoff, and polluted agricultural runoff.
Each of the three pathogens was detected at most of the ten sites monitored, and at least one pathogen was detected at every site. Shigella was detected at eight of ten sites, but generally at lower frequency than Salmonella or E. coli 0157:H7.
19-114
NWMI          .:..*Chapter.1+NWMI-2013-021, DVI..I                                                    Cate Rev. OA 9.0 -Environmental Review Salmonella was the most commonly detectedpathogen at four of the ten sites, with 33% of the samples collectedfrom Turkey and Little Bonne Femme Creeks testing positivefor Salmonella. E. coli 0157:H7 was the most commonly detected of the pathogens, with at least one detection at every site. Five of the ten sites had multiple detections of E. coli 0157:H7.
Three sites (Gans Creek, Turkey Creek, and Lower Bonne Femme Creek) had E. coli 0157:H7detected in 33% of their samples, and Fox Hollow had E. coli 0157:H7 detected in 58% of the samples.
These data do not definitively indicate source, but they do point to cattle as a probable source of E. coli 0157:H7at those sites with frequent detections. Of the common carriersof E. coli 0157:H7 (cattle, swine, and deer), swine can be eliminated as there are no sizable swine operations within the Bonne Femme watershed. Deer are likely responsiblefor the widespread nature of the detections, explaining the presence of E. coli 0157:H7 at sites with otherwise low fecal contamination, such as Clear Creek and Hunters Cave. Although data on specific numbers of cattle by sub-watershed cannot be reliably compiled, there are major cattle operations in the four watersheds with the highest detectionfrequency of E. coli 0157:H7. Furthermore,the Fox Hollow sampling site is immediately downstreamfrom a large cattle grazing operation. (BFSC, 2007) 19.3.4.1.3    Impaired Waters The USGS and the MDNR ambient water quality monitoring network collect water quality data each year pertaining to Missouri water resources. These data are stored and maintained in the USGS National Water Information System database. The MDNR is responsible for the implementation of the Federal CWA in Missouri. Section 305(b) of the CWA requires that each State develop a water quality monitoring program and periodically report the status of its water quality. Water quality status is described in terms of the suitability of the water for various uses, including drinking, fishing, swimming, and support of aquatic life. These uses formally are defined as "designated uses" in Federal and State regulations. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that certain waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards must be identified and total maximum daily loads (TMDL) must be determined for these waters. TMDLs establish the maximum amount of an impairing substance that a water body can assimilate and still meet the water quality standards. A TMDL addresses a single pollutant for each water body (Barr, 2012).
Impaired waters within close proximity to the proposed RPF site are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
19.3.4.1.3.1    Gans Creek In accordance with Section 303(d) of the CWA, MDNR identified Gans Creek (Water Body ID No. 1004) as an impaired water body in 2012 (Figure 19-36).
19-115
~i:.~NWMI                                                                  NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review A      RPF Site                                ~'--Section 303d Impaired Streams (J        8km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site
                                                          'A-Streams Interstate Highways                    *I    Section 303d Impaired Lakes
            -Highways 4'*"l City Limits                                      Lakes 0  0.5 1            2        3        4
      ,                                Miles Figure 19-36. Impaired Streams Map 19-116
  .. NW
      'lvii                                                              Chpter Cate          -Environmental Rev.
9.0NWMI-2013-021,      0A Review Gans Creek is listed as impaired by bacteria on the Missouri 2012 303(d) list of impaired waters, which was approved in whole by the EPA on November 13, 2012 (EPA, 2012). Gans Creek is designated for the whole body contact recreation (Category A use). 10 CSR 20-7.031l, "Water Quality Standards," state that for waters designated for whole body contact recreation (Category A), the E. coli bacteria count, measured as a geometric mean, shall not exceed 126 colonies per 100 milliliters (mL) (3.4 ounces [oz]) of water during the recreational season (defined as being from April 1 to October 31).
DNR judges a stream to be impaired by bacteria if the water quality criterionfor E. coli is exceeded in any of the last three years for which there is adequate data (minimum of five samples taken during the recreationalseason). High counts of E. coli are an indication of fecal contamination and an increased risk of pathogen-inducedillness to humans. E. coli are bacteriafound in the intestines of warm-blooded animals and are used as indicatorsof the risk of waterborne diseasefrom pathogenic (disease causing) bacteria or viruses. Missouri's whole body contact bacteriacriteria are based on specific levels of risk of acute gastrointestinalillness. The level of risk correlating to the Category A criterion is no more than 8 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers in fresh water (0.8 percent). Sufficient recreational season E. coli data to assess the Gans Creek was collected in 2008 and 2009. The geometric means of the data exceeded the whole body contact Category A criterion in both years. For this reason, Gans Creek has been assessed as impaired by E. coli. (MDNR, 2013f)
The TMDL information for Gans Creek includes a segment stream length of 8.9 km (5.5 mi) and an affected watershed size of 39 km 2 (15 mi2). The four designated beneficial uses of Little Bonne Femme Creek include:
* Livestock and wildlife watering
* Protection of warm water aquatic life
* Protection of human health (fish consumption)
* Whole body contact recreation    - Category A Category A whole body contact recreation is the only impaired designated beneficial use.
1 9.3.4.1.3 .2  Little Bonne Femme Creek In accordance Section 303(d) of the CWA, MDNR identified the Little Bonne Femme Creek (Water Body ID No. 1003) as an impaired water body in 2012.
Little Bonne Femme Creek is also listed as impaired by bacteria on Missouri 2012 303(d) list of impaired waters. Little Bonne Femme Creek is designated for the whole body contact recreation Category B use.
Missouri's Water Quality Standards in 10 CSR 20-7.031 (4)(C) state that for waters designated for whole body contact recreation Category B, the E. coli bacteria count, measured as a geometric mean, shall not exceed 206 colonies per 100 mL (3.4 oz) of water during the recreational season.
Missouri's whole body contact bacteriacriteria are based on specific levels of risk of acute gastrointestinalillness. The level of risk correlatingto the Category B criterion is no more than 10 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers in fresh water (1 percent). Sufficient recreationalseason E. coli data to assess the Little Bonne Femme Creek was collected in 2008 and 2009. The geometric means of the data exceeded the whole body contact Category B criterion in both years. For this reason, Little Bonne Femme Creek has been assessed as impaired by E. coli.
(MDNR, 2013g)
The TMDL information for Little Bonne Femme Creek includes a segment stream length of 14.5 km (9 mi) and an affected watershed size of 102 km 2 (39.2 mi 2). The four designated beneficial uses of Little Bonne Femme Creek include:
* Livestock and wildlife watering
* Protection of warm water aquatic life 19-117
:'~I
    . N&deg;-:t.)E YVI                          NWMI-21-2,Rev.AChapter      hpe        - Environmental 1OPES9.0              Review
* Protection of human health (fish consumption)
* Whole body contact recreation - Category B Category B whole body contact recreation is the only impaired designated beneficial use.
19.3.4.1.3.3      Perry Phillips Lake Perry Phillips Lake, located approximately 1.2 km (3/4A-mi) west of the proposed RPF site, was first listed as an impaired water body in 2010. This lake was originally given the State-listed water identification number MO 1003U-01. In 2012, that number was changed to MO 7628. The TMDLs are to be established by Missouri in 2015. Information available for this impaired water body is as follows (MDNR, 2013h):
State Listed Water ID Nos. MO 7628 and MO 1003U-01 Location: Boone County Hydrologic Unit Code 8, No. 10300102 State Water Body Type: Lakes, reservoirs, and ponds Impaired Segment Size (mi/acres): 32 Classified Segment Size (mi/acres): 32 Cause of Impairment: Mercury in fish tissue Impaired Uses: GEN 19.3.4.2        Groundwater Resources Less than one-half of the Missouri population obtains its water supply from groundwater resources.
Groundwater is the major source of drinking water in the Ozarks and the Southeast Lowlands for both public and private supplies. The cities of St. Joseph, Independence, Columbia, and St. Charles use groundwater from the alluvial aquifer of the Missouri River. In the plains region of the state, many small communities are able to obtain adequate water from shallow alluvial wells near rivers or large creeks.
Many individual households still rely on the shallow upland aquifer even though it yields only very small amounts of water (MDNR, 201 2b).
Groundwater is the source of 74 percent of all rural domestic self-supplied water, 75 percent of all irrigation water, and 39 percent of all industrial self-supplied water, excluding water for thermoelectric power generation. The groundwater is generally suitable for most uses, except where it is saline. Median concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), hardness, nitrate, fluoride, and sulfate are less than the primary and secondary national drinking water regulations established by the EPA; however, localized contamination from manufactured organic compounds has been recognized in four of the six principal aquifers in Missouri, including both shallow and deep aquifers (USGS, 1986).
The six principal aquifers in Missouri include:
* Major river valleys
* Alluvial (in southeastern Missouri)
* Wilcox and Claiborne
* McNairy
* Ozark
* Mississippian aquifer (Kimmswick-Potosi)
The groundwater aquifer beneath the proposed RPF site is the Mississippian aquifer (also referred to as the Kimmswick-Potosi aquifer). Figure 19-37 is a map of the aquifer.
19-118
*:';.:  NWMI                                                        NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review
                                            -- Static Water Level A      RPF Site c~8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site
                                            -""Interstate Highways Highways o      0.5 1234
            ,  , ,Miles i~
City Limits Figure 19-37. Aquifer Map 19-119
ISOTPESChapter                                                  19.0 - Environmental Review 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 RPF site was approximately 198.1 m (650 ft) below ground surface (MDNR, 2006).
19.3 .4.2.1 Mississippian Aquifer The Mississippian aquifer consists of consolidated dolomite, limestone, and some sandstone beds that are generally confined. The Keokuk limestone and Burlington limestone are the principal water-yielding formations within this aquifer. Both formations consist of crystalline limestone and yield water primarily from solution cavities. In most places, the aquifer is overlain by a confining unit of Pennsylvanian shale and sandstone and glacial till. The aquifer is typically underlain by a confining unit of Mississippian shale. Recharge occurs primarily from precipitation infiltrating overlying aquifers. The top of this aquifer is approximately 548.6 m (1,800 ft) below ground surface and is a primary source of water in seven counties north of the Missouri River (Miller and Appel, 1997).
19.3 .4.2 .2  Water Quality of the Mississippian Aquifer The quality of water obtained from wells drilled into the Mississippian aquifer varies considerably across Missouri due to the aquifer containing both freshwater and slightly saline to very saline water. Total dissolved solids concentrations of water from the aquifer generally are greatest where the aquifer is overlain by a thick confining unit and least where it is unconfined or overlain by a thin or semi-confining unit. Very saline water is thought to have entered the Mississippian aquifer either by upward leakage from the underlying Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer or by the discharge of eastward-moving saline water from the upper aquifer unit of the Western Interior Plains aquifer system (Miller and Appel, 1997).
In a study conducted by the USGS in 1985, the Mississippian aquifer was determined to have low permeability with a median TDS concentration of approximately 500 milligram per liter (mg/L)
(0.06 oz/gal). The maximum TDS concentration measured in this study was approximately 4,700 mg/L (0.572 oz/gal) to the north, where water becomes saline. The median concentration of fluoride was 1.0 mgfL (0.00012 oz./gal) and the median concentration of sulfate was 56.0 mg/L (0.0068 oz/gal). These were the largest median values of all of the six principal aquifers in Missouri (Miller and Appel, 1997).
According to the study, the Mississippian aquifer is intensively used for public water supply and irrigation; however, since the early 1900s, water quality in this aquifer has not changed appreciably (Miller and Appel, 1997).
A more recent assessment was conducted by the MDNR in 2002 (MDNR, 2002), which determined that the aquifers in Missouri consisting of Mississippian age limestone and Ordovician and Cambrian age dolomites and sandstones can yield 56.8-1,892.7 L/minute (mmn) (15-500 gal/min) of water. Yields locally exceed 3,785.4 L/min (1,000 gal/min) in some areas, including in Springfield, Columbia, and Rolla.
19.3.4.3    Preexisting Environmental Conditions The RADIL facility at Discovery Ridge is a regulated State hazardous waste facility (SHWF) located approximately 0.16 km (0.1 mi) northwest of the proposed RPF site. A second SHWF, ABC Laboratories, is located approximately 0.54 km (0.33 mi) west of the proposed RPF site. These facilities are discussed in greater detail in the following sections and in Section 19.2.2.5. Based on a regulatory review and site assessments conducted by others, these SHWFs do not appear to represent environmental concerns to the proposed RPF site.
19-120
    ,lvi-i
    "        MEDC..ISOOPE                                                Chpte.1NWMI-2013-021, hate 9.0 -Environmental Rev. Review  0A 19.3.4.3.1    2011 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Discovery Ridge, Lot 2 and Lots 5 through 18 A Phase I environmental site assessment included interviews with the MU Genetics Farm Manager and a USDA site employee to determine the historical uses of the Discovery Ridge area. The interviews revealed that minor amounts of herbicides and fertilizers are currently used on the MU Genetics Farm property (Lots 16, 17, and 18 of Discovery Ridge) (Terracon, 201 la).
The review identified one MDNR State-regulated RCRA large-quantity generator facility, ABC Laboratories (Lot 1 of Discover Ridge). However, this facility was not found to be a recognized environmental concern due to its regulatory status and duration of operation (built in 2007) (Terracon, 201 Ia). Additional information is listed in Table 19-36 and Sections 19.3.8.2 and 19.3.8.3.
Table 19-36. State-Regulated Facility Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories              RCRA-        Approximately 0.54 km            No 4780 Lenoir Street                                LQG          (0.33-mi) west (Lot 1 of the Discovery Ridge Research Park)
LQG        =  large-quantity generator.                        RPF      = radioisotope production facility.
RCRA      =  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Other observations noted during the Phase I environmental site assessment that could pose preexisting environmental conditions included the following (Terracon, 2011la):
      *Three pad-mounted transformers were observed on the southwestern portion of Lot 15 (proposed RPF site), one pad-mounted transformer was located on the southeastern portion of Lot 17, and three inactive pole-mounted transformers were observed on the northern portion of Lot 17.
However, there were no signs or staining that would be evidence of possible polychiorinated biphenyl (PCB) release.
      *Approximately 0.4 ha (1 acre) of fill dirt was observed on the northern portion of Lot 9. Per the MU South Farms Field Office, fill material had been placed onsite over the past two years and originated from the future location of the Missouri Conservation Facility located south of Gans Road, approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) south of the ROI.
      *An intermittent stream was observed on Lots 9, 10, and 11 of the Discovery Ridge ROI, traversing the site in a north-to-south orientation. No evidence of chemical sheens was observed on the surface of the pools of water, and no noxious odors were observed emanating from within the intermittent stream at the site during site reconnaissance.
19.3 .4.3 .2 2011 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation of Discovery Ridge Lot 2 and Lots 5 through 18 A 2011 preliminary geotechnical engineering investigation report stated the following (Terracon, 201 lb):
      *Fill soils were encountered in borings B-3 and B-4 at depths ranging from 0.9-3.7 m (3-12 ft) below ground surface. Boring B-3 was drilled on the central portion of Lot 2, and Boring B-4 was drilled on the central portion of Lot 8. The engineered fill material was placed as part of a mass grading project in 2008; that placement was observed and the soil density and moisture content tested during placement.
19-121
I:V                                                              ChptrWWMI03-2, Chapter19.0 - Environmental Rv. O Review
      *Based on a USGS map and aerial photographs, a pond may have been located in the vicinity of Lot 16, and the existing pond located north of the RADIL facility previously extended west onto a portion of Lot 2.
      *The near-surface soils have shrink/swell potential and are prone to volume change with variations in moisture content.
      *The 2006/2009 International Building Code seismic site classification for the ROI is C. For Class C soils, the 2006/2009 code requires that a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 30.5 m (100 ft) be conducted.
* The MMI scale for seismic events for Boone County, Missouri, is VII.
* Groundwater was observed in Boring B-5 (located midway between Lots 14 and 15) and in Boring B-6 (located on Lot 10) at depths ranging from approximately 3.7-5.6 m (12-1 8.5 ft) below ground surface.
19.3.4.3.3    2006 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Discovery Ridge East of Lenoir Street and South of Sugar Grove Lane According to the Phase I environmental site assessment (Terracon, 2006), the MU South Farms facility was identified as an SHWF. An interview with Mr. John Poehlmann, Director of the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station and MU South Farms Superintendent, identified the historical uses of the facility. These uses include agricultural research of maize genetics crop research, swine nutrition, beef cattle management and grazing, agricultural equipment development, and cropping for grain silage and uptake of nutrients from lagoon application. According to Mr. Poehlmann, the nine buildings on the property within the ROI were built between 1970 and 2002, and there are pits for the collection of animal waste beneath one building that housed sheep and swine. The wastes were surface and injection applied as plant nutrients. The on-site lagoon operated under MDNR permit MO-GO010024.
19.3.4.4      Historical and Current Hydrological Data There is no historical or current hydrological data for the proposed RPF site.
19.3.4.5      Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Water Use Water use by the proposed RPF is described in Section 19.2.4.1 and would be supplied from the Columbia, Missouri, standard municipal water system.
19.3.4.6      Water Rights and Resources Missouri water resources, including surface water and groundwater supplies, are applied to a variety of uses. Large consumptive water uses included thermal electrical generation, municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses. Nonconsumptive water uses include recreation, commercial navigation, hydroelectric power generation, and mining operations.
Missouri is called a riparian water law state, meaning that each individual landowner is entitled to make use of the water found on or beneath his/her property. The laws that address riparian rights are restrictive in that the landowner cannot make unlimited or unrestricted use of that water in any way he or she chooses. "Riparian lands," as defined by the courts, include all lands above underground waters and beside surface waters (MDNR, 2000).
19-122
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Si;:NWMI                                                                Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.3.4.7    Quantitative Description of Water Use 19.3.4.7.1    Drinking Water Supply The potable water supply to Discovery Ridge is provided by Public Water District No. 1. Additional detail on the water supply system is provided in Section 19.3.7.1.9.3.
19.3.4.7.1.1    Wastewater Treatment Systems Two main wastewater collection providers service the metro area: the Columbia sewer utility and the Boone County Regional Sewer District. Several private, on-site wastewater treatment systems also serve the metro area. These systems require permits from and are inspected by the MDNR.
The ultimate wastewater service area is 311 km2 (190 m12) and includes three major watersheds: the Perche, Hinkson, and Little Bonne Femme. In 2010, the actual connected population was approximately 100,000; this figure is projected to reach 160,000 users by 2030. Approximately 45.4-56.7 ML/day (12-15 Mgal/day) of wastewater are currently generated; this is estimated to increase to 106 ML/day (28 Mgal/day) by 2030 (City of Columbia, 2013a).
A large number of older homes are connected to private common collector sewers. These systems are shared by two or more residences; many are poorly designed and prone to backing up (Columbia Source Water Protection Task Force, 2013).
19.3.4.7.1.2    Stormwater Management In 2012, Columbia maintained over 304,800 m (1 million linear feet) of storm sewers. With its client base surpassing 100,000 residents, a change in the type of NPDES storm sewer permit, granted by the EPA, was required. The city transitioned from a Phase II permit to a Phase I permit, an effort that included specific measures to address the minimization of pollution in city storm sewers and other areas (City of Columbia, 2013a).
19.3.4.7.2    Nonconsumptive Water Use The MDNR reported that in 2000, the total water          Table 19-37. Water Use in Boone County, 2000 usage for Boone County totaled approximately 26,876 ML (7,100 Mgal) (MDNR, 2003). Water usage categories are listed in Table 19-37.                                      L'AIWL*FL~~iI'FIFLS1L' Domestic              379-1,514          100-400 19.3.4. 7.3  Water Impoundments The MDNR regulates all non-Federal,                      Electric              0-75,708          0-20,000 nonagricultural dams that are at least 10.6 m (35 ft) in height. Currently, there are 590 dams regulated in Missouri. The MDNR inspects each regulated            Municipal          11,356-37,854      3,000-10,000 dam at least once every 5 years to determine if the                                                156 dams pose a safety threat to the public.                      Source: 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.
19-1 23
ChaperI1NWM,-2013-021,    Rev. 0A Chpter 9.0 - Environmental Review As of March 9, 2007, the MDNR listed a total of 127 dams within Boone County (MDNR, 2007). Of these 127, a total of 17 dams are regulated by the MDNR. Two dams are located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the proposed RPF site. The MU Ri Dam is located approximately 152.4 m (500 ft) northwest of the proposed RPJF site. This dam is not a regulated water body. The Bristol Lake Dam is located approximately 0.8 kmn (0.5 mi) west-southwest of the proposed site and is listed as regulated. Additional information on each of these water bodies is provided in Table 19-38.
Table 19-38. Missouri Dam Report, by County Bristol          MO10019        $32 T48N      1965      14 m      300 m        146 ha      13.4 ha  2    R-223 Lake Dam                          R12W                  (46 ft)  (985 ft)  (360 acres)  (33 acres) ii      s{zi    i                  R    W(1                ft)            (140  a;ri)  (1                      .....
Source: MDNR, 2007, "Missouri Dam Report by County," www.dnr.mo.govlenvlwrc/damsft/CrystalReportsl damsfty~state~nid.pdf, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, March 9, 2007.
NA            =  not applicable.
19.3 .4.7.4        Major      Water Users In Missouri, a major water user is defined by the MDNR as any surface or groundwater user with a water source and the equipment necessary to withdraw or divert 378,541 L/day (100,000 gal/day) or more from any stream, river, lake, well, spring, or other water source.          All major water users are required by law to register water use annually.            In Boone County, there are a total of 19 major water users registered with the MDNR.          The registration of major water users in Missouri helps the MDNR with the following:
* Providing information required for technical assessment of current and future requirements for the regulation of water
      &deg;      Gaining foresight on water supplies
* Applying conservation measures during periods of limited or diminishing supplies of water
      &deg;      Determining where to locate stream and reservoir gauges and the groundwater level observation wells 19.3.4.8        Contaminant          Sources The most likely contaminant sources that may be affecting groundwater and/or surface water resources within the Columbia area include unregulated discharges from commercial and industrial processes, land development, pesticides from agricultural land-use practices, stormwater runoff, sediment erosion, and wastewater discharges.            Other contaminant sources may include solid waste landfills and surface or underground mining operations.
Development within a watershed can contribute to water quality problems. Loads of sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, nutrients, and other pollutants are also higher in developed areas. This further decreases the natural habitat value of the streams and riparian areas.
Pollutants are carried by stormwater from upland areas into receiving waters.              Land use not only influences the quantity of stormwater runoff, but also the quality of the runoff. Areas of high imperviousness (e.g., industrial areas, streets) can have some of the highest pollutant loads, while open spaces have the lowest.
19-124
I;:.NW MI                                                                Catr1N          k2i01,Rev.A 19.3.4.8.1    Columbia Source Water Protection Task Force Contaminant Inventory for 2012 The Columbia Source Water Protection Task Force completed a contaminant inventory for Columbia in 2012. The contaminant inventory was conducted to identify contaminant materials and develop a line of defense to protect the city's deep bedrock wells and the McBaine Bottoms Well Field.
Contaminant inventories reviewed included fuel and oils, pesticides, nutrients, synthetic organic chemicals, volatile organic compounds (VOC), animal waste, and/or raw sewage. Other potential contaminant sources can include gas stations or retailers that may stock chemicals such as pesticides, oil, gasoline, and cleaners.
The Columbia Source Water Protection Task Force (2013) did not identify any potential threats to the old deep bedrock wells; however, seven potential threats to the McBaine Bottoms wells were identified:
: 1. Malicious tampering with individual source water (or nearby monitoring wells)
: 2. Use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers
: 3. Seepage from Columbia wastewater treatment wetlands
: 4. Groundwater migration from under the Eagle Bluffs conservation wetlands
: 5. Infiltration from the Missouri River
: 6. Future activities in the McBaine bottoms area
: 7. Petroleum pipelines through the well field 19.3 .4.8.2    MDNR Surface Water Assessment for the State of Missouri According to the 2012 Missouri Water Quality Report (MDNR, 2012b), there are 39,318 km (24,431 mi) of classified streams, approximately 48,280 km (30,000 mi) of unclassified streams, and a total of 122,566 ha (302,867 acres) of classified lakes in Missouri. Classified streams are defined as permanently flowing streams or streams that maintain permanent pools during dry weather. Unclassified streams are defined as streams that are without water during dry weather. All classified waters of Missouri, including significant public lakes, are classified for protection of aquatic life, livestock and wildlife watering, and fish consumption by humans. The water quality standards for these uses set the maximum allowable concentrations for 117 chemicals in these waters. A subset of these waters classified for drinking water supply and groundwater has maximum allowable concentrations for an additional 79 chemicals in the standards. Waters protected for whole body contact recreation (e.g., swimming, water skiing) also have a maximum allowable bacteria standard (MDNR, 2012b).
19.3.4.8.3    Major Surface Water Pollution Sources in Missouri's Classified Waters The major surface water pollution sources and major contaminants in Missouri classified waters are listed in Table 19-39 and Table 19-40.
19-125
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A N.%,1WMIWI                                                                Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-39. Major Surface Water Pollution Sources in Missouri Classified Waters
                                        *~    -g                                    *        **      -e a                                                C  S.
S    *                                -    S Unknown                    3,229.0      2,006.4        8%                      704                    1,740      1%
Grazing activities            89.8          55.8 Urban runoff and            1,660.5      1,031.8        4%                      19,852                49,055      16%
construction Mining                      871.5        541.5        2%
Other mining                  41.5          25.8a activities Hydromodification            170.4        105.9          a100                                            246 a    i=......i ,iii'*        =*= ===',,,i=i,=
* Flow regulationl              46.7          29.0 modification Industrial point              67.3          41.8 sources Natural sources                3.7          2.3 Source: Table 3, p. 7, of MDNR, 2012b, Missouri Water Quality Report (Section 305[b] Report), Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program, Jefferson City, Missouri, May 2, 2012.
a Less than 1%.
19-126
:.,....NWMI..                                                                        NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Table 19-40. Major Contaminants in Missouri Classified Waters Bacteria                    4,7I39.5    2,94:5.U        12%7              -          --
Mercury                      401.4      249.4            1%            9,939      24,560        8%
Lea4                  ii~~~ii                            1%
Cadmium                      203.9        126.7          1%
17.2        10.
Nickel                        9.2        5.7 a
1.4 Arsenic Unknown                      716.6      445.3            2%
Chloride                      105.9      65.8 Sediment deposition          58.1        36.1            a A
Sulfate                      32.2        20.0            a a
Pesticides                    18.2      11.3                            3.6          9 16%
Chlorophyll                                                            20,136      49,757        16%
Phosphorus                                                                245          854 Source: Table 4, pp. 7-8 of MDNR, 2012b, Missouri Water Quality Report (Section 305[b] Report), Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program, Jefferson City, Missouri, May 2, 2012.
a Less than 1%.
19.3.4.8.4    Water Quality of Missouri Surface Water The MDNR rates the quality of Missouri surface water by its conformance with the Missouri Water Quality Standards (10 CSR Division 20). The standards were first implemented in 1970 and are revised at least every three years. Table 19-41 lists the various uses of Missouri surface waters and the portions of the state waters that are protected for each use.
19-127
NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A
  ~NWMI                                                                        Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-41. Missouri Waters Protected for Various Uses Protection of aquatic life and        39,318        24,431      100      12,2563        30,2867      100 fish consumption aCool-.water fishery                      5,241        3,257        13          0              0          0 Livestock and wildlife watering        39,318        24,431      100      12,2563        302,867      100 Secondary contact recreation            14,279        8,872      36        103,840        256,601        85 Industrial                                2.558        1.590        7        2.816          6.9592 Antidegradation: Outstanding              327        c204 State Resource Waters Source: of Department    Table 4, p.Resources, Natural  15 of MDNR, Water2012b, Missouri Protection      WaterJefferson Program,  Quality Report (Section 3051[b]
City, Missouri, May 2,Report),
2012. Missouri a Smallmouth bass, rock bass.
b Trout.
Outstanding State Resource Waters also include 109 ha (270 acres) of marsh wetlands in three locations.
19.3 .4.8.5    Missouri Department of Natural Resources Groundwater Assessment Less than one-half of Missourians rely on groundwater as the source of their drinking water.
Groundwater is the major source of drinking water in the Ozarks and the Southeast Lowlands for both public and private supplies. In the Ozarks, groundwater yields are usually large and of excellent quality.
Many municipalities pump groundwater directly into the water supplies without treatment. Due to large amounts of rainfall and surface water runoff funneling through the geologic formations of the Ozarks, groundwater can be more easily contaminated. This is due to surface water flows directly entering groundwater through cracks, fractures, or solution cavities in the bedrock, with little or no filtration.
Contaminants from leaking septic tanks, storage tanks, or surface waters affected by domestic wastewater, animal feedlots, and other pollution sources can move directly into groundwater through these cavities in the bedrock (MDNR, 201 2b).
Groundwater is of good quality in the southeast lowlands. Contaminants are filtered by thick deposits of sand, silt, and clay as they move through the groundwater system. While shallow groundwater wells are subject to the same problems as seen in the Ozarks, with elevated levels of nitrate or bacteria, deep wells are generally unaffected by contaminants. Shallow groundwater in northern and western Missouri tends to be more mineralized and to have taste and odor problems due to high levels of iron and manganese.
Like shallow wells in the southeast lowlands, wells in this part of Missouri can be affected by nitrates, bacteria, or pesticides. In urban areas, alluvial aquifers of large rivers such as the Missouri River have occasionally been locally contaminated by spills or improper disposal of industrial or commercial chemicals (MDNR, 2012b).
19-128
    '*NWMI                                                                            NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review The major sources and contaminants of groundwater in Missouri are listed in Table 19-42. Table 19-43 summarizes the MDNR groundwater contamination summary for Missouri.
Table 19-42. Major Sources of Groundwater Contamination in Missouri Agricultural chemical facilities Animal feedlots Drainage wells Fertilizer applications                    X            A, C,D, E                        Nitrate Irrigation practices Pesticide applications                    X          A,B,C, D,E                  Organic pesticides Land application                          X            A,D,E          Nitrate, pathogens (bacteria, protozoa, viruses)
Material stockpiles Aboveground storage tanks Underground storage tanks                  X          A, B,C,D, E                Petroleum compounds Surface impoundments Waste piles Waste tailings uiv itie Deep injection wells Landfills Septic systems                                          A,D, E X                            Nitrate, pathogens (bacteria, protozoa, viruses)
Shallow injection wells Hazardous waste generators Hazardous waste sites                      X            A, B,C, D    Organic pesticides, halogenated solvents, metals, radionuclides Industrial facilities                      X            A, B, C,E      Nitrate, ammonia, pentachlorophenol, dioxin Material transfer operations Mining and mine drainage                  X              A,EF                          Metals Pipelines and sewer lines Salt storage and road salting Salt water intrusion                      X                C                        Salinity/brine Spills                                    X            A, B,C, E      Organic pesticides, petroleum compounds, halogenated solvents, ammonia Transportation of materials                ......-
Urban runoff                              ......-
Source: Tables 10 and 11, p. 28-29 of MDNR, 2012b, Missouri Water Quality Report (Section 305[b] Report),
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program, Jefferson City, Missouri, May 2, 2012.
a Not in priority order.
A = Human health or environmental toxicity risk.              D = Number and/or size of contaminant B = Size of population at risk,                                      sources.
C = Location of sources relative to drinking water sources. E = Hydrogeologic sensitivity.
19-129
NWI                                                                                                                                                                          NWMI-201 3-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-43. Missouri Department of Natural Resources Missouri Groundwater Contamination Summary NPL                  25                25              25                                      1 DoD/DOE              305                37              33                        1,2,3,4                                    50              213                          231                18              45
                                                                    ,:,=:  ,====,=I
* iii=*i=]4 =- ;===      ,= ..........      ii =
I
                  =i  ii i
                            !ii
                            !iiiiii!i !!
* iiii :*i ii        i!i!!i*II i iliii iiiiiii*iiiiiii!ii:  i" !ii==
[*ii iiiiiii  *!    ii*!  ilii *ii 11!iiii iiiiiiii, i        !!ii i i!i!ii  &#xa3;i*:=.
iii            i      ii:'= ....... .! Ii!
i!iiiiiii!i=i=i'i*
                                                                                                                                                  !ii:&#xa3;!!i!ilGIIilGiil iiii ii!iS              =
i*=i iI:= iii
                                                                                                                                                                                                    =:
i=ilii!i ....
i!{iiiiii i    ....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        !!i
                                                      =!I*          Iii* &#xa3;ili!i&#xa3;= iilii  i'*i&#xa3;i
                                                                                              *  !  ! =Iii!i!ii i! :i i  i!iii*          !I RCRA                  89                89              55                          1,2,3,4                                    49                39                          27                26                16 Corrective Action State sites          856              856            387                          1, 2, 3, 4                                847            575                          575                49              575 Other-                                    ---                                                                                                      ---
(specify)
Source: Table 11, p. 30 of MDNR, 201 2b, Missouri Water Quality Report (Section 305(b) Report), Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program, Jefferson City, Missouri, May 2, 2012.
a Contaminants: I = VOAs, SVOAs, solvents, PCBs, dioxin, PA~s, herbicides, pesticides, metals, explosives.
2 = VOAs, PCBs, pesticides, dioxin, metals, radionuclides, semivolatile organic compounds, etc.
3 = BTEX, TPH, methyl-t-butyl ether, PAHs, metals, SVOA.
4 = Creosote, pentachlorophenol, organic solvents, chlorinated solvents, petroleum, and asbestos.
b Includes sites where chemicals were injected into groundwater as part of approved remediation plan.
BTEX        =  benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes.                                                  NPL                        = National Priority List.
CERCLIS =      Comprehensive Environmental Response,                                                        PAH                        = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.
Compensation, and Liability Information                                                      PCB                        = polychlorinated biphenyl.
System.                                                                                      RCRA                        = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
DoD        =  U.S. Department of Defense.                                                                  SVOA                        = semivolatile organic analyte.
DOE        =  U.S. Department of Energy.                                                                    TPH                        = total petroleum hydrocarbon.
LUST        =  leaking underground storage tank.                                                            VOA                        = volatile organic analyte.
19-1 30}}

Latest revision as of 19:47, 23 February 2020

Official Exhibit - NRC-006H-MA-CM01 - Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Construction Permit Application - PSAR, NWMI-2013-021, Rev. Oa, Chapter 19, Beginning Through 19-130 (Jun. 2015)
ML18025B170
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: ML18025B170 (154)
v • d • e


Text

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

Commission Mandatory Hearing Docket #: 05000609 NRC-006H Exhibit #: NRC-006H-MA-CM01 Identified: 1/23/2018 Admitted: 1/23/2018 Withdrawn:

Rejected: Stricken:

Other:

Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review NWMI NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Radioisotope Production Facility NWMI-2013-021, Rev. QA June 2015 Construction Permit Application for

@0.

  • OoOO.

Prepared by:

o°

.ooO0...*

Aye, Suite 256 S

I00 Corvallis, Oregon 97330

o. 00 o~

o*.

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 9th 815 NW

O

  • S*°
  • S. O o 0..0 o00 o*O*O
o. @OooOo

.0 O 0

00.

0.

NWMI NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A June 2015 Prepared by:

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 815 NW 9th Ave, Suite 256 Corvallis, Oregon 97330

  • S. g g

.00

.O OO 0 gOo

  • Oo~ . NWMI NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A June 2015 Prepared by:

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 815 NW 9th Ave, Suite 256 Corvallis, Oregon 97330

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

. .,..NORTHWEOSTMEDIAL This page intentionally left blank.

  • JI!!NWM I NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMI-2013-021, Rev. QA Date Published

June 29, 2015

Title:

Chapter 19.0, Environmental Review Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility Approved by Carolyn Haass Signature: C wtiY c*

  • #o-

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

!NWM I I.:

ORTHWdEST MEDCAL SOTAPES Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review This page intentionally left blank.

  • e.B WMI

,NORTHWEST MEDCIO TOE Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

- Environmental Review Rev Date Reason for Revision Revised By 0 1/5/2015 Initial Report Not required OA 6/29/20 15 Update due to maturation of design C. Haass

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

!::!NWM I
  • ,. MEDCALISOTOPS

...5ORTHWEST Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review This page intentionally left blank.

l ChaperI1NWM-2013-o2, Chpter 9.0 -Environmental Rev. OA Review
  • ... NORTHWEST MREDICAL ISOTOPES CONTENTS 19.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .............................................................. 19-1 19.1 Introduction............................................................................. 19-1 19.1.1 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................ 19-3 19.1.1.1 Background...................................................... 19-3 19.1.1.2 Molybedum-99 History......................................... 19-4 19.1.1.3 Molybdenum Today ............................................ 19-6 19.1.2 Regulatory Provisions, Permits and Required Consultations............. 19-7 19.1.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency....................... 19-7 19.1.2.2 U.S. Department of Transportation............................ 19-9 19.1.2.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers............................... 19-10 19.1.2.4 Occupational Safety and Health Administration ........... 19-10 19.1.2.5 Missouri State Agencies ...................................... 19-10 19.1.2.6 Local Governments............................................ 19-14 19.1.2.7 Permit and Approval Status .................................. 19-17 19.1.3 Consultation and Coordination............................................. 19-21 19.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................... 19-23 19.2.1 Description of Proposed Action and Connected Actions ................ 19-23 19.2.1.1 Schedule........................................................ 19-24 19.2.1.2 Affected Land.................................................. 19-24 19.2.1.3 Personnel, Materials, and Equipment Required During Project Phases.................................................. 19-24 19.2.1.4 Applicant for the Proposed Action........................... 19-25 19.2.2 Radioisotope Production Facility Site Location and Layout ............ 19-25 19.2.2.1 Site Location ................................................... 19-25 19.2.2.2 Site Layout ..................................................... 19-29 19.2.2.3 Infrastructure Improvements.................................. 19-31 19.2.2.4 Existing Infrastructure ........................................ 19-3 1 19.2.2.5 Other Nearby Facilities/Buildings ........................... 19-3 1 19.2.2.6 Monitoring Stations ........................................... 19-31 19.2.3 Radioisotope Production Facility Description............................ 19-32 19.2.3.1 Process Description............................................ 19-37 19.2.3.2 Facility Areas .................................................. 19-40 19.2.4 Water Consumption and Treatment ....................................... 19-47 19.2.4.1 Water Consumption ........................................... 19-47 19.2.4.2 Water Sources Independent of Municipal or Commercial Supply ........................................... 19-48 19.2.4.3 Water Treatment............................................... 19-48 19.2.5 Cooling and Heating Dissipating Systems ................................ 19-48 19.2.5.1 Cooling Water Systems ....................................... 19-48 19.2.5.2 Heating Systems ............................................... 19-49 19.2.5.3 Heat Dissipation Systems..................................... 19-49 19.2.6 Auxiliary Systems........................................................... 19-49

NWM'

lvChater19.0

.... NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES ChpeIWI-030 ev. O

- Environmental Review 19.2.7 Waste Systems............................................................... 19-49 19.2.7.1 Process System Liquid Wastes............................... 19-50 19.2.7.2 Process System Solid Waste.................................. 19-50 19.2.7.3 Waste Handling Process Systems............................ 19-5 1 19.2.7.4 Construction Waste............................................ 19-52 19.2.7.5 Recycling and Reclamation .................................. 19-52 19.2.8 Storage, Treatment, and Transportation of Radioactive and Nonradioactive Materials, including Fuel, Waste, Radioisotopes, and Any Other Materials................................................... 19-54 19.2.8.1 Storage and Treatment ........................................ 19-54 19.2.8.2 Transportation of Material.................................... 19-55 19.3 Affected Environment................................................................ 19-58 19.3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources............................................ 19-58 19.3.1.1 Land Use ....................................................... 19-58 19.3.1.2 Visual Resources............................................... 19-65 19.3.2 Air Quality and Noise....................................................... 19-75 19.3.2.1 General Regional Climate .................................... 19-75 19.3.2.2 Air Quality ..................................................... 19-83 19.3.2.3 Noise............................................................ 19-85 19.3.3 Geologic Environment...................................................... 19-86 19.3.3.1 Regional Geology ............................................. 19-86 19.3.3.2 Geology at the Proposed Site................................. 19-89 19.3.3.3 Site-Specific Volcanic Hazard Analysis..................... 19-93 19.3.3.4 Onsite Soil Types.............................................. 19-93 19.3.3.5 Prime Farmland................................................ 19-96 19.3.3.6 Shrink-Swell Potential ........................................ 19-98 19.3.3.7 Erosion ......................................................... 19-98 19.3.3.8 Previous Geological Studies by Others...................... 19-98 19.3.3.9 Regional and Local Tectonics ................................ 19-99 19.3.3.10 Seismic Hazard Assessment ................................19-102 19.3.3.11 Other Geologic Hazards .....................................19-106 19.3.3.12 Tectonic Uplift and Subsidence.............................19-107 19.3.3.13 Earthquake Ground-Shaking Amplification...............19-107 19.3.3.14 Earthquake-Induced Landslides.............................19-107 19.3.3.15 Liquefaction ..................................................19-107 19.3.3.16 Caves and Sinkholes.........................................19-108 19.3.4 Water Resources ...........................................................19-109 19.3.4.1 Surface Hydrology...........................................19-109 19.3.4.2 Groundwater Resources .....................................19-118 19.3.4.3 Preexisting Environmental Conditions.....................19-120 19.3.4.4 Historical and Current Hydrological Data .................19-122 19.3.4.5 Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Water Use..19-122 19.3.4.6 Water Rights and Resources ................................19-122 19.3.4.7 Quantitative Description of Water Use.....................19-123 19.3.4.8 Contaminant Sources ........................................19-124 ii

W I Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

- Environmental Review 19.3.5 Ecological Resources......................................................19-131 19.3.5.1 Wetlands......................................................19-131 19.3.5.2 Offsite Areas..................................................19-132 19.3.5.3 Onsite Areas ..................................................19-134 19.3.5.4 History.........................................................19-136 19.3.5.5 Places and Entities of Special Interest .....................19-136 19.3.5.6 Aquatic Communities and Potentially Affected Water Bodies.........................................................19-138 19.3.5.7 Terrestrial Communities.....................................19-139 19.3.5.8 Wildlife .......................................................19-139 19.3.5.9 Protected Species and Habitats .............................19-141 19.3.6 Historical and Cultural Resources ........................................19-144 19.3.6.1 Cultural Setting............................................... 19- 145 19.3.6.2 Recent History - Discovery Ridge .........................19-148 19.3.6.3 Previous Investigations......................................19-149 19.3.6.4 Recent Cultural Resources Surveys ........................19-149 19.3.6.5 Literature Review ............................................ 19- 149 19.3.6.6 Pedestrian Survey ............................................19-151 19.3.6.7 Previously Recorded Historic Structures and Districts..19-153 19.3.6.8 Native American and State Agency Consultation ........19-155 19.3.7 Socioeconomics ............................................................19-155 19.3.7.1 Boone County ................................................19-156 19.3.7.2 Local Schools.................................................19-158 19.3.7.3 Population Map...............................................19-159 19.3.7.4 Transportation Systems......................................19-159 19.3.7.5 Taxes ..........................................................19-161 19.3.7.6 Public Recreation Facilities ................................. 19-16 1 19.3.8 Human Health..............................................................19-163 19.3.8.1 Sensitive Receptor Locations ...............................19-163 19.3.8.2 Major Sources and Levels of Background Radiation ....19-165 19.3.8.3 Major Sources and Levels of Chemical Exposure ........19-168 19.3.8.4 Occupational Injury Rates ...................................19-170 19.3.9 Connected Action - University Reactor Network ...................... 19-17 1 19.3.9.1 University of Missouri Research Reactor.................. 19-17 1 19.3.9.2 Oregon State University Radiation Center Complex.....19-17 1 19.3.9.3 Third Reactor.................................................19-172 19.4 Impacts of Proposed Construction Operations, and Decommissioning ........19-173 19.4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources ..........................................19-173 19.4.1.1 Land Use......................................................19-173 19.4.1.2 Visual and Aesthetics Resources ...........................19-175 19.4.2 Air Quality and Noise .....................................................19-180 19.4.2.1 Air Quality....................................................19-180 19.4.2.2 Monitoring....................................................19-191 19.4.2.3 Noise ..........................................................19-193 iii

" NW M
  • ".."""NORTHWEST MEDICAL IS0TOPES Chapter 19. - niomna Review 19.4.3 Geologic Environment ....................................................19-195 19.4.3.1 Soils and Bedrock............................................19-195 19.4.3.2 Large-Scale Geologic Hazards .............................19-196 19.4.4 Water Resources............................................................19-196 19.4.4.1 Surface Water.................................................19-196 19.4.4.2 Groundwater..................................................19-197 19.4.4.3 Monitoring....................................................19-198 19.4.5 Ecological Resources......................................................19-198 19.4.5.1 Impacts of Construction .....................................19-198 19.4.5.2 Impacts of Operation.........................................19-199 19.4.5.3 Impacts of Decommissioning...............................19-199 19.4.5.4 Monitoring....................................................19-199 19.4.6 Historical and Cultural Resources ........................................19-199 19.4.7 Socioeconomics ............................................................19-200 19.4.7.1 Population ....................................................19-200 19.4.7.2 Housing .......................................................19-202 19.4.7.3 Public Services ...............................................19-202 19.4.7.4 Public Education .............................................19-203 19.4.7.5 Tax Revenues.................................................19-203 19.4.7.6 Transportation ................................................19-204 19.4.8 Human Health..............................................................19-205 19.4.8.1 Nonradiological Impacts.....................................19-205 19.4.8.2 Radiological Impacts ........................................ 19-2 10 19.4.8.3 Radiological Impacts During Decommissioning.......... 19-2 12 19.4.8.4 Radiological Monitoring Program.......................... 19-2 12 19.4.9 Waste Management........................................................19-216 19.4.10 Transportation.............................................................. 19-2 16 19.4.10.1 Transportation Mode and Projected Distances ............19-217 19.4.10.2 Incident-Free Radiological Dose ........................... 19-2 18 19.4.11 Postulated Accidents.......................................................19-224 19.4.11.1 Accident Categories..........................................19-225 19.4.11.2 Postulated Accident Impacts ................................19-230 19.4.12 Environmental Justice .....................................................19-230 19.4.12.1 Methodology .................................................19-231 19.4.12.2 Minority Population..........................................19-232 19.4.12.3 Household Income ...........................................19-232 19.4.12.4 Assessment of Disproportionate Impacts ..................19-232 19.4.13 Connected Actions - University Reactor Network .....................19-234 19.4.13.1 Irradiation Services ..........................................19-234 19.4.13.2 Transportation ................................................19-239 19.4.13.3 Waste Management ..........................................19-239 19.4.14 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................19-240 19.4.14.1 Methodology..................................................19-240 19.4.14.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects........................................................ 19-24 1 19.4.14.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts ..........................19-259 iv
  • .N V INWMI-03-2IRe.O MEDCALChapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.5 Alternatives ..........................................................................19-263 19.5.1 The No-Action Alternative ...............................................19-263 19.5.2 Reasonable Alternatives...................................................19-263 19.5.2.1 Site Alternatives..............................................19-263 19.5.2.2 Screening .......................................................19-264 19.5.2.3 University of Missouri Research Reactor Site Evaluation ....................................................19-267 19.5.2.4 Process Alternatives..........................................19-271 19.5.3 Cost-Benefit of the Alternatives ..........................................19-273 19.5.4 Comparison of the Potential Environmental Impacts...................19-277 19.6 Conclusions ..........................................................................19-279 19.6.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action ......................................................................19-279 19.6.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts of Construction ..................................................19-279 19.6.1.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts of Operations .................................................... 19-28 1 19.6.2 Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the Environment.........................................19-284 19.6.2.1 Construction of the Radioisotope Production Facility and Long-Term Productivity ................................19-284 19.6.2.2 Operation of the Radioisotope Production Facility and Long-Term Productivity.....................................19-285 19.6.2.3 Summary of the Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity ................................19-285 19.6.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Used to Support the Proposed Action ............................................19-286 19.6.3.1 Irreversible Environmental Commitments of Resources.19-286 19.7 References............................................................................19-288 APPENDICES Appendix A - Consultation Letters.................................................................... A-i Appendix B - Missouri State Historic Preservation Office Consultation Letter and Response ........................................................................... B-i v

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

  • e.*.NRHWESMDICOOPE Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review FIGURES Figure 19-1. General Molybdenum-99 Process Flow and Distribution ..................... 19-3 Figure 19-2. Historical Timeline of U.S. and Worldwide Molybdenum-99 Production Industry.......................................... 19-6 Figure 19-3. Overview of Current Molybdenum-99 Worldwide Process................... 19-7 Figure 19-4. 200 km (124-mi) Radius with Cities and Roads .............................. 19-26 Figure 19-5. Illustration of 8 km (5-mi) Radius from the Center of the Facility.......... 19-27 Figure 19-6. Radioisotope Production Facility Site Boundary ............................. 19-30 Figure 19-7. Radioisotope Production Facility Site Layout ................................ 19-32 Figure 19-8. General Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility..................... 19-33 Figure 19-9. Preliminary Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility First Level Floor Plan......................................................................... 19-34 Figure 19-10. Preliminary Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility Second Level Floor Plan ................................................................. 19-35 Figure 19-11. Radioisotope Production Facility Hot Cell Details ........................... 19-36 Figure 19-12. Radioisotope Production Facility Block Flow Diagram ..................... 19-37 Figure 19-13. First-Level Confinement of the Radioisotope Production Facility.......... 19-45 Figure 19-14. Layout of Discovery Ridge Research Park Showing Lot 15, the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site.............................. 19-58 Figure 19-15. Land Use and Cover within the 8 km (5 mi) Region of Influence of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site.............................. 19-62 Figure 19-16. Special Land Use within the Region of Influence of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site ......................................... 19-63 Figure 19-17. September 2013 Visual Reconnaissance Photo Locations ................... 19-67 Figure 19-18. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Intersection of Rolling Hills and Bass Roads, Photo Location #1........... 19-68 Figure 19-19. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Gans Road, approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) North Photo Location #2 .............. 19-68 Figure 19-20. Direct View of Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Discovery Parkway near the Overpass, Photo Location #3 .............................. 19-69 Figure 19-2 1. View of Radioisotope Production Facility Site from the North Edge of Perry Phillips Lake, Photo Location #4 ....................................... 19-69 Figure 19-22. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Boys and Girls Town of Missouri, Photo Location #5 .................................. 19-70 Figure 19-23. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from S. Lenoir and Roosevelt Avenue, Photo Location #6.................................... 19-70 Figure 19-24. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Intersection of New Haven and Rolling Hills Roads, Photo Location #7 .. 19-71 Figure 19-25. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Route WW at Old Hawthorne, Photo Location #8 ........................... 19-71 vi

NWI Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA

- Environmental Review Figure 19-26. Wind Rose from South Farm, 2000-2010 (University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station)............................................... 19-80 Figure 19-27. Wind Rose from Automatic Weather Station, Columbia, Missouri, 2007-2012 (Western Regional Climate Center)............................... 19-81 Figure 19-28. Geologic Features within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site ......................................................... 19-90 Figure 19-29. Map of Missouri Quaternary Age Geology ................................... 19-9 1 Figure 19-30. Soil Map within a 1.6 km (1-mi) Radius of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site ......................................................... 19-94 Figure 19-31. Map Showing U.S. Department of Agriculture Prime Farmland ............. 19-97 Figure 19-32. Geologic Faults Map...........................................................19-101 Figure 19-33. Hazard Mitigation Map........................................................19-105 Figure 19-34. Streams of Southern Boone County, Missouri...............................19-110 Figure 19-35. Map Showing Bonne Femme Watershed ....................................19-111 Figure 19-36. lInpaired Streams Map......................................................... 19-1 16 Figure 19-37. Aquifer Map ....................................................................19-119 Figure 19-38. Region of Influence in Relation to Ecoregions and Subregions ...........19-133 Figure 19-39. Wetlands Map ..................................................................19-135 Figure 19-40. Archeology and Survey Layers Map in Relation to the Radioisotope Production Facility Site ........................................................19-150 Figure 19-41. Sensitive Receptors ............................................................19-164 Figure 19-42. Radioisotope Production Facility Visualization.............................19-176 Figure 19-43. Research and Diagnostic Laboratory Facility Located at Discovery Ridge ............................................................................19-176 Figure 19-44. ABC Laboratories Facility Located at Discovery Ridge ...................19-177 Figure 19-45. Stack Potentially Visible Areas ...............................................19-178 Figure 19-46. Location of On-site Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeters and Continuous Air Monitors...................................................... 19-2 15 Figure 19-47. Molybdenum-98 Bombarded with Neutrons to Form Molybdenum-99...19-272 Figure 19-48. Molybdenum-100 High Energy Reactions to Form Molybdenum-99 ....19-272 vii

NWI P.

O

,NRTCWESI MWCALISOTOPE$

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review TABLES Table 19-1. De Minimis Emission Levels of 10 CSR 10-6.020(3)(A).................... 19-11 Table 19-2. Emission Levels of Common Air Pollutants .................................. 19-11 Table 19-3. Required Stream Buffer Width, Identified by Stream Type ................. 19-16 Table 19-4. Regulatory Compliance Status (4 pages)...................................... 19-17 Table 19-5. Consultation Required for Construction and Operation Status (2 pages) ... 19-2 1 Table 19-6. Resources Required During Radioisotope Production Facility Phases .... 19-24 Table 19-7. Estimated Materials Consumed During Construction Phase ................ 19-25 Table 19-8. Northwest Medical Isotopes Ownership Summary ........................... 19-25 Table 19-9. Sensitive Populations (2 pages) ................................................ 19-28 Table 19-10. Facility Areas and Respective Confinement Zones .......................... 19-44 Table 19-11. Radioisotope Production Facility Water Flow Rates and Consumption Information ....................................................................... 19-48 Table 19-12. Liquid Waste Produced Annually from the Radioisotope Production Facility............................................................................ 19-50 Table 19-13. Solid Waste Produced at the Radioisotope Production Facility ............. 19-50 Table 19-14. Summary of Radioactive Materials and Wastes Required or Generated at the Radioisotope Production Facility for Ongoing Operations ........... 19-57 Table 19-15. U.S. Geological Survey Land Use Categories for the 8 km (5-mi)

Region of Influence Surrounding the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility .............................................................. 19-6 1 Table 19-16. Discovery Ridge Viewshed ..................................................... 19-66 Table 19-17. Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart............................... 19-73 Table 19-18. Scenic Quality Rating, by View................................................ 19-74 Table 19-19. Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Temperature Summary, 1969-2012............................................ 19-76 Table 19-20. Columbia, Missouri, Five-Year Temperature Summary, 2008-20 12 ..... 19-77 Table 19-21. Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Precipitation Summary, 1969-2012............................................ 19-78 Table 19-22. Relative Humidity Data for Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012............... 19-78 Table 19-23. Mean Wind Speed for Columbia, Missouri, from 2008-20 12 .............. 19-79 Table 19-24. Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scales Used to Determine Tornado Intensity........................................................................... 19-82 Table 19-25. Listing of Severe Weather Events from 1950 to 2010 within an 80 km (50-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site................ 19-82 Table 19-26. Summary of Notable Storm Events In and Near the Region of Influence, Recorded from 1996 to 2013....................................... 19-83 Table 19-27. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable in Missouri........... 19-84 Table 19-28. Description of Soil Type, Mexico Silt Loam, 1-4 percent Slopes, Eroded ............................................................................ 19-95 viii

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWM I Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-29. Site Soil Chemical Characteristics for Boone County, Missouri............ 19-96 Table 19-30. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance .................... 19-98 Table 19-3 1. Plasticity and Liquid Limit Testing ............................................ 19-99 Table 19-32. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (3 pages) ..........................19-102 Table 19-33. Projected Earthquake Hazards for Boone County...........................19-106 Table 19-34. General Stream Water Properties by Site (2 pages).........................19-112 Table 19-35. Average Fecal Coliform and E. coli Concentrations........................19-114 Table 19-36. State-Regulated Facility ....................................................... 19-12 1 Table 19-37. Water Use in Boone County, 2000 ...........................................19-123 Table 19-38. Missouri Dam Report, by County ............................................19-124 Table 19-39. Major Surface Water Pollution Sources in Missouri Classified Waters...19-126 Table 19-40. Major Contaminants in Missouri Classified Waters ........................19-127 Table 19-41. Missouri Waters Protected for Various Uses ................................19-128 Table 19-42. Major Sources of Groundwater Contamination in Missouri................19-129 Table 19-43. Missouri Department of Natural Resources Missouri Groundwater Contamination Summary......................................................19-130 Table 19-44. Federal and State Listed Endangered/Threatened, or Species of Special Concern ................................................................19-141 Table 19-45. Boone County Listings on the National Register of Historic Places (3 pages).........................................................................19-153 Table 19-46. Population Growth in Boone County from 1960 (Estimated) through 2030..............................................................................19-157 Table 19-47. Public Schools and Enrollment within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site.............................19-159 Table 19-48. Traffic Volume on Local Road Systems .....................................19-159 Table 19-49. Parks within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site .....................................................................19-162 Table 19-50. Total Personnel Dose to University of Missouri Research Reactor Facility Employees.............................................................19-170 Table 19-5 1. Activity Parameters for Earth Moving .......................................19-182 Table 19-52. PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emission Factors for Earth-Moving Activities During Construction............................................................19-182 Table 19-53. Annual PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emissions from Earth-Moving Activities During Construction............................................................19-183 Table 19-54. Annual PM-10 and PM-2.5 Emissions from Wind Erosion of Bare Ground ..........................................................................19-183 Table 19-55. Total PM-b1 and PM-2.5 Emissions from Construction ...................19-183 Table 19-56. Total Mileage Estimates for On-Road Vehicles.............................19-184 Table 19-57. On-Road Vehicle Emissions (During Construction) ........................19-185 Table 19-58. Air Pollutant Emissions Factors for Off-Road Construction Equipment.19-186 ix

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA

  • I.;,. NWRrNISME[LISOE Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Table 19-59. Anticipated Gaseous Effluents and Their Associated Air Quality Parameters for Construction...................................................19-186 Table 19-60. Emissions for Standby Emergency Diesel Generator.......................19-188 Table 19-61. Natural Gas-Fired Boiler Total Annual Emissions..........................19-189 Table 19-62. AERSCREEN Model Total Annual Emissions .............................19-189 Table 19-63. Vehicle Emissions During Operations .......................................19-190 Table 19-64. Expected Green House Gas Emissions from Radioisotope Production Facility Project .................................................................19-192 Table 19-65. Workforce Required for Construction........................................19-201 Table 19-66. Workforce Required for Operations ..........................................19-201 Table 19-67. Estimated Annual Tax Payments .............................................19-204 Table 19-68. Chemical Inventory for the Radioisotope Production Facility.............19-207 Table 19-69. General Route Information....................................................19-219 Table 19-70. Route Segment Information...................................................19-220 Table 19-71. Unirradiated Target Shipment Source Term.................................19-221 Table 19-72. Irradiated Targets for Oregon State University and Third Reactor Radiological Characteristics...................................................19-221 Table 19-73. Irradiated Targets for University of Missouri Research Reactor Radiological Characteristics...................................................19-222 Table 19-74. Low-Enriched Uranium Radiological Characteristics ......................19-223 Table 19-75. Estimated Waste Radiological Characteristics...............................19-223 Table 19-76. Molybdenum-99 Product Radiological Characteristics.....................19-223 Table 19-77. Chemical Dose Analysis Results .............................................19-230 Table 19-78. Percent Population Distribution by Race..................................... 19-23 3 Table 19-79. Estimated Household Income Within Various Distance Bands and Within State and County (2 pages) ...........................................19-233 Table 19-80. Annual Occupational Dose Summary for MURR Reactor Operations Group (typically 28 people badged within the group) ......................19-236 Table 19-81. Annual Occupational Dose Sunmmary for MURR Reactor Health Physics Group (typically 8 people badged within the group) .............. 19-23 6 Table 19-82. Annual Occupational Dose Summary for the Shipping Group (typically 8 people badged within the group)............................................19-236 Table 19-83. Summation of the Annual Dose Equivalent for the MURR Environmental Thermoluminescent Dosimeters.............................19-237 Table 19-84. Annual Summary of Occupational Doses Received at the Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor....................................................19-238 Table 19-85. Total Annual Dose Equivalent Measured at the Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor Fence Line...................................................19-239 Table 19-86. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (19 pages) ....19-241 Table 19-87. Summary of Site-Specific Scoring Criteria (2 pages).......................19-264 x

NWI Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

- Environmental Review Table 19-88. Evaluation of Alternative Sites ...............................................19-266 Table 19-89. Cost-Benefit Summary of the Alternatives (4 pages).......................19-273 Table 19-90. Comparison of the Potential Construction Impacts of the Discovery Ridge Site and Alternatives....................................................19-277 Table 19-9 1. Comparison of the Potential Operational Impacts of the Discovery Ridge Site and Alternatives....................................................19-278 Table 19-92. Construction-Related Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts (2 pages).........................................................................19-279 Table 19-93. Operations-Related Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts (3 pages).........................................................................19-282 xi

. W I Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

- Environmental Review TERMS Acronyms and Abbreviations 41 7Be Ar argon-4 1 beryllium-7 14 C carbon- 14 cesium- 137 1311 iodine- 13 1 132I iodine- 132 potassium-40 98 Mo molybdenum-98 99 Mo molybdenum-99

'OOMo molybdenum-l100 63 Ni nickel-63 palladium-i 112 lO6 Rh rhodium- 106 99 Tc technetium-99 99 m~Tc technetium-99m tellurium- 132 235 U uranium-235 237U uranium-237 238 U uranium-23 8 133 Xe xenon- 133 ABC Laboratories Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc.

A.D. Anno Domini ADUN acid-deficient uranyl nitrate AECL Atomic Energy of Canada. Ltd AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level ALARA as low as reasonably achievable ANSTO Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization B.C. Before Christ BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice BRR BEA Research Reactor BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes CAM continuous air monitor CATSO Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNSC Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission CO carbon monoxide CO 2_ carbon dioxide COLT Columbia Terminal CSR Code of State Regulations CWA Clean Water Act DBA design basis accident DEQ Division of Environmental Quality Discovery Ridge Discovery Ridge Research Park xii

NWM I NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review DOA Department of Administration DoD U.S. Department of Defense DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EF scale enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act ER environmental review ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline F scale (original) Fujita tornado intensity scale FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report GCRA Gans Creek Recreation Area GHG greenhouse gas GIS Geographical Information System HAP hazardous air pollutant HEPA high-efficiency particulate air HEU high-enriched uranium HFR High-Flux Reactor HIC high-integrity container HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning HWMC Hazardous Waste Management Commission ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry IPaC information, planning, and conservation IRE Institute of Radioelements IRU iodine retention unit IX ion exchange Kr krypton LEU low-enriched uranium LLMW low-level mixed waste LLC limited-liability company LQG large-quantity generator LUST leaking underground storage tank Mallinckrodt Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

MAR material at risk MDC Missouri Department of Conservation MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources MHA maximum hypothetical accident MHP mobile home park MIDUS Medical Isotope Depleted Uranium Shielded MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity MMRPC Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission MNRC McClellan Nuclear Research Center MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation MOI maximally exposed off-site individual MU University of Missouri MURR University of Missouri Research Reactor NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAS National Academy of Sciences NEPA National Environmental Policy Act xiii

lviChptr NOEW.ETMEIA iSOOE hpe 9.0NWM,-2013-021,

-Environmental Rev.

Review 0A NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NMSZ New Madrid Seismic Zone NO 2 nitrogen dioxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOx nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priority List NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRU National Research Universal NSR new source review NWMI Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 03 ozone OPAL Open Pool Australian Lightwater ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSTR Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor OSU Oregon State University PAC Protective Action Criteria PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon Pb lead PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCCE private common collector elimination PM particulate matter PM-2.5 particulate matter, 2.5 micron PM-b1 particulate matter, 10 micron PPE personal protective equipment PSAR preliminary safety analysis report PTE potential to emit QA quality assurance RADIL Research and Diagnostic Laboratory RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROI region of influence RPF radioisotope production facility RSAC Radiological Safety Analysis Code SAFARI-b South African Fundamental Reactor Installation 1 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SHWF State hazardous waste facility SLA street light addition SMART Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique SO 2 sulfur dioxide SOx sulfur oxides SPCC spill prevention, control, and countermeasure SRS Savannah River Site SVOA semivolatile organic analyte SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan TDD Transportation Development District TDS total dissolved solid TEEL Temporary Emergency Exposure Limit Terracon Terracon Consultants, Inc.

xiv

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter TMDL total maximum daily load TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon U uranium UC Davis University of California at Davis Union Carbide Union Carbide Nuclear Corporation UO2 uranium dioxide U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VKM vehicle kilometer traveled VMT vehicle miles traveled VOA volatile organic analyte VOC volatile organic compound WCS Waste Control Specialists WNA World Nuclear Association WWTP wastewater treatment plant Xe xenon Units

°C degrees Celsius 0F degrees Fahrenheit micron microgram microsiemens b barn Ci curie cm centimeter cm2 cubic centimeters dB decibel dBa A-weighted decibel ft feet ft2 square feet ft3 cubic feet g gram gal gallon ha hectare hr hour in. inch kg kilogram km kilometer km 2 square kilometers kn knots kV kilovolt kW kilowatt L liter lb pound m meter square meter XV

l:Chptr MEDCAL.SO.PA Captr 9.0 -Environmental Rev.

NWMII**-20o3-02, oA Review m3 cubic meter mCi millicurie mEq milliequivalent mg milligram Mgal million gallons mi mile ml- square mile min minute mL milliliter ML million liters mmho millimho mR milliroentgen mrem millirem mSv millisievert MT metric ton MW megawatt MWD megawatt days NTU nephelometric turbidity unit oz ounce pCi picocurie ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million sec second Sv sievert t tonne (metric) wt% weight percent yd3 cubic yard yr year xvi

Chapter NWM,-2013-021, Rev. 0A IIVYChVpter19.0 - Environmental Review 19.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

19.1 INTRODUCTION

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

Part 50 (10 CFR 50), "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." Embedded in the 10 CFR 50-licensed facility will be several activities subject to 10 CFR 70, "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material," to receive, possess, use, and transfer special nuclear material and 10 CFR 30.

"Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material," to process and transport molybdenum-99 ( 99M0) for medical applications.

NWMI intends to submit a single 10 CFR 50 license application for the radioisotope production facility (RPF) following the guidance in NUREG- 1537, Guidelinesfor Preparingand Reviewing Applicationsfor the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors - Formatand Content, that encompasses activities regulated under different NRC requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 70 and 10 CFR 30.), in accordance with 10 CFR 50.3 I, "Combining Applications." and 10 CFR 50.32, "Elinmination of Repetition.'"

The NRC has determined that a radioisotope separation and processing facility, which also conducts separation of special nuclear material, will be considered a production facility and as such, will be subject to licensing under 10 CFR 50. A significant portion of the NWMI RPF is focused on the disassembly of irradiated low-enriched uranium (LEU) targets, separation and purification of fission product 99Mo, and the recycle of LEU that is licensed under 10 CFR 50. The RPF will also include the fabrication of LEU targets, which will be licensed under 10 CFR 70. These targets will be shipped to NWMI's network of research or test reactors for irradiation (.considered a connected action) and returned to the RPF for processing. The LEU used for the production of the LEU target materials will be obtained from the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) and from LEU reclaimed from processing the irradiated targets.

NWMI's licensing approach for the RPF defines the following unit processes and areas that fall under the following NRC regulations:

10 CFR 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities"

- Irradiated LEU Target receipt (from network of university research or test reactors)

- Irradiated LEU Target disassembly and dissolution

- Mo recovery and purification

- Uranium recovery and recycle

- Waste management

- Associated laboratory and support areas

- Receipt of fresh LEU (from DOE)

- LEU target fabrication

- Associated laboratory and support areas Any byproduct materials produced or extracted in the RPF will be licensed under 10 CFR 30.

19-1

NW lviChptr MI Cate 9.0NWM,-2013-021,

-Environmental Rev. 0A Review Introduction In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50 and supporting guidance, NWMI is providing this Applicant's Environmental Report - Construction Permit Stage (ER) in support of an application to construct and operate an RPF at Discovery Ridge Research Park (Discovery Ridge) in Columbia, Missouri. This ER is consistent with the content and organization of NRC-201 1-0135, FinalInterim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, "Guidelinesfor Preparingand Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors," Parts 1 and 2, for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilitiesand Homogeneou~s Reactors (NRC, 2012a), Chapter 19.

The ER supports the regulatory review that is performed by the NRC under 10 CFR 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Review," which requires that environmental impacts from the project be evaluated and described in a concise, clear, and analytical manner. This document also provides information for the NRC to conducts its environmental review in accordance with 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, "National Environmental Policy Act - Regulations Implementing Section 102 (2)."

This ER addresses the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) actions needed to support activities that will be provisions incorporated in the requested 10 CFR 50 license, including certain activities regulated under 10 CFR 70 and 10 CFR 30.

An overview of the assessment of the environmental effects of construction, operation, and decommissioning of the RPF on the site and surrounding areas is provided in the ER. The document is structured as follows:

  • Section 19.1 presents the purpose and need of the proposed action, and the regulatory provisions, permits, and required consultations.
  • Section 19.2 presents the proposed action. This section includes the proposed site location and layout; facility description; process description; operations and systems descriptions; water consumption and treatment; cooling and heat dissipating systems; waste systems, storage, and treatment; and transport of the radioactive and nonradioactive materials, and the schedule associated with the major phases of the project.
  • Section 19.3 presents the affected environment. This section describes existing conditions at the site of the proposed action and serves as the baseline to measure changes in the affected environment caused by the proposed action. Resources applicable to the scope of the action are presented and include land use, visual resources, air quality, meteorology, noise, geologic environment, water resources, ecological resources, historical and cultural resources, socioeconomics, and human health.
  • Section 19.4 presents the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects/impacts to the resources described in Section 19.2.1.3 associated with construction, operations, and decommissioning of the proposed action. Data and analyses presented in this section are commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or referenced.

This section also discusses postulated accidents and environmental justice.

  • Section 19.4.13 presents the alternatives and associated costs and benefits. This section discusses the costs and benefits of each alternative and the proposed action, including a qualitative discussion of environmental impacts.
  • Section 19.6 presents the conclusions, which address the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources used to support the proposed action.
  • Section 19.7 provides a list of references cited within this chapter.

19-2

NW MvIihpe  : : Capter19.0NWMI-2013-021,

- Environmental Review Rev. 0A 19.1.1 Purpose and Need for Action NWMI has formed a team of United States (U.S.) universities and companies to cost-effectively address the need for a domestic 9Mo supply. NWMI intends to provide approximately 50 percent of the 99Mo demand in North America and has developed an approach, including manufacturing and processing, using a "total LEU solution" to be implemented by 2017.

As set forth in Section 19.2.1, the proposed action is the issuance of an NRC license under 10 CFR 50, with provisions for 10 CFR 70 and 10 CFR 30 that would authorize NWMI to construct and operate the RPF for the production of 99Mo at a site located in Columbia, Missouri. Proposed RPF activities include:

  • Producing LEU target materials and fabrication of targets
  • Packaging and shipping LEU targets to the university reactor network for irradiation
  • Returning irradiated LEU targets for dissolution, recovery, and purification of 99Mo
  • Recovering and recycling LEU to minimize radioactive, mixed, and hazardous waste generation
  • Treating/packaging wastes generated by RPF process steps to enable transport to a disposal site For purposes of complying with NEPA requirements, two or more university research reactors are assumed to obtain a license amendment authorized by the NRC to irradiate LEU targets. The ER includes an evaluation of irradiating LEU targets in a reactor. For a specific university research reactor to irradiate LEU targets, 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.

Figure 19-1 illustrates the NWMI's general 99Mo process and distribution flow.

Fresh LEU From DOE Ship Ship Unirradiated Irradiated I t LEUTargets LEUTargets I I I i o r ut I i LE agt I LEU Tagat  ! Irradiated g LEU Target  ! ~ PtdC Product Ship geo Medcal FEU Targett Target Receipt ! Mattera  ! * !iw Con~on  ! Product to Co unt abia io R~eactor & aaaaelti! Dacldulla I ificaton i &Packaging DIsXbuor

..... . ... Uranium

. .. ..Recyle Figure 19-1. General Molybdenmn-99 Process Flow and Distribution The NWMI process to manufacture 99Mo is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

No direct approvals from the FDA to manufacture 99Mo for commercial use at the RPF will be needed.

However, each pharmaceutical distributer of Technetium-99m (99r11Tc) generators desiring to purchase 99Mo from NWMI may need to seek FDA approval of NWMI as a manufacturer of the 99Mo used in the 99 manufacturer's mTc generators.

19.1.1.1 Background 99 mTc is used for over 40 million nuclear medicine procedures annually. The characteristics of 99mTC allow high quality images with low radiation exposure to patients. 99nTc is very versatile for attaching to different chemical substances used to target different organs and diseases, as required by different diagnostic procedures. The two most widely used 99mTc-based procedures are for imaging blood flow to heart muscles (e.g., myocardial perfusion imaging) and mapping the spread of cancer to bones (e.g.,

skeletal metastases imaging).

19-3

lviChptr 9.0 -Environmental Review The medical use of 99 m~Tc has grown significantly since the early 1990s and is expected to have a moderate overall growth of 3-5 percent per year, with stronger growth in countries expanding healthcare programs (NAS, 2009).

Due to the short half-life of 9 9 nrTc of about 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> (hr), its parent isotope, 99Mo, which has a 66-hr half-life, is the key supply chain product. 99Mo is produced by bombarding uranium-235 (235U) targets with neutrons from a nuclear reactor, with the resulting fission reaction producing 99Mo and more than 250 other isotopes. After irradiation, targets are transferred to a processing facility and go through a number of extract and purification steps to produce 99Mo. From the processing facility, the 99M0 is shipped to radiopharmaceutical distributors (e.g., Lantheus Medical Imaging, Mal linckrodt Pharmaceuticals (Mallinckrodt), and GE Healthcare). The distributors then purify to FDA standards and package the 99Mo in a radionuclide generator. This generator is called a 99 mTc Generator Kit or "moly cow." The packaged kit is then shipped to nuclear pharmacies to be prepared for individual patient administration. Due to the short half-life, the 99Mo must be efficiently processed and distributed.

The nuclear pharmacy uses the generator to facilitate the decay process from 99Mo to 99mTc, extract the 99 mTC doses, and bind the doses to compounds specific for an individual test needs. The 99 mTTc-compounded drug is then injected into the patient for various diagnostic-scanning purposes. This entire process usually takes place within six to nine days.

19.1.1.2 Molybedum-99 History Beginning with the discovery of the 99mTc isotope by Emilio Segr* and Glenn Seaborg in 1938, the relationship between 99Mo and 99 mWTCwas clearly evident. As an observable fission product of 235U in one of Segr*'s later experiments, 99Mo, having a half-life of about 66 hr, was observed emitting beta particles in its progression to a more stable state. In 1958, Walter Tucker and Margaret Green, two scientists under the direction of Powell Richards at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, hypothesized, based on their work with iodine-132 (132I) and tellurium-132 (' 32Te), that a "generator" could be developed using 99Mo to produce 99mTc. In 1960, Richards became the first to suggest using 99mTc as a medical radionuclide tracer.

Benefitting from advancements in gamma camera technology, the production and medical use of 99mTc grew rapidly in the 1960s. Nuclear Consultants, Inc. and Union Carbide Nuclear Corporation (Union Carbide) began to manufacture commercial 99 mlTc generators. Mallinckrodt first undertook the production of 99Mo using the research reactor at the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR); however, the size and flux capacity of the MURR reactor was insufficient to sustain a constant supply, and production of the isotope was stopped in the early 1980s. From 1968 to 1972, Union Carbide successfully developed a process using high-enriched uranium (HEU) targets at its Cintichem Facility in Tuxedo, New York, which permitted easy separation of the products of the fission process, thus, beginning domestic 99Mo production in 1980.

Separating from Union Carbide, Cintichem Inc. became the sole producer of domestic 99Mo during the 1980s.

International production began in the same timeframe (e.g., Canada and Australia). A balance within the production-supply chain soon existed between the U.S., Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, and Australian production facilities, each having a share in the market and working collaboratively to help fill shortages created by a number of varying effects, including maintenance, inspection, and plant modifications.

In 1989, the Cintichem Facility had an underground leak of radioactive products that affected the surrounding environment. Due to this release, the surrounding community pressured the New York State government to have the Cintichem Facility cease production of 99Mo. In May 1990, the Cintichem Facility closed and filed for decommissioning of its 99Mo production facility, essentially shifting all production to Canada and Europe.

19-4

--.'- Chptr1MII-03-2,Rev. O Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review
    • ',. "NOAI"EWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES During the same timeframe, the use of 99mTc in diagnostic scanning continued to grow. In compliance with national regulatory agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency recommendations, six reactor facilities sustain the HEU production supply:
  • National Research Universal (NRU), Ontario, Canada
  • High-Flux Reactor (HFR), Petten, Netherlands
  • Belgian Reactor 2 (BR2), Mol, Belgium
  • OSIRIS, near Paris, France
  • MARIA, near Warsaw, Poland
  • South African Fundamental Reactor Installation 1 (SAFARI-I), Pelindaba, South Africa Two reactor facilities sustain the regional LEU production supply: Open Pool Australian Lightwater Reactor (OPAL, South Sydney, Australia) and RA-3 (Buenos Aires, Argentina). With a relatively constant supply and demand using all of the production facilities, the industry was able to produce the quantity of 99Mo needed to fill generator orders from nuclear pharmacies all over the world. However, as these production facilities began to age, additional maintenance and facility improvements became inevitable, requiring temporary shutdowns for individual production facilities.

The first significant worldwide shortage came in November 2007, when the NRU reactor was shutdown for about month for routine maintenance. While the reactor was offline for repairs, the managing agency (Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd [AECL]) decided to install an additional seismically qualified emergency power system for the two cooling pumps in the reactor, as required by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) operating license (amended in 2006). Instead of allowing for full inspections and testing of the new pumps, the Canadian House of Commons passed emergency legislation, without the consent of the CNSC, to restart NRU for commercial production with only one of the two seismic connections complete. With a 120-day grace period of operation issued by the Canadian House of Commons, NRU completed the second seismic connection in February 2008.

The most significant impact on 99Mo production began in 2009, when the NRU reactor was shutdown during an unplanned shutdown of the HFR. ln May 2009, a small heavy water leak was detected in the NRU reactor. While originally seen as a routine production stoppage, because of new regulations passed in January 2009, all operating reactors had to undergo intensive design reviews to comply with new safety standards to obtain a license renewal from the CNSC for commercial isotope production. Compliance with the new regulations consequently evolved from an anticipated 90-day renovation into a 17-month complete restructuring and redesign of the reactor and facility. With two-fifths of the world's 99Mo supply facilities rendered inoperative for that period, production shifted to the Netherlands and other 99Mo production sites.

As with the Canadian plant, the plant in the Netherlands faced renewal of its license in May 2010. With the supply of 99Mo already depleted, the closing of the Dutch production plant placed a heavy strain on the worldwide production of 99Mo. Nearly two-thirds of the production supply of 99Mo for medical applications went offline for about six months. While the market did cope with the severe shortages by shifting production to other facilities and finding new ways to produce 99mlTc through other isotope decay, the worldwide shortage exposed the large variability and fragility within the production process.

The National Research Council (NAS, 2009) documented the history of the development of the 99 Mo international isotope production industry and the U.S. role. This history is summarized in Figure 19-2.

The report identified 99Mo production before 2009.

19-5

N

.::.;;i;. ......... lvi.i hpe hpe 19.0NWMI-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev. GA Review 1980s 2007 US Cintichem (NY) Facility 1" major shutdown -

Early 1960s Becomes Sole Producer; Canadian NRU site 1940: Commercial Controls Majority of (40%wolwd vvTc first Development in Worldwide Market supply) closes for

  • rdiscovered *r Sand Worldwide .....-...... maintenance -, .\

14s I O11 s I SO1 s I f197Os I 11 I I I 9 ' ........ ,r.....J *r1989 20092010 First ve*Tc 1970s Cintichem facility 2 *d major closing of Canadian generator Commercial Efforts detects cooling NRU site due to heavy water leak proposed Grow Worldwide water leak; closes (closure 17 months); Petten also (eg., Petten Constructed) in 1990 and all closes due to safety concems -

production shifts 66% of world supply offline for internationally 6 months (Feb. 2010-Aug.2010)

Figure 19-2. Historical Timeline of U.S. and Worldwide Molybdenum-99 Production Industry 19.1.1.3 Molybdenum Today There are currently no domestic suppliers of 99Mo. The U.S. supply chain structure includes six major reactors, four major processors, and two U.S. generator manufacturers. The irradiators, all using HEU targets, are spread across three continents and include: NRU in Canada (operating since 1957), owned by AECL; HFR in the Netherlands (operational since 1961), owned by the Institute of Energy of the Joint Research Center of the European Commission; OSIRIS owned by the French Atomic Energy Commission; BR-2 owned by the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre; MARIA owned by the Polish Institute of Atomic Energy; and SAFARI-i owned by the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa.

Only the OPAL reactor in Australia, owned by Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, and the RA-3 reactor in Argentina, owned by lINVAP S.E., currently produce 99Mo from LEU.

The HEU processors include Nordion Inc. in Canada, National Institute of Radioelements (IRE) in Belgium, Mallinckrodt (previously known as Covidien) in the Netherlands, and NTP Radioisotopes SOC Ltd, a subsidiary of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation. The LEU processors include the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO) and INVAP S.E. The current U.S.

radiopharmaceutical distributors manufacture the 99~ generator kits and distribute them to hospitals and clinics. ANSTO is the only LEU 99Mo producer that provides 99Mo in very small quantities to the U.S.

through Lantheus Medical Imaging.

The entire reactor network is currently operating at or near capacity. Any unscheduled maintenance or other production disruption immediately translates into a supply disruption. Reliance on such a limited and aging resource results in an extremely delicate supply chain, the vulnerability of which was highlighted late in 2009 when an extended shutdown of the NRU reactor led to a critical 99Mo shortage in North America, and the shutdown of the HFR reactor in August 2008 and November 2013 to the present has caused 99Mo shortages in North America and Europe.

An estimated 40-50 kilograms (kg) (107-134 pounds [lb]) of HEU are used per year for the production of 99Mo worldwide. In the past several years, nuclear non-proliferation and security concerns have led to increased worldwide pressure to mandate migration of HEU targets towards LEU targets by 2016.

Conversion from HEU to LEU targets is both expensive and technically challenging for current producers of 99Mo. This LEU mandate further exacerbates the risk of assured 99Mo supply. Only the OPAL reactor in Australia currently produces 99Mo from LEU. NWMI proposes to replace foreign HEU reactor irradiation with a domestic network of university reactors using LEU targets and a domestic processing facility for the extraction and purification of 99M0.

19-6

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA

  • ",.::::NRTWESMEICAIOD Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Figure 19-3 presents an99overview of the worldwide nuclear reactors and radioisotope production facilities that currently produce Mo.

Physics Chemistry Medicine Step 3: Radiopharmnaceutical Step 4: Radiopharmacies Step 5: Physicians Step 1: Reactor Step 2: "Mo Producers -

Manufacturers - *""Tc Irradiation - Irradiation "Mo purified and then and Hospitals - Unit and Patients - Critical of UO2 targets to shipped to manufacturing generator ("Mo cow) dose compounding and physiological diagnosis produce isotopes facility and distribution to manufacturing and distribution to hospitals enabling informed radiopharmaceutical distribution to nuclearl and clinics therapeutic decisions manufactures radiopharmacies and hospitals HEU Reactors World-Wide HEU North American Primary U.S. Nuclear Hospitals

  • NRU (Canada) - 1957 Processing Facility Distributors Pharmacy Clinics
  • HFR (The Netherlands) -
  • Nordion (Canada)
  • Mallinckrodt CardinalHealth Services 1961
  • HFR (The Netherlands) Pharmaceuticals GE Heatthcare
  • BR2 (Belgium) - 1961
  • IRE (Belgium)
  • Lantheus Medical Imaging Tnad Isotopes
  • MARIA (Poland) - 1974 *NTP (South Africa)
  • GE Healthcare
  • OSIRIS (France) -1966
  • SAFARI-1 (SOuth Africa) - Regional LEU Facility 19655 *ANSTO (Austraia)
  • INVAP (Argentina)

LEU Reactors

  • OPAL (Australia) - 2006
  • RA-3 (Argentina) -1961 2013-021_002r0 Figure 19-3. Overview of Current Molybdenum-99 Worldwide Process 19.1.2 Regulatory Provisions, Permits and Required Consultations In addition to NRC licensing and regulatory requirements, a variety of Federal, State, and local environmental requirements apply to the RPF. Some require construction and operating permits or approvals, and others require facility compliance demonstrations. The following sections summarize the environmental requirements applicable to the RPF by the various regulatory agencies. Permits, approvals, and consultations necessary for RPF construction and operation are identified in Section 19.1.2.7 and Section 19.1.3.

19.1.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary authority for implementing the environmental requirements discussed in the following sections. The state of Missouri is delegated the authority to issue permits on behalf of EPA, and to administer and enforce many of the requirements applicable to the RPF, except for requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (42 U.S.C. Chapter 116 § 11001-11050).

19-7

, ,NDRTHWEST lviChater19.0 MEDICAL ISOTOPIES Chapter NWM,-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev. OA Review 19.1 .2.1.1 Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) establishes regulations to ensure air quality and authorizes individual states to issue and manage air quality permits. The Act requires (1) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the public health, (2) national standards of performance for new or modified stationary sources of atmospheric pollutants, (3) evaluation of specific emission increases for prevention of significant deterioration in air quality, and (4) standards for the releases of hazardous air pollutants, including radionuclides. Implementing regulations include the following:

  • 40 CFR 50, "National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards"
  • 40 CFR 60, "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources"
  • 40 CFR 61, "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants" (NESHAP)
  • 40 CFR 63, "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories" 19.1.2.1.2 Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) requires states to set water quality standards for bodies of water within their boundaries, and directs EPA to regulate stormwater and wastewater discharges per the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. The EPA issues discharge permits under the requirements of 40 CFR 122, "EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System." The permit program controls water pollution by regulating point source discharges of pollutants into U.S. surface waters.

The NPDES construction stormwater program applies to sites with land disturbance of 0.4 hectares (ha)

(1 acre) or more, including smaller sites in a larger common plan of development or sale. The NPDES industrial program applies to 10 categories of industrial activities conducted at facilities. Applicants may apply for either individual or a general NPDES permits. Individual permits are specifically tailored to the individual facility, and general permits cover multiple facilities with a specific category of discharges (e.g., stormwater discharges). NPDES permits specify the control technology applicable to each pollutant, the effluent limitations, and the deadline for compliance.

Wastewater generated from any facility or structure must be disposed through wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Facilities that discharge to a municipal or publically owned treatment works do not have NPDES permits but must meet pretreatment regulations. The pretreatment regulations require industrial users to obtain permits or authorizations and to use pollutant control mechanisms prior to discharging to the publically owned treatment works.

1 9.1 .2.1.3 Safe Drinking Water Act The Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. § 300I1f] et seq.) was enacted in 1974 to establish minimum national standards for public water supply systems. This Act authorizes EPA to set national standards for drinking water; provides guidance, assistance, and public information about drinking water; collects drinking water data; and oversees State drinking water programs. Primary and secondary drinking water regulations and regulations applicable to drinking water systems are identified in 40 CFR 141 and 142, "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation," and 40 CFR 143, "National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations." The EPA and states work together to ensure that these standards are met.

19-8

  • .. :NW MI~f i WM-0321Rev. 0 Chapter 19.0 -Environmental Review 19.1.2.1.4 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) requires EPA to define and identify hazardous waste; establish standards for transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal; and require permits for persons engaged in hazardous waste activities. RCRA regulations are found in 40 CFR 260, "Hazardous Waste Management System: General," through 40 CFR 282, "Approved Underground Storage Tank Programs."

"Mixed waste" is hazardous waste containing radioactive material. This waste is regulated by RCRA and the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.). In 40 CFR 266, "Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities," EPA conditionally exempts low-level mixed waste (LLMW) from the definition of hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261.3, "Definition of Hazardous Waste." The conditional exemption applies to (1) waste generated under a single NRC license that meets certain conditions for management, and (2) stored and treated tanks or containers meeting substantive RCRA requirements. LLMW that meets the applicable treatment standards in 40 CFR 268, "Land Disposal Restrictions," may also be exempt from RCRA transportation and disposal requirements.

19.1.2.1.5 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act The EPCRA establishes the requirements for Federal, State, and local governments; Indian Tribes; and industry regarding emergency planning and community right-to-know reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The EPCRA is implemented by:

  • 40 CFR 355, "Emergency Planning and Notification"
  • 40 CFR 370, "Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right-To-Know"
  • 40 CFR 372, "Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-To-Know"
  • 40 CFR 373, "Reporting Hazardous Substance Activity When Selling or Transferring Federal Real Property" EPCRA requires a submission of: (1) a list of hazardous chemicals present at the facility in excess of 10,000 lb for which material safety data sheets are required, (2) an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form (Tier II Form) identifying the inventory of hazardous chemicals present during the preceding year, and (3) notification to the State Emergency Response Commission and the local Emergency Planning Committee of any accidental releases of hazardous chemicals in excess of reportable quantities.

The list of hazardous chemicals and the Tier II Form are submitted to regional fire departments. Facilities also must submit a toxic chemical release report to the EPA and the resident state if toxic chemicals are used at the facility in excess of established threshold amounts.

19.1.2.2 U.S. Department of Transportation The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (49 U.S.C. §§ 5 101-5127) regulates transportation of hazardous material in and between states. States may regulate the transportation of hazardous materials as long as the State requirements are consistent with the Act or U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. DOT regulations of interest to this action include the following:

  • 49 CFR 107, "Hazardous Materials Program Procedures," Subpart G, "Registration and fee to DOT as a person who offers or transports hazardous materials"
  • 49 CFR 171, "General Information, Regulations, and Definitions"
  • 49 CFR 172, "Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements and Security Plans" 19-9

N MEIA NORTHCEapteri19.0 ISOOE hpe NWI212,Rev. O

- Environmental Review

  • 49 CFR 173, "Shippers - General Requirements for Shipments and Packages"
  • 49 CFR 175, "Carriage by Aircraft"
  • 49 CFR 177, "Carriage by Public Highway" 19.1.2.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Both the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly administer Section 404 of the CWA, which requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. The requirements for Section 404 permits are identified in 40 CFR Subpart 230.404(b)(I), "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material." States are responsible for issuing Section 401 certifications for NPDES and Section 404 permits that certify the permitted activity complies with all applicable State water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions.

19.1.2.4 Occupational Safety and Health Administration The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. §§ 657-658) is designed to increase the safety of workers in the workplace. The Act stipulates that the U.S. Department of Labor is expected to recognize the dangers that may exist in workplaces and establishes employee safety and health standards.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates mitigation requirements and mandates proper training and equipment for workers as established in 29 CFR 1910, "Occupational Safety and Health Standards."

19.1.2.5 Missouri State Agencies Several programs responsible for protection and management of the environment and public health in Missouri are applicable to the proposed RPF. These programs are managed by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), the Department of Health and Senior Services, and the Department of Conservation.

The proposed facility site is located at the Discovery Ridge on property owned by the University of Missouri (MU) System headquartered in Columbia, Missouri. Discovery Ridge is being developed under the guidance of the Discover', Ridge Master Plan and Protective Covenants (MU, 2009). Consolidated Public Water Supply District #1 has extended drinking water services to the site and sewer lines. The Master Plan requires tenant compliance with the Discovery Ridge Master Storm Water Management Plan that is developed on a project-by-project basis and is based on regional accepted practices for stormwater management, including MDNR regulations (MDNR, 201 2a). General environmental requirements and permits for new facilities are discussed in the following sections. Integration with the existing services or plans of Discovery Ridge is discussed, as applicable.

19.1.2.5.1 Missouri Department of Natural Resources The Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ), within the MDNR, includes the Air Pollution Control Program, Water Protection Branch, Hazardous Waste Program, Public Drinking Water Branch, and State Historic Preservation Office. The following sections summarize these programs.

19.1.2.5.1.1 Air Pollution Control Program The Air Conservation Commission administers the air quality standards and requirements within the Code of State Regulations (CSR), specifically 10 CSR Division 10, "Air Conservation Commission."

19-10

NW MIChapter

    • . .NOTWSMEDICAL IDOTOPDSR 19.0- n iromna Rev.iew ve Construction permits - Construction permits are also called new source review permits and are issued by the Air Conservation Commission. Construction permits allow for construction and operation of an air emission source and are required prior to commencing construction of an air emission source. All new installations built with the potential to emit (PTE) a regulated air pollutant in an amount equal to or greater than the de minimis (threshold) level are required to obtain a construction permit.

A construction permit is not required if potential emissions of the entire installation are less than regulatory de minimis levels or potential emissions of the proposed project are below the insignificance levels. Permit exemptions are detailed in 10 CSR 10-6.061, "Construction Permit Exemptions."

The regulated air pollutants, de minimis emissions levels, and insignificance levels for determining exemptions and new source review thresholds are listed in Table 19-1 and Table 19-2.

Table 19-1. De Minimis Emission Levels of 10 CSR 10-6.020(3)(A)

Carbon monoxide (CO) 90.71 100 IAsbestos 0.0064 0.007 Particulate matter 22.67 25 Sulfur acid mist 6.35 7 Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) 36.28 40 Hydrogen sulfide 9.07 10 Lead 0.544 0.6 Reduced sulfur compounds 9.07 10 (including hydrogen sulfide)

Beryllium 0.00036 0.0004 Sum of hazardous air pollutants 22.67 25 Source: 10 CSR 10-6.020, "Definitions and Common Reference Tables," Missouri Code of State Regulations, as amended.

VOC = volatile organic compound.

Table 19-2. Emission Levels of Common Air Pollutants PM-10 0.45 1.00 13.6 15 90.7 100 226.8 250 NOx 1.25 2.75 36.29 40 90.7 100 226.8 250 CO 3.12 6.88 90.7 100 90.7 100 226.8 250 aOr the hazardous emission threshold as established in Subsection (12)(J) of 10 CSR 10-6.060, "Construction Permits Required," whichever is less.

CO = carbon monoxide. PM-10 = particulate matter, 10 ~i.

HAP = hazardous air pollutant. SOx = sulfur oxides.

NOx = nitrogen oxides. VOC = volatile organic compound.

NSR = new source review.

19-11

EIOTPESChptr

ChptrMEDCA NWMI-130,Re.A 9.0 -Environmental Review The PTE of the RPF project will be calculated based on the maximum design capacity of the equipment, assuming continuous operation (24 hr/day, 365 days/year). In the Construction Permit Application, the RPF may request emission limits that, if accepted by the Missouri Air Pollution Control Program, will become part of the constraints in the construction permit. The proposed limits could change the type of RPF construction permit issued and the operating permit status.

Operating permits - Operating permits are issued by the Air Pollution Control Program in accordance with Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and implementing regulations in 40 CFR 70, "State Operating Permit Programs." All sources with a PTE-regulated air pollutant above de minimis levels are required to obtain an operating permit. There are three classes of operating permits in Missouri:

40 CFR 70 operating permit - This is required for installations with potential emissions exceeding 91.7 tonne per year (t/yr) (100 tons per year [tons/yr]) of any criteria pollutant, (9.07 t/yr) 10 tons/yr of any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or 22.7 t/yr (25 tons/yr) of combined HAPs; or if the EPA Administrator requires a 40 CFR 70 permit as part of a Federal rulemaking. These emissions levels are calculated after control devices and are called the major source threshold.

  • Intermediate (or synthetic minor) operating permit - These permits may be obtained by installations with a PTE above the major source threshold that request a voluntary limit on operations to keep emissions below the major source threshold. Conditions could include absolute emissions limits, recordkeeping of operating hour limits, or production limits.
  • Basic State operating permit - This permit is required if the PTE is between de minimnis and major levels. All incinerators must obtain an operating permit, regardless of the level of emissions.

Sources of nonradioactive criteria air pollutants or HAPs from RPF construction may include fugitive dust and vehicle emissions (on-road and off-road vehicles). Vehicle emissions are also a source of greenhouse gases (GHG). Operation of the RPF may generate criteria air pollutants, HAPs, and GHGs from diesel-fired boilers, electric diesel generators, and facility chemical usage.

The NRC implements the primary radiation protection standards for RPF air emissions. Radioactive air emissions will be addressed in the license application and subject to the dose limits and requirements of 10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation."

19.1.2.5.1.2 Water Protection Branch The MDNR Clean Water Commission administers water quality standards and requirements in 10 CSR Division 20, "Clean Water Commission." The Clean Water Commission issues construction and operating permits as required in 10 CSR 20-6.0 10, "Construction and Operating Permits," to persons who build, erect, alter, replace, operate, use, or maintain existing point sources, or intend these actions for a proposed point source, water contaminant sources, or wastewater treatment facilities. These permits enforce the Missouri Clean Water Law and regulations and administer the NPDES program. Nonpoint source discharges and service connections to wastewater sewer systems are exempt from permitting requirements.

The proposed lot for the RPF at Discovery Ridge is approximately 3.0 ha (7.4 acres). An NPDES construction stormwater management permit is required for disturbances of greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre) of land. The RPF would either operate under a Missouri General Operating Permit MO-RIOA000 for land disturbance on new sites or conform to the criteria and standards of the Discovery Ridge Master Storm Water Management Plan under a stormwater management permit issued to the site.

19-12

IIVVChapter

    • ....NORIhWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Chptr1MWI-0I-21 ev. O 9.0 -Environmental Review The Clean Water Commission issues a 401 Water Quality Certification to any facility requiring a Federal Section 404 (of the CWA) permit. This includes facilities that place material or fill into the jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The Section 401 certification is verification by the state of Missouri that the project would not violate water quality standards. The construction, operation, and decommissioning of the RPF is not anticipated to need a Federal Section 404 permit or Section 401 certification from the Commission.

Under 10 CSR 20-6.0 10, facilities that discharge wastes into a sewerage system are not required to obtain an NPDES permit if the owner of the sewerage system has a valid NPDES permit. The RPF would not discharge process wastewater into the Discovery Park sewer system. Sanitary wastewater would be discharged in accordance with Boone County sewer regulations.

19.1.2.5.1.3 Hazardous Waste Program The Hazardous Waste Management Commission (HWMC) administers the hazardous waste standards and requirements in 10 CSR Division 25, "Hazardous Waste Management Commission."

The HWMC regulates hazardous waste and administers a permitting program for owners and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. 10 CSR Division 25 hazardous waste management rules incorporate by reference, unless otherwise modified, the Federal hazardous waste management regulations. The effective date for rules for mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes in Missouri was March 12, 1993.

Under 10 CSR 25-7.270, "Missouri Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit Program," a permit is required for the treatment, storage (generated onsite and stored beyond the timeframes allowed without a permit pursuant to 10 CSR 25-5.262, "Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste") or disposal of hazardous waste. Resource recovery of hazardous waste is regulated by 10 CSR 25-9.020, "Hazardous Waste Recovery Processes," and an owner or operator of a facility that uses, reuses, or recycles hazardous waste must be certified under 10 CSR 25-9, "Resource Recovery," or permitted under 10 CSR 25-7, "Rules Applicable to Owners/Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities."

A permit is not required for an elementary neutralization unit or a wastewater treatment unit that receives hazardous waste generated onsite and demonstrates compliance with the requirements of 10 CSR 25-7.270(2)(A)3 to the satisfaction of the HWMC.

The RPF would generate hazardous, universal, and mixed waste (hazardous waste containing radioactive material) from facility processes. The waste may exhibit hazardous characteristics (e.g., corrosivity or toxicity) and contain spent regulated solvents. Waste would generally be managed under requirements of 10 CSR 25-5.262 and 10 CSR 25-16.273, "Standards for Universal Waste Management." Treatment, including elementary neutralization or resource recovery of solvents, may occur without a permit, subject to certification and demonstrations required under 10 CSR 25-9 and 10 CSR 25-7.270(2)(A)(3).

LLMW generated by the RPF would be managed to meet the storage and treatment conditional exemption in 10 CSR 25-7.266, "Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities" (incorporating 40 CFR 266, Subpart N, "Conditional Exemption for Low-Level Mixed Waste Storage, Treatment, Transportation, and Disposal"). The RPF mixed waste would be exempt from the definition of hazardous waste in 10 CSR 25-3.260, "Definitions, Modifications to Incorporations, and Confidential Business Information," as the waste would be generated under a single NRC license, stored, and treated in a tank or container, and managed according to conditions that include the following:

  • NWMI would notify MDNR, in writing and by certified delivery, to claim a conditional exemption for LLMW stored in the facility.

19-13

NOTWETMEIL ISOOE hpe NWM,-2013-021, Rev. 0A

. NWChapte 19.0 - Environmental Review

  • LLMW would be stored and treated in tanks or containers in compliance with the license requirements that apply to the proper storage of LLMW (not including those requirements that relate solely to recordkeeping).
  • LLMW would be stored and treated in tanks or containers in compliance with chemical compatibility requirements.
  • Inventory of the stored conditionally exempt LLMW would be conducted at least annually and be inspected at least quarterly for compliance with 10 CSR 25-7.
  • Facility personnel who manage stored conditionally exempt LLMW would be certified and trained in a manner to ensure that the conditionally exempt waste is safely managed; this includes training in chemical waste management and hazardous materials incident response that meets the personnel training standards.
  • An emergency plan would be maintained and provided to all local agencies that may respond to a fire, explosion, or release of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents.

19.1.2.5.1.4 Public Drinking Water Branch The Safe Drinking Water Commission administers the public drinking water standards and requirements in 10 CSR Division 60, "Safe Drinking Water Commission." The mission of the Public Drinking Water Program is to provide safe and adequate public drinking water supplies for residents of and transients in the state. Drinking water for the RPF would be provided through service connections in accordance with the Columbia Code of Ordinance requirements (City of Columbia, 2013a).

19.1 .2 .5.1.5 Department of Health and Senior Services The Department of Health and Human Services administers a radiation control program under the requirements of 19 CSR 20-10, "Protection Against Ionizing Radiation." Exemptions to the regulations are identified in 19 CSR 20-10.020, "Exemptions from Requirements of this Chapter," and include use of radioactive sources licensed by the NRC to installations in Missouri. Radioactive sources, as applicable to the RPF, would be managed under requirements of the NRC license and excluded from Missouri regulation.

19.1.2.5.1.6 Department of Conservation The Department of Conservation is charged with the protection and management of Missouri fish, forest, and wildlife resources. Conservation requirements are identified in 3 CSR Division 10, "Department of Conservation." The department maintains two references relating to the status of listed plants and animals in Missouri: The Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation Concern Checklist (State of Missouri, 2014), and Wildlife Code of Missouri (3 CSR 10-4.110, "General Prohibition; Applications,"

and 3 CSR 10-9.11l0[l1][B], "General Prohibition; Applications"). The Conservation Concern Checklist is used mostly for planning and communication purposes.

All birds, fish, crayfish, mussels, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, or other forms of wildlife, including other invertebrates listed in the checklist, are protected by the Wildlife Code. Collection or harvest of these species during RPF construction, operation, or decommissioning would only be performed according to applicable permits as prescribed in Chapter 5 of the Wildlife Code.

19.1.2.6 Local Governments The RPF would be located in Columbia, Missouri, in Boone County. The following sections summarize how local jurisdictions implement environmental requirements for land disturbances, stormwater management, sewer discharges, and drinking water connections.

19-14

I*.iIVVIVIw::*.;=z;*Chapter Iwu Chpe9.0 1iiNWM,-2013-021.

- Environmental Rev. OA Review

    • '.'""NORIhWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES 19.1.2.6.1 Boone County The Boone County Resource Management Department centralizes the engineering, planning, and inspection services provided by the county. County requirements address stormwater management, stream buffers, floodplain regulations, driveway location, road design, subdivision requirements, and building construction. Boone County requires a land disturbance permit prior to land-clearing activities equal to or greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre) or within close proximity to an environmentally sensitive area.

If not covered under Discovery Ridge land disturbances permits, NWMI would request a land disturbance permit through the Resource Management Department. The department also offers an electronic stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for land disturbance projects disturbing 0.4 ha (1 acre) or more. The SWPPP template would guide NWMI through the SWPPP development process to help ensure that the SWPPP addresses all the necessary elements stated in the Missouri State General Permit and Boone County regulations (Boone County, 2013a).

The Boone County Regional Sewer District provides wastewater management services to Discovery Ridge. The NWMI facility must comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 2 of the Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations, including Section 2.12, "Unlawful Dischargers," establishing pollutant limits and pretreatment requirements, and Section 2.17.2, "Operating, Inspection, and Monitoring," which is for industrial users (Boone County, 2013b).

The Missouri State Legislature (Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 64.850, "County commission may prescribe zoning regulations") delegated the responsibility to local governmental units to adopt floodplain management regulations designed to protect health, safety, and general welfare. This ordinance applies to all lands within the jurisdiction of Boone County, identified as numbered and unnumbered A, AE, AO, and AH zones on Panel 290 19CINDOA of the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Boone County (Boone County, 2011). A floodplain development permit must be acquired for all proposed construction or other development, including the placement of manufactured homes, in those zones. The RPF site is not located within any of these zones.

19.1.2.6.2 City of Columbia Potable water connections - The Columbia Water Treatment Plant is owned and operated by the City of Columbia and the Water and Light Department. The system supplies water to approximately 45,500 customers. The water system has approximately 46,250 service connections, and the average daily consumption is 47.69 million liters (ML)/day (12.6 million gallons per day ([IMgal/day]). The Columbia Water Treatment Plant is in compliance with all State and Federal drinking water regulations.

The plant is in the Northeast Regional Office district of the MDNR. Requests for drinking water connections would be made in accordance with Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27, "Utilities for the City of Columbia" (City of Columbia, 2013a). Code of Ordinances, Chapter 6, "Buildings and Building Regulations" (City of Columbia, 2013b), adopts the 2009 Edition of the International Building Code (IBC, 2009) by reference with amendment, and would be the building standard for the RPF.

Stormwater regulation - The City of Columbia and Boone County adopted stormwater regulations in response to requirements mandated by EPA as part of implementing Phase II of the CWA (MDNR, 2012a).

These regulations were adopted by the city in 2007 and the county in 2010. Two components are within each set of regulations: Stormwater Management Standards, and Stream Buffer Standards.

Storm water management - The adopted city and county regulations address the water quantity and water quantity that leaves a development site. The regulations specify that the volume of post-development runoff cannot exceed that of a site's predevelopment state. Therefore, many new developments require significant on-site detention and filtration facilities. Previous regulations allowed stormwater to be discharged directly into the creeks (MDNR, 2012a). Under the city stormwater regulations, subdivisions preliminarily platted prior to September 2007 are exempt from the new regulations (City of Columbia, 2013a).

19-15

., NWMIChapter NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A The goal of the new city regulations is to mitigate flooding, erosion, pollution of streams, and personal property damage caused by development activities.

Stream buffers - A major component of the City of Columbia and Boone County stormwater regulations is the stream buffering requirement. Stream buffers are natural vegetation areas that serve as boundaries between disturbed land and local waterways. The buffers act as filtration systems for stormwater Table 19-3. Required Stream Buffer Width, runoff entering creeks and protect aquatic habitat. Identified by Stream Type Stream buffers also stabilize stream banks, mitigate flooding, and preserve natural areas that serve as vital habitat and corridors. Stream buffers are -

measured from the ordinary high-water mark and 1 Perennial 31 100 vary in width depending on stream type. The three 2 1~in 52 5 regulated stream types identified in the city and 3Ehmrl 92 3 county regulations are shown in Table 19-3.

Stream buffers were expanded to include slopes greater than 15 percent that are adjacent to outer buffers.

City and county regulations include a 61 meter (in) (200-foot [ft]) buffer from karst features (e.g.,

sinkholes). The inner half of stream buffers must be left as undisturbed natural vegetation. In Columbia, but not in Boone County, accessory structures (e.g., sheds) may be built within the outer half of these buffers. Trails and maintained lawns may be situated within the outer buffer.

Landscaping regulations - Landscaping and screening standards exist as part of the city zoning ordinance. These provisions are intended to accomplish the following:

  • Establish healthy environmental conditions by providing shade, air purification, oxygen regeneration, groundwater recharge, stormwater runoff retardation, erosion control, and noise, glare, and heat abatement
  • Provide visual buffering from streets, to buffer potentially incompatible land uses and to generally enhance the quality and appearance of a development site
  • Encourage the preservation of existing trees and vegetation
  • Supplement the land disturbance permit requirements The landscaping standards apply to all new development and new parking lots exceeding a minimum threshold size. There are several exclusions to the landscaping requirements, which are explained in the zoning ordinance (City of Columbia, 1998).

Tree preservation regulations - While City of Columbia requires tree preservation, Boone County has no specific tree preservation ordinance. However, with the recent adoption of the county stream buffer regulations, there exists an opportunity to implement the first ongoing regulation that would have a direct effect on tree preservation.

According to the MDNR, tree preservation has been most effective on unsubdivided parcels greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre) inside the city limits. This is the result of the city requirement that a tree survey be conducted to determine what climax forest exists on a site prior to land-clearing activities.

19-16

: Chpter 9.0 - Environmental Review
  • .=..

"NOThwESr

, MEWICALISOTQPIS 19.1.2.7 Permit and Approval Status A final determination of permits and approvals applicable to the RPF would be made with appropriate regulatory interface. Consultations will ensure that applications or certifications are prepared and submitted in accordance with requirements, and approved in a timely manner. Permits and approvals necessary for RPF construction and operation are identified in Table 19-4.

Table 19-4. Regulatory Compliance Status (4 pages) 19-17

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWMI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-4. Regulatory Compliance Status (4 pages) 19-18

N W*. lv'i-,-i hate 19.0NWMI-2013-021, Chapter -Environmental Rev. 0A Review Table 19-4. Regulatory Compliance Status (4 pages)

Resource Conservation Notification of Obtain Missouri Registration to be

  • and Recovery Act Regulated Activity identification number filed 90 days prior to Missouri Revised Statute for generation of generating hazardous Chapter 260 hazardous waste waste 10 CSR Division 25 Certified Resource Reuse, reclamation, or Application to be Recovery Facility recycling 1,000 kg submitted 90 days Application (2,204.6 lb) or more of prior to operations site-generated hazardous waste in a month Notification to Notify MDNR in Notification to be MDNR of writing and by certified submitted 90 days Conditional delivery of the claim of prior to operations Exemption a conditional exemption for LLMW stored and treated in the facility Hazardous Waste Not required Treatment, storage or Permit disposal of hazardous waste Clean Water Act Stormwater Stormwater Application to be Missouri Revised Discharge Permit management submitted 30 days Statute, Chapter 64 prior to construction Boone County Application to be Land Disturbance Activity disturbing Stormwater Ordinance Permit 0.4 ha (1 acre) or more submitted 30 days of land or disturbing prior to construction 278.7 m2 (3,000 ft2) in environmentally sensitive areas Clean Water Act Sanitary sewer Building connection to Required information Missouri Revised Statute connection approval District wastewater to be submitted Chapter 250 treatment works 30 days prior to Chapter 2 of Boone construction County Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations 19-19

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA I

  • *..*. :" mo*+4wssxMSg4CALISOtO*S Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-4. Regulatory Compliance Status (4 pages) a Full references are provided in Section 19.7.

b Only required when oil is stored in a tank or shell with a capacity over 1,320 gallons (gal), and the oil could reasonably reach navigable water.

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations. NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

CSR = Code of State Regulations. RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Act.

HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. RPF = radioisotope production facility.

LLMW = low-level mixed waste. SPCC = spill prevention, control, and MDNR = Missouri Department of Natural Resources, countermeasure.

NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination U.S. = United States.

System.

19-20

"i:NWMI S-.

. NORThW*ST Mli*AL I3OTOPB NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review 19.1.3 Consultation and Coordination Table 19-5 lists the consultations required for construction and operation of the proposed RPF. The table provides the following information for each consultation, as applicable, including the name of the responsible regulatory agency; applicable law, ordinance, or regulation; required consultation; summary of any surveys required to complete the consultation; and status.

Table 19-5. Consultation Required for Construction and Operation Status (2 pages)

Federal State of Missouri Missouri Rules of Department of None None Consultation letter was Department of Conservation (3 CSR 10) submitted to the MDC on Conservation July 14, 2014. No response has been received.

Osage Nation

  • National Environmental Consultation letter was Consultation regarding None Policy Act protection of traditional submitted to the Osage
  • National Historic Native American Nation on July 14. 2014.

Preservation Act religious and cultural No response has been

  • Native American Graves resources received.

Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.)

19-21

NWMI-2013.-021, Rev. 0A

~yNWMI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-5. Consultation Required for Construction and Operation Status (2 pages)

Kaw Nation

  • National Environmental Consultation regarding None Consultation letter was Policy Act protection of traditional submitted to the Kaw
  • National Historic Native American Nation on July 14, 2014.

Preservation Act religious and cultural No response has been

  • Native American Graves resources received.

Protection and Repatriation Act Omaha Tribe

  • National Environmental Consultation regarding None Consultation letter was Policy Act protection of traditional submitted to the Omaha
  • National Historic Native American Tribe on July 14, 2014. No Preservation Act religious and cultural response has been received.
  • Native American Graves resources Protection and Repatriation Act a Full references are provided in Section 19.7.

b Unless noted otherwise, copies of the consultation letters submitted/received are provided in Appendix A.

CSR = Code of State Regulations. U.S.C. = United States Code.

IPaC = information, planning, and conservation. USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

MDC = Missouri Department of Conservation.

19-22

ChaperI1NWM-2013-o2, Rev. OA flIVChapter 9.0 - Environmental Review 19.2 PROPOSED ACTION As described in Section 19.2.1, the proposed action requires authorization by the NRC for NWMI to construct and later operate the proposed RPF at Discovery Ridge to commercially produce 99Mo using LEU.

Section 19.2.1 also describes actions that are connected to the proposed action. Connected actions fall within the scope of the actions evaluated in an environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1508.25, "Scope").

19.2.1 Description of Proposed Action and Connected Actions The proposed action is the issuance of an NRC Construction Permit and Operating License under 10 CFR 50 and provisions of 10 CFR 70 and 10 CFR 30 that would authorize NWMI to construct and operate a 99Mo RPF at a site located in Columbia, Missouri. Proposed RPF activities include:

  • Producing LEU target materials and fabrication of targets
  • Packaging and shipping LEU targets to the university reactor network for irradiation
  • Returning irradiated LEU targets for dissolution, recovery, and purification of 99Mo
  • Recovering and recycling LEU to minimize radioactive, mixed, and hazardous waste generation
  • Treating/packaging wastes generated by RPF process steps to enable transport to a disposal site The RPF is being designed to have a nominal operational processing capability of one batch per week of up to 12 targets from MURR for up to 52 weeks per year and approximately 30 targets from the Oregon State University (OSU) TRIGA1 Reactor (OSTR) or a third university reactor for eight weeks per year per reactor. The impacts analyzed for this ER were based on the bounding scenario of MURR operating 52 weeks per year, with both the OSTR and third reactor operating eight weeks per year, for a total of 68 batches of irradiated LEU targets processed at the RPF annually.

For the proposed RPF to fulfill its function, other "connected actions" would also occur. The RPF connected action is the use of a network of university research reactors for the irradiation of LEU targets. The ER evaluates transport of the unirradiated LEU targets to each university research reactor, irradiation of the LEU targets at each reactor, and transport of the irradiated LEU targets back to the RPF. License amendments associated with university research reactors irradiating LEU targets would be completed by each reactor organization and would be separate from this proposed action.

NWMI has currently identified two university research reactors to be part of the irradiation network:

MURR and OSTR.reactor will be added to the network that is similar to OSTR. An analysis to recommend the third university reactor is currently underway. The university reactors being considered include [Proprietary Information]. NWMI has bounded the decision for the third reactor by the university reactor that is the [Proprietary Information].

The primary activities to be completed during construction, pre-operation, operation, and decommissioning are described below.

Construction - During the construction phase of the RPF, the following types of construction activities would be completed, including land clearing, set up of equipment laydown areas, utility installation, buildings, parking lots, and roads.

Pre-Operations - Prior to commercial operations, the RPF would go through a commissioning phase to ensure that the facility functions as designed and meets all NRC license and State and local requirements.

The commissioning process comprises the integrated application of a set of engineering techniques and procedures to check, inspect, and test every operational component of the project, from individual functions (e.g., instruments and equipment), to complex modules, subsystems, and systems.

STRIGA (Training. Research. Isotopes. General Atomics) is a registered trademark of General Atomics. San Diego. California.

19-23

,,. N Wlvii;.°. 'Chaper. hate NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A 9.0 -Environmental Review Operations - The RPF would have the operations capacity to produce 50 percent of the U.S. 99 Mo demand. 99Mo produced from the proposed NWMI RPF would indistinguishable from 99Mo from the 99 existing fleet of nuclear reactors and would not require redesign of the Mo generator technology in the U.S. supply chain.

Decommissioning - The process of closing and securing a nuclear facility would provide adequate protection from radiation exposure and to isolate radioactive contamination from the environment.

Activities include surveillance, maintenance, decontamination, and/or dismantlement. These actions are taken at the end of the life of a facility to retire it from service, with adequate regard for the health and safety of workers and the public and protection of the environment.

19.2.1.1 Schedule The schedule for proposed RPF construction, operation, and decommissioning is as follows:

  • Start date of site preparation/construction: First quarter 2016
  • End date of construction: First quarter 2017
  • Start date of facility startup and cold commissioning (pre-operational): Second quarter 2017
  • Date of hot commissioning and commercial operations: Third quarter 2017
  • Date of decommissioning: 2047 19.2.1.2 Affected Land During construction the total affected land would 3.0 ha (7.4 acres) or 100 percent of the site. The entire site (3.0 ha [7.4 acres]) would be permanently affected as a result of operational activities.

19.2.1.3 Personnel, Materials, and Equipment Required During Project Phases All work completed prior to receiving the Construction Permit Application for the proposed RPF would be completed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10(a)(2), "License Required; Limited Work Authorization."

Table 19-6 provides an estimate of the resources required during each of the major facility phases (construction, pre-operation, operation, and decommissioning) of the proposed action.

Table 19-6. Resources Required During Radioisotope Production Facility Phases il-~S~l lll l1 il [0] II - l ,I1 StIi SSl i *li~lli 3-lel i0 li *i Average workforce 38 21 98 15 Delivery trucks (per week) 20241 Fuel (diesel), L/month (gal/month) "1,647 (435) b 1 8 9 (50) b 18 9 (50) 1,647 (435) a The majority of the diesel fuel is consumed during the first three months of construction.

b Diesel fuel is used for backup generator.

C LEU needed for hot commissioning and initial RPF startup.

d LEU needed in Operation [Proprietary Information] for addition of second university reactor.

eLEU needed in Operation [Proprietary Information] for addition of third university reactor.

19-24

  • .NWMI

.4o** NOAR*hSMEOICAISOTQPIfS NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Materials consumed during the construction phase are shown in Table 19-7.

Table 19-7. Estimated Materials Consumed During Construction Phase Concrete 3,257 m3 4,260 yd3 Asphalt 245 m3 320 yd3 363 t 400 tons Stone gr~n~uli~r materii~1 1~300~' 1~700yd 3 Miscellaneous steel 45 t 50 tons Roofing 4,645 m2 50,000 ft2 t~#r l2Tt 140 toni IIPre~ast c~ 435t 4U~ohs 50,000 ft2 4,645 m2 19.2.1.4 Applicant for the Proposed Action NWMI is an Oregon limited-liability company (LLC). The company was formed solely to provide 99Mo to the medical industry. NWMI's owners are listed in Table 19-8.

Table 19-8. Northwest Medical Isotopes Ownership Summary Samaritan Health Services, Inc. Oregon, not-for-profit corporation [Proprietary Information]

Orion Ventures, LLC Oregon, limited-liability company [Proprietary Information]

[PoreayIfrain Talents Venture Fund Delaware, limited-liability company

[Proprietary Information]

aOther

  • I *J* * * * =i *£P* i* ..... *= * * %* I¸ *i* * =*I*i*=
  • ii * * *i # L* £ii*I*iiW
  • L*X* * * * *
  • c<*$* i*? *=i*i*¸
  • i *I{*i8 a Membership interests are less than 2 percent.

19.2.2 Radioisotope Production Facility Site Location and Layout 19.2.2.1 Site Location The proposed 3.0 ha (7.4-acre) RPF site is situated within Discovery Ridge, north of Discovery Ridge Drive. Discovery Ridge is located in the City of Columbia, Boone County, Missouri. The site is situated in central Missouri, approximately 201 kilometer (kin) (125 miles [mi]) east of Kansas City and 201 km (125 mi) west of St. Louis. The site is 7.2 km (4.5 mi) south of U.S. Interstate 70, just north of U.S.

Highway 63 (Figure 19-4). The Missouri River lies 15.3 km (9.5 mi) west of the site. The site is located 5.6 km (3.5 mi) southeast of the main MU campus.

The approximate center of the RPF is longitude 920 16' 34.63" and latitude 380 54' 3.31" (NAD 83, 1983).

Figure 19-5 illustrates the 8 km (5-mi) radius from the center of the facility and shows highways, rivers, and other local bodies of water.

19-25

.*-.WMlIkII NWMI.-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review A RPF Site Major River Q 200kmn (124 mile) Radius frmRPF St State Boundaries City Interstate Highways 60 90 120 Miles Mark Twain National Forest Figure 19-4. 200 km (124-mi) Radius with Cities and Roads 19-26

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

  • ~.NWMI FtORTHWS MW A SOOPS Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review A RPF Site Interstate Highways 0* 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site -Highways

( City Limits Mark Twain National Forest 0 0.5 1 2 3 4

, , ,Miles Figure 19-5. Illustration of 8 km (5-mi) Radius from the Center of the Facility 19-27

NMAIM NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.2 .2.1 .1 Population The 2010 Census reported that Columbia had a population of 108,500, which increased by 20.1 percent over the 10 preceding years (USCB, 2010a/b). Ashland is located approximately 14.5 km (9 mi) south of the proposed RPF site and had a 2010 Census population of 3,707, which increased 50 percent over the 10 preceding years. The population of Columbia resides primarily north-northwest of the proposed site.

The 2010 Census Boone County population was 162,642 (USCB, 2010a/b). In the fall of 2012, MU had a population of approximately 34,748 students (MU, 2013).

19.2.2.1.1.1 Sensitive Populations Table 19-9 provides a list of the sensitive populations (e.g., schools, daycares, retirement homes) within a 5-mi radius of the proposed RPF site. The list was developed using multiple sources and surveys.

Google Earth was used to determine the distances from the site.

Table 19-9. Sensitive Populations (2 pages)

Nearest full-time resident 0.43 0.27 South IISunset Mobile Home Park 0.93 0.58 Northwest Rock Bridge High School 5.25 3.26 West IHickman High School 8.52 5.3 Northwest Rock Bridge Elementary 5.12 3.18 West Field Elementary School 7.96 4.95 Northwest School Cedar Ridge Elementary 4.08 2.54 North 7.85 4.88 Northwest Grant Elementary School School Western Governors University Missouri 2.16 I 1.34 Northwest jSteven's College 6.92 4.3 Northwest Little Miracles Preschool 2.8 1.74 North IIFr. Tolton Catholic School High 1.42- 0.88 Southwest 19-28

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA

. NWMfI Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Table 19-9. Sensitive Populations (2 pages)

I - I . -

Green Meadows Preschool 6.92 4.3 West Tiger Tots Child Development 7.43 4.62 Northwest Center L9~ Southeast Bi~d of>~be ~aip~ow Luke's Child Care and 3.62 2.25 North Academy of Early Childhood 5.46 3.39 North Preschool Learning Down to Earth Preschool 5.8 3.6 West 0.91 Northwest IColumbia Manor Care Center Lenoir Woods Senior Living 1.46 2.99 1.86 West Bluff Creek Terrace 2.53 1.57 Northwest Providence Urgent Care 5.38 3.34 West IGreen Meadows Pediatric and 5.95 3.7 West Adolescent Medicine Missouri Orthopedic 5.83 3.62 Northwest University of Columbia 6.13 3.81 Northwest Institute Hospital Peditri Suger, Plsti 616 .83Northwest University of Missouri, Mohs 5.95 3.7 Northwest University of Missouri Children's HospitalJ & Dermatology Surgery Clinic 19.2.2.2 Site Layout The RPF site is 3.0 ha (7.4-acre) and is located entirely on property owned by MU. Figure 19-6 shows a footprint of the major structures, site layout, fence line, and site boundary (Lot 15). The major structures include the RPF, Waste Staging and Shipping Building, and Diesel Generator Building. Additionally, the site has an Administration Building and Security Stations. These major facilities also receive, store/hold, or process chemicals, oil, diesel fuel, and other hazardous and radioactive materials. The site presently consists of grass fields and is primarily relatively flat surfaces at an elevation of 231 m (758 ft). Access to the site is provided from Discovery Drive and Discovery Parkway.

19-29

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

.NWMI Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review f* Rough Estimate of Operations Boundary and Eme~rgency Planning lone SSite Boundary. Area l*retly Under the NRC Facility Operating l~icensc. Controlled Area Miles Figure 19-6. Radioisotope Production Facility Site Boundary 19-30 I.=

'. il-.V............ Chptr 9.0- Environmental Review The RPF main building is approximately 106.7 m (350 ft) long and 56.4 m (185 ft) wide. The height above grade is 14 m (46 ft) for the mechanical/electrical bay roof, 19.8 m (65 ft) for the high bay roof, and 22.9 m (75 ft) for the facility stacks. The site is enclosed by perimeter fencing to satisfy safeguards and security and other regulatory requirements. The total fenced area includes paved roads laid out as appropriate for the turning radius of tractor/trailers used to transport the irradiated target shipping and waste handling casks.

19.2.2.3 Infrastructure Improvements Discovery Ridge has the infrastructure (power, sewer, and water) required to support the proposed RPF.

Sanitary sewer, electric power, municipal water, and natural gas are installed from the facility to the utility connections presently located at the southwest corner of the site.

19.2.2.4 Existing Infrastructure The RPF site has no existing underground storage tanks, wells, pipelines, water supply, sewage, or stormwater systems.

19.2.2.5 Other Nearby Facilities/Buildings Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories - Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. (ABC Laboratories),

is located approximately 0.48 km (0.3 mi) west of the proposed RPF within Discovery Ridge. ABC Laboratories is a contract research organization that delivers a broad array of product development and analytical testing services to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, animal health, crop protection, and chemical industries. The facility is an 8,361 square meter (in 2 ) (90,000-square foot [ft2]) facility that includes chemical and biochemical laboratories and associated systems and equipment. The facility is a RCRA large quantity generator-permitted facility.

Research and Diagnostic Laboratory Facility - The Research and Diagnostic Laboratory (RADIL) facility, located approximately 0.16 km (.0.1 mi) northwest of the proposed RPF within Discovery Ridge.

RADIL is owned by IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., who purchased the facility from the MU College of Veterinary Medicine. The 5,667 m-2 (61,000 ft2) facility provides health monitoring and diagnostic testing services to bioresearch customers. The facility is a RCRA small quantity generator-permitted facility.

19.2.2.6 Monitoring Stations The need for monitoring stations is discussed in the following sections:

  • Air monitoring - Section 19.4.2.2
  • Groundwater monitoring - Section 19.4.4.3
  • Surface water monitoring - Section 19.4.4.3
  • Meteorological monitoring - Section 19.4.2.2.5
  • Ecological monitoring - Section 19.4.5.4
  • Radiological monitoring - Section 19.4.8.4 19-31
i; N.,..Chaper * ,;-.,;* Chater 9.0NWMI-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev. GA Review 19.2.3 Radioisotope Production Facility Description The proposed RPF would support target fabrication, recovery and purification of the 99Mo product from irradiated LEU targets that would be generated by irradiation in multiple university research reactors, and uranium recovery and recycle to produce 99Mo. Figure 19-7 shows the proposed site layout, including the RPF, adjacent administration and support buildings, security buildings and associated security fence.

DISC*OVIERY RI)]I O 15 , F RE WATIER PU[JMP SKID) 7.4 ACRES *\/ ,WASTE MANAGEMEINT BIDC P.L C.IgVE\ //WASTE MANAGIEMENT CANOPY R-105.42' *\ /SIDE SETBACK -IS FEET SPACE RESERVIED PO FIRE WA11 ...

PARKING LOT 32 TOTA*L- --

FRN STAC.-,35 FEET N' P!, CURVE -J L-I117.75'... UA* OEE N lIO R,,74.30' TRAP AREA

  • (z~r sm*.c* *- C**(T*ZL)SITE PLAN

= 5F~ *,PARKXING LOT E4TOTAL 0 100' 200' L,-359.S4' R=154,283' Figure 19-7. Radioisotope Production Facility Site Layout Figure 19-8 is first level general layout of the RPF. Figure 19-9 and Figure 19-10 are preliminary layouts of the first level and second level, respectively, of the RPF. A mezzanine area above a portion of the process area would be for utility, ventilation and offgas equipment. The following sections provide a description of the major rooms included in the facility layout.

The first level (excluding the tank pit area) and second levels of the RPF are currently estimated to contain approximately 4,282 m2 (46,088 ft 2) and 1,569 m2 (16,884 ft2) of floor space, respectively. The processing hot cell and waste management temporary storage floor space area is approximately 544 m2 (5,857 ft2). The maximum height of the building is 19.8 m (65 ft) with a maximum stack height of 22.9 m (75 ft). The depth of the processing hot cell belowgrade, without footers, is 4.6 m (15 fi) of enclosure height in rooms containing process equipment.

19-32

(. NWMI NSST~ S MESS A SOS ES NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review II II II II Figure 19-8. General Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility 19-33

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

  • e.e"NORTHWEST MEDICAL SOTOPES Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review

[Proprietary Information]

Figure 19-9. Preliminary Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility First Level Floor Plan 19-34

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

.;;@NWMI

  • .. i.e.°." ' NORTHWEST MEOICA(.ISOTOPES Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review

[Proprietary Information]

Figure 19-10. Preliminary Layout of the Radioisotope Production Facility Second Level Floor Plan 19-35

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

..,,o;*NRTWESMEICAIOO Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Figure 19-11 illustrates the hot cell details for target disassembly dissolution, Mo recovery and purification, uranium recovery and recycle, and waste management.

[Proprietary Information]

Figure 19-11. Radioisotope Production Facility Hot Cell Details 19-36

.:*;..j,..N MI. Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

- Environmental Review 19.2.3.1 Process Description A flow diagram of the primary process to be performed by the proposed RPF is provided in Figure 19-12.

IrradiatedTarget Disassembly Target Fabrication and Dissolution

0 Target U'

S Unardae Claddin to Solid Waste Irradiated Handing Target Shqsn Target I to Urversity Shipping and Receivin 8 Reactor I!

Fissio Product Soluteoitto Lqiad Waste H anllng trrp Sat 1Reactor Operations ILegend Product Cask SRPF Operations Customner 9

gMo Production Figure 19-12. Radioisotope Production Facility Block Flow Diagram RPF operations include the following general process steps (which correspond with the above figure).

o LEU target material is fabricated using a combination of fresh LEU and recycled uranium.

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

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

o After irradiation, targets are shipped back to the RPF.

  • Irradiated targets are disassembled and metal cladding is removed.

O Targets are then dissolved into a solution for processing.

99 O Dissolved LEU solution is processed to recover and purify Mo.

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

  • LEU solution is treated to recover uranium and remove trace contaminants and is recycled back to Step 1 to be made into new targets via the target fabrication system.

19-37

.N W

.......... M ISOOE lvii: Catr hpe 19.0 -WM-031Rev. Q Environmental Review All process wastes that contain unwanted isotopes are converted to a disposal form by the waste handling system, where the wastes are placed in casks for shipment to a disposal site. Offgases are captured and treated through appropriate treatment systems and then released through a stack.

1 9.2 .3.1.1 Target Fabrication Summary (Steps 0, 0, and 0)

The target fabrication process converts fresh and recycled uranium into LEU target material, which is then loaded into target hardware for shipping to the reactors for irradiation. The material being processed in the target fabrication area requires no shielding; the equipment is contact-handled.

LEU target material production (Step 0) - LEU target material is produced using an internal gelation process. The material is produced from a combination of recycled uranyl nitrate, fresh uranium metal, and uranium compounds recycled from various points in the target fabrication system. The recycled uranyl nitrate is converted to acid-deficient uranyl nitrate (ADUN) using a solvent extraction process, which selectively removes nitrate ions from the solution. The resulting ADUN is mixed with the uranyl nitrate produced by dissolution of fresh uranium. This ADUN is evaporated to achieve the desired uranium concentration, and is then chilled before mixing with urea and hydroxymethyltetramine (HMTA) to form the gelation broth. This broth is injected into a column of heated silicone oil. At the base of the column, the LEU target material is filtered from the oil and washed with a solvent, ammonium hydroxide and water. The target material is then reduced in a stream of dilute hydrogen within a furnace. The LEU target material is sampled and analyzed to ensure that it meets quality requirements before routing to the target fabrication system.

Encapsulation (Step 0) - LEU target material is loaded into the target hardware. This hardware is prefabricated and cleaned before entering the facility. The targets are filled with LEU target materials and helium cover gas. Once the targets have been loaded and welded, they undergo inspection and quality assurance (QA) checks, including leak testing. Targets that pass the QA checks are shipped to the university reactors for irradiation. Targets that fail the QA checks are disassembled. The LEU target material is recycled, and the hardware is cleaned and disposed of as nonradioactive scrap.

Target packaging and shipment (Step 0) - Assembled targets are loaded into shipping casks for transport to the university reactors. Transport will be via ground transportation.

19.2 .3.1.2 Irradiated Target Receipt, Disassembly, and Dissolution Summary (Steps 0, 0, and 0)

Target receipt and disassembly (Steps 0 and 0) - The irradiated targets are received in shielded shipping casks. The irradiated LEU targets are moved into the hot cell via a below-grade tunnel to the hot cell access point that mates up with either the shipping cask or a transfer cask. The targets are disassembled by puncturing the target, collecting any fission product gases, severing the target in half, and transferring the irradiated LEU target material into a transfer container. The spent target are inspected and disposed of as solid waste.

Target dissolution (Step 0) - The target dissolution process is operated in a "batch" fashion, with the irradiated LEU target material transferred into a dissolver. The LEU material is dissolved in hot nitric acid. The offgas containing the fission product gases goes through a series of cleanup columns. The nitrogen oxides (NO0 ) is removed by a reflux condenser and several NO0 absorbers, the fission product gases (noble and iodine) are captured on absorbers, and the remaining gas is filtered and discharged into the process ventilation header. The dissolver solution is diluted, cooled, filtered, and pumped to the 99Mo system feed tank. Only one of the two dissolvers is planned to be actively dissolving LEU target material at a time.

19-38

."*i'.

. INWMI AIflNWMI-2013-021, Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Rev. 0A Review 19.2 .3.1 .3 Molybdenumn-99 Product Recovery and Purification System (Steps Gand 0)

The dissolver solution from the target dissolution operation is processed to purify the 99Mo. The uranium-containing solutions from the 99Mo ion exchange (IX) columns are transferred to the uranium recovery system. The remaining waste solutions are sent to low- or high-dose waste storage tanks.

Mo recovery and purification (Step 0) - The dissolver solution from the target dissolution operation is pumped through the first TX column (Mo recovery). The 99Mo and trace components are absorbed onto the media. The uranium and most of the fission products and other contaminates flow through the column and are sent to the lag storage tanks in the uranium recovery and recycle system. The 99Mo is eluted from the first column and purify in the second and third IX columns. The product purification process primarily consists of a series of chemical adjustments and IX columns to remove unwanted isotopes from the 99Mo product solution.

99Mo product packaging and shipping (Step 0) - Product solution is sampled to verify compliance with acceptance criteria after a final chemical adjustment. The product solution in small vials is then placed into shipping containers that are sequentially loaded into shipping casks. The casks are removed from the hot cell, surveyed, and manifested for transport to the customer. 99Mo product is transported via air or ground transportation depending on which radiopharmaceutical distributor is receiving the shipment.

19.2.3.1.4 Uranium Recovery and Recycle Summary (Step 0,)

The uranium process system consists of solution storage vessels, TX columns, and concentrators for uranium recovery and recycle. The lag storage tanks minimize upstream processing delays and provide several weeks of decay time before the material is processed through the system.

First cycle uranium recovery - The LEU stream from the first cycle molybdenum TX column is held in lag storage tanks to allow selected radionuclides to decay. The solution is then diluted and pumped through the first TX columns to separate the bulk of the fission product contaminants from the uranium.

The waste is sampled and sent to the high-dose liquid waste accumulation tank. The uranium is eluated from the TX columns, and a concentrator/condenser is used to control the volume of the uranium interim product. The condensate is send to the low-dose liquid waste accumulation tank.

Second cycle uranium recycle - The interim uranium product solution is processed through a second stage TX column to remove trace contaminates. The waste is sampled and sent to the high-dose liquid waste accumulation tank. The uranium is eluated from the TX columns, and a concentrator/condenser is used to control the volume of the recycled uranium product. The condensate is sent to the low-dose liquid waste accumulation tank. The final uranium product solution is sampled to confirm that it meets the recycle specification.

Product uranium lag storage - This subsystem consists of a series of solution storage vessels. The vessels allow the time necessary for uranium-237 (237 U) to decay to contact-handled levels in the uranium product solutions. The decayed uranium product is returned to target fabrication.

19.2.3.1.5 Waste Management System Description The waste management system is divided into three subsystems: (1) the liquid waste system, (2) the solid waste system, and (3) specialty waste systems.

Liquid waste system - The liquid waste disposal system consists of storage tanks for accumulating waste liquids and adjusting the waste composition. Liquid waste is split into high-dose and low-dose streams by concentration. The high-dose fraction is further concentrated, adjusted, and mixed with adsorbent material. A portion of the low-dose fraction is expected to be suitable for recycle to selected systems as process water. Water that is not recycled is adjusted and then mixed with an adsorbent material. Both solidified streams are held for decay and shipped to a disposal facility.

19-39

NODW.ETMEIA

lvChater19.0 ISOOE hpe NWM-2013-02,

- Environmental Rev. QA Review Solid waste system - The solid waste disposal system consists of an area for collection, size reduction, and staging of solid wastes. The solids are placed in a waste drum and encapsulated by adding a cement material to fill voids remaining within the drum. The solidified waste is held for decay and shipped to a disposal facility.

Specialty waste system - A specialty waste disposal system is based on addressing small quantities of unique wastes generated. The goal is to reuse as much of the material as possible. Examples of these processes may include organic and non-organic reclamation processes and silicone oil waste accumulation. These waste streams are containerized, stabilized, as appropriate, and shipped offsite for treatment and disposal.

19.2 .3.1.6 Process Offgas Systems The process offgas subsystem is connected directly to the process vessels and maintains a negative pressure within the vessels. Process vessel ventilation systems include a set of subsystems that are specialized to the equipment that the subsystems support. These systems merge together at the process offgas filter train.

Dissolver offgas subsystem - The dissolver offgas subsystem is connected directly to the process vessels associated with the irradiated target dissolution process. There are two primary features of this system:

(1) recover NOx from the nitric acid dissolution of irradiated targets, and (2) capture fission product gases released from the irradiated targets. This subsystem is installed in the remote hot cell.

Iodine potential offgas subsystem - The iodine potential offgas subsystem is connected directly to process vessels or equipment that contain tellurium isotopes that decay and form iodine isotopes. Within this subsystem, an iodine capture system is included to ensure that any iodine evolving from the process is captured on the treatment media. After iodine treatment, the subsystem merges with the other process ventilation subsystems.

LEU targetltarget fabrication offgas subsystem - The microsphere/target offgas subsystem is connected directly to the process vessels and equipment that are associated with the wet portion of the microsphere/target fabrication process. Filtration is required for this subsystem prior to merging with the other process ventilation subsystems. There are controls/design features in place to maintain the reducing gas within flammability limits.

19.2,3.2 Facility Areas 19.2 .3.2.1 Irradiated Target Receipt Bay The irradiated target receipt bay is used to receive irradiated fuel elements in shipping casks loaded on semi-truck trailers. The traveling bridge crane is used to transfer a shipping cask from the trailer onto a transfer cart for transfer to the hot cells. The shipping cask/transfer cart is transferred from the receipt bay airspace through a doorway into the hot cell operating gallery. The cask is introduced to a shielded transfer port in the hot cell, where the cask is remotely opened and targets are removed and staged within the hot cell for disassembly.

19.2 .3.2 .2 Remote Hot Cells Irradiated target processing is performed using equipment that is located in shielded hot cells to protect operating personnel from doses generated by radioactive materials. The hot cells provide remote operation and maintenance capabilities with features such as (1) shielding windows and in-cell and through-wall manipulators for equipment operation and maintenance, (2) access via cover blocks and bridge crane to support remote maintenance activities, and (3) equipment (e.g., pumps and valves) that remotely operated from outside the hot cell.

19-40

: Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review The hot cells and associated ventilation equipment also provide containment and confinement for the potential release of radioactive materials from a process vessel during maintenance activities or off-normal operating conditions. The hot cell area will have a criticality favorable floor/sump geometry configuration and high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters on the ventilation inlets and outlets. The hot cell is divided up into the following areas:
  • LEU target disassembly and dissolution area
  • Mo recovery and purification area
  • Operating gallery area
  • Maintenance areas
  • Remote support systems areas Low-Enriched Uranium Target Disassembly and Dissolution Area The disassembly area has a feature that mates with the shielded cask and enables the target basket with irradiated LEU targets to be placed in the hot cell. Two disassembly stations are currently envisioned as semi-automated devices that pick one target at a time from the shipping basket, puncture and delid the target, and pour target material into a transfer container. The spent target is inspected to ensure that it is empty, passed through to the waste management area, and disposed of as solid waste. The area also contains the dissolver vessels, dissolver offgas treatment equipment, and fission gas capture columns.

The disassembly stations are supported with leaded windows and/or cameras and master-slave manipulators.

Molybdenum-99 Recovery and Purification Area Cells are included in the remote hot cell to house equipment associated with the Mo recovery and purification system. The cells include a series of small LX columns with containers, peristaltic pumps, and collection tanks. Operations and maintenance of the process are performed by the through-wall manipulators. An egress point is included for load-in and load-out of the 99Mo shipping cask. This area of the hot cell will have design features that support FDA requirements.

Uranium Recovery and Recycle Area Equipment associated with the LEU recovery and recycle system is also located within the remote hot cell area. This equipment will be much larger than the small Mo recovery and purification equipment, and use a large portion of the remote hot cell. The process equipment includes a series of LX columns; lag storage, feed, and product tanks to support operation of IX columns; and concentrator systems.

The process equipment is skid-mounted, which enables remote replacement and ensures critically safe spacing between skids.

Operating Gallery Area The operating gallery is situated adjacent to the hot cell. The operating gallery is an area used by personnel to physically operate remote wall-mounted manipulators. Local control stations are provided in the operating gallery to support process operations. The operating gallery width is sufficient to allow removal of a wall-mounted manipulator for maintenance or repair. After removal from the wall, a manipulator is transported via a cart system to the maintenance area where actual repairs are performed.

Maintenance Areas Two maintenance areas are used for facility equipment maintenance: the maintenance shop and the manipulator repair room.

19-41

lviChptr NOhWETMEICA hpe NWI212,Rev. O 9.0- Environmental Review Remote Support Systems Remotely operated equipment is used to perform the core operations of processing irradiated targets, recovering 99Mo for shipment to customers, and recycling LEU for fabrication into targets for future irradiation. These operations are backed by remotely operated support systems, including the main crane and manipulator arms. These two systems provide the ability to keep the process in operation for years.

Along with the manipulator arms, the main crane provides the heavy-lifting capacity needed to lift the hot cell cover blocks, remove nonfunctional items from the remote hot cell, and bring in replacement components. An additional crane is provided for remote operations and lifting waste packages in the waste management area.

19.2 .3.2 .3 Target Fabrication Area The target fabrication area contains equipment associated with the LEU target material and target fabrication systems. Material processed by the system is unirradiated LEU, obtained as feed from DOE, and LEU recycled from processing irradiated targets. Recycled LEU is purified in the remote hot cell and transferred as a solution to the microsphere fabrication vessels. Verification measurements are performed on the purified recycled LEU solutions prior to transfer into the fabrication area to confirm that the recycled LEU material satisfies criteria that allow processing in the unshielded process enclosures.

The microsphere/target fabrication area includes the following sub-areas:

Target fabrication wet area - The wet area contains the process equipment for conversion of uranium compounds to LEU target material. Most of the equipment processes aqueous solutions of uranium. The equipment includes concentrators, dissolvers, liquid-liquid contactors, lag storage and blending tanks, columns for forming and washing LEU target materials, a filter system, furnace boat loading and transfer systems, and furnaces for drying and reducing the LEU target material. The LEU target material is manually transferred from the wet area to the dry area.

  • Target fabrication dry area - The dry area is used to encapsulate LEU target material in the target hardware. Activities performed in this area are primarily receipt and inspection of target hardware components, loading LEU target material into the target, filling the target with helium, and seal welding the targets.
  • Target fabrication QA/laboratory area - This area is used to perform the various tests and inspections for monitoring and QA of the target fabrication processes. Tests are performed on liquid solutions, LEU target material, and assembled targets.
  • Storage areas - These are secure rooms within the target fabrication area that store materials used by the above processes. These rooms contain storage racks that segregate raw and in-process materials from the final product.

19.2.3.2.4 Waste Management Area The waste management area includes shielded enclosures for tanks collecting liquid waste and containers used to stage solid wastes generated by the process systems. Portions of the waste management system that are dedicated for high-dose liquid waste are included in the remote hot cell. There are three shielded areas in the waste management area: (1) the high-integrity container (HIC) vault, where filled waste containers are held for several months to allow short-lived radioisotopes to decay to lower doses, (2) the hot cell solid waste export area, where equipment and empty targets are passed out of the hot cell, and (3) the solidification cell, where liquid waste is processed/mixed with materials to prepare waste packages for disposal.

19-42

  • I.i...V.......... Ihptr 9.0- Environmental Review The solid waste is moved to the waste loading area, where the waste is loaded into a shipping cask (typically already on a truck trailer) to be transported to a disposal site. The waste management area is serviced by a bridge crane.

19.2 .3.2 .5 Mechanical/Electrical Rooms The mechanical/electrical rooms are located on the second floor on both sides of the hot cell. The mechanical/electrical rooms house electrical systems, motor control centers, pumps, boilers, air compressors, and ventilation supply equipment. The heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) chillers are located outside of the facility, in the same area as the process water chillers. The mechanical room over the laboratory/chemical make-up areas houses the exhaust fans and filter trains.

19.2 .3 .2.6 Process Offgas Room The process offgas room is connected directly to the process vessel and process offgas subsystems to treat the stream and maintain negative pressure within the vessels. The process offgas room contains absorbers, filters trains, and fans. Process offgas is discharged from the primary building exhaust system.

19.2.3.2.7 Laboratory and Research and Development Hot Cell An analytical laboratory and research and development hot cell area support the production of the 99Mo product and recycle of uranium. Samples from the process are collected, transported to the laboratory, and prepared in the laboratory hot cell.

Other laboratory features include the following:

  • Hoods and/or gioveboxes to complete sample preparation, waste handling, and standards preparations
  • Rooms with specialty instruments, including an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)--a gamma spectroscopy system, an alpha spectroscopy system, a liquid scintillation system, and a beta-counting system
  • Chemical and laboratory supplies storage
  • Bench-top systems (e.g., balances, pH meters, ion-chromatography) 19.2 .3.2 .8 Chemical Make-up and Gas Storage Room The chemical make-up room includes tanks supplying aqueous chemicals to the process systems, flammable material storage cabinets used to segregate incompatible materials, and storage of chemical solids used in the process systems. The gas distribution room serves as a location for storage of small quantity gases (stored in gas cylinders) and distribution manifolds. Large quantities of gases are stored outside of the RPF in appropriate storage tanks or trailers. These areas are designed to segregate incompatible chemicals.

19.2 .3 .2.9 Raw Materials and Molybdenum-99 Product Shipping and Receiving Areas Two separate access points are proposed to move process materials into and out of the facility and ship 99Mo product to the radiopharmaceuticai distributors. Both access points are truck bays that interface with process areas near the chemical make-up room. The 99Mo product bay functions as an airlock as part of the confinement ventilation control strategy for exporting the casks transported by a cargo vehicle.

The second access point next to the 99Mo product area is a shipping/receiving room and loading dock for the movement of smaller packages using handcarts or forklift. This area is the planned location for the receipt of chemicals and will have a pad/berm for spill protection and collection.

19-43

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. QA NMI

    • ,.. 'NORTHW1EST MEDICALISOTOPES Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.2.3.2.10 Support Staff Areas The support staff areas are an annex to the RPF and include various areas supporting the process. The support staff areas include a shift office, health physics office, break room, support offices/workroom, change rooms/bathrooms, storage areas, and personnel airlock.

19.2.3.2.11 Control Room The control room houses the process control system for operating and monitoring the facility. The control room door into the facility is equipped with controlled access. The control console has two or three operator interface stations or human-machine interfaces (one being a dedicated engineering interface), a master programmable logic controller or distributed controller, and all related and necessary cabinetry and subcomponents (e.g., power supplies and uninterruptable power supply). This control system is supported by a data highway of sensing instrument signals in the facility process areas that are gathered throughout the facility by an Ethernet conmmunication-based interface backbone and brought into the control room and onto the console displays. T~shla 10.11l~f l~ilit Arois annd lRpSnpptivp Dedicated controllers and human-machine Confinement Zones monitoring interfaces or stations for other equipment systems are also in the control room. A control Hot cells (production) I panel for all facility on-site and off-site (if required) Tank hot cell I communications (e.g., telephone, intercom) will Solid waste treatment hot cell I potentially be located in the control room. High-dose waste solidification hot cell I 19.2.3.2.12 General Ventilation System Uranium decay and accountability hot cell I HIC vault I The facility ventilation system maintains a series Analytical laboratory gloveboxes I of cascading pressure zones to draw air from the R&D hot cell laboratory hot cells I cleanest areas of the facility to the most Target fabrication room and enclosures II contaminated areas. Zone IV is a clean zone and is Utility room II independent of the other ventilation zones.

Analytical laboratory room and hoods II Zone IV will be slightly positively pressurized R&D hot cell laboratory room and hoods II with respect to the atmosphere. Zone III is the Waste loading hot cell II cleanest of the potentially contaminated areas, with Maintenance gallery II each subsequent zone being more contaminated and having lower pressures. Table 19-10 defines the Manipulator maintenance room II ventilation zone applicable to major spaces. Exhaust filter room II Figure 19-13 graphically presents the ventilation Airlocksa II, III zone for the first level of the RPF. Irradiated target basket receipt bay III Waste loading truck bay III A common supply air system provides 100 percent Operating gallery and corridor III outdoor air to all Zone III areas and some Zone II Electrical/mechanical supply room III areas that require make-up air in addition to that Chemical supply room III cascaded from Zone III. Three separate exhaust Corridors III systems maintain zone pressure differentials and Decontamination room III containment: (1) the Zone I exhaust system Loading docks IV services the hot cell, waste loading areas, target fabrication enclosures, and process offgas Waste management loading bay IV subsystems in Zone I; (2) the Zone I1/III exhaust Irradiated target receipt truck bay IV system services exhaust flow needs from Zone II Maintenance room IV and Zone III in excess of flow cascaded to interior Support staff areas IV zones; and (3) a laboratory exhaust system services Confinement zone of airlocks will be dependent on the two adjacent zones being connected.

fume hoods in the laboratory area.

HIC = high-integrity container.

R&D = research and development.

19-44

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

[Proprietary Information]

Figure 19-13. First-Level Confinement of the Radioisotope Production Facility 19-45

lviChptr NOhWETMEICSOOEChpe1 9.0NWMI-2013-021,

-Environmental Rev. OA Review The supply air is conditioned using filters, heater coils, and cooling coils to meet the requirements of each space. Abatement technologies (primarily HEPA filtration and activated carbon) are used to ensure that air exhausted to the atmosphere meets NESHAP and applicable State law. A stack monitoring system is employed to demonstrate compliance with the stated regulatory requirements for exhaust.

The systems and components of the main ventilation system are described in the following subsections.

Supply Air Subsystem The supply air system provides filtered and conditioned air to all Zone III spaces and some Zone II spaces at a ventilation rate of 100 percent outside air. The three supply air handling units are sized at 50 percent capacity each, for redundancy. Two of the three units will be operating, while the third is on standby.

Each unit consists of an outdoor air louver, filters, a cooling coil, a heating coil, a heat recovery coil, isolation dampers, and a fan.

Variable-speed fans are modulated to control the pressure in the common air plenum. The heating and cooling coils in each air-handling unit are controlled based on a common supply air temperature sensor.

Reheat coils are provided in the supply ducts to each space, as required, to further condition the supply air, based on space temperature thermostats.

Exhaust Air Subsystems Four exhaust air subsystems are provided: Zone I exhaust, Zone I111II exhaust, laboratory exhaust, and process offgas exhaust. Each exhaust system is provided with two 100 percent capacity exhaust fans and filter trains for complete redundancy on all exhaust subsystems. This redundancy is important to ensure confinement ventilation pressure differentials are maintained at all times. Each exhaust filter train consists of prefiiters, two stages of HEPA filters, carbon adsorbers, and isolation dampers. Exhaust ducts upstream of the filter trains are round to minimize areas where contamination can accumulate, and are sized to minimize particulate settling in the duct. Each exhaust system has a separate stack, with the exception of the process offgas subsystem, which merges with the Zone I exhaust stream. A stack monitoring system is provided on each stack to demonstrate compliance with applicable State law.

Zone I Exhaust Subsystem The Zone I exhaust system serves the hot cell, HIC loading area, and solid waste loading area. This exhaust system maintains Zone I spaces at negative pressure with respect to atmosphere. The disassembly station is maintained at a slightly lower pressure due to the increased likelihood of contamination in that area. All make-up air to Zone I spaces are cascaded from Zone II spaces. Space temperature control is not provided for Zone I spaces unless thermal loads are expected to cause temperatures to exceed equipment operating ranges without additional cooling. HEPA filters are included on both the inlet and outlet ducts to Zone I. The outlet HEPA filters minimize the spread of contamination from the hot cell into the ductwork leading to the exhaust filter train. The inlet HEPA filters prevent contamination spread in case of an upset condition that results in positive pressurization of Zone I spaces with respect to Zone II spaces. The process offgas subsystem enters the Zone I exhaust subsystem just upstream of the filter train.

Zone II/III Exhaust Subsystem The Zone 111111 exhaust system serves the Zone II spaces and those Zone III spaces that do not provide cascaded air flow into Zone II. This exhaust system maintains Zone II spaces at negative pressure and Zone III spaces at a less negative pressure with respect to atmosphere. Make-up air to Zone II spaces is either cascaded from Zone III spaces or supplied from the supply air subsystem to meet additional space conditioning needs. All make-up air to Zone III spaces is provided from the supply air subsystem.

19-46

EUVVChapter19.0 m.NORTHWEST MEOICAL ISOTOPES ChptrMWM-2I302,Rev.

- Environmental ReviewoA Laboratory Exhaust Subsystem The laboratory exhaust system provides fume hood and glovebox exhaust capability. This essentially is a Zone I system, but is separate from the main Zone I exhaust system to accommodate the large flow fluctuations from changing fume hood positions. These highly variable flow conditions are controlled better through a separate exhaust system. This exhaust system minimizes the potential pressure perturbations and control difficulties that could result from including the fume hoods on the main Zone I exhaust system. Make-up air for increased fume hood exhaust flow is supplied from the common supply air system.

Cleanroom Subsystem The cleanroom subsystem is designed to provide filtered and conditioned air at an exchange rate to meet the standards of an ISO 14644-1, "Cleanrooms and Associated Controlled Environments--Part 1:

Classification of Air Cleanliness," Class 8 cleanroom. The cleanroom is maintained at a slightly positive pressure relative to its surroundings to ensure that unfiltered air does not infiltrate the cleanroom. Air inside the cleanroom is continually recirculated through a dedicated filtration system to remove internally generated contaminants. Air would be 100 percent recirculated, with the only air exchange with the surroundings of the cleanroom occurring through exfiltration and make-up air entering on the suction side of the fan. The cleanroom air handling unit and filters are located inside the hot cell and, therefore, must be remotely maintainable. Periodic cleanroom certification testing also needs to be performed remotely with permanently installed instrumentation.

19.2.3.2.13 Other Radioisotope Production Facility Support Buildings External waste management storage and shipping building - The waste management building is approximately 111.5 m2 (1,200 ft2) and will provide additional waste storage and shipping preparation for radioactive waste prior to disposal.

Diesel generator building - The diesel generator building houses the RPF backup generator, which is used for temporary operation and safe shutdown of the RPF if required. The diesel fuel tank is stored aboveground next to the building, with an approximate volume of 3,785 liters (L) (1,000 gallons [gal]).

Security buildings - The RPF will have to two security buildings, one for personnel access and one for shipping and receiving of materials and waste. NWMI will establish, implement, and maintain its authorization program in accordance with NRC requirements.

19.2.4 Water Consumption and Treatment 19.2.4.1 Water Consumption The water supply source for the proposed RPF is the municipal water system. Connection to this system will comply with applicable State or local requirements. Required ancillary equipment (e.g., pressure regulators, backflow preventers) is installed as required by local ordinances.

The demineralized water system supplies demineralized water to the process for water addition, flushing, and chemical dilution. The demineralized water system can also potentially provide make-up water to the steam boilers. Wash water is used to washdown the tractor/trailers.

Final flow rates and process needs are determined on completion of performance testing (e.g., fire protection systems). Additional pumps and regulators may be installed to meet the performance needs of the systems. Where appropriate, water recycle or reuse systems are employed. Lavatory and office supply water systems are provided. These systems are designed and installed in accordance with local code.

19-47

l.ii ;,,...,-.*, ""Chater19.0 Chapter NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA

- Environmental Review The RPF water flow rates and consumption data is summarized in Table 19-11. The chilled water and steam systems are closed-loop systems and require water during startup, with minimal make-up water requirements during operation.

Table 19-11. Radioisotope Production Facility Water Flow Rates and Consumption Information Target disassembly and dissolution 1,500 400--

Uranium recovery and recycle system 500,410 132,200--

Laboratory facilities 2,000 530--

Total 530,910 140,260 360,000 95,100 aThese numbers do not account for planned process recycle.

bAssumes 260 days of operation per year.

19.2.4.2 Water Sources Independent of Municipal or Commercial Supply The RPF will not use water sources independent of the municipal or commercial supply.

19.2.4.3 Water Treatment Potable water is provided through the public utility system and will require no additional treatment.

Contaminated process wastewater storage and treatment systems are addressed in Section 19.2.7.3.

19.2.5 Cooling and Heating Dissipating Systems 19.2.5.1 Cooling Water Systems The process chilled water system provides cooling for the process equipment. Cooling is required for condensing offgas from the concentrators and for cooling the process stream. Chilled water is delivered to cooling jackets in a closed loop system. Redundancy is provided for components that present a single-point failure risk in the process chilled water system to ensure that cooling remains available for continued production.

Air-cooled chillers are located outside of the RPF. These chillers are expected to be typical commercial HVAC chillers. Redundancy for cooling capacity is provided by sizing each of the three chillers at 50 percent of the design cooling capacity. Chilled water is circulated from the chillers to an intermediate heat exchanger in the secondary loop. The primary loop then circulates and distributes chilled water from the heat exchanger to the various process loads in a closed loop. The chilled water pumps are typical centrifugal pumps used in HVAC systems.

19-48

UVChapter ChaperI1NWM,-2013-021, 9.0 -Environmental Rev. OA Review
  • ?..."

ORTH4WEST MIEOICAL ISOTOPE$

The intermediate heat exchanger is provided to minimize the risk of contamination spread outside of the facility in case of a process system leak into the chilled water system. To further minimize this risk, pressure differentials are maintained to ensure that flow is from lower contaminated systems into higher contaminated systems. The primary loop is maintained at a higher pressure than the process equipment, and the secondary loop is maintained at a higher pressure than the primary loop.

Some process cooling loads (e.g., the fission gas-trap and target fabrication equipment) require lower supply temperatures (e.g., below 0 degrees Celsius [°C]). These loads are served by standalone process chillers.

The RPF is designed to have zero liquid discharge from the radiologically controlled area (i.e., no liquid would be released from the facility).

19.2.5.2 Heating Systems Process steam is used to provide heating for process equipment. Heating is required for the concentrators and process stream. The steam from the boilers flows to an intermediate heat exchanger in the secondary loop. The primary loop then circulates and distributes steam from the heat exchanger to the various process loads in a closed loop. The steam is assumed to be supplied to the heating jacket, condensed, and returned to the intermediate heat exchanger in a closed loop system. Redundancy is provided for components that present a single-point failure risk in the process steam system to ensure that heating remains available for continued production. Three electric boilers are located in the mechanical room of the facility. The boilers are assumed to be standard, commercially available, packaged high-pressure steam boilers. Each boiler is sized at 50 percent of the design capacity to provide redundancy for heating.

19.2.5.3 Heat Dissipation Systems The RPF has no additional heat dissipation systems, besides the process chilled water system described in Section 19.2.5.1.

19.2.6 Auxiliary Systems The compressed air system supplies instrument-quality (dry and oil-free) air to power air-actuated valves and dampers and for instruments that require compressed air (e.g., bubbler tube-level indicators). The compressed air system can also provide process air, although these loads are undefined.

The system is assumed to consist of a packaged air compressor system, with the compressor mounted on the receiver tank with associated filters, coolers, and pressure relief. A separate modular, heatless desiccant-type air dryer is provided. Process air can be taken directly from the air receiver, prior to drying and further filtering.

The HVAC chillers are located outside the facility, in the same area as the process chilled water chillers.

The hot water boilers are located in the mechanical room. Pumps and supporting distribution system equipment for both systems are located in the mechanical room.

19.2.7 Waste Systems The waste management area includes shielded enclosures for tanks collecting liquid waste and containers used to stage solid wastes generated by the other process systems. Liquid waste is mixed with a sorbent (or solidification agent) material in a HIC that is stored and eventually loaded into a shielded waste transport cask. The solid waste is size-reduced, placed in a drum, and encapsulated by adding a cement material. The drum is then closed and loaded into a shielded waste transport cask.

There is no solid or liquid waste disposal at the RPF site. Air effluents are discussed in Section 19.4.2.1.

19-49

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

~.NWMI~q Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review

_, WOfIhWEST MEWC*AI ITOS 19.2.7.1 Process System Liquid Wastes Where practicable, liquid wastes are Table 19-12. Liquid Waste Produced Annually from condensed and/or treated or recycled to the Radioisotope Production Facility reduce the environmental impacts associated with disposal. The liquid waste streams generated during the processing operations are handled with the aqueous waste-handling system discussed in aTarget disassembly and dissolution 1,500 396 Section 19.2.7.3.1. The individual liquid wastes generated during processing are sy ste............m summarized in Table 19-12. aUranium recovery/recycle system - 1,120,000 295,873

..t..e?

19.2.7.2 Process System Solid Waste Where practicable, solid wastes are Laboratory facilities 2,000 530 condensed and/or packaged to reduce the environmental impacts associated with a Annual waste transferred to waste processes for disposal. The individual solid waste streams concentration and solidification. These numbers do not account generated during the processes are for planned process recycle.

bWastes processed do not produce liquid waste other than summarized in Table 19-13.

small quantities of specialty wastes.

Table 19-13. Solid Waste Produced at the Radioisotope Production Facility Target fabrication aNA NA bMo recovery and Exchange resins and other solid waste 20 L (5 gal) purification

-Waste management Solid wastes encapsulated in cement 8,000 L (2,113 gal)

High-dose solidified liquids 200,000 L (52,834 gal)

Low-dose solidified liquids 150,000 L (39,625 gal)

Facility support Municipal waste (e.g., paper) 26,000 L (6,868 gal)

Potentially contaminated waste 40,000 L (10,566 gal)

(e.g., decontamination materials, PPE) a Solid waste generated during target fabrication is anticipated to be decontaminated and free-released.

b Transferred to waste processing system for final disposition.

c The waste quantities current bounding estimates. Optimization of waste processing should reduce the volume of liquid waste generation.

NA = not applicable. PPE = personal protective equipment.

19-50

  • R..;.NORTHWEST ISOTOPES MEDICAL Chptr1MWI-0I-21 Chapter ev. O 9.0 -Environmental Review 19.2.7.3 Waste Handling Process Systems Solid and liquid waste generated by the other system operations discussed in Section 19.2.3.1.5 is processed by the waste handling process system. The waste handling process consists of three major subsystems:
  • Liquid waste handling and disposal
  • Solid waste handling and disposal
  • Specialty waste handling and disposal 19.2.7.3.1 Liquid Waste Handling and Disposal System The liquid waste handling system includes two subsystems: high-dose liquid waste solidification, and low-dose liquid waste solidification.
  • High-dose liquid waste solidification - Accumulation tanks provide the needed handling capacity to match the volume of wastewater generated by the upstream processes. Caustic solution is added as needed to neutralize the excess acidity. The liquid is forwarded to a package concentrator in which water is evaporated from the high-dose liquid, condensed, and directed to a condensate holding tank. The concentrated high-dose liquid is directed to a concentrate holding tank.

From the concentrate tank, the high-dose liquid is metered into a specialty inline mixer that melds together the high-dose liquid and a powder solidification agent (sorbent or solidification agent).

A vibratory motor ensures that the mixture falls from the inline mixer into a HIC. With time, the mixture solidifies. The filled HIC is moved via remote equipment to one of several decay stations where the waste is held for several months. During that time, the short-lived radioisotopes in the waste that cause the container to register a very high dose rate decay to much lower levels. Afterward, the HIC is moved into a transport cask on a trailer. Cask operational steps are completed prior to shipment offsite for disposal.

  • Low-dose liquid waste solidification - Accumulation tanks provide the needed handling capacity to match the volume of wastewater generated by the upstream processes. Condensates are held in a storage/recycling tank that provides make-up water to the LEU recovery process.

Excess condensate, along with all the other low-dose liquid, is forwarded to a staging tank. In this heated tank, the liquid is held at elevated temperatures, and high rates of ventilation air pass through the tank. The heated tank contents, plus the high ventilation, cause a significant amount of the water to evaporate from the low-dose liquid.

The excess low-dose liquid is then metered into a specialty inline mixer that melds the liquid and a powder solidification agent together. A vibratory motor ensures that the mixture falls from the inline mixer into a waste container. With time, the mixture will solidify. The waste container is then shipped for disposal offsite.

19.2.7.3.2 Solid Waste Handling and Disposal System The solid waste disposal system includes areas for collection, size reduction, and staging of solid wastes.

The solids are placed in a 208 L (55-gal) waste drum and encapsulated by adding a cement material to fill voids remaining within the drum. The drum is then loaded in a cask for transfer to a disposal site. The radioactive solid wastes have been identified and include:

  • Hardware from target disassembly
  • Resins and exchange media from the Mo recovery and purification process
  • Resins from the uranium recovery and recycle process 19-51

N

ES NO MEIAIOOEChpe1 Chaper 9.0NWM,-2013-021,

-Environmental Rev. 0A Review

  • Low-dose solid waste from the hot cell and support areas
  • Slightly contaminated hardware (low levels of LEU) from the target fabrication area
  • Instruments, connectors, jumpers, and other hardware Solid waste encapsulation - High-dose solid wastes are remotely moved in the hot cell to a staging area in the waste handling facility area. Size-reduction and handling tools are envisioned to place the wastes into a disposal container. Nominally of 454 L (120-gal) capacity, the container holds four weeks of wastes generated from the process. When practicable, the accumulated wastes are encapsulated with a fluid cement. The material solidifies and provides the needed stabilization to meet disposal criteria. The filled container is remotely moved to a transport cask via a shielded loading cask. The appropriate cask operational steps are completed prior to shipment for disposal offsite.

Support system waste - Spent filters containing suspended solids from dissolver solutions are disposed as solid waste. The number of filters to be disposed has not been determined, but is expected to be no more than one per batch of targets. Empty target hardware containing trace contamination is disposed as solid waste.

1 9.2.7.3.3 Specialty Waste Handling and Disposal System A specialty waste disposal system addresses small quantities of unique wastes generated by other processes. A reclamation process is included to recycle trichloroethylene from waste liquid. Specialty wastes are assumed to be shipped offsite for treatment and disposal. These wastes include:

  • Used silicone oil
  • Solvent waste
  • Facility maintenance fluids (e.g., paints, lubricants)
  • Spent batteries, spent fluorescent lighting tubes, and others
  • Personal protective equipment (PPE) waste
  • Laboratory waste for expired chemicals and expired radioactive sources 19.2.7.4 Construction Waste During construction, efforts are made to minimize the environmental impact. Erosion, sedimentation, dust, smoke, noise, unsightly landscape, and waste disposal are controlled to practical levels and applicable regulatory limits. The wastes generated during site preparation and construction are varied, depending on the activities in progress. The bulk of the waste consists of nonhazardous materials such as packing materials, paper, and scrap lumber. These wastes are transported offsite to an approved landfill.

These wastes that are generated are handled by approved methods and shipped offsite to approved disposal sites.

Best management practices (BMP) are used during construction to minimize the possibility of spills of hazardous substances, minimize environmental impacts of any spills, and ensure prompt and appropriate remediation.

19.2.7.5 Recycling and Reclamation With a continued focus on managing economic and environmental cost and impacts, proposed RPF processes involve recycling throughout each step. The following subsections summarize the systems designated for specific recycling efforts. Paper, plastic, and other administrative supplies are also recycled as appropriate.

19-52

UVChapter 9.0 -Environmental Review
  • e.e:,NORTHIWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Solvent recovery - Forming of the LEU target material requires use of a common solvent (trichioroethylene). Used solvent falls under the F-code type of waste disposal, making the solvent a potentially costly disposal and treatment path. Because most solvents are not spent after their use, the solvent could be recovered for reuse to minimize the final waste volume that is sent offsite for treatment and disposal. Standard industrial units are available for solvent reclamation. The used solvent from the process is loaded into the unit and vaporized, and then condensed to yield reclaimed solvent ready for reuse. The residue is contained in a concentrated solvent heel that is sent offsite for treatment and disposal.

Uranium - A major portion of hot cell operations is to recover and recycle uranium. This approach significantly reduces the amount of waste that has to be disposed. Section 19.2.3.1.4 discusses the recovery and recycle of uranium. The target fabrication process also recycles the uranium scrap generated during processing.

Process water - The waste management system segregates and recycles process condensates to be used back in the processes as make-up and flush water. The recycle will reduce the low level waste generated by about 50 percent.

19.2. 7.5.1 Direct Radiation Sources Stored Onsite the Radioisotope Production Facility Direct radiation sources stored onsite - The waste listed in Table 19-14 is stored onsite for a period of time to allow decay before the waste is shipped offsite. The frequency of shipments for each type of waste is also provided in Table 19-14.

19.2. 7.5.2 Direct Radiation Sources Stored at Nearby Operating Facilities Facilities that handle and store radioactive materials in the area of the RPF are discussed in Section 19.2.2.5 and 19.3.8.2.2.

19.2. 7.5.3 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization Program Pollution prevention and waste minimization activities promote practices that maximize beneficial effects and minimize harmful effects on the surrounding environment. These activities include efforts to prevent pollution by minimizing the "kindsand amounts of waste generated. The RPF will have a pollution prevention and waste minimization program that includes the following:

  • Employee training and education
  • Waste minimization and recycling programs for various phases (e.g., construction, operations)
  • Recognition of employees for improved environmental conditions
  • Responsibilities and requirements to consider in day-to-day activities Pollution prevention involves source reduction, or preventing pollution at its source, before it is generated. Source reduction includes any practice that reduces the quantity and/or toxicity of pollutants entering a waste stream prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal. Examples include equipment or technology modifications, substitution of less toxic raw materials, and improvements in work practices, maintenance, worker training, and inventory control.

Waste minimization refers to the use of source reduction and/or environmentally sound recycling methods prior to energy recovery, treatment, or disposal of wastes. Waste minimization does not include waste treatment (i.e., any process designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological composition of waste streams).

19-53

NdRW.ETMEIAIOPEChpe1 lviChptr 9.0NWM,-2013-021,

-Environmental Rev. 0A Review 19.2.8 Storage, Treatment, and Transportation of Radioactive and Nonradioactive Materials, including Fuel, Waste, Radioisotopes, and Any Other Materials 19.2.8.1 Storage and Treatment Storage, handling, and treatment of materials, product, and wastes are performed in a time-sensitive manner, in assigned areas, and using approved waste management, security, health and safety, and shielding procedures. This approach ensures that appropriate volume reduction is achieved, while minimizing the risk of exposure to the worker, public, or the environment.

19.2.8.1.1 Storage of Chemicals and Supplies A chemical management plan, product handling plan, or radioactive materials management plan is developed to ensure that:

  • Noncompatible chemicals are separated
  • Flammable chemicals/items are stored in a flameproof cabinet, as applicable
  • Oxidizers are stored separate from flammable chemicals and reducers
  • Radioactive sources or supplies are stored in locked cabinets/areas such that any potential exposure is kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)
  • New feed and recycled LEU is stored in an appropriate configuration and in a locked storage area until needed in the process 19.2.8.1.2 Treatment and Temporary Storage of Waste Onsite Treatment and temporary storage of radioactive and mixed wastes are performed predominantly onsite within the RPF.
  • Liquid waste that is not recycled/reused is eventually concentrated and mixed with sorbent material in the waste management area.
  • High-dose material, solidified (if necessary) and encapsulated, is held in a shielded enclosure in the RFP, interim-stored for radioactive decay to meet shipping and disposal requirements, and then loaded into a cask and shipped to a disposal site.
  • Low-dose stream, mixed with sorbent, is placed in drums, moved to the external waste management building for staging, and then shipped to a disposal site.
  • Solid waste is typically size-reduced as necessary, placed in containers, encapsulated, moved to the external waste management building for staging, and then shipped to a disposal site.
  • Target fabrication solvent reclamation area allows reuse of key materials. Any spent solvent is treated and packaged for shipment to a treatment and disposal facility.
  • Other industrial or commercial wastes (e.g., chemicals, paper products) will be managed in an environmentally and economically responsible manner. Recycling programs are used as needed.

19.2.8.1.3 Capacity of Onsite Radioisotope Production Facility Materials Storage Materials needed for LEU target fabrication (e.g., solvents, silicon oil, cladding) are received and stored.

Finished LEU targets are interim-stored until shipped to a university reactor system for irradiation.

19-54

NWMI Chapter 19. -WEnvironmenta Review Because of the short half-life of 99Mo, there is almost no accumulation of 99Mo product. The 99Mo product is shipped out twice per week. Chemicals and process supplies are stored according to the chemical management plan or facility procedures to ensure the lowest risk of exposure/contamination or accidental release.

19.2.8.2 Transportation of Material The transport of radioactive materials and waste and other hazardous materials associated with the RPF must comply with applicable NRC and DOT regulations. DOT specifies the requirements for marking, labeling, placarding, providing emergency response information, and training hazardous material transport personnel in 49 CFR 172. Specific packaging requirements for radioactive materials are provided in 49 CFR 173, Subpart I, "Class 7 (Radioactive) Materials." These requirements invoke the NRC packaging requirements for radioactive material per 10 CFR 71, "Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material." The DOT requirements for truck transportation of radioactive and other hazardous materials are specified in 49 CFR 177 and 49 CFR 397, "Transportation of Hazardous Materials; Driving and Parking Rules." Requirements affecting the shipment of 99Mo are specified in 49 CFR 175 and are the responsibility of the air carrier chosen to transport the 99Mo product.

19.2.8.2.1 Packaging Systems The majority of the radioactive components being shipped to and from the RPF require special container systems to ensure that protection of the public and the environment is achieved. Each of these containers is designed to meet certain NRC and DOT standards. Although the irradiated targets are not identified as a spent nuclear fuel shipment, NWMI will also use the guidance provided in NUREG-0561, Physical Protection of Shipments of lrradiatedReactor Fuel.

The primary radioactive materials and wastes that require a specialty container or cask are as follows:

Fresh LEU - Fresh LEU will be shipped from the DOE Y- 12 Program Office in Oak Ridge, Tennessee to the NWMI RPF using an ES-3 100 Package (Certificate of Compliance No. 9315)

(NRC, 2005). The DOE Y-12 Program Office routinely uses the package, which is currently licensed for the NWMI feed materials. DOE has a dedicated QA program for package use and maintenance, and all procedures are in a mature state.

The ES-3 100 package is a cylindrical container that is approximately 110 centimeter (cm)

(43 inches [in.]) in overall height and 49 cm (19 in.) in overall diameter, and has an outer drum assembly and an inner containment vessel. The containment vessel is placed inside the drum and surrounded by a cement-based borated neutron absorber, Catalog 277-4. The purpose of the ES-3 100 is to transport bulk high enriched or LEU uranium in various forms.

  • Unirradiated targets - Unirradiated targets will be shipped using the ES-3 100 or similar package, as described above. Unirradiated targets will be shipped to the network of university research reactors.
  • Irradiated targets - Irradiated targets will be received from the university reactors in a BEA Research Reactor cask or similar (Certificate of Compliance No. 9341) (INL, 2011). Within the cask, the irradiated targets are contained in basket structures that are specifically designed for NWMI's target and provide for optimum heat rejection and criticality control.

19-55

  • ..NWMCape
  • ,.., .NORTHNWEST lviChater19.0 MEDICAL ZSOTOPES NWMI-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev. QA Review The BEA Research Reactor cask is a truck-mounted cask designed for the shipment of research reactor fuel. The cask fully loaded weighs approximately 14,515 kg (32,000 lb). The overall height of the package with impact limiters is 3.04 m (119.5 in.). The outer diameter of the body is 0.97 m (38 in.). The outer diameter of the impact limiters is 1.52 m (60 in.), and each weighs approximately 1,043 kg (2,300 lb). The cask body is shielded with 20.3 cm (8 in.) equivalency of lead. The inner cavity of the BEA Research Reactor cask is 0.46 m (16 in.) in diameter and 1.70 m (67 in.) in height.

The cask currently is designed to hold four different baskets for the different fuel families.

NWMI will need to obtain a license amendment for transport of irradiated targets in the BEA Research Reactor cask.

99 99

  • Mo product - The Mo product will be placed into a Medical Isotope Depleted Uranium Shielded (MIDUS) Type B(U) container (Certificate of Compliance USA/9320/B(U)-96) (NRC, 2008a) or similar. The MIDUS container is currently used by U.S. and other radiopharmaceutical 99 Mo producers worldwide.
  • Radioactive waste - High-dose radioactive waste will be loaded in HICs and shipped in a cask, such as the Model 10-160B cask (ES, 2012). This type of cask is a lead-shielded carbon steel cask with a double-lid, bolted closure and is top-loaded. The cask is shipped vertically, with removable top and bottom polyurethane foam-filled impact limiters. Low-dose radioactive waste will be loaded into 208 L (55-gal) waste drums.
  • Contact-handled waste - Standard industrial waste drums or other appropriate containers will be used to dispose of contact-handled radioactive waste. Contact-handled waste is defined as waste that is less than 2 millisievert (mSv)/hr (200 millirem per hour [mrem/hr]) on contact and 0.1 mSv/hr (10 mrem/hr) at 1 m (3.3 ft). These containers must be handled according to the facility radioactive waste management plan to ensure that dose is kept ALARA. These waste containers generally do not require shielded casks or special shielding for transportation purposes.

19.2.8.2.2 Estimated Type and Quantity of Radioactive Materials and Wastes The estimated type and quantity of radioactive materials and wastes, number of shipments, shipment type, distance, and destination are summarized in Table 19-14. These distances and times may vary depending on available shipping routes or weather conditions. The number of shipments per year may also vary depending on what reactor is used for irradiation.

19-56

NW II NORTJ4WS MO A Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

- Environmental Review Table 19-14. Summary of Radioactive Materials and Wastes Required or Generated at the Radioisotope Production Facility for Ongoing Operations Fresh LEU Solid ES-3 100 2 (operations From DOE Y- 12 953 (592)

Annually cask annual average) (Oak Ridge,

[Proprietary Initial need Information] Tennessee)

Operation S[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information]

Information]

Operation d[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information]

Information] e[Proprietary (U30 8 or metal)

Information]

0 Irradiated LEU Solid [Proprietary BRR cask 104 From MURR 9.6 (6) targets Information]

Solid [Proprietary aBRR cask 16 From OSTR 3,320 (2,0(

Information]

63)

Solid [Proprietary aBRR cask 16 From third [Proprieta ry Information] reactor Informatio )n]

Spent LEU Solid [Proprietary ES-3 100 2 To SRS 1,345 (836)

Information] cask aPackage type identified can be changed to another similar package.

b Only includes road miles traveled.

cLEU needed for hot commissioning and initial RPF startup.

d LEU needed in Operation (Proprietary Information] for addition of second reactor.

e LEU needed in Operation [Proprietary Information] for addition of third reactor.

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

LEU = low-enriched uranium. SRS = Savannah River Site.

MIDUS = Medical Isotope Depleted Uranium Shielded. MURR = University of Missouri Research Reactor.

19-57

NW IRENM-0301

  • ..t;UVV--iiChapter 19.0 -Environmental Rev. O Review

'.°

  • . ORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES 19.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 19.3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources 19.3.1.1 Land Use This section characterizes land use associated with the proposed RPF. The facility is proposed to be sited at Discovery Ridge, located on property owned by MU. The university occupies a 505 ha (1,250-acre) campus and is located 4.8 km (3 mi) southeast of Discover Ridge, which is just south of downtown Columbia. Land uses are within an 8 km (5-mi) region of influence (ROD. The ROI is the geographic area associated with each resource that could potentially be affected by the proposed action. The land use for the site was analyzed using data from the National Land Cover Database (Fry et al., 2011).

19.3.1.1.1 Site - Description of the Proposed Property The RPF would be located in Lot 15 of the Discover Ridge Phase II section. The Phase II area is 22.2 ha (54.9 acres) and, as shown in Figure 19-14, is bounded by the Phase III area to the north, Discovery Parkway and the Phase I section to the west/northwest, Discovery Drive to the south/southwest, Lot 14 and stormwater management areas to the east, and private property to the south.

- .0A Phln 13O Ph..U 5A*

'1 F-212AM Source: MU 01, "Phasing Overview," Maps and Roads, Research Parks & Incubators, Discovery Ridge, www.umsystem.edu/umrpi/discoveryridge/maps, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, accessed July 2013.

Figure 19-14. Layout of Discovery Ridge Research Park Showing Lot 15, the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site 19-58

MEIA STPSCatr1NWMI-0i-21 IIVYChapter ev. O 9.0 - Environmental Review Lot 15 is 3.0 ha (7.4 acres) and contains no existing structures (MU, 2011). Currently, the 46.1 ha (114-acre) research park is being developed under the guidance of the Discovery Ridge Master Plan and Protective Covenants (MU, 2009). Figure 19-6 shows the site boundaries and proposed structures.

Dimensions of the RPF are approximately 106.7 x 56.4 m (350 x 185 ft) by 19.8 m (65 ft) in height abovegrade (maximum). The facility would occupy a rectangular area approximately 213 x 91 m (700 x 300 ft) at the outer perimeter and cover approximately 1.95 ha (4.8 acres) on Lot 15. The restricted area would be the area inside the fence surrounding the facility. The unrestricted area would be the area outside the fence surrounding the main building.

19.3.1.1.2 Major Population Centers and Infrastructure - Local Setting The proposed site resides entirely within the Columbia city limits and is approximately 200 km (124 mi) south of St. Louis (population 319,294); 203 km (126 mi) east of Kansas City (population 459,787); and 45 km (28 mi) north of Jefferson City (population 43,088) (USCB, 2010a). The proposed site lies in Boone County (population 162,642) (USCB, 2010~b).

19.3.1.1.3 Transportation Infrastructure Section 19.3.7 provides a description of the regional air, road, and rail transportation systems.

The Missouri River is one of the largest river systems in the U.S. and the largest river in Boone County.

The river originates in south central Montana and generally flows in an easterly and southeasterly direction before entering the Mississippi River in eastern Missouri, a length of about 4,345 km (2,700 mi). The river lies approximately 11.7 km (7.3 mi) to the west of the proposed RPF and forms the southwestern border of Boone County. The Missouri River is the only river system in Boone County large enough for commercial navigation; however, there are no ports that directly service Columbia (MU, 2006a).

19.3.1.1.4 Local Setting Discovery Ridge lies at the crossroads of U.S. Highway 63 and Gans Road, which is near the MU main campus, U.S. Interstate 70, Columbia Regional Airport, University Hospital, Columbia Regional Hospital, downtown Columbia, and Jefferson City. Discovery Ridge, when fully developed, will occupy 223 ha (550 acres) and is bounded by East Sugar Grove Road to the north, South Rolling Hills Road to the east, U.S. Highway 63 to the south, and Sunset Mobile Home Park to the west. Perry Phillips Park (57 ha [140 acres] and a 16 ha [40-acre] lake) and the Frank G. Nifong Memorial Park (23 ha [58 acres])

are located nearby to the west. The MU Bradford Research and Extension Center (a 239 ha [591-acre]

research farm) lies to the north of Discovery Ridge. Figure 19-5 shows the local setting for the proposed RPF site.

19.3.1.1.5 Regional Setting The ROI is defined as the area within an 8 km (5-mi) radius of the proposed facility centerpoint (Figure 19-5). The ROI includes nearly half of Columbia and the entire MU area. The MU student population, when in full session, is approximately 34,658 (MU, 2013).

19-59

: ChaperI1NWM,-2013-021, Chpter 9.0 - Environmental Rev. 0A Review
  • .. TWETMEOICAL 0 .N ISOTOPES Existing land uses in a concentric ring pattern around the RPF can generally be described as follows (MU, 2006a):
  • 0-1 km (0-0.6 mi) - There is very little residential development within the immediate area of the proposed RPF. Most of the land is owned and operated by MU. Recreational areas include a golf course to the west and a park to the south. Three MU sports venues are located within this area:

Memorial Stadium/Faurot Field, Mizzou Arena, and Hearnes Center.

  • 1-2 km (0.6-1.3 mi) - 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 the MU 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.
  • 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, comprised mainly of government offices and retail, commercial, and business uses, is located to the northeast. Development is expected to continue within this area, probably to the south of the proposed RPF.

  • 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 nonresidential 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 nonresidential development.

19.3.1.1.6 Land Use and Cover within the Regional Setting There are 20,342 ha (50,265 acres) in the 8 km (5-mi) ROI surrounding the proposed RPF. According to the data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Fry et al., 2011), approximately 25 percent of the land is developed (i.e., residential, commercial). Forest and pasture land are the next highest uses at 31 and 30 percent, respectively. Cultivated cropland follows next at 9 percent. The remaining land use types total less than l percent of each category and include barren land, evergreen forest, grassland/herbaceous, mixed forests, open water, scrub, and woody and emergent herbaceous wetlands.

19-60

""NWMI

  • .,. 4'NORTHW ST CA *lO MEO4 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Land use, as categorized by the USGS, is presented in Table 19-15. Figure 19-15 shows the distribution of these land uses within the ROI. Most developed lands lie to the northwest, while agricultural lands lie to the east and southeast. Deciduous forest is interspersed throughout the ROI.

Table 19-15. U.S. Geological Survey Land Use Categories for the 8 km (5-mi)

Region of Influence Surrounding the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Barren land 16.19 93.66 0.19 463, I Deciduous forest 6,365.64 15,729.81 31.29 Developed, low intensity 1,892.74 4,677.06 9.30 2,79 Developed, open space 1,666.96 4,119.15 8.19 Evergreen forest 216.30 534.48 1.06 139.6 Mixed forests 189.75 468.87 0.93 Pasture/hay 6, 134.34 15,158.25 30.16 Woody wetlands 146.95 363.13 0.72

    • ¸2¸¸¸¸¸ Source: 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, 2001.

19.3.1.1.7 Special Land Uses Special land uses within the ROI include public stewardship lands and prime farmlands (farmland is discussed in Section 19.3.1.1.10). There is no Federal land held in trust for American Indian tribes within the ROI. Approximately 7 percent (1427 ha [3,527 acres]) of the land is public stewardship lands (e.g.,

parks, conservation areas) that primarily lie southwest of the proposed RPF. There are no military reservations or Federally designated wild and scenic rivers, national parks, national forests, or coastal zone areas within the ROI. Figure 19-16 shows the location and extent of the special land uses.

19-61

~NWMI Chapter 19.0 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

- Environmental Review A RPF Site Land Use ~ZEvergreen Forest 0* 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands V]Deciduous Forest

__Wodelad Barren Land ra=ItrsaeHghas* Cultivated Crops Developed High Intensity

--- Highways J Pasture/i lay Devcloped, Medium Intensity g3 City Limits K i Grassland/Ilerbaceous Developed, Low Intensity 3Shrub/Scrub [I]Developed, Open Space 0 0.5 3 4n 1 2

,,,Miles Mixed Forest *1Open Water Land Use Calo~n: USGS 2006 Naioa Lend Cover Databae* CONUS Len Cover dIgglal datai: httpit*www mdc.gov Figure 19-15. Land Use and Cover within the 8 km (5 mi)

Region of Influence of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site 19-62

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA NWMI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review A RPF Site C8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site MDOC Conservation Management Areas Columbia City Parks

Interstate Highways

-- Highways 71 MDNR Wild Areas Q*f City Limits MDNR State Parks 00.45 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 Mark Twain National Forest Miles I Special tLand Use Figure 19-16. Special Land Use within the Region of Influence of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site 19-63

NW KI MOTJVVSMDALilChapter 19.0NWMI-2013-021,

-Environmental Rev.

Review 0A 19.3.1.1.8 Applicable Land Use Plans and Guidance Discovery Ridge was developed under Section 172.273 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, which provided that "the Curators of the University of Missouri may establish research, development, and office park projects in order to promote cooperative relationships and to provide for shared resources between private individuals, companies and corporations, and the University of Missouri, for the advancement of the University in carrying out its educational mission and such projects are declared to be in furtherance of the purposes of the University."

The Discovery Ridge Master Plan an~d Protective Covenants (MU, 2009) is the applicable land use guidance for the research park. Discovery Ridge is zoned commercial in the A-1 district (City of Columbia, 2012a), under the Section 29-18 provision, Board of Adjustment (City of Columbia, 2012b).

The Columbia Code (Section 29-18) has height restriction for A-i of 10.7 m (35 ft).

Missouri Revised Statute, Section 172.273, exempts university research parks, including Discovery Ridge, from local land development regulations. This allows MU to develop Discovery Ridge to its own master plan and to include non-agriculture-related structures with sizes in excess of the A-I zoning requirements, provided MU gives Columbia courtesy review of the plan and design drawings and addresses the city's comments and concerns. The master plan and covenants for the development do not specify height restrictions.

"Columbia Imagined, The Plan for How We Live & Grow" is the current comprehensive plan for Columbia (City of Columbia, 201 3c), and the Boone Count, Master Plan (Boone County, 1996) guides development of lands outside of city limits but within the county.

19.3.1.1.9 Future Development Only a few tenants currently occupy Discovery Ridge. According to the master plan and covenants (MU, 2009), the future and growth of Discovery Ridge itself will be market-driven. Future tenants are expected to be businesses that are compatible and synergistic with the research programs at MU. Tenants obtain a ground lease from the university and construct their own facilities. Facilities are designed to conform to uniform building codes and design standards listed in the "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements for Discovery Ridge" (MU, 2009). Expansion and/or property acquisition beyond the 223 ha (550 acres) currently defining Discovery Ridge is possible in the future and requires approval by the MU Board of Curators.

Nearby future development includes a city park and a large commercial and residential development that is planned for the west side of U.S. Highway 63, adjacent to the overpass that provides access to the Discovery Ridge Parkway. According to Columbia (20 13c)," the city's planning staff is studying steering employment to developing office and industrial centers, which includes Discovery Ridge, in response to citizen goals and objectives offered through the city's comprehensive plan planning process. This approach is being considered as the city continues to study and identify anticipated future economic growth.

19.3.1.1.10 Agricultural Resources and Facilities The principal agricultural products of Boone County, as estimated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), are corn for grain, corn silage for greenchop, spring/winter wheat for grain, and oats and barley for grain (USDA, 2007). Livestock also has significant importance because much of the land is not suited for row crops.

19-64

Eli;..

.............. ChptrWWM-03-2,Rev.

Chpe Q 19.0 - Environmental Review Agriculture resources nearest to the RPF site are associated with MU and include the following:

South Farm - A 588 ha (1,452-acre) complex that supports research, outreach, and teaching missions of animal science, plant science, veterinary science, biology, botany, and other disciplines. The farm is home to the Swine Research Complex, Beef Research and Teaching Farm, Turf Center, USDA Agricultural Research Service, and Horse Farm. The complex also supports research and demonstration projects in entomology, poultry, and maize genetics. The Missouri Foundation Seed Program uses South Farm to increase the sales of newly developed seed varieties to dealers. Hands-on teaching is provided to more than 1,500 students annually.

  • Jefferson Farm and Gardens - A 27 ha (67-acre) educational facility that provides information on farming, gardening, and conservation.
  • Bradford Research and Extension Center - A 239 ha (591-acre) research farm that provides land, equipment, and facilities to assist university and USDA scientists and extension personnel in performing research in crop, soils, entomology, pathology, turf, and other disciplines on more than 25,000 plots.

A number of privately owned farms also lie in the surrounding area.

19.3.1.1.1 1 Mineral Resources According to the EPA Western Ecology Division's Ecoregions of Missouri (Chapman et al., 2002), the proposed RPF site is part of the Claypan Prairie Level IV ecoregion, which is located within the Central Irregular Plains Level III ecoregion.

Well-developed claypan soils on glacial till typify the Claypan Prairie ecoregion. This region has a more level, gently rolling topography than surrounding regions. Expansive cropland and pastureland, with an emphasis on livestock production, is common. The potential natural vegetation is tall grass prairie with less woodland than surrounding regions. Streams run generally west to east, draining into the Mississippi River, in contrast to the northwest-to-southeast drainage of ecoregions to the west.

The Claypan Prairie ecoregion was glaciated in the pre-Illinoian time period. The continental drift, largely derived from limestone and shale, is composed of clay with a high percentage of rock fragments.

Groundwater tends to be saline, unlike the freshwater of ecoregions to the southeast. The mix of land-use activities includes mining operations of high-sulfur bituminous coal. Although, historically, mining was more widespread, a few new mines continue to open. The disturbance of these coal strata in southern Iowa, areas of northern and southwestern Missouri, and southeastern Kansas has degraded water quality and affected aquatic biota (Chapman et al., 2002).

19.3.1.2 Visual Resources A viewshed is an area of land, water, sky and associated environmental elements that is visible to the human eye from a fixed vantage point. Viewsheds often contain relatively large expanses of natural areas such as watersheds, unfragmented habitat, and unobstructed views. Viewsheds typically are spaces that are readily visible from public areas such as from roadways, parks, or high-rise buildings. The beauty of these areas contributes to the short-term and long-term quality of life for the people and communities who experience them. In urban areas, appealing viewsheds attract people and businesses and are associated with higher property values.

Visual resource management is the identification of visual values and establishment of objectives for managing those values. NRC (20 12a) identifies the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Visual Resource Management System (BLM, 1986) as the method for rating the aesthetic/scenic quality of a proposed site.

19-65

NWMI Catr ~R The BLM process involves a scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, and a delineation of distance zones. Based on these three factors, lands are categorized by their relative visual value, which provides the basis for considering these values and impacts during the planning process. The BLM process is considered the standard for visual resource management. In overview, the process involves the following steps:

  • Inventory - An inventory provides written descriptions and photos of the views or open space of concern. The inventory may also include site information regarding distinguishing characteristics, parcel size, ownership, access points for best view, and potential threats to preservation.
  • Rating - For each inventory item, a rating is assigned that considers such factors as scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance zones. Based on the rating, lands are categorized into visual resource importance classes. The classifications typically range from most valued to least valued classes and assign value to the visual resource.
  • Protection level - Levels provide the basis for considering visual values in the planning process.

For example, during an environmental analysis, a project that is found to impact highly important visual resources might be redesigned, relocated, or resituated to lessen its impact.

The process of determining the affected environment for visual resources begins with a description of the visual setting and the regulatory requirements affecting the setting.

19.3.1.2.1 Description of the Visual Setting Discovery Ridge is located on the edge of Columbia in a suburban/rural interface setting where farmland, parks, and natural areas are widespread and interspersed with residential dwellings, community and transportation infrastructure, and business establishments. Discovery Ridge is minimally developed at this time.

A Phase I environmental site assessment included a cursory visual reconnaissance and description of the area that included Lots 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, and adjoining properties (Terracon, 201 la). The assessment describes the overall visual setting in which Lot 15 lies; the lot on which the proposed RPF would be located. All except Lot 5 are vacant; that lot is developed with a storage building. The ground is generally grass-covered, with portions of cultivated fields in the vicinity of Lot 16. The general topography slopes slightly to moderately downward toward the south and west (Terracon, 201 la). Table 19-16 presents information from the site assessment that describes the viewshed from Discovery Ridge boundaries.

Table 19-16. Discovery Ridge Viewshed North Ed's Mobile Home Park and Sunset Mobile Home Park to the northwest, and farmland with University of Missouri storage buildings, farmland, and Sugar Grove Lane to the north and northeast South Lenoir Street, a residential house, U.S. Highway 63, Ponderosa Drive, and farmland Source: Terracon, 201 la, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 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.

19-66

NWMI~~

ftfri UDo NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Photos were taken from the locations indicated on Figure 19-17 toward the proposed RPF in September 2013. Figure 19-18 through Figure 19-25 show the views. Most views are of undeveloped or minimally developed areas, with occasional trees, roads, power lines, and farmland.

-T O Photopoints - Highways RPF Site - Interstate C3 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site C Lmt 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Figure 19-17. September 2013 Visual Reconnaissance Photo Locations 19-67

.'NWIV,' NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Figure 19-18. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Intersection of Rolling Hills and Bass Roads, Photo Location #1 Figure 19-19. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Gans Road, approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) North Photo Location #2 19-68

NWI NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Figure 19-20. Direct View of Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Discovery Parkway near the Overpass, Photo Location #3 Figure 19-21. View of Radioisotope Production Facility Site from the North Edge of Perry Phillips Lake, Photo Location #4 19-69

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWMI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Figure 19-22. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Boys and Girls Town of Missouri, Photo Location #5 Figure 19-23. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from S. Lenoir and Roosevelt Avenue, Photo Location #6 19-70

"NWMIV

.OH.M.IS M,... NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Figure 19-24. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Intersection of New Haven and Rolling Hills Roads, Photo Location #7 Figure 19-25. View of Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site from Route WW at Old Hawthorne, Photo Location #8 19-71

N MDILISOPSCatr1 lviChptr WM-0321Re.A 9.0 -Environmental Review 19.3.1.2.2 Tallest Structures The tallest structural components of the RPF would be the three exhaust stacks, which extend 22.9 m (75 ft) high. The next highest portion of the building, the high bay, would be the second story above the process area, at 19.8 m (65 ft). The stacks would be visible from approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) away.

The scenic vistas of the nation's national parks and wilderness areas are protected under amendments of the Clean Air Act. Protected areas are "knownas Federal Class 1 areas. Congress declared the following as a national visibility goal for these areas:

The prevention of any fu~ture, and th~e remedying of any existing impairmen~t of i'isibilit, in mandatory class I Federalareas which impairment resultsfrom, manmade airpollution.

(42 U.S.C. § 7491 Section 169A)

To address the problem of long-range transport of regional haze and to meet this goal, the EPA adopted regulations, known as the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51, "Regional Haze Regulations"), to address visibility impairment caused by one or a small group of human-made sources generally located in close proximity to a specific Class I area. States are required to improve visibility in these areas incrementally over the next 60 years. The first milestone is to develop a regional haze plan to reduce causes of haze to make reasonable progress by 2018.

There are no Federal Class I areas, as defined by 40 CFR 81.416, "Identification of Mandatory Class I Federal Areas where Visibility is an Important Value, Missouri," within Boone County, Columbia, the ROI, or anywhere near the proposed RPF site. The site lies within the BLM Northeastern States Field Office planning district, which covers 20 states. The Milwaukee Field Office administers the nearest public land to the RPF site. Within that area, there are no BLM-managed acres that are classified as Class I. The RPF site also lies within the Forest Service Eastern Region. The Forest Service manages the only two Class I areas in the state. These Class I areas include the Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, a 4,983.7 ha (12,315-acre) area approximately 352.4 km (219 mi) south of Columbia, and the Mingo Wilderness Area, a 3,237.5 ha (8,000-acre) area approximately 420 km (261 mi) southeast of Columbia.

19.3.1.2.3 Aesthetic and Scenic Quality Rating The scenic quality of the proposed site was rated using the BLM Visual Resource Management System (BLM, 1986). The scenic quality classification is the rating of the visual appeal of the land designated for the site and is based on an evaluation of seven key factors: landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications. Notes are taken at the observation points describing these characteristics and scored according to the criteria shown in Table 19-17. The RPF site scoring and photographs were used to determine the visual quality of the site. Scenic quality is classified as either A, B, or C, based on total score, with A being a high-quality visual classification and C being a low-quality visual rating. Table 19-18 shows the scoring and the final NWMI site determination as a C classification.

19-72

~.NWM I NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-17. Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart

- . S

  • S - - 5 0~

Landform High vertical relief as expressed in Steep canyons, mesas, Low rolling hills, prominent cliffs, spires, or massive buttes, cinder cones, and foothills, or flat valley rock outcrops; or severe surface drumlins; or interesting bottoms; or few or no variation or highly eroded formations, erosional patterns or variety interesting features including major badlands or dune in size and shape of systems; or detail features dominant landforms; or detail features and exceptionally striking and that are interesting though intriguing, such as glaciers not dominant or exceptional Score: 5 Score: 3 Score: 1 Water Clear and clean appearing, still, or Flowing, or still, but not Absent or present, but not cascading white water, any of which dominant in the landscape noticeable are a dominant factor in the landscape Score: 5 Score: 3 Score: C3

)

Influence of Adjacent scenery greatly enhances Adjacent scenery Adjacent scenery has little adjacent visual quality moderately enhances overall or no influence on overall scenery visual quality visual quality Score: 5 Score: 3 Score: 0 Cultural Modifications add favorably to visual Modifications add little or Modifications add variety modifications variety while promoting visual no visual variety to the area but are very discordant harmony and introduce no discordant and promote strong elements disharmony Score: 2 Score: 0 Score: -4 19-73

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-18. Scenic Quality Rating, by View Photo Loc. #3, 1 Level to rolling topography, agriculture-related Figure 19-20 structures in the background 1 Grass area, shrubs in foreground, trees in background 0 None Little contrast in vegetation tones, mainly monochromatic 0 Adjacent scenery is similar 1 Common for the area 0 Agriculture structures, utility pad 4 C A=l19 or more; B =12-18; C =11or less Photo Loc. #4, I Level to rolling topography, agriculture-related Figure 19-21 structures and utility poles in the background 1 Grass in foreground, dirt in background, trees in distance 0 None Contrast in soil, rock, and vegetation; not unique 0 Adjacent scenery is similar I Common for the area 0 Agriculture structures, power lines 4 C A=19ormore;B=12-18;C=llorless ill...........................................

Photo Loc.#7, 1 Level topography, farm field and trees in the Figure 19-24 background I Pavement and grass in foreground, agriculture fields in background 0 None 1 Contrast in crop color is similar to contrast in grass area 0 Adjacent scenery is similar Common for the area facility.0 Pavement, power lines, signs production radioisotope 4 C A=19 or more; B =12-18; C =11or less

=

RPF RPF = radioisotope production facility.

19-74

lvii-.

o*........

ChptrWMI-03-2,Rev.

hpe 19.0 -Environmental Review O

The sensitivity level, a measurement of the public concern for scenic quality, was also analyzed using six different indicators of public concern: types of users, amount of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, special areas, and other factors. The sensitivity level of the public concern for scenic quality is rated on a high (H), moderate (M), or low (L) scale. The site has an L sensitivity rating, as an area with low scenic values resulting from a low sensitivity to changes in visual quality by the type of users in the area, a low amount of use by viewers, low public interest in changes to the visual quality of the site, and a lack of special natural and wilderness areas.

19.3.2 Air Quality and Noise 19.3.2.1 General Regional Climate Geomorphic, or physiographic, regions are broad-scale subdivisions of the nation that are based on terrain texture, rock type, geologic structure, and history. There are eight regions, subdivided into 25 provinces, and further subdivided to 85 sections within the U.S. (Fenneman, 1946). The characteristics and locations of these landforms influence local and regional climate and weather patterns.

The proposed RPF site lies at the southern edge of the Central Lowlands physiographic province, within a very few miles of the adjacent Ozark Plateau province, both of which lie within the larger Interior Plains physiographic region. The Central Lowlands includes most of the Corn Belt and lies within the heartland of America.

The proposed RPF location places the facility in the Humid Continental-Warm Summer climatic zone.

This type of climate has a characteristic long, warm summer with moderate relative humidity. The winters are cool to cold and mark a period of lower precipitation than during the remainder of the year.

Because of its geographical location far inland, the region is subject to significant seasonal and daily temperature variations. Air masses moving over the state during the year include cold continental polar air from Canada, warm and humid maritime tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, and dry eastward flowing air masses from the Rocky Mountains located to the west. Prolonged periods of extreme hot or cold temperatures are unusual (MU, 2006b).

The general geostrophic airflow pattern and the prevailing jet stream track shuttle precipitation-producing mid-latitude cyclones (lows) across the state from west-to-east throughout the year. Consequently, precipitation events in all seasons move through from a westerly direction (MU, 2006b).

Spring, summer, and early fall precipitation occurs in the form of rain and thunderstorms. Severe thunderstorms typically occur during the period from mid- to late-spring through early summer. Hail may be expected as a product of these storms. Wind speeds of up to 97 km/hr (60 mi/hr) or more may be experienced once or twice a year during a severe thunderstorm (MU, 2006b). Winter precipitation is generally light to moderate and occurs in the form of rain or snow or a mixture of both with an occasional, though infrequent, thunderstorm. Occasional heavy snowfall episodes occur infrequently, and when they do occur, the accumulation does not last for any significant duration. Surface temperature conditions sometimes produce freezing rain or drizzle, although normally not more than a couple times each season.

The historical climate data within this section were obtained primarily from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) High Plains Regional Climate Center historical climate data summaries for Columbia (NOAA, 2013a and 2013b). In addition, MU has a weather station at South Farm, less than 1.6 km (1 mi) away from the proposed site and approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) from Columbia. The weather station is used in conjunction with the MU agricultural program. The university makes the weather data available via its website. Simple searches may be performed and various averages can be obtained through this database.

19-75

  • 14 Qo'.:*.*.-Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Other sources were used as needed (e.g., Decker, 2013) to augment NOAA data, particularly to better understand the immediate area around the proposed site.

19.3.2.1.1 Temperature Though temperatures reached a record high of 41.7°C (107 degrees Fahrenheit [0 F]) in 2012, in general, temperatures rarely exceed 38°C (I100°F) in the summer and rarely fall below -18°C (0°F) in the winter.

The mean maximum temperatures in Columbia, collected from the reporting station at the Columbia Regional Airport (Station 231791) over a 43-year period, ranged from 2.8°C (37.2°F) in January to 31 .4°C (88.5°F) in July. Daily temperatures during that period showed a wider variance, from -28.8°C

(-20°F) in December to 44°C (Ill °F) in July. A summary of average and extreme temperature data for 1969 through 2012 is shown in Table 19-19.

Table 19-19. Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Temperature Summary, 1969-2012 Average max. °C 2.9 6.1 12.7 18.9 23.6 28.5 31.4 30.7 26.0 19.6 12.0 5.1 18.1 0

temperature F 37.2 43.0 54.9 66.1 74.4 83.3 88.5 87.3 78.8 67.2 53.6 41.2 64.6 Daily extreme c°C 23.3 27.8 29.4 32.2 33.3 a89 43.9 43.3 38.3 34.4 28.3 24.4 43.9 high OF 74.0 82.0 85.0 90.0 92.0 a107 111.0 110.0 101.0 94.0 83.0 76.0 111.0 Average mean °C -1.9 0.9 6.9 12.9 17.8 22.8 25.4 24.6 19.9 13.5 6.7 0.4 12.5

'F 28.5 33.6 44.5 55.2 64.1 73.0 77.8 76.3 67.8 56.3 44.1 32.7 54.5 Source: WRCC, 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.

a Occurred during 2008-2012 time period.

Average temperature data for the Columbia, Missouri, weather station was reviewed for the most recent five years having data available (2008 to 2012). The lowest average temperature was -4. I°C (24.65°0F),

recorded in January 2010, and the highest average temperature was 29.5°C (85 .06°F), recorded in July 2012. The five-year annual average temperature was 13.1 °C (55.58°F).

A five-year temperature summary is presented in Table 19-20. The five-year average temperature for the same time period, reported at the South Farm weather station, was 12.3°C (54.2°F). The average minimum temperature was 6.9°C (44.5°F), and the average maximum temperature was 17.9°C (64.3°F)

(MU, 2014).

19-76

ST...

lvi:..II I! ChpeI Chapter 9.0NWMI-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev. OA Review Table 19-20. Columbia, Missouri, Five-Year Temperature Summary, 2008-2012

°C -3.1 2.4 8.1 11.7 17.9 23.3 22.5 21.9 18.6 10.2 9.8 -1.1 11.8 2009 OF 26.5 36.3 46.5 53.1 64.2 73.9 72.5 71.4 65.5 50.3 49.6 30.0 53.3 0

C -3.9 -0.1 6.6 14.0 16.9 24.0 27.5 24.9 17.6 14.2 8.9 3.1 12.8 2011 0F 24.9 31.9 43.9 57.2 62.5 75.1 81.6 76.7 63.7 57.5 48.1 37.5 55.0

'C -2.0 0.6 8.6 13.7 18.3 24.0 25.9 24.2 18.9 12.8 8.5 -0.2 13.1 Mean

'F 28.4 33.1 47.5 56.6 64.9 75.3 78.7 75.5 66.1 55.0 47.3 31.7 55.6 Source: WRCC, 2013b, "Station Monthly Time Series, Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012, Station 231791 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.edulcgi-bin/wea..mnsimts.pl?IaKCOU, Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed August 2013.

19.3.2.1.2 Precipitation According to the historical data from Station 231791, precipitation in the Columbia area averages approximately 103.1 cm (40.6 in.) per year. Of that amount, the mean snowfall is 57.7 cm (22.7 in.) per year. The city has measurable amounts of precipitation 111 days per year. The maximum annual precipitation of 159 cm (62.49 in.) was measured in 1993, and the minimum annual precipitation of 60 cm (23.66 in.) was measured in 1980. On a monthly basis, rainfall amounts range from a high of 12.4 cm (4.89 in.) in May to a low of 4.62 cm (1.82 in.) in January (WRCC, 2013a).

According to the historical data from Station 231791, snow falls from November through April. During that period, a high of 16 cm (6.3 in.) was recorded in February 2011, and a low of 1.5 cm (0.6 in.) was recorded in 1980. A summary of average and extreme precipitation data for 1969 through 2012 is shown in Table 19-21.

19-77

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

  • .o .

I'.,V.o vhaper19.0 -Environmental Review Table 19-21. Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Precipitation Summary, 1969-2012 i kTl['a*. I,."111I[*11 iI*.i i III v Average cm 4.62 5.44 8.10 11.23 12.42 10.24 9.58 10.06 9.53 8.28 7.72 6.02 103.12 total precipitation in 1.82 2.14 3.19 4.42 4.89 4.03 3.77 3.96 3.75 3.26 3.04 2.37 40.60 cm 0.13 0.28 1.98 2.26 a3.33 0.89 0.61 0.53 1.14 "0.91 1.07 1.22 60.10 Low in 0.05 0.11 0.78 0.89 a 1.31 0.35 0.24 0.21 0.45 a 0.36 0.42 0.48 23.66 Average cm 15.75 a 16.00 7.37 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.57 12.70 57.66 total snowfall in 6.20 a6.3 2.90 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 5.00 22.70 Source: WRCC, 2013a, "Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature, 1969 to 2012, Station 231791 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl?mo 1791, Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed August 2013.

a Occurred during 2008-2012 time period.

A recent five-year precipitation summary of the station data was obtained and reviewed. For each month during this time period, a portion of the data was missing, with the missing data ranging from approximately 15-30 percent of the total data. Precipitation data from the South Farm weather station was also reviewed. The averages shown on the site were different than the Columbia weather station by a factor of five. Thus, the Columbia weather station historical summary serves as the more complete picture of precipitation at the proposed RPF site.

19.3.2.1.3 Humidity Average relative humidity data for the Columbia, Missouri, weather station was reviewed for 2008 to 2012. The lowest average relative humidity was 51.89 percent, recorded in August 2012, and the highest average relative humidity was 82.13 percent, recorded in September 2008. The five-year annual average was 69.18 percent. The five-year relative humidity data summary is shown in Table 19-22.

Table 19-22. Relative Humidity Data for Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012 2008 60.51 72.02 66.68 64.85 69.49 71.40 74.38 78.87 82.13 77.52 65.87 71.48 71.18 2010 75.69 73.42 70.33 61.24 74.71 76.64 79.19 75.19 76.17 58.65 64.86 72.85 71.58

........... .1. ]l 2012 64.05 63.72 63.58 65.03 61.33 54.89 52.96 51.89 69.64 66.76 62.25 70.91 61.46 Source: 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.

19-78

goE.,.o NO.T lviCatr1NWMI WCLI Chapter - Environmental Rev.

9.0,M-20o3-o2, GA Review 19.3.2.1.4 Wind Extreme wind speeds are uncommon in central Missouri. When they do occur, they are usually caused by pressure gradients and temperature contrasts present in the mid-latitude cyclones that pass through the state. These cyclones may spawn storms that produce high winds from gust fronts, microbursts, and tornadoes. Non-storm-related extreme winds are rare. Occasionally, cold high-pressure air filling in behind a front causes high wind, especially in the winter when temperature contrasts are large.

Average wind speed data for the Columbia, Missouri, weather station was reviewed for 2008 to 2012.

The lowest mean wind speed was 8.8 km/hr (5.47 milhr) in August 2008, and the highest was 19.1 km/hr (11.87 mi/hr) recorded in December 2008. The five-year annual average was 14.25 km/hr (8.86 mi/hr).

The five-year mean wind speed data summary is shown in Table 19-23.

Table 19-23. Mean Wind Speed for Columbia, Missouri, from 2008-2012 208(km/br) 18.85 17.03 16.96 17.53 15.76 13.97 11.28 8.80 10.01 11.59 14.32 19.10 14.93 (mi/hr) 11.71 10.58 10.54 10.89 9.79 8.68 7.01 5.47 6.22 7.20 8.90 11.87 9.28 200(km/br) 13.74 13.73 15.96 17.06 12.79 11.43 10.06 9.88 12.17 16.30 14.73 13.41 13.10 (mi/br) 8.54 8.53 9.92 10.60 7.95 7.10 6.25 6.14 7.56 10.13 9.15 8.33 8.14 202(krn/hr) 16.98 15.64 16.53 15.19 13.42 13.68 10.56 11.35 11.57 13.79 14.97 14.18 13.97 (mi/br) 10.55 9.72 10.27 9.44 8.34 8.50 6.56 7.05 7.19 8.57 9.30 8.81 8.68 Source: 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.

Wind data from the South Farm weather station was also reviewed. The average shown on the site was different than the Columbia weather station by a factor of two. Thus, the Columbia weather station data provides a more comprehensive study of wind activity at the proposed site.

Two wind roses are presented to show the general historic wind flow patterns in the immediate area and the ROI. Figure 19-26 shows the wind pattern as measured at South Farm, located immediately north of the proposed RPF site. These data were collected by MU. Figure 19-27 shows the wind patterns recorded at the Columbia Remote Automatic Weather Station.

Both wind roses show that the prevailing surface wind direction is from the south. The South Farm wind rose shows a total average wind speed of 11.3 km/hr (7 milhr), while the Columbia wind rose shows a total average speed of 14.16 km/hr (8.8 mi/hr). Both wind roses show that the average frequency of higher speed winds falls into the 24-40 km/hr (15-25 mi/hr) range.

19-79

NWI NWMI-2013-021, Rlev. OA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Rleview WIND SPEED (mph)

  • o0- 150 10.0-50 c~~.0 J%

Figure 19-26. Wind Rose from South Farm, 2000-2010 (University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station) 19-80

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Q NOTWESMEICtSTI$ Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Station  : C!OLUMBIA 14O 1.3 - 4 Latitude  : *° 49' 0I" N Longitude : 9: 2" 13' 06" W 4-8 8 -13 Elevation : 0 ft. 13 - 1.9 Eleuent  : 144 Pan Wind Soeed 19 -25" 2532 47 47 w/

E Start 1,, 20Q7*W.,,. Subinterval Wrndw:

End Date:

Date: Aug'.

Iec..31, 2Q12 - Start End

@ of Days : 1910 of 1910 Date: Jai. 01Dec.

V obs:poss: 44105 of 47520 S hour: 00 23 V)Western Region~al Climate Center Figure 19-27. Wind Rose from Automatic Weather Station, Columbia, Missouri, 2007-2012 (Western Regional Climate Center) 19.3.2.1.5 Extreme Weather The American heartland has the distinction of also being known as "tornado alley," a nonmeteorological term that references the area where 90 percent of tornadoes have occurred as a result of the mixing of cold, dry air from Canada and the Rocky Mountains with warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico and hot, dry air from the Sonoran Desert. This area exhibits considerable atmospheric instability, heavy precipitation, and many intense thunderstorms.

19-81

N, VI.:.

.,. 'EDIo;L." Chapter 19.0NWMI-201 3-021, Rev. 0

- Environmental Review Tornados are extreme wind speed events that are classified according to the enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale (EF scale). The scale matches wind speeds to the severity of damage caused by a tornado.

The process involves determining the degree of damage according to a predefined damage scale of 28 indicators. The observed damage is associated with estimated wind speeds during the storm, and an EF scale number is assigned. Measuring tornadoes from EF-1 to EF-5, the scale uses more specific structural damage guidelines than the original Fujita tornado intensity scale (F scale), which was established in 1971. Table 19-24 shows the F and EF scales.

Table 19-24. Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scales Used to Determine Tornado Intensity 0 64- 116 40-72 72- 126 45-78 0 105- 137 65-85 2 182-253 113- 157 189-259 118- 161 2 178-217 111-135 4 334- 418 208 -260 337 -420 210- 261 4 266- 322 166- 200 EF scale = enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale.

F scale = Fujita tornado intensity scale.

According to compiled information from several extreme weather databases, including the U.S. Tornado and Weather Extremes database (1950 to 2010), a total of 625 tornado events that had a recorded magnitude of two or above were documented in Missouri (World, 2013). Of that total, 50 tornado events of the same magnitude were recorded within 80 km (50 mi) of Columbia. A listing of severe weather events is shown in Table 19-25. Columbia, in a ranking of 1,237 other Missouri cities, ranked 810 for tornados. The tornado index value is calculated based on historical tornado events data and is an indicator of the tornado level in a region. According to this ranking, 809 Missouri cities have a higher chance of tornado events than Columbia (World, 2013).

Table 19-25. Listing of Severe Weather Events from 1950 to 2010 within an 80 km (50-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site Blizzard Iesom25 Dense fog 29 Thunderstorm winds 1,236 Flood 466 Winter storm 84 Heat 72 Other 86 Source: 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.

19-82

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

~. r~I~f~J Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review According to the NOAA National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database (NOAA, 201 3b), for the time period January 1996 to May 2013, there were 420 severe storm events (defined as an individual type of storm event) recorded in either Boone County or the Boone Zone. The most notable of the 420 events are summarized in Table 19-26.

Table 19-26. Summary of Notable Storm Events In and Near the Region of Influence, Recorded from 1996 to 2013 Blizzard 1, 1 51 cm (20 in.) of snow recorded Excessive heat (heat 14 wave)

Funnel cloud ' 1 -

Heavy rain 1' 1 7.6-15.2 cm (3-6 in.) recorded Ice storm ,/ 4 0.64-1.27 cm (0.25-0.5 in.) recorded Thunderstorm wind vf 118 50-75 kn recorded Winter storm 1, 25 --

Source: NOAA, Atmospheric 2013b, "Storm Administration, EventsD.C.,

Washington, Database,"

accessedwww.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents, August 2013. National Oceanic and aAs rated with the enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale.

19.3.2.2 Air Quality Missouri is located in EPA Region 7. The Missouri DEQ is the regulatory agency responsible to protect and enhance the quality of the Missouri environment and its citizens. 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 consists of State and local air monitoring stations, special purpose monitoring stations, and national core monitoring consistent with requirements in 40 CFR 58.10, "Annual Monitoring Network Plan and Periodic Network Assessment."

19-83

  • ,.*oIJv,;.. - -o o++.;..."Chapter 19.0NWMI-2013-021,

- Environmental Rev. 0 Review The only MDNR air monitor in Boone County is located at Finger Lakes and monitors for ozone (03) from May to October each year. The MDNR continuous air monitors nearest to the proposed RPF site, also in similar urban locales, are at the following locations:

  • Mark Twain State Park - In Stoutsville, Monroe County, approximately 103 km (64 mi) northeast of the RPF site. Monitors for sulfur dioxide (SO 2), 03, and inhalable particulates PM-10 (particulate matter, 10 micron [*t]) and PM-2.5 (particulate matter, 2.5 *t).
  • El Dorado Springs - In Cedar County, approximately 261 km (162 mi) southwest of the site.

Monitors for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), inhalable particulate PM-2.5, and 03.

Both air monitoring locations are well outside of the ROI.

The EPA has set national air quality standards for six common pollutants (also referred to as "criteria" pollutants). These standards are known as NAAQS. Missouri DEQ monitors for CO, NO2 , 03, total suspended particulate, inhalable particulates (PM-10 and PM-2.5), and lead (Pb). Other pollutants or compounds are measured as part of air toxics or particulate speciation sampling. Legal descriptions of the standards are available in the 6 CSR Division 10, "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.

Table 19-27. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable in Missouri Carbon 1 hr Not to be exceeded more than once per year 35 ppm -

monoxide 8 hr Not to be exceeded more than once per year 9 ppm -

Nitrogen 1 hr 3-year average of the maximum daily 9 8 th percentile 100 ppb None dioxide 1-hr average Annual Annual arithmetic mean 53 ppb S3 ppb PM-2.5 24 hr 98th percentile of the 24-hr values determined for 35 ~ig/m 3 35 ~ig/m 3 each year; 3-year average of the 98th percentile values Annual 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean 15 jtg/in 3 15 jig/mn3 Sulfur 24 hr NA 0.14 ppm None dioxide 1 yr NA 0.03 ppm None 1 hr/3 yr To attain the 1-hr/3-yr standard, the 3-yr average of 75 ppb None the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hr average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb Source: MDNR, 2013a, "National Ambient Air Quality Standards," dnr.mo.gov/env/esp/aqm/standard.htm, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Quality, Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed August 2013.

NA = not applicable. NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

19-84

.. ,vi. A 50;1°0FChater Chapter.1NWMI-2013-021, 9.0 - Environmental Rev. 0A Review Nonattainment means that a geographic area has not consistently met the clean air levels set by the EPA in the NAAQS. There are several nonattainment areas in Missouri; however, none of them are within Boone County, Columbia, the ROI, or anywhere near the proposed RPF site. Most nonattainment areas are located in St. Louis (201 km [125 mi] to the southeast) and in the nearby counties of Dent, Franklin, Iron, Jefferson, Reynolds, St. Charles, and St. Louis.

Maintenance areas are geographic areas that had a history of nonattainment, but are now consistently meeting the NAAQS. Maintenance areas have been redesignated by EPA from "nonattainment" to "attainment with a maintenance plan," or designated by the Environmental Quality Commission. There are no maintenance areas within Boone County, Columbia, the ROI, or anywhere near the proposed RPF site. The closest maintenance area (for Pb) is located in Bixby, Missouri (Iron County), 238 km (148 mi) to the southeast. Other maintenance areas are found in the cities of Herculaneum (Pb), St. Louis (CO),

and Kansas City (03).

19.3 .2 .2.1 Greenhouse Gases There are currently no programs or policies established or drafted related to operations at Discovery Ridge. NWMI will develop a comprehensive program to avoid and control GHG emissions associated with the RPF. This program will include elements such as:

  • Developing a GHG emission inventory
  • Investigating and implementing methods for avoiding or controlling the GHG emissions identified in the inventory
  • Encouraging carpooling or other measures to minimize GHG emissions due to vehicle traffic during construction and operation of the RPF
  • Conducting periodic audits of GHG control procedures
  • Implementing corrective actions when necessary 19.3.2.3 Noise Noise is generally defined as "unwanted sound." At high levels, noise can damage hearing, cause sleep deprivation, interfere with communication, and disrupt concentration. In the context of protecting the public health and welfare, noise implies adverse effects on people and the environment.

Sound is the result of a source inducing vibration in the air, creating sound waves. These waves radiate in all directions from the source and may be reflected and scattered or, like other wave actions, may turn corners. Sound waves are a fluctuation in the normal atmospheric pressure, which is measurable. This sound pressure level is the instantaneous difference between the actual pressure produced by a sound wave and the average or barometric pressure at a given point in space. The fundamental method of measuring sound is in decibel (dB) units. The most commonly used noise metric for measuring noise is A-weighted decibels (dBA).

The following sections discuss the baseline noise conditions within the ROI. The ROI for noise is the 8 km (5 mi) radius from the centerline of the RPF site.

19-85

  • ~*NWMI: : Chapter 19.0NWI21-2,Rev.

- Environmental Review G 19.3.2.3.1 Baseline Noise Conditions As discussed in Section 19.3.1, the proposed RPF site is located on Lot 15 of the Discovery Ridge industrial park near the MU campus, and is currently an agricultural field. Existing noise sources in the area consist of agricultural equipment (e.g., tractors, forklifts), HVAC systems associated with existing buildings, and traffic noise from U.S. Highway 63 and the surrounding areas. The highest noise levels in the area originate from the intermittent operation of agricultural equipment associated with the MU School of Agriculture, and range from 80 to 100 dBA (Baker, 1997). When agricultural equipment is not running, noise levels are similar to that of a suburban community area, typically around 55 dBA (Berger et al., 2003).

Traffic-related noise sources include airports, railways, and highways. The Columbia Regional Airport is approximately 12 km (7.5 ml) from the proposed NWMI site, and the Columbia Terminal (COLT), a freight-only railway, is approximately 2.7 km (1.7 mi) from the proposed site (Terracon, 2006). Both the airport and railway are located a sufficient distance from the proposed RPF site to attenuate the noise associated with these locations to background levels. U.S. Highway 63 is approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) from the proposed site. Based on the most recent peak 1-hr traffic count summary from the Missouri Department of Transportation, the expected noise levels at the proposed RPF site resulting from traffic on U.S. Highway 63 range from 54 to 58 dBA (MoDOT, 2009).

Noise receptors include nearby residents, commercial workers at ABC Laboratories and RADIL, agricultural students and faculty present in the agricultural research areas, recreational users of the three sports venues in the area, site visitors, and domesticated and research wildlife.

19.3 .2 .3.2 Past Noise Studies There are no known noise studies that have been performed in the audible range of the proposed RPF site.

1 9.3 .2.3.3 Sound Level Standards Permissible noise levels in Discovery Ridge are governed by both the Discovery Ridge Master Plan and Protective Covenants (MU, 2009) and the Columbia Code of Ordinances (City of Columbia, 201 3d).

Section 2.2 of the Covenants document specifies that buildings cannot be used for "excessive noise," and Section 3.3 requires that preliminary building plans specify the extent of noise that may be created by operation of the building (MU, 2009). Section 16-265 of the Ordinances states that site preparation and building construction cannot be performed outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays without a special permit from the Director of Public Works.

Sections16-264 and 16-266 of the Ordinances prohibit the creation of "excessive noise" in connection with loading or unloading any vehicle, or in the vicinity of schools, hospitals, churches, and courts (City of Columbia, 2013d).

19.3.3 Geologic Environment 19.3.3.1 Regional Geology This section provides summary descriptions of geomorphic provinces and their tectonic development.

The glacial history responsible for surface topography features found today in Missouri is also described.

The descriptions are based on a review of relevant, readily available published reports and maps and, where available, records and unpublished reports from Federal and State agencies. Information on the site conditions has been acquired from these same sources and from site-specific investigations, including geotechnical field studies.

19-86

.. ii  :.;o.. Chapter Chpter19.0NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

- Environmental Review 19.3.3.1.1 Geomorphic Provinces Missouri is divided into three geomorphic provinces:

  • Interior Plains Province - Also referred to as the Central Lowland Province (northern Missouri, north of the Missouri River)
  • Atlantic Plains - Also referred to as the Coastal Plains Province (the "boot heel" or southeastern corner of Missouri)

The proposed RPF site is located north of the Missouri River within the Interior Plains Province. The Interior Plains are defined by the general texture of the surface terrain, rock type, and geologic structure.

The province is characterized by moderately dissected, glaciated, flat-to-rolling plains that slope gently toward the Missouri and Mississippi River valleys. Local relief is 6.1-50.3 m (20-165 ft). Drainage is dendritic; current geomorphic processes are fluvial erosion, transport and deposition, and minor mass wasting. Elevations range from 183-457 m (600-1,500 ft) above mean sea level, with the proposed RPF site averaging 245 m (805 ft) above mean sea level (USGS, 2013a).

19.3.3.1.1.1 Interior Plains Province The Interior Plains Province is a vast region spread across the stable core (craton) of North America. This area formed when several small continents collided and welded together over a billion years ago, during the Precambrian Era. Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks now form the basement of the Interior Plains and make up the stable core of North America. Throughout the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras, the low-lying Interior Plains remained relatively unaffected by mountain building and tectonic collisions in the western and eastern margins of the continent. During the Mesozoic Era, the majority of the North American continental interior was above sea level, with two notable exceptions. The first occurred during the Jurassic Era (208-144 million years ago), when rising seas flooded the low-lying areas of the continent, and most of the Interior Plains were eventually submerged beneath the shallow Sundance Sea.

The second exception occurred during the Cretaceous Period, when record high sea levels flooded the continental interior with shallow seas. During this time, the Interior Plains continued to receive deposits from the eroding Rocky Mountains to the west and Appalachian and Ouachita-Ozark Mountains to the east and south throughout the most recent Cenozoic Era. The flatness of the Interior Plains is a reflection of the platform of mostly flat-lying marine and stream deposits laid down in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras. The overlying sedimentary rocks are composed mostly of limestone, sandstone, and shales (USGS, 2013a).

19.3.3.1.1.2 Interior Highlands Province The southern portion of Missouri, south of the Missouri River, is located within the Interior Highlands Province. The Interior Highlands includes the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains of southern Missouri, Arkansas, and eastern Oklahoma. The rocky outcrops that make up the core of the Interior Highlands are Paleozoic age carbonates and other sedimentary rocks that were originally deposited on the sea floor. In the Ouachita Mountains, these ancient marine rocks are now contorted by folds and faults. The ancient, eroded mountains of the Interior Highlands stand surrounded by nearly flat lying sedimentary rocks and deposits of the Interior and Atlantic Plains provinces.

The Interior Highlands consist of thick bedrock units of sandstone and shale, with lesser amounts of chert and novaculite (a fine-grained silica rock, like flint), deposited in a deep sea that covered the area from Late Cambrian through Early Pennsylvanian time. The area was then folded and faulted in such a manner that resistant beds of sandstone, chert, and novaculite now form long, sinuous mountain ridges that tower 152-457 m (500-1,500 ft) above adjacent valleys formed in easily eroded shale (USGS, 2013a).

19-87

N..,VIVII

.NWMI-201 . *o o*,,.*..Chapter 19.0 -

3-021, Rev.

Environmental 0A Review 19.3.3.1.13 Atlantic Plains Province The Atlantic Plain Province is the flattest of all the provinces and stretches over 3,540 km (2,200 mi) from Cape Cod to the border of Mexico and southward another 1609 km (1,000 mi) to the Yucatan Peninsula. The Atlantic Plains slope gently seaward from the Interior Highlands in a series of terraces.

The gentle sloping continues far into the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, forming the continental shelf.

Eroded sediments from the Interior Highlands were carried east and southward by streams and gradually covered the faulted continental margin, burying it under a wedge composed of layered sedimentary and volcanic debris thousands of feet thick. The sedimentary rock layers that lie beneath much of the coastal plain and fringing continental shelf remain nearly horizontal or tilt gently toward the sea (USGS, 2013b).

19.3.3.1.2 GlacialHistory The MDNR describes the glacial history of the area as follows:

Recent studies of ice cores, stalagmites, and other temperaturedating methods have concluded that there have been 30 sustainedperiods of frigid temperaturesin the last 3 million years. Of the classicalglacialperiods, only two: pre-Illinoian(Nebraskan-Kansan) and Illinoian are now recognized as having left glacialdeposits in the state of Missouri. The pre-lllinoian was the most severe. Amongst its legacy was the changing of the course of the Missouri River to its present location, the scouring andfilling of Northern Missouri topography, and extensive outwash gravels left to the south of the present Missouri River. Although the Ozarks were not glaciated in the recent past, a cover of Pleistocene loess of varying thicknesses extends over all of the state except for the highest parts of the Ozark Mountains. Residuum, otherwise known as soil, clay, and rock fragments degradefrom exposed and subsurface bedrock. Gravity and streams move this residuum, depositing it in sometimes graded layers (MDNR, 201 3b).

In Boone County, the glacial till averages over 43 m (140 ft) thick in the northeastern portion of the county, and the loess material reaches a maximum depth of 6.1 m (20 ft) along the Missouri River Bluffs (Boone County, 2013a).

19.3 .3.1.3 Local Topography and Soils of Boone County The topography of Boone County ranges from highly dissected hills to flat floodplains and nearly flat uplands. Elevations range from approximately 274 m (900 ft) above mean sea level along the northern boundary of Boone County to approximately 165 m (540 ft) above mean sea level in the southern tip of the county. Several areas of the county contain well-developed cave and sinkhole formations.

Ordovician to middle Pennsylvania age dolomite, limestone, sandstone, coal, and shale deposits are visible throughout Boone County in geologic outcrops and roadcuts. The Mississippian age Burlington Limestone is easily weathered by acidic groundwater and contains some unique natural resources of Boone County, including the most famous Devil's Ice Box cave system, located approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) southwest of the proposed RPF site. There are numerous caves in Boone County and 418 documented sinkholes (Boone County, 2013a).

19-88

.. . NWK1,hapte GTSV~ lvii..*"Cape NWMI-2013-021, 19.0- Environmental Rev. 0A Review Pennsylvanian age deposits are overlaid by glacial till and loess. The soils of Boone County are included in parts of two major land resource areas:

Central Claypan Area - The Central Claypan Area soils were formed in glacial till and cover the northeastern and east-central portions of Boone County. Claypan soils display extreme variability within the soil profile and across the landscape; therefore, plant growth within these soils must contend with distinctively contrasting physical, chemical, and hydrologic properties at different soil depths. The depth to the claypan soils varies from approximately 10 cm (3.93 in.)

on ridge tops up to 100 cm (39.4 in.) on back slopes. The soil horizons preceding the claypan are depleted of clay minerals, cations, and have a very low pH. The claypan horizon typically has an abrupt upper boundary with 100 percent more clay than the preceding horizon, and very low permeability.

  • Central Mississippi Valley Wooded Slopes - This major land resource area consists of a dissected glacial till plain composed of rolling narrow ridge tops and hilly to steep ridge slopes.

The small streams in this area have narrow valleys with steep gradients. The major rivers have nearly level broad floodplains, and the valley floors are tens of meters below the adjoining hilltops. Most of the soils within the central Mississippi Valley wooded slopes area are found in silty loess or glacial till, are moderately to fine-grained in texture with a mixed mineralogy, and are well-drained to moderately well-drained. These soils are typically observed on ridge tops and support forest flora (Boone County, 2013a).

19.3.3.2 Geology at the Proposed Site The ROI for the geologic resource is defined as the 8 km (5 mi) radius surrounding the RPF site. The geologic units that underlie the proposed RPF site and/or properties within the ROI, from youngest to oldest, are as follows:

  • Quaternary Age Holocene Series (Qal)
  • Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Marmaton Group (Pm)
  • Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Cherokee Group (Pc)
  • Mississippian Age Osagean Series Burlington Formation (Mo)
  • Mississippian Age Kinderhookian Series (Mk)
  • Late to Early Devonian Age (D)
  • Early Ordovician Age Ibexian Series (Ojc)

Figure 19-28 provides a map of the features within the ROI.

19.3.3.2.1 Quaternary Age Holocene Series (Qal)

The surface topography of the proposed RPF site and surrounding properties consists of Quaternary age bedrock overburden characterized by upland areas covered by a thin loess blanket and glacial drift.

"Highly plastic clays that exhibit volume change with variations in moisture are commonly encountered near the ground surface" (Terracon, 201 lb). The surface topography of the proposed RPF site and surrounding properties consists of upland areas covered by a thin loess blanket and glacial drift. Previous investigations of Discovery Ridge noted that "Highly plastic clays that exhibit volume change with variations in moisture are commonly encountered near the ground surface" (Terracon, 201 lb).

Figure 19-29 depicts the Quaternary age bedrock overburden at the proposed RPF site as clay loam till (No. 27). Clay loam till is also depicted on all adjacent properties to the north, east, south, and west.

Additional Quaternary age deposits located within an 8 km (5-mi) radius of the proposed RPF site include alluvium (No. 10), loess (No. 18), sandy clay (No. 40), and thin, cherty clay solution residuum (No. 41).

19-89

, : "*'o*,*.

".*.q .:-" RIIAIA/I I

'.'.;..;,..-I 1111111 11111 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

  • +*..',  ; " NOflTHWEST MI*mCALISOTOIpE$

Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review JA RPF Site Geologic Fcatures lIJ 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site Label, Rock Type I. Rock Type 2 D, limestone, sandstone

- -Interstate Highways Mk, limestone, siltstone

  • '- Highways Mo, limestone, chert
  • '..Q City Limits Ojc, dolostone (dolomite), sandstone N Pc, shale, sandstone Pmo, limestone, shale 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles Qal, clay or mud, silt Figure 19-28. Geologic Features within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site 19-90

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

NWMI oOe ThwOO Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review

,A RPF Site Quaternary Geology of Missouri 1J 8km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site DESCR! PTION

--- Highways 10 - Alluvium 27 - Clay loam till

--"Interstate Highways

(,*' City Limits 18 - Loess 40 - Sandy clay 00.51 2 3 4

,, , Miles 41 - Thin cherty clay solution residuum US(S 1996. MO 1996 Quakeman* Geolo* ISLIPP Idigital datal Ap~m~lis missouri cdu pub (ic*~ aI (iop icaI MO( 1996 Q~uatcrman (icog) shp tip Figure 19-29. Map of Missouri Quaternary Age Geology 19-91

""Chapter NWM,-2013-021, Rev. GA

.*,,.. ChapterI19.0 - Environ mental Review The typical Quaternary age groundcover found in Boone County consists of alluvial (stream-deposited) clays, sand, and gravels (with a few poorly consolidated sandstones); glacial tills (sand and well-sorted gravels); and eolian (windblown) clays and loess (an extremely fine "rock flour," which forms solid masses) (MDNR, 2013c).

These glacial deposits mantle the upland areas and consist of a heterogeneous mixture of clay, sand, and pebbles of diverse rock types. The deposits vary greatly in thickness and are as much as 42.7 m (140 ft) thick in the northern portion of Boone County. This material is relatively impermeable and supplies very little water to wells (MU, 2006a).

19.3 .3.2 .2 Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Marmaton Group (Pm) and Cherokee Group (Pc)

Pennsylvanian age strata (both Marmaton and Cherokee Groups) consists largely of clay and shale with minor accounts of coal and thin, impure limestone beds. The total thickness may be as much as 33.5 m (110 ft). These beds produce only small quantities of water and are not used in this area as a source of supply. The water found in this unit is usually high in iron and sulfur content (MU, 2006a).

Limestone and shale beds are generally thin and very widespread lateral units. Pennsylvanian deposits are quite extensive across Missouri, and they usually form thin to medium-bedded layers of distinctive composition, called cyclothems. A cyclothem results when a sea transgresses and regresses very rapidly along a coastal area, and in a repeating pattern. Often, this pattern consists of a sandstone (beach), silty shale or siltstone (tidal), freshwater limestone (lagoon), underclay (terrestrial), coal (terrestrial swampy forest), shale (near shore tidal), limestone (shallow marine), and black shale (deep marine). This sequence can then repeat itself as the sea first regresses from the land, and then transgresses again (MDNR, 201 3c).

19.3.3.2.3 Mississippian Age Osagean Series Burlington Formation (Mo)

The Mississippian age Burlington Formation stratum is the most extensively studied Mississippian age strata in Missouri. This crystalline, extremely fossiliferous limestone covers most of the state and extends into Iowa and Arkansas. Typical characteristics include white-to-gray, medium-to-coarsely grained layers of chert nodules, and a coarse-grained sedimentary structure called "styolites" formed from pressure solution. The pores in the styolites are often filled with chert or quartz deposits (MDNR, 2013d).

Burlington limestone is the principle limestone exposed in quarries, creek banks, and road cuts near and around Columbia. The limestone is approximately 49 m (160 ft) thick in the Columbia area, but the thickness can be variable. The limestone may also contain minor amounts of pyrite and limonite. This formation has historically been economically important as a limestone resource where exposed and as host rock for lead and zinc deposits in the presently inactive Tri-State mining district of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma (MU, 2006a).

Burlington limestone contains many relatively shallow drilled wells and yields sufficient quantities of relatively hard water for rural domestic supplies. The limestone is relatively soluble and contains many caverns and solutions passages. Solution features, including caves and sinkholes, are commonly present in this formation (MU, 2006a). Terracon reported the following:

No caves or sinkholes are known to exist, or are published to exist within approximately I mi of the Discovery Ridge Research Park. However, several areasof known karst activity are present west and southwest of this project areaand are in various stages of development.

Site grading and drainagemay alter site conditions and could possibly cause sinkholes in areas that have no history of this activity. (Terracon, 201 lb) 19-92

-Environmental Rev. 0A Review 19.3 .3 .2.4 Mississippian Age Kinderhookian Series Chouteau Limestone (Mk)

The Mississippian age Chouteau Limestone stratum is a very fine-grained carbonate and, for the most part, is an evenly bedded bluish gray limestone. The upper part is somewhat massive and high in magnesium. Chouteau limestone is relatively impermeable due to its fine texture, restricting the movement of water to joints and small fissures. This unit is a poor source of water but yields small quantities to a few wells (MU, 2006a).

19.3.3.2.5 Late to Early Devonian Limestone (D)

Devonian limestone strata deposits greatly vary in lithology, and range from very fine-grained to coarsely textured beds. Some of the beds are slightly sandy. In some areas of Columbia, Missouri, the Devonian limestone beds are approximately 9 m (30 ft) thick; in other well locations this limestone bed is completely absent. Devonian limestone is not a valuable water producer (MU, 2006a).

19.3.3.2.6 Early Ordovician Age Ibexian Series Dolomites (Ojc)

Ordovician age deposits found in the Columbia area include the following, from youngest to oldest (MU, 2006a):

  • St. Peter Sandstone - This formation, which is a very important aquifer in eastern and northern Missouri, has no importance in the Columbia area. The formation is present only as localized masses in the depressions of older rocks.
  • Jefferson City Formation - This predominantly dolomite formation averages approximately 122 m (400 ft) in thickness in the Columbia area, and wells drilled into the formation produce moderate quantities of relatively hard water. The formation probably has more rural domestic wells terminating in it than any other formation is this area.
  • Roubidoux Formation - This formation consists of alternating sandstone and dolomite beds and averages approximately 30.5 m (100 ft) in thickness. This formation is a very dependable water producer.
  • Gasconade Formation - This unit consists of mostly light-gray dolomite with sandstone (Gunter) at the base. The thickness is approximately 85.3 m (280 ft). This dolomite unit is very cavernous and contains many interconnected solution passages. The sandstone is approximately 4.6 m (15 ft) thick, is very permeable, has a wide aerial extent, and is a good source of water.

19.3.3.3 Site-Specific Volcanic Hazard Analysis The proposed RPF site is located in a tectonically stable region of the North American continental plate, identified as the Interior Plains Province. Volcanoes tend to cluster along narrow mountainous belts, where folding and fracturing of the rocks provide channelways to the surface for the escape of magma.

The lack of magma forming in the Interior Plains Province prevents the formation of volcanoes in the region.

19.3.3.4 Onsite Soil Types The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic database for Boone County (NRCS, 2014) lists the soil type beneath the proposed RPF site as the Mexico Silt Loam, 1-4 percent slopes (Map No. 50059). In addition to the Mexico silt loam, 27 other soils types are located within a 1.6 km (1-mi) radius of the proposed site, as depicted in Figure 19-30.

19-93

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

60*'023.Vo+elertol bats, S o 9% does eroded 5.Ik+t MapN -I plo 6*002+9-Wdlkt r4bas. tod ispls 210m9%. olopes 60033- Wro*sgassoill l~oe.. $50 t~o10esstl' dope. oo 3+*0002Ko-

  • tok- t0, outo2%

slt Iatm 109%

$* o 1+401034.Ve++'.m.ja*aill day koare.k*es. 50, 4 10*o dopes. a't, odad 5010 Mexoo.,-It,. bladaompIe 00, 2% %lp 6i003_5. Wrs-npassl-Ulst latl aorpelst+910t 14% t*opes 60)

(037.- Wiestgas oill losn,. 910t 14% t*olse 900

  • K',akuh olay 9 5014%t.lgop to..

103- FrdopsusiItossda.ss + o+ p x. 4125%slp%

6601.00. M roall 04hlos.., 0102% .Iopes. ooaooI) Iloodest 6(019 (- *oI~toa*d.LI. ; oo5-R so.A. o..l. 5 o7%omo se*oyoa 60022 - l+oo rl,.

l lemm 2os, 6'. lolpes, ero&lki 67000. W.Osto o+ ill s.., I 10 1% slolpes.rael+ flooded 66*026- Wdkr *l l oelst bool 2 to 5%+dopes 99001.+Wales LocalOn Map A RPF- Site C,,,,,,-Interstate 5Mile ( kmn)Radius fo P i4 O 0.1 02 m 04-- 00 08I* ,.*r*

Highways Highways City l~imits Figure 19-30. Soil Map within a 1.6 km (1-mi) Radius of the Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Site 19-94

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

-e JeAI Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review 19.3 .3.4.1 Site Soil Physical Characteristics The soils were formed primarily from glacial processes that occurred in the region. Reworked loess is the primary parent material of the soil. The site soil composition, physical characteristics, and typical profile for the Mexico Silt Loam, 1-4 percent slopes (Map No. 50059) are listed in Table 19-28.

Table 19-28. Description of Soil Type, Mexico Silt Loam, 1--4 percent Slopes, Eroded Map Unit Setting Map Unit Composition Landscape: Till plains, uplands Mexico and similar soils: 85%

Elevation: 183 -396 m (600-1,300 ft) Minor components: 15%

Mean annual precipitation: 94-119 cm (37-47 in.)

Mean annual air temperature: 52-57°F Frost-free period: 184-228 days Typical profile Minor Components 0 -17.8 cm (0-7 in): Silt loam Leonard 17.8- 30.5 cm (7-12 in): Silty clay loam Percent of map unit: 5%

30.5 - 66.4 cm (12-26 in): Silty clay Landform: Hills 66.4 - 86.4 cm (26-34 in): Silty clay loam Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder 86.4 - 203 cm (34-80 in): Silty clay loam Landform position (three-dimensional): Head slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Ecological site: Mollic loess upland prairie (R 11 3XY002MO)

Other vegetative classification: Mixed/transitional (mixed native vegetation) a Source: USDA, 2013a, "Web Soil Survey," Online Mapping Tool, websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., accessed July 10, 2013.

19-95

:Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.3.3.4.2 Site Soil Chemical Characteristics The site soil chemical characteristics of the Mexico Silt Loam, 1-4 percent slopes (Map No. 50059) and the definitions of each chemical characteristic are listed in Table 19-29.

Table 19-29. Site Soil Chemical Characteristics for Boone County, Missouri

  • 17.8-30.5 7-12 14-20 12-18 5.2-7.1 0 0 0.0-2.0 0 66.4-86.4 26-34 2 1-36 2 1-28 4.7-6.8 0 0 0.0-2.0 0 Source: NRCS, 2014, "Soil Data Mart," soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/ReportViewer.aspx?Eile=a27391c0-b6ab-4278-871 f-6f091I cc 147fa.PDF&Name= Chemical_SoiLProperties&Wait= 1, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., accessed July 16, 2013.

19.3.3.5 Prime Farmland Prime farmland, as defined by the USDA, is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is available for these uses.

Prime farmland can be cultivated land, pastureland, forestland, or other land, but is not urban or built-up land or water areas. The soil qualities, growing season, and moisture supply are those needed for the soil to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when properly managed, including management of water and applying acceptable farming methods (NRCS, 2013).

In general, prime farmland has an adequate and dependable supply of moisture from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, an acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. The land is permeable to water and air. Prime land is not excessively erodible or saturated with water for long periods, and is either not frequently flooded during the growing season or is protected from flooding. Areas of prime farmland in Missouri that do not require draining or flooding protection are comprised largely of Weller silt loam, Jemerson silt loam, and Lenzburg silty clay loam.

Farmland that is considered of statewide importance is land, in addition to prime farmlands, that is of statewide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. Criteria for defining and delineating this land are to be determined by the appropriate State agency or agencies.

Generally, additional farmlands of statewide importance include those that are nearly prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce as high a yield as prime farmlands if conditions are favorable. In some states, additional farmlands of statewide importance may include tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by State law. Farmlands of statewide importance in Missouri primarily include the Weller silt loam, Weller-Urban land complex, Wrengart silty clay loam, and Hatton silt loam (NRCS, 2013). Of these, the predominant soil type found in both prime farmland and farmlands of statewide importance is Weller silt loam. Approximately 4218 ha (10,424 acres), or one-fifth of the 8 km (5-mi)

ROI, are prime or important farmland (NRCS, 2013). The proposed RPF site and the research park lie in areas not listed as prime farmland (Figure 19-31).

19-96

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA

  • . NWSTMEICA STP Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Ad RPF Site USDA Prime Farmland Dec~ription Location MaD)

D* 8 km (S mile) Radius from RPF Site

-"Interstate Highways Primec Farmland if Drained

-- Highways Farmland of Statew ide rntportanec

(?City Limits All Areas are Prime Farmland Prime Farmland if Protected from Flooding 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 N m m Miles Prime Farmland Citation: NRCS 2012 S.nI/Nun'rv (~r~raph,("

dutabase for &s*m' "(onmn;Mos.oors [digital data!: http: a*otldatnlmarr.nrcs~us[a.gos

+/-

Figure 19-31. Map Showing U.S. Department of Agriculture Prime Farmland 19-97

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

++NWMI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-30 shows the breakdown of prime Table 19-30. Prime Farmland and Farmland of farmland and farmland of statewide importance Statewide Importance within the ROI.

19.3.3.6 Shrink-Swell Potential There are moderate to highly plastic clays at Discovery Ridge from approximately 0.9-3.7 m Not listed as prime farmland 2,305 933 (3-12 ft) below ground surface (Terracon, 201 lb). . . . . ..... ......... <

+ ++*4 Such soils are commonly referred to as

expansive or swelling soils because they Farmland of statewide 9,102 3,683 expand or swell as their moisture content importance increases. These soils, in turn, contract or shrink as their moisture content decreases. Footings, Prime farmland if protected 2,793 1,130 floor slabs, and pavements supported on expansive from flooding soils will often shift upward or downward causing

!=i*i i ]=i===

ili= I{*il[ii+ iiii;:*ii +++i*]

  • I=</* i*i iii ;i!!!i

=£ possible distortion, cracking, or structural damage (Terracon, 201 lb). Source: NRCS, 2013, "National Soil Survey Handbook," soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/

19.3.3.7 Erosion contents/part622.html, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, Erosion is a naturally occurring process that is D.C., accessed July 25, 2013.

unnaturally accelerated by land development. The highest risks for erosion occur in areas with fine soils, on steep slopes, and in areas undergoing active construction activities. Impervious surfaces do not allow water infiltration into the soils and instead cause increased stormwater runoff.

Soils denuded of vegetation and impervious surfaces are two potential effects of land development that contribute to greater peak flows, longer duration of high flows, and increased sedimentation. Eroded material is often deposited downstream where the material decreases culvert and channel capacity.

The soils beneath the proposed RPF site are Mexico silt loam and are listed as hydrologic soil Group D (NRCS, 2014). Group D soils have a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet, leading to high runoff potential. Mexico Silt Loam consists chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential and have a high water table (NRCS, 2013).

19.3.3.8 Previous Geological Studies by Others 19.3.3.8.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation In 2011, Terracon completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Discovery Ridge Certified Site Program, which included Lot 2 and Lots 5 through 18 of Discovery Ridge (Terracon, 201 lb). The proposed RPF site (Lot 15) is within the investigation area. The purpose of the investigation was to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, and pavements for Discovery Ridge properties. As part of the study, nine soil borings (B-1 through B-9) were installed to depths ranging from 4-6 m (13-20 ft) below ground surface to determine shallow subsurface soil geotechnical properties and shallow groundwater depth. Soil boring B-5 is nearest to the proposed RPF site, along the eastern boundary between Lots 14 and 15.

19-98 i

,lviioNWMI o...

-Chapter 1 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. OA hpe9.0 -Environmental Review Discovery Ridge surface soils from 0.6-0.15 m (0.2-0.5 ft) below ground surface were found to be brown, friable topsoil with significant amounts of organic matter. Subsurface soils from approximately 0.9-3.6 m (3-12 ft) below ground surface were lean clay, lean-to-fat clay, and fat clay with moderate-to-high plasticity. Material beneath 3.6 m (12 ft) is listed only as limestone. Plasticity and liquid limit tests were completed for soils encountered from only four soil borings, as shown in Table 19-31.

Table 19-31. Plasticity and Liquid Limit Testing B-I1 0.9-1.5 3-5 43 15 28 B-5 0.3-0.9 1-3 31 21 10 Source: Terracon, 2011 b, PreliminaryGeotechnical Engineering Report Discovery Ridge-CertifiedSite ProgramLots 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.

At the time of drilling, some of the soils displayed moisture levels greater their measured plastic limits.

"Soils with moisture levels above their measured plastic limits may be prone to rutting and can develop unstable subgrade conditions during general construction operations" (Terracon, 201 lb). Moderate to high plasticity clays were observed at the site. Such soils are commonly referred to as "expansive" or "swelling" soils because they expand or swell as their moisture content increases. These soils in turn, contract or shrink as the moisture content decreases. Footings, floor slabs, and pavements supported on expansive soils often shift upward or downward causing possible distortion, cracking, or structural damage.

19.3.3.9 Regional and Local Tectonics The most significant seismological feature in Missouri is the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), located in the southeastern corner of the state and extending into parts of the contiguous states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Illinois. The NMSZ is the most seismically active region in the U.S. east of the Rocky Mountains and is located approximately 483 km (300 mi) southeast of the proposed RPF site.

During the winter of 1811-1812, the NMSZ was the location of some of the highest intensity seismic events ever noted in U.S. history. Hundreds of aftershocks, some severely damaging, continued for years.

Records show that since 1900, moderately damaging earthquakes have struck the NMSZ every few decades. Prehistoric earthquakes similar in size to those of 1811-1812 occurred in the middle 1400s and around 900 A.D. Strongly damaging earthquakes struck the southwestern end of the NMSZ near Marked Tree, Arkansas, in 1843 (magnitude 6.0), and the northeastern end near Charleston, Missouri, in 1895 (magnitude 6.6) (USGS, 2011 a).

The NMSZ is made up of reactivated faults that formed when what is now North America began to split or rift apart approximately 500 million years ago. The resulting rift system died out before an ocean basin was formed, but a deep zone of weakness was created, referred to as the Reelfoot rift (USGS, 201 lb).

This fault system extends 241 km (150 mi) southward from Cairo, Illinois, through New Madrid and Caruthersville, Missouri, down through Blytheville, Arkansas, to Marked Tree, Arkansas. The Reelfoot rift dips into Kentucky near Fulton and into Tennessee near Reelfoot Lake, extending southeast into Dyersburg, Tennessee. The rift then crosses five state lines and crosses the Mississippi River in at least three places. The fault system is buried beneath as much as 8 km (5 mi) of sediment for much of the fault length and typically cannot be seen at the surface (USGS, 201 Ib).

19-99

NW MI.*,;,,,.Chapter 19.0NWI21301 ev.

- Environmental Review Four of the largest faults are recognized as alignments of abundant small earthquakes, and movements along two of these faults dammed rivers and created lakes during the earthquakes of 1811-1812. A few more deeply buried faults were detected during oil and gas exploration, and a few small faults are known from geologic mapping (USGS, 201 lb).

The remainder of the state, including the proposed RPF site located in central Missouri, is typical of the stable midcontinent U.S. However, this area is not immune to seismic activity.

19.3 .3.9.1 Local Fault Zones There is one major fault zone located within the ROI of the proposed RPF site (Figure 19-32). The Fox Hallow Fault is located approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) southeast of the site. The Fox Hollow Fault is a small fault, striking northeast and fades into a monocline at its two ends. The fault is reportedly a normal fault with a throw of approximately 37 m (120 ft) down to the southwest, and shows Mississippian age Chouteau limestone beds faulted against Ordovician age Jefferson Dolomite (Union Electric Company, 2008).19-100

NW IV!j NOUlIWES M Si A NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review A RPF Site Fault Structures O* 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site NAME

-'-Interstate Highways

'*""Bonne Femme Creek graben

--- Highways C) City Limits - A- - A- Fox Hollow fault and monocline o0O5 1 2 3 4 Sapp monocline Miles M~oDNR 2010 MO 2010 Tedcrnk: Fault Stn*~ (SHP)

MoDNR DOLS (iSP Idiglt1 datl] lOp imtdi ns,,ounr edApu~b (ca'olo*¢*I (ieopOlyiculMO 2010 Tewonic Fluhl SIn~t+ureo*Shp. tip Figure 19-32. Geologic Faults Map 19-101

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A NWMI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.3.3.10 Seismic Hazard Assessment Earthquakes occur on faults within bedrock, usually several miles deep. According to the USGS, earthquakes in the central and eastern U.S. typically are felt over a much broader region than in the western U.S. East of the Rocky Mountains, an earthquake can be felt over an area ten times larger than a similar magnitude earthquake on the west coast.

The written record of earthquakes in Missouri prior to the nineteenth century is virtually nonexistent.

Historical earthquakes along the NMSZ in southeastern Missouri have been some of the largest in U.S.

history since European settlement. The Great New Madrid Earthquake of 1811-1812 was a series of over 2,000 earthquakes that caused destruction over a very large area. According to information from Missouri's State Emergency Management Agency Earthquake Program, some of the earthquakes measure at least 7.6 in magnitude and five of them measured 8.0 or greater (USGS, 201 Ia). The 1811-1812 series changed the course of the Missouri River, and some shocks were felt as far away as Washington, D.C.,

and Boston, Massachusetts (MMRPC, 2010). The NMSZ has experienced numerous earthquakes since the 1811-1812 series, and at least 35 aftershocks of Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) of V (i.e., felt by nearly everyone, many awakened) or greater that have been recorded Missouri since 1811. Numerous earthquakes originating outside of Missouri boundaries have also affected the state. Table 19-32 lists the historical earthquakes that have affected Missouri.

Table 19-32. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (3 pages) 12/16/1811 New Madrid 7.7 Generated great waves on the Mississippi River causing (1811-1812 Region, major flooding, high river back cave-ins. Topographic series) Missouri changes affected an area of 78,000 to 130,000 km 2 (30,116 to 50,193 mi 2). Later geologic evidence indicated that the epicenter was likely in northeast Arkansas. The main shocks were felt over an area covering at least 5,180,000 km2 (2,000,000 mi 2). Chimneys were knocked down in Cincinnati, Ohio, and bricks were reported to have fallen from chimneys in Georgia and South Carolina. The first shock was felt distinctively in Washington, D.C.,

1,127 km (700 mi) away.

2/7/1812 New Madrid, 7.7 Three main shocks reaching MMI of XII, the maximum on (1811-1812 Missouri scale. Aftershocks continued to be felt for several years series) after the initial tremor. Historical accounts and later evidence indicate that the epicenter was close to the town of New Madrid, Missouri. This quake produced the largest liuuefactions fields in the world.19-102

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

...NWMI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-32. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (3 pages)

I.

  • 0 -. 0*~OO. .S~

4/24/1867 Eastern Kansas Not listed Reports indicated that an earthquake occurred in eastern Kansas and was felt as far eastward as Chicago, Illinois.

The earthquake may have been noticeable in Columbia.

10/31 /1895 Charleston, 6.6 Largest earthquake to occur in the central Mississippi River Missouri valley since the 1811-1812 series. Structural damage and liquefaction phenomena were reported along a line from Bertrand, Missouri, in the west to Cairo, Illinois, to the east. Sand blows were observed in an area southwest of Charleston, Puxico, and Taylor, Missouri; Alton, and Cario, Illinois; Princeton, Indiana; and Paducah, Kentucky. The earthquake caused extensive damage (including downed chimneys, cracked walls, shattered windows, and broken plaster) to schools, churches, and private residences. Every building in the commercial area of Charleston was damaged. Cairo, Illinois, and Memphis, Tennessee, suffered significant damage. Near Charleston, 1.6 ha (4 acres) of ground sank and a lake formed. The shock was felt over all or portions of 24 states and in Canada. Ground shaking was recorded along the Ohio River Valley.

4/9/1917 St. Genevieve/ Not listed A sharp disturbance at St. Genevieve and St. Mary' s, St. Mary's Missouri. According to the Daily Missourian, No. 187, Area, Missouri dated April 9, 1917, the earthquake was not felt in Columbia. However, on the following day, several people reported feeling the shock and attributed it to an explosion.

No damage was reported in Columbia. Reportedly felt over a 518,000 km 2 (200,000 m12) area from Kansas to Ohio and Wisconsin to Mississippi.

8/19/1934 Rodney, Listed as At nearby Charleston, windows were broken and chimneys Missouri strong collapsed or were damaged. Similar effects were observed in Cairo, Mounds, and Mounds City, Illinois, and at Wickliffe, Kentucky. The area of destructive intensity included more than 596 km 2 (230 mi2) 19-1 03

.NWM::

I VIVI NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-32. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (3 pages)

I. * .6 *!-- *i S. *@

3/3/1963 Near Not listed MMI of III was recorded in Columbia. The approximately Menorkanut, distance from the epicenter to Columbia was 317 km Mi~niiri (197 miV 11/9/1968 Wabash Valley 5.4 Strongest magnitude in central U.S. since the 1895 Seismic Zone, earthquake. Moderate damage to chimneys and walls at southern Hermann, St. Charles, St. Louis, and Sikeston, Missouri.

Illinois Shaking was felt. Areas include all or portions of 23 states from Minnesota to Georgia and from Pennsylvania to Kansas, and in multi-story buildings in Boston, Massachusetts and southernmost Ontario. Canada.

2002 Wabash Valley 4.6 Moderate earthquake caused chimney damage and cracked Seismic Zone, windows in and near Evansville, Indiana. Shaking was Posey County, reported in seven states, including Missouri.

SW Indiana Sources:

USGS, 201 3c, "Three Centuries of Earthquakes Poster," pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-28 12/i-28 12.jpg, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed July 23, 2013.

USGS, 2002, "Earthquakes in the Central United States 1699 -2002," pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-2812/i-2812.jpg, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, June 18, 2002.

MU, 2006a, Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) Safety Analysis Report, MU Project# 000763, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, August 18, 2006.

MMI = Modified Mercalli Intensity.

In 2002, the USGS released the following projected hazards for Boone County, if an earthquake occurred along the NMSZ in the following 50 years (USGS, 2003):

25 to 40 percent chance of a magnitude 6.0 and greater earthquake S 7 to 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.

According to the Boone County HazardMitigation 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.19-104

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

""+NWMI AISOTOIES

. ,'t NOlThAE$MIEDAL Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Missouri Seismic Hazards Map A RPF Site O* 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale

+N -- State Boundaries

-Highways County Boundaries V - Rather Strong nVI - Strong Svii - Very Strong City VIII - Destructive 0 20 40 80 120 160e Miles IX - Ruinous (C'moH.,w, 202Uq. r( tH: .t+tt *I'*2 X - Disastrous Figure 19-33. Hazard Mitigation Map 19-1 05

  • :.hpe 19.0 -Environmental Review The pertinent earthquake hazard information for Boone County is summarized in Table 19-33.

Table 19-33. Projected Earthquake Hazards for Boone County 6.7 25-40% VI, strong Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors, walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken; books fall off shelves; some heavy furniture moved or overturned; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.

Mid-Missouri1Regiona PlanigCmmstrongtt oifMissulrtisad EmegencyMant agmetAgenc ry, orhbandly Missouri, 15,wals,2010.~an Julyadbe ousa NMSZ New Madrid

= Seeismicoa Zone.chmney The UGS Ntiona Seimic azardMapsdispak earthquakiesg icns for toarios poabdigity orond te US.

levls cros nd re ppled n sismcpovisdions l;oof ebikbuildings;ds 41fo nurnert stucues, groudfauts, shkingeismcity andgeodsy.Theresul etingmaps anddamaged;from soimc sandand curvs caculaed n a rid f sies crosgtheU. ~thatl ecibeuk the irqun.yoxedigasto Scource:g MMRCt010 Boone County Hazard Mitigation Planfo 2010 MMRPCorg),the-regobontie-countyia Mirissouri Rfegisona PanningthCommission, EmrenyMaaeent Acyl bpashicland, State ofZ rasnahMissouri ampiissouin July 15, s RPC2010.)

NMSZ..1 Ntew ari Seismgic azone.

TheoiuSGSf Natinal seismideceHzrapipaerhuk ground-saigmotiainlnsions, for viueartious preobailt rskecassessments, andsoither pubich policyake.UdThes svtoo these masicroaterd newpfndins on seaerthquakers grncldin shaing faultssloeismicityon, anrgodesiy. tohe resultin mapshqare mantderived from syeisfcthazr paroposaed OPstheri weloithntchraowslarhuk hazardsrsntiaartevroneanwth pieak acceleratountynpotentalsn of2-(UsGsur2008)lThi categor an indicates.a siae oiotlgon hkn ee ewe -n10t 19-106

""NWMI ISOTOPESChapter lv.i,........ihpe NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A 19.0- Environmental Review 19.3.3.12 Tectonic Uplift and Subsidence Faulting due to compressive forces elevates rocks of the up-thrown side of the fault, while the down-thrown side of the fault undergoes tilting and subsidence. A regional example of this is the Ozark Plateau.

19.3.3.13 Earthquake Ground-Shaking Amplification Earthquakes generate seismic waves at a wide variety of frequencies, and certain frequencies may be amplified by site-specific soil conditions. Soils and soft sedimentary rocks near the surface can modify bedrock ground shaking caused by an earthquake. This modification can increase (or decrease) the strength of shaking or change the frequency of the shaking. The nature of the modification is determined by the thickness of the geologic materials and their physical properties (e.g., stiffness).

Areas with thin sedimentary deposits experience less severe amplification than areas with thick deposits.

In areas with thick sedimentary deposits, low frequency seismic energy is amplified, yielding slow, rolling-type shaking that can damage tall buildings, bridges, and overpasses. Areas with thin sand and gravel layers deposited on top of bedrock amplify high-frequency seismic waves that yield intense ground vibrations causing more damage to shorter buildings (USGS, 201 lb).

Lateral spreading can occur during periods of extended seismic ground shaking. This is commonly seen in areas with saturated soils near bays or rivers. During the 1811-1812 New Madrid series of earthquakes, lateral spreading produced extensive ground deformation along the banks of the Mississippi River (USGS, 2009).

19.3.3.14 Earthquake-Induced Landslides Earthquake-induced landslides are secondary hazards that occur from ground shaking, primarily in areas with steep slopes. Not all earthquake-induced landslides occur in the first few minutes following an earthquake, some can occur days later. A landslide occurs when the force that is pulling the slope downward exceeds the strength of the earth materials that compose the slope.

Large areas between the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers are blanketed by Pleistocene loess and glacial drift. Particularly susceptible to slumps and earth flows are loess along major river valleys and their tributaries, clayey till on slopes underlain by shale, and some Pennsylvanian shale units in southwestern Iowa, northwestern Missouri, and eastern Oklahoma.

The 1811-1812 earthquakes caused many types of ground failures, including landslides along the Mississippi River bluffs from Mississippi to Kentucky (USGS, 2009).

19.3.3.15 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts as a fluid when exposed to strong seismic shaking. The shaking causes the grains to lose grain-to-grain contact, so the sediment tends to flow. Liquefaction most likely occurs in loose sandy soil with a shallow water table (which is common for areas around floodplains or bays). Liquefaction often leads to overpressured fluids that can erupt to the surface, forming features known as sand blows. The 1811-1812 earthquakes caused ground subsidence by soil liquefaction across the Mississippi River flood plain and along tributaries to the Mississippi River over at least 15,000 square kilometers (kin 2) (9,320.6 square miles [mi2 ]). Liquefaction along the Mississippi River Valley during the 1811-1812 earthquakes created one of the world' s largest sand-blown fields. According to the USGS, recent sand blows dot the landscape surrounding New Madrid, Missouri (USGS, 201 lb).

19-1 07

IMI203-2,oRv. ChptrM Q IUVV Chaper 9.0- Environmental Review 19.3.3.16 Caves and Sinkholes In the U.S., the most damage in areas composed of karst terrain tend to occur in the states of Florida, Texas, Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania. Karst, as defined by the USGS, "is a terrain with distinctive landforms and hydrology created from the dissolution of soluble rocks, principally limestone and dolomite. Karst terrain is characterized by springs, caves, sinkholes, and a unique hydrogeology that results in aquifers that are highly productive but extremely vulnerable to contamination" (MMRPC, 2010).

According to the MDNR, 59 percent of the state is underlain by thick, carbonate rock units that host a wide variety of karst features (MDNR, 201 3c). The Missouri Speleological Survey reports that there are now more than 6,000 known caves in Missouri (MSS, 2013). Of those recorded, the most famous is the Devil's Ice Box in Rock Bridge State Park. According to the Boone County Stormwater Program (Boone County, 2013a), there are 418 documented sinkholes with a depth of 6.1 m (20 ft) or greater within the county. All of these sinkholes are relatively stable but some do discharge into the cave system and groundwater. About 290 of these sinkholes are located between U.S. Interstate 70 and Ashland, Missouri, in the southwestern corner of Boone County. The karst regions of the southwestern portion of the county make the area a prime location for this hazard. Development on karst terrain can present certain hazards such as unstable soil foundation for structures, flooding, groundwater contamination, and public safety hazards related to sinkhole collapses.

Sinkholes, like landslides, are a form of ground movement that can happen suddenly and without warning, causing major damage. Sinkholes are common where the bedrock below the land surface is composed of limestone, dolomite, or gypsum that can naturally be dissolved by circulating groundwater (USGS, 2007).

While many sinkholes occur as circular, bowl-shaped depressions, others are not readily visible on the surface because voids are plugged or capped with soil or thin layers of rock. The sinkholes begin with slow soil piping (erosion) over a long period. When the soil above the void can no longer support itself, the soil collapses to reveal a deep hole that connects to an underlying bedrock opening. These voids may be discovered during excavation, by drilling or through geophysical exploration. Residential and commercial development in a karst area can pose environmental and logistical problems. Aside from structurally impacting foundations of homes and other buildings, sinkholes often serve as direct conduits for rapid surface water infiltration into the underlying groundwater aquifer. Contaminants near or at the surface can quickly enter the aquifer and pollute drinking water supplies. Increased stormwater runoff resulting from parking lots, highways, and household guttering often is diverted into sinkholes. The increased inflow of water not only can transport contaminants but also can lead to the accelerated development and growth of sinkholes (MDNR, 2013e).

Sinkholes vary in size. They can be small and have little impact on people, or they can be catastrophic and destroy property, underground utilities, buildings, lagoons, and contaminate groundwater resources (USGS, 2007).

During the geotechnical investigation conducted by Terracon in 2011, there was no evidence of shallow bedrock, karst features, and/or extensive pervious deposits of water-bearing sand observed in the soil cuttings from Boreholes B-i through B-9. In addition, Terracon reported that they did not observe evidence of subsidence or sinkholes within the Discovery Ridge project area (Terracon, 201 Ib).19-108

... NO.,.,E."

i Chapter 1 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA 1S9.0 - Environmental Review CEhapterSOT 19.3.4 Water Resources The ROI for the water resource is defined as the 8 km (5-mi) radius surrounding the RPF site. About 66 percent of Missouri water resources are obtained from surface water bodies, and the remaining 34 percent are obtained from groundwater wells. During a normal precipitation year, approximately 45.4 trillion L (12 trillion gal) of water are supplied to Missouri by runoff from precipitation within the state. Rainfall averages approximately 97 cm (38 in.) statewide, with approximately 25.4 cm (10 in.)

becoming surface water runoff or groundwater recharge. The remaining 71 cm (28 in.) are returned to the atmosphere by evaporation or plant use.

Surface water sources provide the bulk of water withdrawals statewide. In 1990, freshwater surface water withdrawals in Missouri were estimated at 1,866 ML/day (493 Mgal/day), compared to 700 ML/day (185 Mgal/day) from groundwater sources. The majority of these withdrawals came from surface water intakes along major streams and rivers where streams have adequate low flows. The Missouri and Mississippi Rivers supply municipal water to approximately one-third of the state population (DuCharme and Miller, 1996).

More than 500,000 Missourians rely on other surface water sources, including human-made reservoirs, for their water needs. Although many of the state's larger reservoirs (e.g., Truman Reservoir, Mark Twain Lake) serve some water supply purposes, a substantial segment of the population uses much smaller lakes constructed specifically to meet local water needs. Sufficient water supplies from these locations are readily available for local public water supply districts and municipalities. Approximately 123 reservoirs are currently in use as public water supply sources in Missouri, and all but eight of these reservoirs are located in northern and western Missouri (DuCharme and Miller, 1996).

Missouri groundwater resources come primarily from two sources: bedrock aquifers and shallower alluvial aquifers. Most public water supply facilities currently operating in Missouri rely, to some extent, on groundwater wells as a source of water supply. Most self-supplied residential, commercial, and industrial water withdrawals are extracted via groundwater wells.

19.3.4.1 Surface Hydrology Surface waters in central and southern Boone County drain into the Missouri River through a number of tributaries, including Bonne Femme, Cedar, Little Cedar, Hinkson, Jemerson, and Perche Creeks (Figure 19-34). The other major drainage feature in the county is a system of karst topography west and south of Columbia. Numerous sinkholes, some filled with water, overlie a complex network of caves and springs. Gans Creek, which drains Discovery Ridge and the proposed RPF site, is located within the Bonne Femme Watershed.

19.3.4.1.1 Bonne Femme Watershed The Bonne Femme Watershed is comprised of two major sub-watersheds: the Bonne Femme and the Little Bonne Femme. Topographical contours of the land define the Bonne Femme Watershed, which encompasses approximately 241 km 2 (93 mi2) (approximately 15 percent) of Boone County, including the proposed RPF site (BFSC, 2007). The RPF site is located within the northern portion of this watershed (Little Bonne Femme sub-watershed) and is approximately 0.4 km (1/4A-mi) north of Gans Creek (see Figure 19-35).

19-1 09

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

  • ..eNW"m~mSMOCAIOO* Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review RPF Site cA 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site '%'-Streams Interstate Highways *Lakes Highways 4- City Limits 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
  • Miles 1.4.1.1J.I. Ag.~ma, hralru cA. pit mnLn..nc.1 Figure 19-34. Streams of Southern Boone County, Missouri 19-110
"" NW MI

, 5o5Th S m NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review A RPF Site Subwatershed t3 8km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site Name Bonne Femme Creek

""Interstate Highways Callahan Creek-Perche Creek Fowler Creek-Cedar Creek Highways SLittle Bonne Femme Creek-Missouri River "r;' City Limits Little Cedar Creek Lower Hinkson Creek Middle llinkson Creek Millers Creek-Cedar Creek 0 I. 2 3 4 Miles Rocky Fork Creek Figure 19-35. Map Showing Bonne Femme Watershed 19-111

  • IIV VIINWMI-2013-021,

'*t~T*h. * :.;.:=;,.!Chapter Chpe 1I9.0 - Environmental Rev. 0A Review

  • E"3*?ME1NCALI*SlJO Both the Bonne Femme and Little Bonne Femme creeks flow from east to west in a dendritic alignment into the Missouri River and are interconnected by the Devil's Icebox Cave Branch. Where Gans Creek meets Clear Creek, the Little Bonne Femme begins and flows south toward the Mayban Branch. The Little Bonne Femme enters the Missouri River approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south of this confluence.

To the south, the Bonne Femme meets with the Fox Hollow Branch and then flows into the Missouri River (BFSC, 2007).

The most distinctive characteristic of the Bonne Femme Watershed is its karst topography. Within the karst terrain, the hydrology becomes complex because of losing and gaining sections of streams. Rough estimates show approximately 33 stream segments composing approximately 37 km (23 mi) of losing streams (143 km [89 mi] of gaining stream) within the watershed. There are two main recharge areas tied to these losing and gaining sections of stream, including (1) Devil's Ice Box recharge zone (3,397 ha

[8,394 acres] of drainage), and (2) Hunter's Cave recharge zone (3,330 ha [8,228 acres] of drainage)

(BFSC, 2007).

A mixture of land uses occurs within the Bonne Femme watershed. The predominant land use accounting for 61.5 percent of the watershed is agricultural activities, including row crop productions, pasture, and range lands. Forested areas make up nearly one-third of the watershed, mainly within the central and western portion of the watershed. These forested areas also encompass most of the publicly owned lands, including Rock Bridge Memorial State Park and Three Creeks Conservation Area (BFSC, 2007).

19.3.4.1.2 Water Quality of Bonne Femme Watershed Water quality monitoring studies began in the Bonne Femme Watershed in 1999 and included two sites:

Hunters and Devil's Icebox Spring Branches. In 2001, the monitoring program was expanded to include six surface sub-watersheds (Clear Creek, Upper Bonne Femme Creek [at U.S. Highway 63], Turkey Creek, Lower Bonne Femme Creek [at Nashville Church Road], Little Bonne Femme Creek, and Fox Hollow Creek), and the two cave systems. In 2003, two additional sub-watersheds (Gans Creek and Bass Creek) were included to the monitoring plan (BFSC, 2007).

19.3.4.1.2.1 General Stream Parameters Samples were collected quarterly from the eight sites beginning with the third quarter of 2004. Samples were analyzed for general stream parameters, including temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity (BFSC, 2007). The results of the monitoring are listed in Table 19-34.

Table 19-34. General Stream Water Properties by Site (2 pages)

Clear Creek 13.1 55.6 7.88 525 11.84 111.2 3.6 Devils Icebox 11.6 52.9 7.53 424 11.05 101.7 22.9 Cave Turkey Creek 13.8 56.8 7.49 586 12.04 117.1 22.7 Bass Creek 13.7 56.7 7.80 455 14.39 140.3 12.6 19-112

NWMICatr1

'lvii." Cate 9.0-W I21-01 Review Environmental e.Q Table 19-34. General Stream Water Properties by Site (2 pages)

Lowter Bonne 12.8 55.0 7.47 408 11396 108.6 12.1 Femme Creek Average across 12.9 55.2 7.61 465 11.54 109.0 15.4 the sites Source: BFSC, 2007, Bonne Femme Watershed Plan, www.cavewatershed.org/plan.asp, Bonne Femme Stakeholder Committee, Boone County Planning and Building Department, Columbia, Missouri, February 2007.

a This value is the minimum difference between sites to be considered statistically different.

b NS not significantly different across sites. Data are averaged over 10 quarters (third quarter 2004 to fourth quarter 2006).

NTU = nephelometric turbidity units.

The following excerpt from the 2007 Bonne Femme Watershed Plan provides greater detail regarding the results of data analysis and general stream parameters for the sites listed in Table 19-34.

The pH concentrationin the Upper Bonne Femme Creek site was lower than all other sites.

This result is likely due to the fact that the Upper Bonne Femme Creek sub-watershed is primarily utilizedfor row crops (67% of the sub-watershed), and the lower pH may reflect the impact of fertilizer usage. The Upper Bonne Femme Creek and Turkey Creek occasionally had very high specific conductance levels exceeding 700 pS/cm. These results may have been due to the use of salt on U.S. Highway 63 during the winter months. Eight of ten sites had average dissolved oxygen levels that were at or near 100% saturation. The lowest observed dissolved oxygen levels occurred in the third quarterof each year when the stream water temperature was highest. The lowest dissolved oxygen level observed was 5.11 mg/L (62.6% saturation);therefore, no site was under the state standardlevel of 5.0 mg/L.

The high saturationlevels observed at Turkey and Bass Creeks reflected the persistent nuisance algal growth conditions at these sites. Turbidit~y measures the clarity of the water and, thus, both suspended sediment and algae can contribute to lower clarity and higher turbidity.

Highest turbidity was observed under runoff conditions when the suspended sediment content of the water is high. Turbidity levels were occasionally elevated under low flow conditions, suggesting that algal growth was negatively impacting water clarity, especially in the second and third quartersof the year. (BFSC, 2007)

Bacteria analyses - Two indicator groups of waterborne pathogens (fecal coliform and E. coli) were monitored in the streams within the Bonne Femme Watershed. Both groups are considered indicator organisms associated with improper waste management. Fecal coliforms represent a broad array of bacterial species present in mammal feces, while E. coli is a single bacterial species that is also present in mammal feces. These indicator bacteria generally do not survive long in soils or water; thus, their consistent detection in water over time indicates one or more sources of continual input.19-113

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

-'IUVV

- lvChater19.0 - Environmental Review The two sites with the highest fecal coliform concentrations, Turkey Creek and Fox Hollow, had statistically greater concentrations than the five sites with the lowest concentrations (Clear Creek, Gans Creek, Bass Creek, Hunters Cave, and Lower Bonne Femme Creek). Table 19-35 lists the average concentrations.

Table 19-35. Average Fecal Coliform and E. coli Concentrations Clear Creek 1.72 1.54 Devils Icebox Spring Branch 2.30 2.06 Turkey Creek 2.46 2.38 Bass Creek 2.00 1.84 Little Bonne Femme Creek 2.14 1.94 Average across the sites 2.13 1.95 Source: BFSC, 2007, Bonne Femme Watershed Plan, www.cavewatershed.org/plan.asp, Bonne Femme Stakeholder Committee, Boone County Planning and Building Department, Columbia, Missouri, February 2007.

aStatistical analysis was performed on log transformed data.

b This value is the minimum difference between sites to be considered statistically different.

According to the 2007 Bonne Femme Watershed Plan:

The three sub-watershedswith the highest levels of bacterial contamination (Turkey Creek, Fox Hollow, and Devil's Icebox Spring Branch) have consistently greaterinputs offecal bacteria compared to the other sites. Although these data do not indicate the source of the fecal bacteria, there are three likely sources in the Bonne Femme watershed - onsite sewers, livestock, and wildlife. (BFSC, 2007)

Specific water-borne pathogens - In the third quarter of 2005, the USDA Agricultural Research Service conducted additional analyses of three specific water-borne pathogens: E. coli 0157:H7, salmonella, and shigella. These three organisms are known human pathogens capable of causing food-borne gastrointestinal illnesses, but they are also associated with feces and, therefore, may contaminate streams and lakes, causing disease through oral contact or ingestion of contaminated water. Like fecal coliforms and generic E. coli, these disease-causing bacteria can enter surface waters through sewage overflows, polluted stormwater runoff, and polluted agricultural runoff.

Each of the three pathogens was detected at most of the ten sites monitored, and at least one pathogen was detected at every site. Shigella was detected at eight of ten sites, but generally at lower frequency than Salmonella or E. coli 0157:H7.19-114

NWMI .:..*Chapter.1+NWMI-2013-021, DVI..I Cate Rev. OA 9.0 -Environmental Review Salmonella was the most commonly detectedpathogen at four of the ten sites, with 33% of the samples collectedfrom Turkey and Little Bonne Femme Creeks testing positivefor Salmonella. E. coli 0157:H7 was the most commonly detected of the pathogens, with at least one detection at every site. Five of the ten sites had multiple detections of E. coli 0157:H7.

Three sites (Gans Creek, Turkey Creek, and Lower Bonne Femme Creek) had E. coli 0157:H7detected in 33% of their samples, and Fox Hollow had E. coli 0157:H7 detected in 58% of the samples.

These data do not definitively indicate source, but they do point to cattle as a probable source of E. coli 0157:H7at those sites with frequent detections. Of the common carriersof E. coli 0157:H7 (cattle, swine, and deer), swine can be eliminated as there are no sizable swine operations within the Bonne Femme watershed. Deer are likely responsiblefor the widespread nature of the detections, explaining the presence of E. coli 0157:H7 at sites with otherwise low fecal contamination, such as Clear Creek and Hunters Cave. Although data on specific numbers of cattle by sub-watershed cannot be reliably compiled, there are major cattle operations in the four watersheds with the highest detectionfrequency of E. coli 0157:H7. Furthermore,the Fox Hollow sampling site is immediately downstreamfrom a large cattle grazing operation. (BFSC, 2007) 19.3.4.1.3 Impaired Waters The USGS and the MDNR ambient water quality monitoring network collect water quality data each year pertaining to Missouri water resources. These data are stored and maintained in the USGS National Water Information System database. The MDNR is responsible for the implementation of the Federal CWA in Missouri. Section 305(b) of the CWA requires that each State develop a water quality monitoring program and periodically report the status of its water quality. Water quality status is described in terms of the suitability of the water for various uses, including drinking, fishing, swimming, and support of aquatic life. These uses formally are defined as "designated uses" in Federal and State regulations. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that certain waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards must be identified and total maximum daily loads (TMDL) must be determined for these waters. TMDLs establish the maximum amount of an impairing substance that a water body can assimilate and still meet the water quality standards. A TMDL addresses a single pollutant for each water body (Barr, 2012).

Impaired waters within close proximity to the proposed RPF site are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

19.3.4.1.3.1 Gans Creek In accordance with Section 303(d) of the CWA, MDNR identified Gans Creek (Water Body ID No. 1004) as an impaired water body in 2012 (Figure 19-36).19-115

~i:.~NWMI NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review A RPF Site ~'--Section 303d Impaired Streams (J 8km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site

'A-Streams Interstate Highways *I Section 303d Impaired Lakes

-Highways 4'*"l City Limits Lakes 0 0.5 1 2 3 4

, Miles Figure 19-36. Impaired Streams Map 19-116

.. NW

'lvii Chpter Cate -Environmental Rev.

9.0NWMI-2013-021, 0A Review Gans Creek is listed as impaired by bacteria on the Missouri 2012 303(d) list of impaired waters, which was approved in whole by the EPA on November 13, 2012 (EPA, 2012). Gans Creek is designated for the whole body contact recreation (Category A use). 10 CSR 20-7.031l, "Water Quality Standards," state that for waters designated for whole body contact recreation (Category A), the E. coli bacteria count, measured as a geometric mean, shall not exceed 126 colonies per 100 milliliters (mL) (3.4 ounces [oz]) of water during the recreational season (defined as being from April 1 to October 31).

DNR judges a stream to be impaired by bacteria if the water quality criterionfor E. coli is exceeded in any of the last three years for which there is adequate data (minimum of five samples taken during the recreationalseason). High counts of E. coli are an indication of fecal contamination and an increased risk of pathogen-inducedillness to humans. E. coli are bacteriafound in the intestines of warm-blooded animals and are used as indicatorsof the risk of waterborne diseasefrom pathogenic (disease causing) bacteria or viruses. Missouri's whole body contact bacteriacriteria are based on specific levels of risk of acute gastrointestinalillness. The level of risk correlating to the Category A criterion is no more than 8 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers in fresh water (0.8 percent). Sufficient recreational season E. coli data to assess the Gans Creek was collected in 2008 and 2009. The geometric means of the data exceeded the whole body contact Category A criterion in both years. For this reason, Gans Creek has been assessed as impaired by E. coli. (MDNR, 2013f)

The TMDL information for Gans Creek includes a segment stream length of 8.9 km (5.5 mi) and an affected watershed size of 39 km 2 (15 mi2). The four designated beneficial uses of Little Bonne Femme Creek include:

  • Livestock and wildlife watering
  • Protection of warm water aquatic life
  • Protection of human health (fish consumption)
  • Whole body contact recreation - Category A Category A whole body contact recreation is the only impaired designated beneficial use.

1 9.3.4.1.3 .2 Little Bonne Femme Creek In accordance Section 303(d) of the CWA, MDNR identified the Little Bonne Femme Creek (Water Body ID No. 1003) as an impaired water body in 2012.

Little Bonne Femme Creek is also listed as impaired by bacteria on Missouri 2012 303(d) list of impaired waters. Little Bonne Femme Creek is designated for the whole body contact recreation Category B use.

Missouri's Water Quality Standards in 10 CSR 20-7.031 (4)(C) state that for waters designated for whole body contact recreation Category B, the E. coli bacteria count, measured as a geometric mean, shall not exceed 206 colonies per 100 mL (3.4 oz) of water during the recreational season.

Missouri's whole body contact bacteriacriteria are based on specific levels of risk of acute gastrointestinalillness. The level of risk correlatingto the Category B criterion is no more than 10 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers in fresh water (1 percent). Sufficient recreationalseason E. coli data to assess the Little Bonne Femme Creek was collected in 2008 and 2009. The geometric means of the data exceeded the whole body contact Category B criterion in both years. For this reason, Little Bonne Femme Creek has been assessed as impaired by E. coli.

(MDNR, 2013g)

The TMDL information for Little Bonne Femme Creek includes a segment stream length of 14.5 km (9 mi) and an affected watershed size of 102 km 2 (39.2 mi 2). The four designated beneficial uses of Little Bonne Femme Creek include:

  • Livestock and wildlife watering
  • Protection of warm water aquatic life 19-117
'~I

. N°-:t.)E YVI NWMI-21-2,Rev.AChapter hpe - Environmental 1OPES9.0 Review

  • Protection of human health (fish consumption)
  • Whole body contact recreation - Category B Category B whole body contact recreation is the only impaired designated beneficial use.

19.3.4.1.3.3 Perry Phillips Lake Perry Phillips Lake, located approximately 1.2 km (3/4A-mi) west of the proposed RPF site, was first listed as an impaired water body in 2010. This lake was originally given the State-listed water identification number MO 1003U-01. In 2012, that number was changed to MO 7628. The TMDLs are to be established by Missouri in 2015. Information available for this impaired water body is as follows (MDNR, 2013h):

State Listed Water ID Nos. MO 7628 and MO 1003U-01 Location: Boone County Hydrologic Unit Code 8, No. 10300102 State Water Body Type: Lakes, reservoirs, and ponds Impaired Segment Size (mi/acres): 32 Classified Segment Size (mi/acres): 32 Cause of Impairment: Mercury in fish tissue Impaired Uses: GEN 19.3.4.2 Groundwater Resources Less than one-half of the Missouri population obtains its water supply from groundwater resources.

Groundwater is the major source of drinking water in the Ozarks and the Southeast Lowlands for both public and private supplies. The cities of St. Joseph, Independence, Columbia, and St. Charles use groundwater from the alluvial aquifer of the Missouri River. In the plains region of the state, many small communities are able to obtain adequate water from shallow alluvial wells near rivers or large creeks.

Many individual households still rely on the shallow upland aquifer even though it yields only very small amounts of water (MDNR, 201 2b).

Groundwater is the source of 74 percent of all rural domestic self-supplied water, 75 percent of all irrigation water, and 39 percent of all industrial self-supplied water, excluding water for thermoelectric power generation. The groundwater is generally suitable for most uses, except where it is saline. Median concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), hardness, nitrate, fluoride, and sulfate are less than the primary and secondary national drinking water regulations established by the EPA; however, localized contamination from manufactured organic compounds has been recognized in four of the six principal aquifers in Missouri, including both shallow and deep aquifers (USGS, 1986).

The six principal aquifers in Missouri include:

  • Major river valleys
  • Wilcox and Claiborne
  • McNairy
  • Ozark
  • Mississippian aquifer (Kimmswick-Potosi)

The groundwater aquifer beneath the proposed RPF site is the Mississippian aquifer (also referred to as the Kimmswick-Potosi aquifer). Figure 19-37 is a map of the aquifer.19-118

  • ';.: NWMI NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review

-- Static Water Level A RPF Site c~8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site

-""Interstate Highways Highways o 0.5 1234

, , ,Miles i~

City Limits Figure 19-37. Aquifer Map 19-119

ISOTPESChapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 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 RPF site was approximately 198.1 m (650 ft) below ground surface (MDNR, 2006).

19.3 .4.2.1 Mississippian Aquifer The Mississippian aquifer consists of consolidated dolomite, limestone, and some sandstone beds that are generally confined. The Keokuk limestone and Burlington limestone are the principal water-yielding formations within this aquifer. Both formations consist of crystalline limestone and yield water primarily from solution cavities. In most places, the aquifer is overlain by a confining unit of Pennsylvanian shale and sandstone and glacial till. The aquifer is typically underlain by a confining unit of Mississippian shale. Recharge occurs primarily from precipitation infiltrating overlying aquifers. The top of this aquifer is approximately 548.6 m (1,800 ft) below ground surface and is a primary source of water in seven counties north of the Missouri River (Miller and Appel, 1997).

19.3 .4.2 .2 Water Quality of the Mississippian Aquifer The quality of water obtained from wells drilled into the Mississippian aquifer varies considerably across Missouri due to the aquifer containing both freshwater and slightly saline to very saline water. Total dissolved solids concentrations of water from the aquifer generally are greatest where the aquifer is overlain by a thick confining unit and least where it is unconfined or overlain by a thin or semi-confining unit. Very saline water is thought to have entered the Mississippian aquifer either by upward leakage from the underlying Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer or by the discharge of eastward-moving saline water from the upper aquifer unit of the Western Interior Plains aquifer system (Miller and Appel, 1997).

In a study conducted by the USGS in 1985, the Mississippian aquifer was determined to have low permeability with a median TDS concentration of approximately 500 milligram per liter (mg/L)

(0.06 oz/gal). The maximum TDS concentration measured in this study was approximately 4,700 mg/L (0.572 oz/gal) to the north, where water becomes saline. The median concentration of fluoride was 1.0 mgfL (0.00012 oz./gal) and the median concentration of sulfate was 56.0 mg/L (0.0068 oz/gal). These were the largest median values of all of the six principal aquifers in Missouri (Miller and Appel, 1997).

According to the study, the Mississippian aquifer is intensively used for public water supply and irrigation; however, since the early 1900s, water quality in this aquifer has not changed appreciably (Miller and Appel, 1997).

A more recent assessment was conducted by the MDNR in 2002 (MDNR, 2002), which determined that the aquifers in Missouri consisting of Mississippian age limestone and Ordovician and Cambrian age dolomites and sandstones can yield 56.8-1,892.7 L/minute (mmn) (15-500 gal/min) of water. Yields locally exceed 3,785.4 L/min (1,000 gal/min) in some areas, including in Springfield, Columbia, and Rolla.

19.3.4.3 Preexisting Environmental Conditions The RADIL facility at Discovery Ridge is a regulated State hazardous waste facility (SHWF) located approximately 0.16 km (0.1 mi) northwest of the proposed RPF site. A second SHWF, ABC Laboratories, is located approximately 0.54 km (0.33 mi) west of the proposed RPF site. These facilities are discussed in greater detail in the following sections and in Section 19.2.2.5. Based on a regulatory review and site assessments conducted by others, these SHWFs do not appear to represent environmental concerns to the proposed RPF site.19-120

,lvi-i

" MEDC..ISOOPE Chpte.1NWMI-2013-021, hate 9.0 -Environmental Rev. Review 0A 19.3.4.3.1 2011 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Discovery Ridge, Lot 2 and Lots 5 through 18 A Phase I environmental site assessment included interviews with the MU Genetics Farm Manager and a USDA site employee to determine the historical uses of the Discovery Ridge area. The interviews revealed that minor amounts of herbicides and fertilizers are currently used on the MU Genetics Farm property (Lots 16, 17, and 18 of Discovery Ridge) (Terracon, 201 la).

The review identified one MDNR State-regulated RCRA large-quantity generator facility, ABC Laboratories (Lot 1 of Discover Ridge). However, this facility was not found to be a recognized environmental concern due to its regulatory status and duration of operation (built in 2007) (Terracon, 201 Ia). Additional information is listed in Table 19-36 and Sections 19.3.8.2 and 19.3.8.3.

Table 19-36. State-Regulated Facility Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories RCRA- Approximately 0.54 km No 4780 Lenoir Street LQG (0.33-mi) west (Lot 1 of the Discovery Ridge Research Park)

LQG = large-quantity generator. RPF = radioisotope production facility.

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Other observations noted during the Phase I environmental site assessment that could pose preexisting environmental conditions included the following (Terracon, 2011la):

  • Three pad-mounted transformers were observed on the southwestern portion of Lot 15 (proposed RPF site), one pad-mounted transformer was located on the southeastern portion of Lot 17, and three inactive pole-mounted transformers were observed on the northern portion of Lot 17.

However, there were no signs or staining that would be evidence of possible polychiorinated biphenyl (PCB) release.

  • Approximately 0.4 ha (1 acre) of fill dirt was observed on the northern portion of Lot 9. Per the MU South Farms Field Office, fill material had been placed onsite over the past two years and originated from the future location of the Missouri Conservation Facility located south of Gans Road, approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) south of the ROI.
  • An intermittent stream was observed on Lots 9, 10, and 11 of the Discovery Ridge ROI, traversing the site in a north-to-south orientation. No evidence of chemical sheens was observed on the surface of the pools of water, and no noxious odors were observed emanating from within the intermittent stream at the site during site reconnaissance.

19.3 .4.3 .2 2011 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation of Discovery Ridge Lot 2 and Lots 5 through 18 A 2011 preliminary geotechnical engineering investigation report stated the following (Terracon, 201 lb):

  • Fill soils were encountered in borings B-3 and B-4 at depths ranging from 0.9-3.7 m (3-12 ft) below ground surface. Boring B-3 was drilled on the central portion of Lot 2, and Boring B-4 was drilled on the central portion of Lot 8. The engineered fill material was placed as part of a mass grading project in 2008; that placement was observed and the soil density and moisture content tested during placement.19-121

I:V ChptrWWMI03-2, Chapter19.0 - Environmental Rv. O Review

  • Based on a USGS map and aerial photographs, a pond may have been located in the vicinity of Lot 16, and the existing pond located north of the RADIL facility previously extended west onto a portion of Lot 2.
  • The near-surface soils have shrink/swell potential and are prone to volume change with variations in moisture content.
  • The 2006/2009 International Building Code seismic site classification for the ROI is C. For Class C soils, the 2006/2009 code requires that a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 30.5 m (100 ft) be conducted.
  • The MMI scale for seismic events for Boone County, Missouri, is VII.
  • Groundwater was observed in Boring B-5 (located midway between Lots 14 and 15) and in Boring B-6 (located on Lot 10) at depths ranging from approximately 3.7-5.6 m (12-1 8.5 ft) below ground surface.

19.3.4.3.3 2006 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Discovery Ridge East of Lenoir Street and South of Sugar Grove Lane According to the Phase I environmental site assessment (Terracon, 2006), the MU South Farms facility was identified as an SHWF. An interview with Mr. John Poehlmann, Director of the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station and MU South Farms Superintendent, identified the historical uses of the facility. These uses include agricultural research of maize genetics crop research, swine nutrition, beef cattle management and grazing, agricultural equipment development, and cropping for grain silage and uptake of nutrients from lagoon application. According to Mr. Poehlmann, the nine buildings on the property within the ROI were built between 1970 and 2002, and there are pits for the collection of animal waste beneath one building that housed sheep and swine. The wastes were surface and injection applied as plant nutrients. The on-site lagoon operated under MDNR permit MO-GO010024.

19.3.4.4 Historical and Current Hydrological Data There is no historical or current hydrological data for the proposed RPF site.

19.3.4.5 Proposed Radioisotope Production Facility Water Use Water use by the proposed RPF is described in Section 19.2.4.1 and would be supplied from the Columbia, Missouri, standard municipal water system.

19.3.4.6 Water Rights and Resources Missouri water resources, including surface water and groundwater supplies, are applied to a variety of uses. Large consumptive water uses included thermal electrical generation, municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses. Nonconsumptive water uses include recreation, commercial navigation, hydroelectric power generation, and mining operations.

Missouri is called a riparian water law state, meaning that each individual landowner is entitled to make use of the water found on or beneath his/her property. The laws that address riparian rights are restrictive in that the landowner cannot make unlimited or unrestricted use of that water in any way he or she chooses. "Riparian lands," as defined by the courts, include all lands above underground waters and beside surface waters (MDNR, 2000).19-122

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Si;:NWMI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review 19.3.4.7 Quantitative Description of Water Use 19.3.4.7.1 Drinking Water Supply The potable water supply to Discovery Ridge is provided by Public Water District No. 1. Additional detail on the water supply system is provided in Section 19.3.7.1.9.3.

19.3.4.7.1.1 Wastewater Treatment Systems Two main wastewater collection providers service the metro area: the Columbia sewer utility and the Boone County Regional Sewer District. Several private, on-site wastewater treatment systems also serve the metro area. These systems require permits from and are inspected by the MDNR.

The ultimate wastewater service area is 311 km2 (190 m12) and includes three major watersheds: the Perche, Hinkson, and Little Bonne Femme. In 2010, the actual connected population was approximately 100,000; this figure is projected to reach 160,000 users by 2030. Approximately 45.4-56.7 ML/day (12-15 Mgal/day) of wastewater are currently generated; this is estimated to increase to 106 ML/day (28 Mgal/day) by 2030 (City of Columbia, 2013a).

A large number of older homes are connected to private common collector sewers. These systems are shared by two or more residences; many are poorly designed and prone to backing up (Columbia Source Water Protection Task Force, 2013).

19.3.4.7.1.2 Stormwater Management In 2012, Columbia maintained over 304,800 m (1 million linear feet) of storm sewers. With its client base surpassing 100,000 residents, a change in the type of NPDES storm sewer permit, granted by the EPA, was required. The city transitioned from a Phase II permit to a Phase I permit, an effort that included specific measures to address the minimization of pollution in city storm sewers and other areas (City of Columbia, 2013a).

19.3.4.7.2 Nonconsumptive Water Use The MDNR reported that in 2000, the total water Table 19-37. Water Use in Boone County, 2000 usage for Boone County totaled approximately 26,876 ML (7,100 Mgal) (MDNR, 2003). Water usage categories are listed in Table 19-37. L'AIWL*FL~~iI'FIFLS1L' Domestic 379-1,514 100-400 19.3.4. 7.3 Water Impoundments The MDNR regulates all non-Federal, Electric 0-75,708 0-20,000 nonagricultural dams that are at least 10.6 m (35 ft) in height. Currently, there are 590 dams regulated in Missouri. The MDNR inspects each regulated Municipal 11,356-37,854 3,000-10,000 dam at least once every 5 years to determine if the 156 dams pose a safety threat to the public. Source: 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.

19-1 23

ChaperI1NWM,-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chpter 9.0 - Environmental Review As of March 9, 2007, the MDNR listed a total of 127 dams within Boone County (MDNR, 2007). Of these 127, a total of 17 dams are regulated by the MDNR. Two dams are located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the proposed RPF site. The MU Ri Dam is located approximately 152.4 m (500 ft) northwest of the proposed RPJF site. This dam is not a regulated water body. The Bristol Lake Dam is located approximately 0.8 kmn (0.5 mi) west-southwest of the proposed site and is listed as regulated. Additional information on each of these water bodies is provided in Table 19-38.

Table 19-38. Missouri Dam Report, by County Bristol MO10019 $32 T48N 1965 14 m 300 m 146 ha 13.4 ha 2 R-223 Lake Dam R12W (46 ft) (985 ft) (360 acres) (33 acres) ii s{zi i R W(1 ft) (140 a;ri) (1 .....

Source: MDNR, 2007, "Missouri Dam Report by County," www.dnr.mo.govlenvlwrc/damsft/CrystalReportsl damsfty~state~nid.pdf, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, March 9, 2007.

NA = not applicable.

19.3 .4.7.4 Major Water Users In Missouri, a major water user is defined by the MDNR as any surface or groundwater user with a water source and the equipment necessary to withdraw or divert 378,541 L/day (100,000 gal/day) or more from any stream, river, lake, well, spring, or other water source. All major water users are required by law to register water use annually. In Boone County, there are a total of 19 major water users registered with the MDNR. The registration of major water users in Missouri helps the MDNR with the following:

  • Providing information required for technical assessment of current and future requirements for the regulation of water

° Gaining foresight on water supplies

  • Applying conservation measures during periods of limited or diminishing supplies of water

° Determining where to locate stream and reservoir gauges and the groundwater level observation wells 19.3.4.8 Contaminant Sources The most likely contaminant sources that may be affecting groundwater and/or surface water resources within the Columbia area include unregulated discharges from commercial and industrial processes, land development, pesticides from agricultural land-use practices, stormwater runoff, sediment erosion, and wastewater discharges. Other contaminant sources may include solid waste landfills and surface or underground mining operations.

Development within a watershed can contribute to water quality problems. Loads of sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, nutrients, and other pollutants are also higher in developed areas. This further decreases the natural habitat value of the streams and riparian areas.

Pollutants are carried by stormwater from upland areas into receiving waters. Land use not only influences the quantity of stormwater runoff, but also the quality of the runoff. Areas of high imperviousness (e.g., industrial areas, streets) can have some of the highest pollutant loads, while open spaces have the lowest.19-124

I;:.NW MI Catr1N k2i01,Rev.A 19.3.4.8.1 Columbia Source Water Protection Task Force Contaminant Inventory for 2012 The Columbia Source Water Protection Task Force completed a contaminant inventory for Columbia in 2012. The contaminant inventory was conducted to identify contaminant materials and develop a line of defense to protect the city's deep bedrock wells and the McBaine Bottoms Well Field.

Contaminant inventories reviewed included fuel and oils, pesticides, nutrients, synthetic organic chemicals, volatile organic compounds (VOC), animal waste, and/or raw sewage. Other potential contaminant sources can include gas stations or retailers that may stock chemicals such as pesticides, oil, gasoline, and cleaners.

The Columbia Source Water Protection Task Force (2013) did not identify any potential threats to the old deep bedrock wells; however, seven potential threats to the McBaine Bottoms wells were identified:

1. Malicious tampering with individual source water (or nearby monitoring wells)
2. Use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers
3. Seepage from Columbia wastewater treatment wetlands
4. Groundwater migration from under the Eagle Bluffs conservation wetlands
5. Infiltration from the Missouri River
6. Future activities in the McBaine bottoms area
7. Petroleum pipelines through the well field 19.3 .4.8.2 MDNR Surface Water Assessment for the State of Missouri According to the 2012 Missouri Water Quality Report (MDNR, 2012b), there are 39,318 km (24,431 mi) of classified streams, approximately 48,280 km (30,000 mi) of unclassified streams, and a total of 122,566 ha (302,867 acres) of classified lakes in Missouri. Classified streams are defined as permanently flowing streams or streams that maintain permanent pools during dry weather. Unclassified streams are defined as streams that are without water during dry weather. All classified waters of Missouri, including significant public lakes, are classified for protection of aquatic life, livestock and wildlife watering, and fish consumption by humans. The water quality standards for these uses set the maximum allowable concentrations for 117 chemicals in these waters. A subset of these waters classified for drinking water supply and groundwater has maximum allowable concentrations for an additional 79 chemicals in the standards. Waters protected for whole body contact recreation (e.g., swimming, water skiing) also have a maximum allowable bacteria standard (MDNR, 2012b).

19.3.4.8.3 Major Surface Water Pollution Sources in Missouri's Classified Waters The major surface water pollution sources and major contaminants in Missouri classified waters are listed in Table 19-39 and Table 19-40.19-125

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A N.%,1WMIWI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-39. Major Surface Water Pollution Sources in Missouri Classified Waters

  • ~ -g * ** -e a C S.

S * - S Unknown 3,229.0 2,006.4 8% 704 1,740 1%

Grazing activities 89.8 55.8 Urban runoff and 1,660.5 1,031.8 4% 19,852 49,055 16%

construction Mining 871.5 541.5 2%

Other mining 41.5 25.8a activities Hydromodification 170.4 105.9 a100 246 a i=......i ,iii'* =*= ===',,,i=i,=

  • Flow regulationl 46.7 29.0 modification Industrial point 67.3 41.8 sources Natural sources 3.7 2.3 Source: Table 3, p. 7, of MDNR, 2012b, Missouri Water Quality Report (Section 305[b] Report), Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program, Jefferson City, Missouri, May 2, 2012.

a Less than 1%.19-126

.,....NWMI.. NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0- Environmental Review Table 19-40. Major Contaminants in Missouri Classified Waters Bacteria 4,7I39.5 2,94:5.U 12%7 - --

Mercury 401.4 249.4 1% 9,939 24,560 8%

Lea4 ii~~~ii 1%

Cadmium 203.9 126.7 1%

17.2 10.

Nickel 9.2 5.7 a

1.4 Arsenic Unknown 716.6 445.3 2%

Chloride 105.9 65.8 Sediment deposition 58.1 36.1 a A

Sulfate 32.2 20.0 a a

Pesticides 18.2 11.3 3.6 9 16%

Chlorophyll 20,136 49,757 16%

Phosphorus 245 854 Source: Table 4, pp. 7-8 of MDNR, 2012b, Missouri Water Quality Report (Section 305[b] Report), Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program, Jefferson City, Missouri, May 2, 2012.

a Less than 1%.

19.3.4.8.4 Water Quality of Missouri Surface Water The MDNR rates the quality of Missouri surface water by its conformance with the Missouri Water Quality Standards (10 CSR Division 20). The standards were first implemented in 1970 and are revised at least every three years. Table 19-41 lists the various uses of Missouri surface waters and the portions of the state waters that are protected for each use.19-127

NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 0A

~NWMI Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-41. Missouri Waters Protected for Various Uses Protection of aquatic life and 39,318 24,431 100 12,2563 30,2867 100 fish consumption aCool-.water fishery 5,241 3,257 13 0 0 0 Livestock and wildlife watering 39,318 24,431 100 12,2563 302,867 100 Secondary contact recreation 14,279 8,872 36 103,840 256,601 85 Industrial 2.558 1.590 7 2.816 6.9592 Antidegradation: Outstanding 327 c204 State Resource Waters Source: of Department Table 4, p.Resources, Natural 15 of MDNR, Water2012b, Missouri Protection WaterJefferson Program, Quality Report (Section 3051[b]

City, Missouri, May 2,Report),

2012. Missouri a Smallmouth bass, rock bass.

b Trout.

Outstanding State Resource Waters also include 109 ha (270 acres) of marsh wetlands in three locations.

19.3 .4.8.5 Missouri Department of Natural Resources Groundwater Assessment Less than one-half of Missourians rely on groundwater as the source of their drinking water.

Groundwater is the major source of drinking water in the Ozarks and the Southeast Lowlands for both public and private supplies. In the Ozarks, groundwater yields are usually large and of excellent quality.

Many municipalities pump groundwater directly into the water supplies without treatment. Due to large amounts of rainfall and surface water runoff funneling through the geologic formations of the Ozarks, groundwater can be more easily contaminated. This is due to surface water flows directly entering groundwater through cracks, fractures, or solution cavities in the bedrock, with little or no filtration.

Contaminants from leaking septic tanks, storage tanks, or surface waters affected by domestic wastewater, animal feedlots, and other pollution sources can move directly into groundwater through these cavities in the bedrock (MDNR, 201 2b).

Groundwater is of good quality in the southeast lowlands. Contaminants are filtered by thick deposits of sand, silt, and clay as they move through the groundwater system. While shallow groundwater wells are subject to the same problems as seen in the Ozarks, with elevated levels of nitrate or bacteria, deep wells are generally unaffected by contaminants. Shallow groundwater in northern and western Missouri tends to be more mineralized and to have taste and odor problems due to high levels of iron and manganese.

Like shallow wells in the southeast lowlands, wells in this part of Missouri can be affected by nitrates, bacteria, or pesticides. In urban areas, alluvial aquifers of large rivers such as the Missouri River have occasionally been locally contaminated by spills or improper disposal of industrial or commercial chemicals (MDNR, 2012b).19-128

'*NWMI NWMI-2013-021, Rev. GA Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review The major sources and contaminants of groundwater in Missouri are listed in Table 19-42. Table 19-43 summarizes the MDNR groundwater contamination summary for Missouri.

Table 19-42. Major Sources of Groundwater Contamination in Missouri Agricultural chemical facilities Animal feedlots Drainage wells Fertilizer applications X A, C,D, E Nitrate Irrigation practices Pesticide applications X A,B,C, D,E Organic pesticides Land application X A,D,E Nitrate, pathogens (bacteria, protozoa, viruses)

Material stockpiles Aboveground storage tanks Underground storage tanks X A, B,C,D, E Petroleum compounds Surface impoundments Waste piles Waste tailings uiv itie Deep injection wells Landfills Septic systems A,D, E X Nitrate, pathogens (bacteria, protozoa, viruses)

Shallow injection wells Hazardous waste generators Hazardous waste sites X A, B,C, D Organic pesticides, halogenated solvents, metals, radionuclides Industrial facilities X A, B, C,E Nitrate, ammonia, pentachlorophenol, dioxin Material transfer operations Mining and mine drainage X A,EF Metals Pipelines and sewer lines Salt storage and road salting Salt water intrusion X C Salinity/brine Spills X A, B,C, E Organic pesticides, petroleum compounds, halogenated solvents, ammonia Transportation of materials ......-

Urban runoff ......-

Source: Tables 10 and 11, p. 28-29 of MDNR, 2012b, Missouri Water Quality Report (Section 305[b] Report),

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program, Jefferson City, Missouri, May 2, 2012.

a Not in priority order.

A = Human health or environmental toxicity risk. D = Number and/or size of contaminant B = Size of population at risk, sources.

C = Location of sources relative to drinking water sources. E = Hydrogeologic sensitivity.19-129

NWI NWMI-201 3-021, Rev. 0A Chapter 19.0 - Environmental Review Table 19-43. Missouri Department of Natural Resources Missouri Groundwater Contamination Summary NPL 25 25 25 1 DoD/DOE 305 37 33 1,2,3,4 50 213 231 18 45

,:,=: ,====,=I

  • iii=*i=]4 =- ;=== ,= .......... ii =

I

=i ii i

!ii

!iiiiii!i !!

  • iiii :*i ii i!i!!i*II i iliii iiiiiii*iiiiiii!ii: i" !ii==

[*ii iiiiiii *! ii*! ilii *ii 11!iiii iiiiiiii, i  !!ii i i!i!ii £i*:=.

iii i ii:'= ....... .! Ii!

i!iiiiiii!i=i=i'i*

!ii:£!!i!ilGIIilGiil iiii ii!iS =

i*=i iI:= iii

=:

i=ilii!i ....

i!{iiiiii i ....

!!i

=!I* Iii* £ili!i£= iilii i'*i£i

  • !  ! =Iii!i!ii i! :i i i!iii* !I RCRA 89 89 55 1,2,3,4 49 39 27 26 16 Corrective Action State sites 856 856 387 1, 2, 3, 4 847 575 575 49 575 Other- --- ---

(specify)

Source: Table 11, p. 30 of MDNR, 201 2b, Missouri Water Quality Report (Section 305(b) Report), Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program, Jefferson City, Missouri, May 2, 2012.

a Contaminants: I = VOAs, SVOAs, solvents, PCBs, dioxin, PA~s, herbicides, pesticides, metals, explosives.

2 = VOAs, PCBs, pesticides, dioxin, metals, radionuclides, semivolatile organic compounds, etc.

3 = BTEX, TPH, methyl-t-butyl ether, PAHs, metals, SVOA.

4 = Creosote, pentachlorophenol, organic solvents, chlorinated solvents, petroleum, and asbestos.

b Includes sites where chemicals were injected into groundwater as part of approved remediation plan.

BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. NPL = National Priority List.

CERCLIS = Comprehensive Environmental Response, PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.

Compensation, and Liability Information PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.

System. RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

DoD = U.S. Department of Defense. SVOA = semivolatile organic analyte.

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy. TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbon.

LUST = leaking underground storage tank. VOA = volatile organic analyte.

19-1 30

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18025B170&oldid=2507767"