Revision as of 20:33, 8 July 2018

Text

Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC - Document No. NWMI-2015-RAI-001, Revision 0, Appendices B, C, D, and E. Part 2 of 14
	ML15328A072
Person / Time
Site:	Northwest Medical Isotopes
Issue date:	11/20/2015
From:	McManus G; Northwest Medical Isotopes, Portage
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML15328A010	List: ML15328A070; ML15328A071; ML15328A072; ML15328A073; ML15328A075; ML15328A076; ML15328A077; ML15328A078; ML15328A079; ML15328A080; ML15328A081; ML15328A082; ML15328A083; ML15328A084;
References
	NWMI-LTR-2015-005 EDF-3124-0008, EDF-3124-0012, Rev. 1, EDF-3124-0013, Rev. 1, NWMI-2015-RAI-001, Rev. 0
	Download: ML15328A072 (64)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:*'°egl"NDTW£SM!IAZO~E NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0 Appendix B -EDF-3124-0008, Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler Operation B-i Document ID:EDF-3124-0008 Revision ID:0A Effective Date: June 26, 2014 Engineering Design File I Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation Portage Project No.: 3124 Project Title: NWMI Environmental Report Portage TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 Rev. 0A Page 1 of 5 1. Portage Project No.: 3124 2. Project/Task: NWMI Environmental Report 3. DCN#4. Title: Emissions fr'om Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation 5. NPH PC or SDC: N/A 6. SSC Safety Category: N/A 7 Summary: This EDF documents the methods used to calculate the emissions of CO, NOR, PM-10, PM-2.5, VOC CO 2 , VOC and SOx, from the two process steam boilers, the two HVAC boilers and the emergency generator that will be used for the operation of the NW/MI facility.7 Distribution: (Portage, Inc.)7. Review (R) and Approval (A) Signatures: (Identify minimum reviews and approvals. Additional reviews/approvals may be added.)_____ Printed Name/____________RA Organization Signature Date Author/Design Agent a Gary McManus 61 !'[)g'l[ dx' 6/26/14 Independent Review R Dave T home , ,.6/26/14 Independent Review R Project Manager R/A John Belier 6/26/14 Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A INTRODUCTION Several combustion sources at the proposed RPF would contribute to the gaseous effluents. These combustion sources are two natural gas-fired boilers used for steam production and two natural gas-fired boilers used for heating. The two steam boilers and the two boilers used for heating each are released through two separate stacks. The boilers and generator all emit GO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and CO 2.The assumptions used for the four boilers are summarized in Table 1 below. TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 Rev. 0A Page 2 of 5 Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters Sta od Steam Heat Boiler Fuel Energy Natural Gas Boiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/hr) (MBTU/lb) (%) MVBTU/hr (ft 3/hr)Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 IHVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 The emission factors used for the boilers are obtained from EPA 200, AP-42, Volume I, Table 1.4.1 and Table 1.4.2, these values are shown below in Table 2.Table 2. Emission Factors for Boilers.Pollutant Emission Factor Units COa 84 NOx a 50 PM1 0 (Total) b 7.6 l/0 c PM1O (filterable) b 1.9lb 6 sc VOC 5.5 SO 2 0.6 CO 2 d 120,000 a. Controlled -Low NOx burners b. All PM (total, condensable, and filterable) is assumed to be less than 1.0 micrometer in diameter. Therefore, the PM emission factors presented here may be used to estimate PM10, PM2.5 or PM1 emissions. Total PM is the sum of the filterable PM and condensable PM. Condensable PM is the particulate matter collected using EPA Method 202 (or equivalent). Filterable PM is the particulate matter collected on, or prior to, the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.c. Based on 100% conversion of fuel sulfur to SO 2.Assumes sulfur content is natural gas of 2,000 grains/10 6 cf. The SO 2 emission factor in this table can be converted to other natural gas sulfur contents by multiplying the SO 2 emission factor by the ratio of the site-specific sulfur content (grains/10 6 scf) to 2,000 grains/10 6 scf.d. Based on approximately 100% conversion of fuel carbon to CO 2.CO 2[lb/10 6 scfl =(3.67) (CON) (C)(D), where CON = fractional conversion of fuel carbon to CO 2 , C =carbon content of fuel by weight (0.76), and D = density of fuel, 4.2x 104 lb/10 6 scf. TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 Rev. 0A Page 3 of 5 From Table 2 the hourly emission were calculated as follows: Emissions (lb/hr) = EF * (NGC/1 06)Where: EF = emission factor (lb/10 6 scf)NGC =natural gas consumption (ft 3/hr)For: CO = 84 * (12460/106) = 1.0 lb/hr Tons/year =(1.0 lb/hr / 2000 lb/ton)

24 hr/day
7 days/week
50 weeks=4.4 tons/yr CO from Process boiler #1 Total CO release is the sum of the two process boilers and the 2 HVAC boilers.The emissions were calculated in ton/yr assuming a boiler operation of 50 weeks per year. The results are shown in Table 3 below.Table 3. Emissions from the 4 natural gas fed boilers Pollutant Emissions Process Boilers 1 & 2 (each) HVAC Boilers 1&2 (each) Total Emissions (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)CO 1.0E+00 4.4 1.1E+00 4.5 18 NOx 6.2E-01 2.6 6.4E-01 2.7 11 PMl0 (Total) 9.5E-02 0.40 9.8E-02 0.41 1.6 PM10 (filterable) 2.4E-02 0.10 2.5E-02 0.10 0.40 VOC 6.9E-02 0.29 7.1E-02 0.30 1.2 SO 2 7.5E-03 0.031 7.7E-03 0.032 0.13 CO 2 1.5E+03 6,300 1.5E+03 6,500 26,000 Emergency Generator:

The diesel generator is planned to be used for temporary operation and safe shutdown of the system if required. The emergency generator would emit CO, NOx, PM, SO 2 , VOCs, and CO 2.The generator was assumed to be rated at 2,600 kw and the emission factors and annual emissions are shown below in Table 4 Total Emissions were calculated as follows: Ei (kg) =EFi (g/kW-hr)

0.001 (kg/g)
Power Rating (kw) x Hours Run per Year (hr/yr)Assumes 24 hours operation per year and 2,600 kw generator.

TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 Rev. 0A Page 4of 5 Table 4. Emission Factors and Annual for Selected Pollutants (2,600 kw Emergency Generator) NOXa PM~ SO~ab COa NOxa a02 PM" SOxa, b g/kW-hr ozikW-hr g/kW-hr oz/kW-hr g/kW-hr oz/kW-hr g/kW-hr oz/kW-hr g/kW-hr ozikW-hr Emission Factor 3.3 0.12 7.9 0.28 710 25 0.43 0.015 2.5 0.087 Emissions kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr Standby 2600 kW 8.7 19 21 45 1800 4000 1.1 2.4 6.4 14 diesel______________________ _______generator per yearc 210 460 490 1000 44,000 97,000 27 59 150 340 a Values from EPA, 2010, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1, Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP 42, Fifth Edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, D.C., 2010. Table 3.4.1 b Assumes 0.5% sulfur content.SAssumes 24 hr/year operation for maintenance. TEM-9002 09129/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 Rev. 0A Page 5 of 5

Attachment:

Excel spread sheet of calculations Prrs 2... 934.52 Ofl for se~am at 25 xi 9345 MN, 75% Boiler Ef0,ienu, 22440 MN, Fool cortent 124600034,r Coo Cu,,,.14 1066;ha 30% OxreessAo 153004 ft3ft Coomkustio, Air Pb btwgs l~ rate foreaoh of cxoo bolers Pb,,t, vecndor infoocrmatio FIVAC 9672 MN, Pook HIVAC hooatg drrroalx ISteam lteat Boirr Fuel Encrgr ata a I Stram Load I Factor I 0t19,m Cotnt Couso.75%Boilr, 03o¢nv Emlacion Farctor, Br Boil,,.Pollcteota Enilaslon Facoro Untll CO 84 hl4O of NO,,' 50 PMt0 (Tola[) ' 7.6 PMI0 1 9 VOC 5.5120,000 ___o A, P (62 2,O. 00.40006 .. r~t eik, = .u=*ad 2t, ho 00.1.aoc.0=nmct o od... eTh,,aoooorhePM l s siac fool. rp'*ml htoo, re, bocod Io.OllcaboPM IO.,POl20.300Pld a...occ. Tri PM iu th0 0.00000inh .0 ,000c.4c~o 08 70A Mo¢hod 202 6(, Op&u.210t FiO.8*2.kpM .i0 ,tt w .u00..Iof.

e. The SO2o,,ooo..ao mt0. u. ho 0,0r0 to ud.h, c~a torO ..000r .ot,,o O 10020t (t.faim16lt) ,flOo9.oou floal106 so 002[100100 sel9 1 3.67) 1C01d,1C0D30

..h0. CulON r.000,oJ rOr.ru. 020.O00IO COC'006000t Iat O."f41by wtolt.dO D doy or 0(.44,204.z1o4 n6, 2.050-09 4.44 6.23E-01 202 6045E-02 2.72 I1 9.47E-02 9.40 9.20E-02 0 42 16 2.970-02 0.10 2.45E-02 0.10 0.44 6.85E-02 1029 7.09E0 2 { 0.30 2.2 7.480-09 0.99 7.740-03 j 0 03 0.23 2.500'803 6.28E303 [ 1 55E0 3 630 25.359 Enmhsbon. 8.,n Pncoo,.Bollanl1&2 2 0b/hr) Each Esch (Ibthr

iOPE NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0 Appendix C -EDF-3124-0012, Emission Modeling for Process and IIVAC Boilers Using AERSCREEN C-i Document ID:EDF-3124-0012 Revision ID:1 Effective Date: February 4, 2015 Engineering Design File Emission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN Portage Project No.: 3124 Project Title: NWMI Environmental Report 4Portage TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 1. Portage Project No.: 3124 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1 Page 1 of 20 2. Project/Task:

NWMVI Enviromnmental Report 3. DCNH#4. Title: Emission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN 5. NPH PCor SDC: N/A 6. SSC Safety Category: N/A 7 Summary: This EDF documents the assumptions used and the results of the AERSCREEN modeling done for the 4 natural gas fired boils used for the operation of the NWIVI facility. The results are then compared to the NAAQS and ambient air concentrations. 8 Distribution: (Portage, Inc.)9. Review (R) andApproval (A) Signatures: (Identify minimum reviews and approvals. Additional reviews/approvals mnay be added.)_____ ~Printed Name/R/A Organization Signature Date Author/Design Agent A Gary McManus () 2/04/15 Independent Review R Dave Thorme ¢ 2/04/15 Independent Review R Project Manager R/A John Beller 2/04/15 Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 2 of 20 INTRODUCTION As described in EDF-3 124-0008 there will be two natural gas-fired boilers used for steam production and two natural gas-fired boilers used for heating. The two steam boilers and the two boilers used for heating each are released through two separate stacks. The boiler and generator all emit CO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and C02. The assumptions used for the four boilers and the associated emissions are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below.Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters SemBoiler Fuel Energy Natural Gas Steam Load Heat Boiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/br) (MBTU/lb) (%) MBTU/hr (ft 3/hr)Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 HVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 Table 2. Emissions From The Four Natural Gas Fed Boilers (EDF-3 12 1-0008)Pollutant _____________ Emissions Process Boilers 1 & 2 HVAC Boilers 1 &2 Total S~Emissions (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (lb/br) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)CO 2.1E+00 8.8E+00 2.2E+00 9.1E+00 18 NOx 1.2E+00 5.2E+00 1.3E+00 5.4E+00 11 PM10 (Total) 1.9E-01 8.0E-01 2.0E-01 8.2E-01 1.6 PM10 (filterable) 4.7E-02 2.0E-01 4.9E-02 2.1E-01 0.40 VOC 1.4E-01 5.76E-01 1.4E-01 6.0E-01 1.2 SO2 1.5E-02 6.3E-02 1.6E-02 6.5E-02 0.13 CO2 3.0E+03 1.3E+04 3.1E+03 1.3E+04 26,000 Emissions from the boiler activities were evaluated using AERSCREEN, Version 11126. This screening model uses standard defaults for meteorology, and terrain values. Modeled emissions included: PM-10, PM-2.5, CO, nitrogen, and sulfur oxides (NOx), and SOx.). The assumptions used for the modeling are presented below. TEM-9002 09/29109 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 3 of 20 ASSSUMPTIONS The input assumptions used for the AERSCREEN model are summarized in Table 3 and 4 below. Since the four boilers vent through two identical stacks only one run was done. The results of the run were then combined to give the approximate concentrations at the receptor locations. Table 3. AERSCREEN Input Stack Parameters SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hr STACK HEIGHT: 22.86 meters 75.00 feet STACK INNER DIAMETER: 0.305 meters 12.00 inches PLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: 310.9 K 99.95 Deg F PLUME EXIT VELOCITY: 17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/s STACK AIR FLOW RATE 2772 ACFM 2772 ACFM RURAL OR URBAN: RURAL RURAL FLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT: 1.83 meters 6.00 feet INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE -- 5000. meters 16404. feet Table 4. Makemet Meteorology Parameters MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 255.4 / 302.6 (K)MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10 meters DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture DOMINANT SEASON: Spring ALBEDO: 0.18 BOWEN RATIO: *0.4 ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 0.050 (meters)For this screening model, no downwash was considered in the calculations since exact locations and dimensions are still in the design phase. The closest residential receptor was assumed to be a single family home located approximately 375 meters SSE from the facility location. Using these assumptions the AERSCREEN model was run and the results were obtained. A complete listing of the model is included in Attachment

1.

TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 4 of 20 RESULTS The final run results for the maximum concentration downwind of the facility are summarized in Table 5 below.Table 5. AERSCREEN Results.Maximum] Scaled J Scaled] Scaled [Scaled Calculation 1-Hour] 3-Hour 8-Hour J24-Hour Annual ProcdureConcentration a Flat Terrain (gig/m 3) J(jPtg/m 3) J(gig/m 3) ](btg/m 3) (Pig/m 3)_________ 17 17 J 15 J 10 1.7 a. Distance from Source to maximum concentration location 136.00 meters Using the AERSCREEN results above as well as the maximum concentration at 375 meters from attachment 1 (i.e., 10.83 jig/in 3), Table 6 and 7 were completed. Table 6. Emissions from Process Steam Demand -Natural Gas-Fired Boilers Modeled concentration to Hourly Emissions Maximumclst Emission for Both Steam concentration Pollutant Factor Boiler a @ 136 m b residential receptor (375 m)c (lb/hr) (jig/in 3) (jig/in 3)CO 84 2.1E+00 3.5E+01 2.3E+01 NOx 50 1.2E+00 2.1E+01 1.4E+01 PM-10 7.6 1.9E-01 3.2E+00 2.1E+00 PM-2.5 1.9 4.7E-02 8.0E-01 5.1E-01 5.5 1.4E-01 2.3E+00 1.5E+00 SO2 0.6 1.5 E-02 2.5E-01 1.6E-01 CO2 120,000 3.0E+03 5.0E+04 3.2E+04 a. Hourly emission from process boiler 1 and 2 each shown in EDF-3 124-0008.b. This is maximum 1- hour concentration calculated by AERSCREEN equals 1 7jg/m 3 per lb/hr c. This represents the highest 1 hour concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters and equals 11 jig/mn 3 per lb/hr TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 5 of 20 Table 7. Emissions from 2-H VAC Natural Gas-Fired Heater Modeled Hourly Emissions Maximum concentration to Emission for Both HVAC concentration closest PluatFactor Boiler a @ 136 m bresidential receptor (375 m)(lb/hr) ([.tg/m 3) (jig/mn 3)CO 84 2.2E+00 3.6E+01 2.3E+01 NOx 50 1.3E+00 2.2E+01 1.4E+01 PM10 7.6 2.0E-01 3.3E+00 2.1E+00 PM-2.5 1.9 4.9E-02 8.2E-01 5.3E-01 VOC 5.5 1.4E-01 2.4E+00 1.5E+00 SO2 0.6 1.6E-02 2.6E-01 1.7E-01 CO 2 120,000 3.1E+03 5.2E+04 3.3E+04 a. Hourly emission from process boiler 1 and 2 each shown EDF-3 124-0008 b. This is maximum 1- hour concentration calculated by AERSCREEN at 136 m equals 17 jtg/mn 3 / lb/hr c. This represents the highest 1 hour concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters and equals 11 jig/mn 3/ lb/hr Since both boiler stacks are co-located with the same characteristics the total downwind concentration was assumed to be additive. These values were then compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to see if any of the 1-hour air standards were exceeded. This comparison is summarized in Table 8 below.Table 8. Maximum Release Concentration Comparison to NAAQS Standards MimmModeled Percentage of concentration to closestAQ NAAQS Limit at Polltant 136rato@ clst residential NASAASPoint of receptor____(375 m)______ ______ Maximum (___g/m3)__(jig/r

3) (ppm) (jig/mn 3) Concentration CO 7.2E+0+/-.E01 4.0E+04 0.18%NOx 4.3E+012.E019+222 PM10 6.5E+00 PM-2.5 1 .6E+001.E0003 46 SO2 4.7E+00

.6 CO2 5.1E-01 3.3E-01_NANAN

a. Maximum Concentration is the sum of the 2 process boilers and the 2 HVAC boilers ________b. Concentration at closest residence c. Values in Green are actual standard values; values in yellow are the converted values.d. 24-hour standard for PM-10 and PM-2.5 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 6 of 20 From Table 8 it is apparent that the modeled release concentrations are all below the applicable NAAQS standards.

Therefore no additional modeling is required at this time.A similar evaluation of the model emission concentrations was performed to determine if the emissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. Regional values of the five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division of Environmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9 summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values.Table 9. Ambient Air of Rural/Urban Missouri Ambient Air of Rural/Urban Pollutant Missouri 3)CO 3.8E+03 NOx 2.1E+01 PMl0 1.7E+01 PM-2.5 1.1E+01 SO2 7.0E+00 CO2 NA A similar evaluation of the model emission concentrations was performed to determine if the emissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. Regional values of the five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division of Environmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9 summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values. Similar comparison was done to Table 10. Comparison of Modeled Concentrations to Average Ambient levels around the State Missouri.Maiu codeledtato AminoAro Percentage of Ambient Air concentrationoto Rural/Urban Pollutant concenratio closest residential Misuiconcentration Point of@16b receptor (375 m) b MisuiMaximum Concentration (ig/m3) (#tg/m3) (#.g/m3) ____________ CO 7.2E+0l 4.6E+0l 3.8E+03 1.9%NOx 4.3E+01 2.7E+0l 2.1E+01 203%PM10 6.5E+00 4.2E+00 1.7E+01 38%PM-2.5 l.6E+00 1.0E+00 1.1E+01 15%SO2 4.7E+00 3.0E+00 7.0E+00 7.3%CO2 5.lE-01 3.3E-01 NA NA a Maximum Concentration is the sum of the 2 process boilers and the 2 ITVAC boilers b Concentration at closest residence Attachment 1 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124.-0012 Rev. 1 Page 7 of 20 ATTACHMENT 1.AERSCREEN Files Text File: Start date and time 02/05/15 08:19:04 AERSCREEN 11126 NWMI PROCESS BOILER-......... DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH** STACKDATA

- ------------------

Emission Rate: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hr Stack Height: 22.86 meters 75.00 feet Stack Diameter: 0.3 05 meters 12.00 inches Stack Temperature: 310.9 K 100.0 Deg F Exit Velocity: 17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/s Stack Flow Rate: 2771 ACFM Model Mode: RURAL Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet** BUILDING DATA **No Building Downwash Parameters

- TERRAIN DATA * *No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation:

0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet Flagpole Receptor Height: 1.8 meters 6. feet No discrete receptors used** METEOROLOGY DATA ** TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 8 of 20 Min/Max Temperature: 255.4 / 302.6 K 0.0 / 85.0 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Grassland Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture AERSCREEN output file: boilerl .out** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run SURFACE CHAPRACTEPISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics... Using AERM4ET seasonal surface characteristics for Grassland with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.60 1.50 0.001 Spring 0.18 0.40 0.050 Summer 0.18 0.80 0.100 Autumn 0.20 1.00 0.010 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01 01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01 .sfc & aerscreen_02 01 .pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01 .sfc & aerscreen_03 01 .pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01 .sfc & aerscreen_04 01 .pfl PROBE started 02/05/15 08:19:34 Running probe for Winter sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Winter sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES ***** TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 9 of 20*** NONE ***Running probe for Spring sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Spring sector1*** NONE ***Running probe for Summer sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Summer sector1******** WARNING MESSAGES ********** NONE **Running probe for Autumn sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Autunmn sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES *********** NONE ***PROBE ended 02/05/15 08:19:3 8 REFINE started 02/05/15 08:19:38 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Spring sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES ******** NONE **REFINE ended 02/05/15 08:19:38 AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details Ending date and time 02/05/15 08:19:39 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1 Page 10 of 20 OUTPUT FILE: AERSCREEN 11126 / AERMOD 1234 TITLE: NWMI PROCESS BOILER 02/05/15 08:19:38***************************** STACK PARAMETERS

- - q* **** *** ******* **** * **** *SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/s STACK HEIGHT: 22.86 meters STACK INNER DIAMETER:

0.305 meters PLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: 310.9 K PLUME EXIT VELOCITY: 17.929 in/s STACK AIR FLOW RATE: 2772 ACFM RURAL OR URBAN: RURAL 1.000 lb/hr 75.00 feet 12.00 inches 100.0 Deg F 58.82 ft/s FLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT: INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =1.83 meters 6.00 feet 5000. meters 16404. feet****************BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS

- *** **** ****** ** **NO BUILDING DOWNWASH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THIS ANALYSIS**************

PROBE ANALYSIS ************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters -5000. meters Zo ROUGHNESS SECTOR LENGTH 1-HR CONC DIST TEMPORAL (ug/m3) (in) PERIOD 1" 0.050 16.70 150.0 SPR* -worst case flow sector TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Pagell1of 20********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 255.4 / 302.6 (K)MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 rn/s ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture DOMINANT SEASON: Spring ALBEDO: 0.18 BOWEN RATIO: 0.40 ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 0.050 (meters)METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT YR MO DY JDY HR 10 0105 5 12 HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS 21.61 0.066 0.300 0.020 46. 39. -1.2 0.050 0.40 0.18 0.50 HT REF TA HT 10.0 302.6 2.0 ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): 37.4 meters METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT AMBIENT BOUNDARY IMPACT TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 12 of 20 YR MO DY JDY HR 10 01 01 5 12 Ho U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 B OWEN ALBEDO REF WS 1.17 0.049 0.100 0.020 27. 25. -7.8 0.050 0.40 0.18 0.50 HT REF TA HT 10.0 255.4 2.0 ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): 56.5 meters************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE MAXIMUM DIST 1-HR CONC (in) (ug/m3)1.00 0.2290E-04 25.00 4.216 50.00 8.390 75.00 10.29 100.00 15.11 125.00 16.69 150.00 16.70 175.00 16.17 200.00 15.43 225.00 14.64 250.00 13.87 275.00 13.16 300.00 12.49 325.00 11.89 350.00 11.33 375.00 10.83 400.00 10.37 425.00 9.943 MAXIMUM DIST 1-HR CONC (mn) (ug/m3)2525.00 4.139 2550.00 4.107 2575.00 4.076 2600.00 4.045 2625.00 4.015 2650.00 3.986 2675.00 3.956 2700.00 3.927 2725.00 3.899 2750.00 3.871 2775.00 3.843 2800.00 3.815 2825.00 3.788 2850.00 3.762 2875.00 3.735 2900.00 3.709 2925.00 3.684 2950.00 3.659 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page1l3of 20 450.00 475.00 500.00 525.00 550.00 575.00 600.00 625.00 650.00 675.00 700.00 725.00 750.00 775.00 800.00 825.00 850.00 875.00 900.00 925.00 950.00 975.00 1000.00 1025.00 1050.00 1075.00 1100.00 1125.00 1150.00 1175.00 1200.00 1225.00 1250.00 1275.00 1300.00 1325.00 1350.00 1375.00 1400.00 1425.00 1450.00 1475.00 1500.00 1525.00 1550.00 1575.00 9.609 9.3 15 9.039 8.78 1 8.539 8.3 10 8.095 7.89 1 7.699 7.5 17 7.344 7.179 7.023 6.874 6.733 6.597 6.468 6.344 6.226 6.112 6.003 6.039 6.174 6.287 6.3 80 6.447 6.43 1 6.4 11 6.386 6.359 6.328 6.295 6.259 6.221 6.182 6.14 1 6.098 6.055 6.010 5.965 5.9 19 5.872 5.826 5.778 5.73 1 5.683 2975.00 3000.00 3025.00 3050.00 3075.00 3100.00 3125.00 3150.00 3175.00 3200.00 3225.00 3250.00 3275.00 3300.00 3325.00 3350.00 3375.00 3400.00 3425.00 3450.00 3475.00 3500.00 3525.00 3550.00 3575.00 3600.00 3625.00 3650.00 3675.00 3700.00 3725.00 3750.00 3775.00 3800.00 3825.00 3850.00 3875.00 3900.00 3925.00 3950.00 3975.00 4000.00 4025.00 4050.00 4075.00 4100.00 3.634 3.609 3.585 3.561 3.537 3.5 14 3.491 3.468 3.446 3.424 3.402 3.380 3.359 3.338 3.3 17 3.296 3.276 3.256 3.236 3.217 3.197 3.178 3.159 3.14 1 3.122 3.104 3.086 3.068 3.051 3.033 3.016 2.999 2.982 2.966 2.949 2.933 2.917 2.90 1 2.886 2.870 2.855 2.839 2.824 2.8 10 2.795 2.780 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 14 of 20 1600.00 1625.00 1650.00 1675.00 1700.00 1725.00 1750.00 1775.00 1800.00 1825.00 1850.00 1875.00 1900.00 1925.00 1950.00 1975.00 2000.00 2025.00 2050.00 2075.00 2100.00 2125.00 2150.00 2175.00 2200.00 2225.00 2250.00 2275.00 2300.00 2325.00 2350.00 2375.00 2400.00 2425.00 2450.00 2475.00 2500.00 5.636 5.588 5.541 5.494 5.447 5.400 5.353 5.307 5.26 1 5.2 16 5.171 5.126 5.082 5.03 8 4.995 4.952 4.910 4.868 4.827 4.786 4.746 4.706 4.667 4.629 4.590 4.553 4.5 15 4.479 4.443 4.407 4.372 4.337 4.303 4.269 4.236 4.203 4.171 4125.00 4150.00 4175.00 4200.00 4225.00 4250.00 4275.00 4300.00 4325.00 4350.00 4375.00 4400.00 4425.00 4450.00 4475.00 4500.00 4525.00 4550.00 4575.00 4600.00 4625.00 4650.00 4675.00 4700.00 4725.00 4750.00 4775.00 4800.00 4825.00 4850.00 4875.00 4900.00 4925.00 4950.00 4975.00 5000.00 2.766 2.752 2.737 2.724 2.710 2.696 2.682 2.669 2.656 2.643 2.630 2.617 2.604 2.591 2.579 2.5 66 2.554 2.542 2.530 2.5 18 2.506 2.494 2.483 2.471 2.460 2.449 2.438 2.427 2.416 2.405 2.394 2.3 83 2.373 2.362 2.352 2.341********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT

SUMMARY

MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED TEM-9002 ENGINEERING 09/29109 Rev. 0 1-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUF CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/ni FLAT TERRAJN 16.81 16.81 15.13 10.08 J1 FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 15 of 20 ,.ANNUAL CONC CONC[3) (ug/m3)1.68 1 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 136.00 meters IMPACT AT THE AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.2290E-04 0.2290E-04 0.2061E-04 0.1374E-04 0.2290E-05 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 100mtr 1.00 meters TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 16 of 20 Attachment 2 Average ambient Pollutant Concentrations for Missouri Table 1. Levels of CO in Springfield Missouri Maximum Maximum Year 8-Hour Average 1-Hour Average (ppm) (ppm)1993 5.4 14 1994 5.9 12 1995 5 9 1996 3.3 7 1997 5 7 1998 5.1 6 1999 4.1 5 2000 2.8 5 2001 4.3 7 2002 3.5 6 2003 2.4 4 2004 3.4 5 2005 3 5 2006 2.1 .4 2007 2.6 4 2008 1.3 1.9 2009--- --1.5- ..---2.3 --2010 1.9 2.3 Second Quarter 2013 1.1 2.3 Average (ppm) 3.35E+00 5.73E+00 Average ((gglm3) 3.84E+03 6.56E+03 Table 2. Nitrogen Dioxide -Hillcrest High School Springfield Year Annual Average Year (ppm)1993 0.011 1994 0.013 1995 0.012 1996 0.011 1997 0.011 1998 0.012 1999 0.013 2000 0.012 2001 0.013 2002 0.0107 2003 0.0111 2004 0.012 2005 0.0115 2006 0.0104 2007 0.01 2008 0.0089 2009 0.0083 Through 3rd Quarter 0.0079 Average (ppm) 1. 1OE-02 Average (ug/m3) 2.08E+01 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 17 of 20 Table 4. Inhalable PM10 -MSU Springfield Annual Average Maximum 24 hr Average Year (gg/m3) (gg/m3)1993 18 38 1994 18 58 1995 17 44 1996 18 64 1997 15 51 1998 17 43 1999 18 45 2000 18 47.2001 20 57 2002 18 46 2003 17 40 2004 16.7 36 2005 19.3 45 2006 15.7 35 2007 17.9 38 2008 15 39 2009 14 27 2010 17.2 36 2011 16.5 37 2012 16.9 38 Average(jgg/m

3) 17.16 43.2 Table 5. Inhalable PM-2.5 MSU Springfield Year Annual Average Year (ppm)1999 12.24 2000 12.28 2001 12.2 2002 12.7 2003 11.7 2004 10.91 2005 13.01 2006 10.82 2007 11.8 2008 10.7 2009 9.55 2010 9.89 2011 10.92 2012 10.09 Average (ppm) 1.1 3E+0 1 TEM-9002 09/29/ 09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 18 of 20 Table 6. Sulfur Dioxide MSU Springfield Year Annual Average Year (ppm)1993 0.003 1994 0.005 1995 0.002 1996 0.003 1997 0.002 1998 0.003 1999 0.004 2000 0.003 2001 0.004 2002 0.003 2003 0.002 2004 0.0014 2005 0.0017 2006 0.0019 2007 0.0018 2008 0.0022 2009 0.0022 Average (ppm) 2.66E-03 Average 6.97E+00 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 EGNEINGrat DESm iGNtIL EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 19 of 20

Attachment:

Excel spread sheets of calculations Inpur Data from Vista Process 10000 pph 111111 ________934.52 Btu/lb h for steam at 25 psi& ____________ 9345 Mbh______ 75% [Boiler Efficiency________ _______ 12460 Mbh Fuel energy content________________ ____ 12460 ft3/hr Gas Consumption 0.01246 1.046662 lb/hr______ 30% ___ Excess Air____ ___~Flue gas flow rate for each of two boilers~Flue, vendor informationgs velocit HVAC 962Mh Peak HVAC heating demand Flue gas flow rate frec ftobies ____~Flue, vendor information Flue as velocity_ ____ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 20 of 20 Peeuauil 10000 i5J45 I 7:P% 1 24)l 12460 Wva 2 100 _ 7 P 1H 2ELIEL. I ~~/fr)3.&tlb~h9 3.6 (,imU.&Di i~ a-i ,m- li- I m i5 i+Alit JI l134o0(16b): _______ O______ 0.6 ___SCOmlm 120.00I I,0 .4 11 4 0W L4 --I IMLOZ I 810 1 LSELO1 I o~16 liE-CO I 10SE..60 I SIE.~CO I 2t25.(O I 6A7E~0CI 416~E 1flF -OI -. -L42FO 0AL0 3 2 4-O 3i0E.02 I 006 I IS5!~02 I 0.00 0.13 2.31L01 OI 1oA1L01 I ZIOG,0I167L6 I.. sl it,1 12]IE.0]zmos '~'-~' '~- I ~" s~ss, s o~o. J ~ I Mat 51.~mUi~. mdi W)dIuhC~i ba*i~tC akiusm k~.m ThufE L~a1mIMIm8Itpemuu4bu. .*y.u4.bimat~RL1S~Rfl ~amd TmdRI h~..damd~aimd~ua...~L Cc~a1bULkl~ ~Iut*s ~ Tb~PMut~. uuWcc.4~ ~t~wEinfl~ Ctlillilli I 3mlawmiu' wmdii catm.,lo

tll l 11 tilt4
;.~:"NOhWESMEICI$T NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0 Appendix D -EDF-3124-0013, On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 0-i Document I D: EDF-3124-0013 Revision ID:1 Effective Date: July 31, 2015 Engineering Design File On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation Portage Project No.: 3124 Project Title: NWMI Environmental Report Portage TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0013 Rev. 1 Page 1 of 5 1. Portage Project No.: 3124 2. Project/Task:

NWMvI Environmental Report 3. DCN#4. Title: On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 5s. NIPHPC orSDC: N/A 6. SSC Safety Category: N/A 7 Summary: This EDF provides a calculation of the on-road emissions associated with vehicles during the operation of the RPF.7 Distribution: (Portage, Inc.)7. Review (R) and Approval (A) Signatures: _(Identify minimum reviews and approvals. Additional reviews/approvals may be added.) .Printed Namer R/A Organization Signature Date Author/Design Agent a Gary McManus )~d 7/31/15 Independent Review R Dave Thorne d@ Independent Review R Project Manager R/A John Beller 7/31/15 Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0013 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 2of 5 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE During the operations phase, vehicular air emissions would result from the commuting workforce and from routine deliveries to/from the proposed RPF. The California Air Resources Board Emission Database (EMFAC201 1 http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/) was used to calculate on-road vehicle emission factors for this period. The model estimates vehicle emission factors based on fuel type, vehicle type, vehicle speed, and climatological normal for temperature and humidity The volume of traffic generated during operations would be considerably lower than that expected during construction. Additionally, the lands on the developed RPF site are either developed surfaces (buildings, paved parking/access road) or consist of either agricultural or landscaped uses. Consequently, limiting routine vehicle use to paved areas would reduce emission of fugitive dust. In summary, impacts from vehicular air emissions and fugitive dust during operations would be far less than during the construction phase.ASSUMPTIONS On-road vehicle emissions were calculated using emission rate in grams(g)/(vehicle miles traveled) +g/day(idle) + g/day(starting). Total mileage estimates for on-road vehicles during the construction period are shown in Table 1. Calculations used to obtain the estimates are based on an average work force of 100 vehicles per day using a specific vehicle ratio (60% light-duty autos, 30% light-duty gas trucks, and 10%light-duty diesel trucks) and a round trip of 40 mi/day. The vehicles include construction vehicles, delivery trucks, and employee vehicles. Though RPF operations are assumed to occur for 50 weeks a year to allow for two weeks of maintenance and outages. On-road vehicle use is assume to occur for 52 weeks a year to account for personnel and deliveries that occur during maintenance and outages.Table 1. Total Mileage Estimates for On-road Vehicles during Operation Elquipment Activity Duration Total distance Traveled (quantity) (months/days) (kin) Miles Workforce travel (60) Commute -light duty gas vehicles (12/260) 1,004,230 624,000 Workforce travel (30) Commute -light duty gas trucks (1 2/260) 502,116 312,000 Workforce travel (10) Commute -light duty diesel trucks (12/260) 167,372 104,000 Estimates of the on-road vehicle emissions factors for different type vehicles for criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO 2) are provided in Tables 2 through 4 below. These values are from the EMFAC series of models. TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0013 Rev. 1 Page 3 of 5 Table 2 Emission Factor from EMIFAC20l11 (Running)CO NOx CO 2 PM10 PM2.5 SOx Vehicle Type (/ie Light Duty Auto (gas) 1.31E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.89E-03 1.73E-03 3.51E-03 Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.27E+00 3.36E-0i 4.02E+02 4.39E-03 4.01E-03 4.07E-03 LgtdtTrcs3.36E-01 6.70E-01 3.56E+02 6.11E-02 5.62E-02 3.40E-03 (diesel)Table 3 Emission Factor from EM7FAC2O1 1 (Idling)CO NOx CO 2 PM10 PM2.5 SOx~Vehicle Type (g/vehicle/day) Light Duty Auto (gas) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 Light duty Trucks (gas) 0.O0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 LgtdtTrcs0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 (diesel)Table 4 Emission Factor from EMFAC20 11 (Stationary) Veil yeCO NOx CO 2 PM10 PM2.5 SOx VhceTp (g/vehicle/day) Light Duty Auto (gas) 1.73E+01 1.13E+00 4.64E+02 1.86E-02 1.7E-02 4.95E-03 Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.90E+01 2.13E+00 5.14E+02 3.37E-02 3.08E-02 5.84E-03 LgtdtTrcs0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 (diesel)From Tables 1 through 4, the total emissions for each of the types of vehicles was calculated as shown below: The equations used to calculate total vehicle emissions are as follows: Total emission = emission (running) + emission (idling) + emission (stationary) Emissions while running = EFRi (days of operation) (miles/day) (number of vehicles)Emissions while idling =EFIi (days of operation) (number of vehicles)Emissions while idling = EFSi (days of operation) (number of vehicles)Where: EF~i = the individual emission factor for each pollutant, i.e. CO, NOx, C0 2 , PM10, PM2.5 and SOx TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0013 Rev. 1 Page 4of 5 Example for Light Duty Gas Autos (GO)CO EFR = 1.3 1E+00 g/mile x 624,000 miles= 8.17E+05g CO EFl = 0.00+00 g/vehicle/day x 60 vehicles x 260 days-0.00E+00 g CO EFS = 1.73E+01 g/vehicle/day x 60 vehicles x 260 days=-2.70E+05 g Total CO Emissions = 8.17E+05 g + 0.00E+00 g + 2.70E+05 g 1 1.09E+06 g (2.40E+03 lbs)Similar calculations were performed for all of the vehicles listed in Table 1. The results are shown in Table 5 below.Table 5. On-road emissions from construction Activities co NOx CO 2 PM-b1 PM-2.5 SOx Vehicle Type Fuel (kgs) (Ibs) (kgs) (ibs) (kgs) (lbs) (kgs) (bbs) (kgs) (lbs) (kgs) (Ibs)Light Duty Gas 1,085 2,392 95 210 225,239 496,569 1 3 1 3 2 5 Autos LgTrDutys Gas 1,323 2,917 122 268 129,506 285,513 2 4 1 3 1 3 LgTrutks Diesel 35 77 70 154 37,004 81,580 6 14 6 13 0 1 Total (kg or lbs) 2,443 5,385 286 631 391,748 863,662 9 21 9 19 4 9 Total (tonnes or tons) 2.4 2.7 0.3 0.3 392 432 0.009 0.010 0.009 0.010 0.004 0.004 EMFAC20OR Emission Rates Region Type: Statewide Region: California Calendar Year: 2015 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMPAC2RO1 Categories Region CalYr Season Veh_.Class Fuel MdlYr Speed (miles/hr) StatewIde 2015 Annual LDA GAS Aggregateckggregated Statewide 2015 Annoal LDT1 GAS AggregatecAggregated Statewide 2015 Anoual LDT1 DRI AggregatecAggregated o o~r cc N2 Running -CO NOR COO PMIR PM2_s tOg I (gins/ssile) 1.01E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.RRE-R3 1.73E-00 3.51E-03 3.36E-Ri 6.70E-01 0.566+02 R.10E-R2 5.620-02 0.40E-03 dli~ng CO "NOR COO PM1O PMOG GOR J[gms/vehlcle/duy) 0 0 0 R 0 R O 0 0 R 0 R 0 0 0 R S S 1.73E+01 ~dling 49E0 CO NOR COO PMIO PM2._ ROE (gms/vehslce/day) 1.7+1 03E+00 4.E4E+021.8Et-S020.706-SO402 0R ORO0nRD12.O3EO+000.46+R203.376-023R.ORE-0205'S.E4E-R light Duty Auto gas lightsOt/Truck gas Light Duty Truck diesel Miles 624,0R0 302,000 004,0oo CO 6.15E6+05 1.O2E.+]6 3.401+04 NOR COO PMOE 'MO2_5 00O Vehicles 0.05E+05 1.2E5E 08 .37E+00 0.25E+03 1.276+0 300 E.RRE+04 0.70E+07 0.35E+035,.85E+R3 ,53E+R2 10 Days CO 260 0 260 0 260 .R NOR COO 0 0 0 PM0R PMO._5 ROE Vehicles Gays 2CO+50 NOR COO PMIOR PM2... ROE O 0 R 60 060 O.R 10 .776+04 7.24E+06 O.ROE+0O 2.RSE+02 7.72E+01]O 0 R 300 260 3.04E+0051.66E+O4 4.61E+05O.60E+RO22.40E*02 4.56E+01 O 0 R0 O 260 0.006+00 0.00E+00 0.EO0E+00 0.00E+000,000+00 0.00E+00 CR t60x CO, P01-to PM2StS Vstlste Ttye Fontl itus) Phe) 1005) yhn) 0ni So'go) Old) flu ks) Os ightliylu3At gos 1,RR5 2,002 92 210 2252,9 400,369 1 3 l 3 2 Jt Truok 1,322 O,R17 [ 122 2RR 129.300 IRSOI3 2 4 I TeozloDt c dksel 05 77 7n[i 104 37.004 Ri,5tS S 4 6 1 T'ostz 2443 } 50360 290 631 001,746 603,662 0 21 9 i To0tdiol (t)2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 392 432 R.009 00OlO 0.009 .00 .04 .004 h'i z 0 i m h"m z"0 i-rn CD.

.,

NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0 Appendix E -Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Alternative Site Evaluation E-i 1111111 I I w euraE Ar/3l U3IRU31~iWA1UlAJIS3XUVU OI~J.T~ -e~PU WAT1m P'UW D WASTI MAN(T CA*W AES P03t 3....AL *alU ,mtru, iss iw 31W YAMu AII.3 1 MIRTH WEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, 118 ALTERNATIVE SITE EVALUATISH 'U..NWMIl Altermative Sits Locatiosm._ .II in i~niifi iii n II I~l ! ...J~ k... ......... iJ _ .!i![!! 1! F ! I ..... ... rr t Imlllll m flI]I _ -.l-T> University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) -Columbia, MO>. Discovery Ridge Research Park -Columbia, MO> Oregon State University (OSU) -Corvallis, OR> McClellan Business Park (McClellan) -Davis, CA-University of California at Davis (UC Davis) Research Reactor located at McClellan NDU\, -,, ' U-\\ LO Site Selectlen Criteria , , , ... .......... IIH .... III I ... .. Y ] 1 ... r] .1! 1 .. o 1, , I11 1 l f .... .. ...Il l ...Political and local logistics support Ability of NWMI to leverage connections for local logistical support, based on regional politics and importance of project to economic develooment 10 Production logistics Number of 6-day Ci processed and delivered to distributor 10 Radioactive, hazardous, and mixed secondary waste generation (i.e., air, liquids, solids)Site ability to meet Federal, State, and local requirements and availability of waste disposition pathway 8 Federal and State taxes and incentives Includes costs associated with sales tax, property tax, corporate income tax, hiring credits, etc. Criteria does not include RPF ownership and lease terms; these would be dealt with by NWMI separately 3 Construction costs Site-specific cost estimates; variations in labor rates and materials; 2 and construction indices Total Weight 60*e j WM Scoring Details mmdii Ressuht-- -6~ S -40: 1 10 30 3 30 30 3 30 16 3 24 Facility operations 4 40 4 40 3 Txitingitc4 40 2 2 Transportation 4 32 4 32 2 Federal, State, county, and local require- 4 20 4 20 4 20 2 10 ments to construct and operate facility Feiaadtttxsnicnie 5 5 '15 391 3 Available space 5 15 3 9 1 3 2 6 Constr tiiiviosts4i8 4 3 6 Natural or human-made disaster potential 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 Percentaae 82% 73% 63% 489'Iii:~i 0~.NWMI uSflmUTinA+/- IUIWS ........... ........ .. i / T III .... ....... .. ..l r ........ .I IIII /llll _ ,,,, I II l r i i flrilrT iiiiii SUtilized SMART decision analysis methodology for site evaluations*

Reference:

Based on Department of Energy's Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods (WSRC-IM-2002-00002)

SDeveloped a list of site-specific criteriaCriteria weighted by their importance to NWMI's business plan* 10 = most important, 1 = least important) Each site scored on a scale of 1-5* 5 = most favorable, 1 = least favorable) Weighting applied to the raw scores to determine a total score for each location/~ iNWM I 1,I°T I~aEV Elseovery Bilge Characteristics > Location* Columbia, MO is -125 miles west of St Louis, MO, on Highway 70* Potential RPF site is adjacent to MURR on University of Missouri campus> Existing Conditions

Site is on ground that has been historically used for agriculture

> Roadways* Located near Highway 70; 5 miles from MURR (Columbia, MO)* No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist* Sufficient for transport of BRR Casks used for irradiated targets> Utilities* Required utilities are available through MU> Land Use* Land use is presently set aside for a technology research park/industrial > Soils* Soils are characterized by medium and narrow ridges with moderate to steep side slopes* Soils are clayey and formed in loess over glacial till; loess is thin or nonexistent on the side slopes* Area is broken up by a number of narrow and medium-sized stream bottoms* Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction > Groundwater

Average depth to groundwater in Columbia, MO vicinity is ~180 feet> Environmental Site Conditions
Prior to RPF construction, an Environmental Report will be completed per NUREG-1 537@ NWMI _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Current Dilscsvsry IRidge Laysut PhimI 13L0,0,t PlmE lOAM Fts212* Ac/I, I... W* frMT tA Prelimimary RPF Iiscovery Ridge Site Laysut...... .,I,,I, , ..... , ,. .. .. .... .... .........a in a mu EUU DEED flUME U~WEUYUt~M MUIR Site Characteristics I> Location* Columbia, MO is -125 miles west of St Louis, MO, on Highway 70* Potential RPF site is adjacent to MURR on University of Missouri campus> Existing Conditions

Potential RPF site is adjacent to existing building on a partially paved parking lot* Direct connection to existing reactor may require below ground construction

> Roadways* MURR is located near Highway 70; Just off main campus of University of Missouri (Columbia, MO)* No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist* Sufficient for transport of BURR Casks used for irradiated targets> Utilities* Required utilities are available within MURR> Land Use* Potential RPF site is on University of Missouri's campus and adjacent to MURR* Land is available for industrial use> Soils/Groundwater

Sameas DR> Environmental Site Conditions
Prior to RPF construction, an Environmental ReportWil becmpee n D S!NWMI EUR,-Current Layout/RPF Layout.... .... .... ... .... ... I r r ll lll IIII IIIIIII .. .. ... ... /I /I I I II I ,,,ID .. .... ..I!1 I I ,t i l l OSUE Site Characteristics

>. Location* OSU is located near the I-5 corridor in Corvallis,i OR (- 80 miles south of Portland, OR)* RPF site is adjacent to OSU Radiation Center (off SW Jefferson Way and SW 35th Street)> Existing Conditions

Potential RPF site -- immediately to the east of the reactor* Utilizing site would require relocation of two existing laboratory buildings and rerouting transportation access to reactor bay (i.e., modify roads)> Roadways* Access to OSU from I-5 requires traveling on the Corvallis-Lebanon Highway* Maximum weight limit of 80,000 lbs* Sufficient for transport of BRR Casks used for irradiated targets-...

OSE Site Characterlstics (cmnii> Utilities* Sewer, water, and electrical are available (i.e, on 35th street)>. Land Use* Site is part of OSU Master Plan and in Sector B of the Corvallis City Zoning Code* Sector requires 33% open space and allows for maximum building height of 75 ft and a minimum setback requirement of 40 ft from collector streets> Soils* According to the USDA* Soils on flood plains along Willamette River are well drained° Lower foothills around the western margin of the valley are underlain by soft to hard sedimentary rock, which has restricted permeability

Foothills are subject to earthflow and slumping, erosion, and varying cut-slope stability* Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction

> Groundwater

Water table varies between 10 and 25 feet below ground surface> Environmental Site Conditions
Prior to RPF construction, an Environmental Report will be completed per NUREG-1 537~NWMI OSU,-Current Site Layout/mPF' Layout.... ... ........ l ll lI IIIIII I III ....... ... 1[ " I il" " lI TII ...Preliminary RPF Layout I Current OSU Layout:;.. WMIM n U.,.:t II VNVU I¥11t McClellan Site Characteristics

> Location* UC Davis, McClellan Nuclear Research Center (MNRC) is located off campus at McClellan Business Park, 10 miles northeast of Sacramento, CA near I-5 corridor* McClellan Air Force Base was closed in 1995 and privatized from 1995-2003 (i.e., McClellan Business Park)> Existing Conditions

-45,000 sq ft clear span, high bay building --200 ft from reactor has been identified as potential site for RPF* Existing infrastructure (i.e., buildings, roads) meet current CA seismic codes> Roadways* McClellan Business Park is located along 1-80 and is served by 4 major interchanges.

Watt Avenue boarders McClellan to the east* No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist* Sufficient for transport of BURR Casks used for irradiated targets-l vmms uiNWMI0 1 Ecl~lellam Sits Charactsristics (cent]> Utilities* McClellan Business Park provides three dedicated electrical substations

Power is available at existing building* Water and sewer are available at or near existing building> Land Use* McClellan Business Park and potential site resides in Core Airfield/Industrial district* Designated for manufacturing, light industrial and high-tech uses* Special Planning Area designation within Sacramento County's zoning ordinance> Soils* Soils in urban areas of Sacramento County have been drastically altered during development of Air Force Base and privatization efforts* Cut areas consist mainly of truncated San Joaquin soils; Durixeralfs
Filled areas, which were once low areas, now consist of as much as 20" of physically mixed soil material; Xerarents* Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction

> Groundwater

Depth to groundwater in Sacramento County varies between 2- 420 feet basin-wide

> Environmental Site Conditions

Prior to RPF construction, an Environmental Report will be completed per NUREG-1 5370~FNWMI.o. m5,uiu+/-i:w

-Current Sits Layout/RPF Layeut.... J, .. .. llllllll l BF I] I]]]I]] .... II II III I I I ,,,j, / III l lTl]]ff r lrrr rrrrrrT : ii f i p _ .. ii J 4 Preliminary RPF Layout Lo1!N.I 4 i1~--1 Current McClellan Layout M~n S~.3rwm~5 22A A~1' JG LOT 15 PLaR w gvwQI Ia WAIrn 11WIAgl3 TMq AWD wm~lrETAlS P.S WrATUl UQD WAre SCtmCLh MAILIT -AIEpf r mLOT 3 uwrum I-urnt IIWVA FIT=4PV R-ar IMW A£ N smftA NORTH EST MEEIDAL ISITIPES, LII ALTERNATIV SITE EVAUATION -DETILEE SI* , mN~a W M........ Psilitcal and Local Logistics Support> DRIMURR* University has high-level of political and local support and local and county ties* NWMI Team Member MURR has extensive connection with state and local network; however, NWMI should not expect as much support as in Oregon* University and State of Missouri are aware of MURR's capability and current/previous 9 9 Mo endeavors, and relationship with DOE-N NSA and 9 9 Mo community> OSU* NWMI has strongest network in OR; Samaritan and OSU have significant state and local ties* NWMI has been introduced to Oregon Governor* State of Oregon (including OSU) has significant interest in 9 9 Mo business model due to FTE generation as well as educational and R&D aspects> McClellan* Limited local political support and local and county ties* NWMI has little or no network in California

California unlikely to have significant interest in 9 9 Mo business due to nuclear aspect and minimal FTE generation (i.e., less than 50 FTEs)-..DR MURR OSU McClellan 4 4 4 1 BEUMIED I III VYMI Sperations

...... ............ !!l l l I I I F FI]H HF[[ ............ .......... .... ..... " ...... l ................................. .... Fr ......... I I I SDiscovery Ridge* NWMI would manage RPF* No reactor onsite> MURR* RPF to be entirely staffed and operated by university; NWMI and MURR would co-manage RPF* Will require a multi-story building due to land constraints and current research reactor facility layout; may present design/construction and operational challenges > OSU* Limited involvement in RPF operations; NWMI would manage RPF* Reactor will be co-located with RPF* Will require a multi-story building due to land constraints and current research reactor facility layout; may present design/construction and operational challenges

"Educational/R&D area" will need to be part of RPF (not requested by UC Davis or MURR)> McClellan* No involvement in management and operations of RPF since it will not be housed on UC Davis campus;proposed site is part of McClellan Business Park (which privatized McClellan Air Force Base in 2003 and has a 99 year lease)* NWMI would manage RPF* Reactor located in McClellan Business Park and would be adjacent to proposed RPF location (within --200 ft)* Design and construction of transportation corridor required..DR MURR 0 SU i~!i;!l!!~!i~~iiM cClellanil 4 4 3 3&WMJa Preductlen Isgistlcs> Time product spends in transit and processing determines delivered target activity SPrimary irradiation reactor is MURR/Secondary reactors are OSTR and hypothetical third reactor>Transportation Distance RPF Location:

DR/MURR RPF Location: OSU RPF Location: McClellan..~ -. .~ .I --.- .-S--S *~ S I Covi i, OR iii~McClellan, CA 200mi (40 hr)1800 mi (35 hr)Corvallis, OR McClellan, CA Columbia, MO 0 520 mi (12 hr)20o0(40ohr) Corvallis, OR McClellan, CA Columbia, MO 50nii 1 i 0 Irradiated LEU Target Processing/Product Conditioning and Packaging*All sites will have same processing and product conditioning timeframes ..DR 4 MURR 2 3 McClellan 3~NW¢MI Trahnsprtation > Two high-priority transportation activities can effect 6-day curies delivered* Irradiated target to RPF via ground* 9 9 Mo Product to Distributor via air or ground> Based on FEMA disaster declarations (1964-2007)

Transportation route between OSU and McClellan has a slightly greater density of disaster declarations than route between either location and DR/MURR* All routes require crossing significant mountain ranges, which may result in delays due to inclement weather* If RPF is located at DR/MU RR, more Rocky Mountain crossings may increase probability of delays 0 0 DR MUR QSU Mclellan' NWMI-------

Waste Generation SRadioactive and Mixed Wastes*All potential RPF locations have a radioactive/mixed waste disposition pathways* Missouri (DR/MURR) sends waste to Waste Control Specialists, Inc. (located in TX) -two state borders will be crossed during transport* Oregon (OSU) sends waste to U.S. Ecology located on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (located in WA) -one state border will be crossed during transport* California (McClellan) sends waste to Envirocare Inc. (located in UT) -two state borders will be crossed during transport SHazardous Waste* All potential RPF locations have disposition pathways for all types of hazardous waste* Disposal costs are expected to be more expensive in CA than in OR or MO (cannot be evaluated until more is known about type and quantity of waste).S DR MURR OU Mleln 4 4 4 3* MI________________ Feisral, Stats, and Loceal Iequlremsents SNRC licensing requirements (NUREG 1537) should not vary between sites because these are Federal requirements >Environmental Report (being developed under NUREG 1537 and NEPA) should not vary between sites; each site already has an existing research reactor within close proximity SState and local requirements are expected to be most significant at McClellan and less at OSU and DR/MURR SAir quality permitting and seismic design criteria are important aspects of the project but differences between locations are not anticipated to be significant SPublic Involvement (according to all Federal, State, and local requirements) is expected to be more significant at McClellan and less at OSU and DR/MURR S 0 DR MURR :OSU Mlellan 4 4 4 2 4 NWMI WALiiii~i Feisral ani Stats Taxes anl incesntivesSales tax on equipment and construction materials* MO sales tax = 4.225%; Equipment/supplies exempt; Construction materials non-exempt

OR has no sales tax* CA sales tax = 7.75%; Equipment or construction materials non-exempt SCorporate Income Tax* Missouri:

6.25%* Oregon: 7.60%* California: 8.84%(Note: single sales factor apportionment is available in all 3 states; may be subject to income tax where product is sold)SProperty Tax* University properties (OSU and DR/MURR) present opportunity for reduced property taxes based on the ownership model of government-owned facilities

McClellan does not appear to offer reduced property taxes* Cost savings will be determined by lease negotiations SIncentives
Oregon and Missouri are likely to offer more competitive tax and incentive packages than California S S DR MURR OSU Mclellan 5531 Available lpames> Discovery Ridge* Greenfield Location (Agricultural for many generations)

SMURR* Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for limited future expansion (next to Research Reactor)> OSU* Facility will be constructed on mostly greenfield (undeveloped) area on the (Northeast and East of Radiation Center)* Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for future expansion* RPF will need to include space for OSU educational and R&D use 0 SU campus-250 feet away SMcClellan

Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for future expansion

(,, from UC Davis Research Reactor)* RPF will have to fit within existing infrastructure; improvements can be made~0 *DR 5 MURR 3 OSU I McClellan 2:~ NWMI Construction Costs SRS Means City Construction Cost Indexes* DR/MURR (Columbia): 95.4* OSU (Corvallis): 98.6* McClellan (Davis/Sacramento): 109.9 SDiscovery Ridge* Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design* Construction cost expected be similar to OSU SMURR* Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design* Construction cost expected be similar to OSU> OSU* Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design* Site may require demolition and reconstruction of existing laboratory buildings> McClellan* Site has existing building and infrastructure resulting in slight cost savings* Existing building may require structural/mechanical modifications to meet code which will increase costs..:DR MURR OSU Mc~lellan 44 3 3* NWMI,,u. Natiurl anl Man-Male Disaster PotentialDiscovery Ridge/MURR (Boone County)* Has most disaster declarations (storm and flooding plus tornado) but low-to-no earthquake risk SOSU (Benton County)* Has fewest disaster declarations (mostly storm and flooding) and a moderate to low earthquake risk>" McClellan (Sacramento County)* Has more disaster declarations than OSU and less than MURR (mostly storm and flooding) and a higher earthquake riskof mfu~wtiuk wilb Mz 4.75 wli*t 50 yelu & 50klm'UeP e,,*u= djd 4 Le,.Mclela -Earthquk Risk Map OSU -cEaelhquakeaRisk Ma i .0.....r, Discovery RidgeIMURR -Earthquake Risk Map-S 0-I -D UR S clla 3 3 4 2 NW2M I..........

'°egl"NDTW£SM!IAZO~E NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0 Appendix B -EDF-3124-0008, Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler Operation B-i Document ID:EDF-3124-0008 Revision ID:0A Effective Date: June 26, 2014 Engineering Design File I Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation Portage Project No.: 3124 Project Title: NWMI Environmental Report Portage TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 Rev. 0A Page 1 of 5 1. Portage Project No.: 3124 2. Project/Task:

NWMI Environmental Report 3. DCN#4. Title: Emissions fr'om Natural Gas-Fired Boiler and Emergency Diesel Generator Operation 5. NPH PC or SDC: N/A 6. SSC Safety Category: N/A 7 Summary: This EDF documents the methods used to calculate the emissions of CO, NOR, PM-10, PM-2.5, VOC CO 2 , VOC and SOx, from the two process steam boilers, the two HVAC boilers and the emergency generator that will be used for the operation of the NW/MI facility.7 Distribution: (Portage, Inc.)7. Review (R) and Approval (A) Signatures: (Identify minimum reviews and approvals. Additional reviews/approvals may be added.)_____ Printed Name/____________RA Organization Signature Date Author/Design Agent a Gary McManus 61 !'[)g'l[ dx' 6/26/14 Independent Review R Dave T home , ,.6/26/14 Independent Review R Project Manager R/A John Belier 6/26/14 Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A INTRODUCTION Several combustion sources at the proposed RPF would contribute to the gaseous effluents. These combustion sources are two natural gas-fired boilers used for steam production and two natural gas-fired boilers used for heating. The two steam boilers and the two boilers used for heating each are released through two separate stacks. The boilers and generator all emit GO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and CO 2.The assumptions used for the four boilers are summarized in Table 1 below. TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 Rev. 0A Page 2 of 5 Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters Sta od Steam Heat Boiler Fuel Energy Natural Gas Boiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/hr) (MBTU/lb) (%) MVBTU/hr (ft 3/hr)Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 IHVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 The emission factors used for the boilers are obtained from EPA 200, AP-42, Volume I, Table 1.4.1 and Table 1.4.2, these values are shown below in Table 2.Table 2. Emission Factors for Boilers.Pollutant Emission Factor Units COa 84 NOx a 50 PM1 0 (Total) b 7.6 l/0 c PM1O (filterable) b 1.9lb 6 sc VOC 5.5 SO 2 0.6 CO 2 d 120,000 a. Controlled -Low NOx burners b. All PM (total, condensable, and filterable) is assumed to be less than 1.0 micrometer in diameter. Therefore, the PM emission factors presented here may be used to estimate PM10, PM2.5 or PM1 emissions. Total PM is the sum of the filterable PM and condensable PM. Condensable PM is the particulate matter collected using EPA Method 202 (or equivalent). Filterable PM is the particulate matter collected on, or prior to, the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.c. Based on 100% conversion of fuel sulfur to SO 2.Assumes sulfur content is natural gas of 2,000 grains/10 6 cf. The SO 2 emission factor in this table can be converted to other natural gas sulfur contents by multiplying the SO 2 emission factor by the ratio of the site-specific sulfur content (grains/10 6 scf) to 2,000 grains/10 6 scf.d. Based on approximately 100% conversion of fuel carbon to CO 2.CO 2[lb/10 6 scfl =(3.67) (CON) (C)(D), where CON = fractional conversion of fuel carbon to CO 2 , C =carbon content of fuel by weight (0.76), and D = density of fuel, 4.2x 104 lb/10 6 scf. TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 Rev. 0A Page 3 of 5 From Table 2 the hourly emission were calculated as follows: Emissions (lb/hr) = EF * (NGC/1 06)Where: EF = emission factor (lb/10 6 scf)NGC =natural gas consumption (ft 3/hr)For: CO = 84 * (12460/106) = 1.0 lb/hr Tons/year =(1.0 lb/hr / 2000 lb/ton)

24 hr/day
7 days/week
50 weeks=4.4 tons/yr CO from Process boiler #1 Total CO release is the sum of the two process boilers and the 2 HVAC boilers.The emissions were calculated in ton/yr assuming a boiler operation of 50 weeks per year. The results are shown in Table 3 below.Table 3. Emissions from the 4 natural gas fed boilers Pollutant Emissions Process Boilers 1 & 2 (each) HVAC Boilers 1&2 (each) Total Emissions (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)CO 1.0E+00 4.4 1.1E+00 4.5 18 NOx 6.2E-01 2.6 6.4E-01 2.7 11 PMl0 (Total) 9.5E-02 0.40 9.8E-02 0.41 1.6 PM10 (filterable) 2.4E-02 0.10 2.5E-02 0.10 0.40 VOC 6.9E-02 0.29 7.1E-02 0.30 1.2 SO 2 7.5E-03 0.031 7.7E-03 0.032 0.13 CO 2 1.5E+03 6,300 1.5E+03 6,500 26,000 Emergency Generator:

The diesel generator is planned to be used for temporary operation and safe shutdown of the system if required. The emergency generator would emit CO, NOx, PM, SO 2 , VOCs, and CO 2.The generator was assumed to be rated at 2,600 kw and the emission factors and annual emissions are shown below in Table 4 Total Emissions were calculated as follows: Ei (kg) =EFi (g/kW-hr)

0.001 (kg/g)
Power Rating (kw) x Hours Run per Year (hr/yr)Assumes 24 hours operation per year and 2,600 kw generator.

TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 Rev. 0A Page 4of 5 Table 4. Emission Factors and Annual for Selected Pollutants (2,600 kw Emergency Generator) NOXa PM~ SO~ab COa NOxa a02 PM" SOxa, b g/kW-hr ozikW-hr g/kW-hr oz/kW-hr g/kW-hr oz/kW-hr g/kW-hr oz/kW-hr g/kW-hr ozikW-hr Emission Factor 3.3 0.12 7.9 0.28 710 25 0.43 0.015 2.5 0.087 Emissions kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr kg/hr lb/hr Standby 2600 kW 8.7 19 21 45 1800 4000 1.1 2.4 6.4 14 diesel______________________ _______generator per yearc 210 460 490 1000 44,000 97,000 27 59 150 340 a Values from EPA, 2010, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1, Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP 42, Fifth Edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, D.C., 2010. Table 3.4.1 b Assumes 0.5% sulfur content.SAssumes 24 hr/year operation for maintenance. TEM-9002 09129/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0008 Rev. 0A Page 5 of 5

Attachment:

Excel spread sheet of calculations Prrs 2... 934.52 Ofl for se~am at 25 xi 9345 MN, 75% Boiler Ef0,ienu, 22440 MN, Fool cortent 124600034,r Coo Cu,,,.14 1066;ha 30% OxreessAo 153004 ft3ft Coomkustio, Air Pb btwgs l~ rate foreaoh of cxoo bolers Pb,,t, vecndor infoocrmatio FIVAC 9672 MN, Pook HIVAC hooatg drrroalx ISteam lteat Boirr Fuel Encrgr ata a I Stram Load I Factor I 0t19,m Cotnt Couso.75%Boilr, 03o¢nv Emlacion Farctor, Br Boil,,.Pollcteota Enilaslon Facoro Untll CO 84 hl4O of NO,,' 50 PMt0 (Tola[) ' 7.6 PMI0 1 9 VOC 5.5120,000 ___o A, P (62 2,O. 00.40006 .. r~t eik, = .u=*ad 2t, ho 00.1.aoc.0=nmct o od... eTh,,aoooorhePM l s siac fool. rp'*ml htoo, re, bocod Io.OllcaboPM IO.,POl20.300Pld a...occ. Tri PM iu th0 0.00000inh .0 ,000c.4c~o 08 70A Mo¢hod 202 6(, Op&u.210t FiO.8*2.kpM .i0 ,tt w .u00..Iof.

e. The SO2o,,ooo..ao mt0. u. ho 0,0r0 to ud.h, c~a torO ..000r .ot,,o O 10020t (t.faim16lt) ,flOo9.oou floal106 so 002[100100 sel9 1 3.67) 1C01d,1C0D30

..h0. CulON r.000,oJ rOr.ru. 020.O00IO COC'006000t Iat O."f41by wtolt.dO D doy or 0(.44,204.z1o4 n6, 2.050-09 4.44 6.23E-01 202 6045E-02 2.72 I1 9.47E-02 9.40 9.20E-02 0 42 16 2.970-02 0.10 2.45E-02 0.10 0.44 6.85E-02 1029 7.09E0 2 { 0.30 2.2 7.480-09 0.99 7.740-03 j 0 03 0.23 2.500'803 6.28E303 [ 1 55E0 3 630 25.359 Enmhsbon. 8.,n Pncoo,.Bollanl1&2 2 0b/hr) Each Esch (Ibthr

iOPE NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0 Appendix C -EDF-3124-0012, Emission Modeling for Process and IIVAC Boilers Using AERSCREEN C-i Document ID:EDF-3124-0012 Revision ID:1 Effective Date: February 4, 2015 Engineering Design File Emission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN Portage Project No.: 3124 Project Title: NWMI Environmental Report 4Portage TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 1. Portage Project No.: 3124 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1 Page 1 of 20 2. Project/Task:

NWMVI Enviromnmental Report 3. DCNH#4. Title: Emission Modeling for Process and HVAC Boilers using AERSCREEN 5. NPH PCor SDC: N/A 6. SSC Safety Category: N/A 7 Summary: This EDF documents the assumptions used and the results of the AERSCREEN modeling done for the 4 natural gas fired boils used for the operation of the NWIVI facility. The results are then compared to the NAAQS and ambient air concentrations. 8 Distribution: (Portage, Inc.)9. Review (R) andApproval (A) Signatures: (Identify minimum reviews and approvals. Additional reviews/approvals mnay be added.)_____ ~Printed Name/R/A Organization Signature Date Author/Design Agent A Gary McManus () 2/04/15 Independent Review R Dave Thorme ¢ 2/04/15 Independent Review R Project Manager R/A John Beller 2/04/15 Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 2 of 20 INTRODUCTION As described in EDF-3 124-0008 there will be two natural gas-fired boilers used for steam production and two natural gas-fired boilers used for heating. The two steam boilers and the two boilers used for heating each are released through two separate stacks. The boiler and generator all emit CO, NOx, PM, VOCs, and C02. The assumptions used for the four boilers and the associated emissions are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below.Table 1. Boiler Operational Parameters SemBoiler Fuel Energy Natural Gas Steam Load Heat Boiler Factor Efficiency Content Consumption (lb/br) (MBTU/lb) (%) MBTU/hr (ft 3/hr)Process #1 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 Process #2 10000 9345 75 12460 12460 HVAC #1 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 HVAC #2 10000 9345 75 12896 12896 Table 2. Emissions From The Four Natural Gas Fed Boilers (EDF-3 12 1-0008)Pollutant _____________ Emissions Process Boilers 1 & 2 HVAC Boilers 1 &2 Total S~Emissions (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (lb/br) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)CO 2.1E+00 8.8E+00 2.2E+00 9.1E+00 18 NOx 1.2E+00 5.2E+00 1.3E+00 5.4E+00 11 PM10 (Total) 1.9E-01 8.0E-01 2.0E-01 8.2E-01 1.6 PM10 (filterable) 4.7E-02 2.0E-01 4.9E-02 2.1E-01 0.40 VOC 1.4E-01 5.76E-01 1.4E-01 6.0E-01 1.2 SO2 1.5E-02 6.3E-02 1.6E-02 6.5E-02 0.13 CO2 3.0E+03 1.3E+04 3.1E+03 1.3E+04 26,000 Emissions from the boiler activities were evaluated using AERSCREEN, Version 11126. This screening model uses standard defaults for meteorology, and terrain values. Modeled emissions included: PM-10, PM-2.5, CO, nitrogen, and sulfur oxides (NOx), and SOx.). The assumptions used for the modeling are presented below. TEM-9002 09/29109 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 3 of 20 ASSSUMPTIONS The input assumptions used for the AERSCREEN model are summarized in Table 3 and 4 below. Since the four boilers vent through two identical stacks only one run was done. The results of the run were then combined to give the approximate concentrations at the receptor locations. Table 3. AERSCREEN Input Stack Parameters SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hr STACK HEIGHT: 22.86 meters 75.00 feet STACK INNER DIAMETER: 0.305 meters 12.00 inches PLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: 310.9 K 99.95 Deg F PLUME EXIT VELOCITY: 17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/s STACK AIR FLOW RATE 2772 ACFM 2772 ACFM RURAL OR URBAN: RURAL RURAL FLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT: 1.83 meters 6.00 feet INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE -- 5000. meters 16404. feet Table 4. Makemet Meteorology Parameters MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 255.4 / 302.6 (K)MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10 meters DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture DOMINANT SEASON: Spring ALBEDO: 0.18 BOWEN RATIO: *0.4 ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 0.050 (meters)For this screening model, no downwash was considered in the calculations since exact locations and dimensions are still in the design phase. The closest residential receptor was assumed to be a single family home located approximately 375 meters SSE from the facility location. Using these assumptions the AERSCREEN model was run and the results were obtained. A complete listing of the model is included in Attachment

1.

TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 4 of 20 RESULTS The final run results for the maximum concentration downwind of the facility are summarized in Table 5 below.Table 5. AERSCREEN Results.Maximum] Scaled J Scaled] Scaled [Scaled Calculation 1-Hour] 3-Hour 8-Hour J24-Hour Annual ProcdureConcentration a Flat Terrain (gig/m 3) J(jPtg/m 3) J(gig/m 3) ](btg/m 3) (Pig/m 3)_________ 17 17 J 15 J 10 1.7 a. Distance from Source to maximum concentration location 136.00 meters Using the AERSCREEN results above as well as the maximum concentration at 375 meters from attachment 1 (i.e., 10.83 jig/in 3), Table 6 and 7 were completed. Table 6. Emissions from Process Steam Demand -Natural Gas-Fired Boilers Modeled concentration to Hourly Emissions Maximumclst Emission for Both Steam concentration Pollutant Factor Boiler a @ 136 m b residential receptor (375 m)c (lb/hr) (jig/in 3) (jig/in 3)CO 84 2.1E+00 3.5E+01 2.3E+01 NOx 50 1.2E+00 2.1E+01 1.4E+01 PM-10 7.6 1.9E-01 3.2E+00 2.1E+00 PM-2.5 1.9 4.7E-02 8.0E-01 5.1E-01 5.5 1.4E-01 2.3E+00 1.5E+00 SO2 0.6 1.5 E-02 2.5E-01 1.6E-01 CO2 120,000 3.0E+03 5.0E+04 3.2E+04 a. Hourly emission from process boiler 1 and 2 each shown in EDF-3 124-0008.b. This is maximum 1- hour concentration calculated by AERSCREEN equals 1 7jg/m 3 per lb/hr c. This represents the highest 1 hour concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters and equals 11 jig/mn 3 per lb/hr TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 5 of 20 Table 7. Emissions from 2-H VAC Natural Gas-Fired Heater Modeled Hourly Emissions Maximum concentration to Emission for Both HVAC concentration closest PluatFactor Boiler a @ 136 m bresidential receptor (375 m)(lb/hr) ([.tg/m 3) (jig/mn 3)CO 84 2.2E+00 3.6E+01 2.3E+01 NOx 50 1.3E+00 2.2E+01 1.4E+01 PM10 7.6 2.0E-01 3.3E+00 2.1E+00 PM-2.5 1.9 4.9E-02 8.2E-01 5.3E-01 VOC 5.5 1.4E-01 2.4E+00 1.5E+00 SO2 0.6 1.6E-02 2.6E-01 1.7E-01 CO 2 120,000 3.1E+03 5.2E+04 3.3E+04 a. Hourly emission from process boiler 1 and 2 each shown EDF-3 124-0008 b. This is maximum 1- hour concentration calculated by AERSCREEN at 136 m equals 17 jtg/mn 3 / lb/hr c. This represents the highest 1 hour concentration at the closest receptor of 375 meters and equals 11 jig/mn 3/ lb/hr Since both boiler stacks are co-located with the same characteristics the total downwind concentration was assumed to be additive. These values were then compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to see if any of the 1-hour air standards were exceeded. This comparison is summarized in Table 8 below.Table 8. Maximum Release Concentration Comparison to NAAQS Standards MimmModeled Percentage of concentration to closestAQ NAAQS Limit at Polltant 136rato@ clst residential NASAASPoint of receptor____(375 m)______ ______ Maximum (___g/m3)__(jig/r

3) (ppm) (jig/mn 3) Concentration CO 7.2E+0+/-.E01 4.0E+04 0.18%NOx 4.3E+012.E019+222 PM10 6.5E+00 PM-2.5 1 .6E+001.E0003 46 SO2 4.7E+00

.6 CO2 5.1E-01 3.3E-01_NANAN

a. Maximum Concentration is the sum of the 2 process boilers and the 2 HVAC boilers ________b. Concentration at closest residence c. Values in Green are actual standard values; values in yellow are the converted values.d. 24-hour standard for PM-10 and PM-2.5 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 6 of 20 From Table 8 it is apparent that the modeled release concentrations are all below the applicable NAAQS standards.

Therefore no additional modeling is required at this time.A similar evaluation of the model emission concentrations was performed to determine if the emissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. Regional values of the five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division of Environmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9 summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values.Table 9. Ambient Air of Rural/Urban Missouri Ambient Air of Rural/Urban Pollutant Missouri 3)CO 3.8E+03 NOx 2.1E+01 PMl0 1.7E+01 PM-2.5 1.1E+01 SO2 7.0E+00 CO2 NA A similar evaluation of the model emission concentrations was performed to determine if the emissions exceed the regional ambient concentrations of the listed pollutants. Regional values of the five regulated pollutants for Missouri were obtained from the Missouri Division of Environmental Quality Web Site for different monitoring stations in the state. The Tables 9 summarizes the data in Attachment 2 used to determine the average values. Similar comparison was done to Table 10. Comparison of Modeled Concentrations to Average Ambient levels around the State Missouri.Maiu codeledtato AminoAro Percentage of Ambient Air concentrationoto Rural/Urban Pollutant concenratio closest residential Misuiconcentration Point of@16b receptor (375 m) b MisuiMaximum Concentration (ig/m3) (#tg/m3) (#.g/m3) ____________ CO 7.2E+0l 4.6E+0l 3.8E+03 1.9%NOx 4.3E+01 2.7E+0l 2.1E+01 203%PM10 6.5E+00 4.2E+00 1.7E+01 38%PM-2.5 l.6E+00 1.0E+00 1.1E+01 15%SO2 4.7E+00 3.0E+00 7.0E+00 7.3%CO2 5.lE-01 3.3E-01 NA NA a Maximum Concentration is the sum of the 2 process boilers and the 2 ITVAC boilers b Concentration at closest residence Attachment 1 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124.-0012 Rev. 1 Page 7 of 20 ATTACHMENT 1.AERSCREEN Files Text File: Start date and time 02/05/15 08:19:04 AERSCREEN 11126 NWMI PROCESS BOILER-......... DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH** STACKDATA

- ------------------

Emission Rate: 0.1260 g/s 1.000 lb/hr Stack Height: 22.86 meters 75.00 feet Stack Diameter: 0.3 05 meters 12.00 inches Stack Temperature: 310.9 K 100.0 Deg F Exit Velocity: 17.929 m/s 58.82 ft/s Stack Flow Rate: 2771 ACFM Model Mode: RURAL Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet** BUILDING DATA **No Building Downwash Parameters

- TERRAIN DATA * *No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation:

0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet Flagpole Receptor Height: 1.8 meters 6. feet No discrete receptors used** METEOROLOGY DATA ** TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 8 of 20 Min/Max Temperature: 255.4 / 302.6 K 0.0 / 85.0 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Grassland Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture AERSCREEN output file: boilerl .out** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run SURFACE CHAPRACTEPISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics... Using AERM4ET seasonal surface characteristics for Grassland with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.60 1.50 0.001 Spring 0.18 0.40 0.050 Summer 0.18 0.80 0.100 Autumn 0.20 1.00 0.010 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01 01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01 .sfc & aerscreen_02 01 .pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01 .sfc & aerscreen_03 01 .pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01 .sfc & aerscreen_04 01 .pfl PROBE started 02/05/15 08:19:34 Running probe for Winter sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Winter sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES ***** TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 9 of 20*** NONE ***Running probe for Spring sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Spring sector1*** NONE ***Running probe for Summer sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Summer sector1******** WARNING MESSAGES ********** NONE **Running probe for Autumn sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for PROBE stage 1 Autunmn sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES *********** NONE ***PROBE ended 02/05/15 08:19:3 8 REFINE started 02/05/15 08:19:38 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Spring sector1***** WARNING MESSAGES ******** NONE **REFINE ended 02/05/15 08:19:38 AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details Ending date and time 02/05/15 08:19:39 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0012 Rev. 1 Page 10 of 20 OUTPUT FILE: AERSCREEN 11126 / AERMOD 1234 TITLE: NWMI PROCESS BOILER 02/05/15 08:19:38***************************** STACK PARAMETERS

- - q* **** *** ******* **** * **** *SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.1260 g/s STACK HEIGHT: 22.86 meters STACK INNER DIAMETER:

0.305 meters PLUME EXIT TEMPERATURE: 310.9 K PLUME EXIT VELOCITY: 17.929 in/s STACK AIR FLOW RATE: 2772 ACFM RURAL OR URBAN: RURAL 1.000 lb/hr 75.00 feet 12.00 inches 100.0 Deg F 58.82 ft/s FLAGPOLE RECEPTOR HEIGHT: INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =1.83 meters 6.00 feet 5000. meters 16404. feet****************BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS

- *** **** ****** ** **NO BUILDING DOWNWASH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THIS ANALYSIS**************

PROBE ANALYSIS ************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters -5000. meters Zo ROUGHNESS SECTOR LENGTH 1-HR CONC DIST TEMPORAL (ug/m3) (in) PERIOD 1" 0.050 16.70 150.0 SPR* -worst case flow sector TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Pagell1of 20********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 255.4 / 302.6 (K)MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 rn/s ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Grassland DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture DOMINANT SEASON: Spring ALBEDO: 0.18 BOWEN RATIO: 0.40 ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 0.050 (meters)METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT YR MO DY JDY HR 10 0105 5 12 HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS 21.61 0.066 0.300 0.020 46. 39. -1.2 0.050 0.40 0.18 0.50 HT REF TA HT 10.0 302.6 2.0 ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): 37.4 meters METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT AMBIENT BOUNDARY IMPACT TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 12 of 20 YR MO DY JDY HR 10 01 01 5 12 Ho U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 B OWEN ALBEDO REF WS 1.17 0.049 0.100 0.020 27. 25. -7.8 0.050 0.40 0.18 0.50 HT REF TA HT 10.0 255.4 2.0 ESTIMATED FINAL PLUME HEIGHT (non-downwash): 56.5 meters************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE MAXIMUM DIST 1-HR CONC (in) (ug/m3)1.00 0.2290E-04 25.00 4.216 50.00 8.390 75.00 10.29 100.00 15.11 125.00 16.69 150.00 16.70 175.00 16.17 200.00 15.43 225.00 14.64 250.00 13.87 275.00 13.16 300.00 12.49 325.00 11.89 350.00 11.33 375.00 10.83 400.00 10.37 425.00 9.943 MAXIMUM DIST 1-HR CONC (mn) (ug/m3)2525.00 4.139 2550.00 4.107 2575.00 4.076 2600.00 4.045 2625.00 4.015 2650.00 3.986 2675.00 3.956 2700.00 3.927 2725.00 3.899 2750.00 3.871 2775.00 3.843 2800.00 3.815 2825.00 3.788 2850.00 3.762 2875.00 3.735 2900.00 3.709 2925.00 3.684 2950.00 3.659 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page1l3of 20 450.00 475.00 500.00 525.00 550.00 575.00 600.00 625.00 650.00 675.00 700.00 725.00 750.00 775.00 800.00 825.00 850.00 875.00 900.00 925.00 950.00 975.00 1000.00 1025.00 1050.00 1075.00 1100.00 1125.00 1150.00 1175.00 1200.00 1225.00 1250.00 1275.00 1300.00 1325.00 1350.00 1375.00 1400.00 1425.00 1450.00 1475.00 1500.00 1525.00 1550.00 1575.00 9.609 9.3 15 9.039 8.78 1 8.539 8.3 10 8.095 7.89 1 7.699 7.5 17 7.344 7.179 7.023 6.874 6.733 6.597 6.468 6.344 6.226 6.112 6.003 6.039 6.174 6.287 6.3 80 6.447 6.43 1 6.4 11 6.386 6.359 6.328 6.295 6.259 6.221 6.182 6.14 1 6.098 6.055 6.010 5.965 5.9 19 5.872 5.826 5.778 5.73 1 5.683 2975.00 3000.00 3025.00 3050.00 3075.00 3100.00 3125.00 3150.00 3175.00 3200.00 3225.00 3250.00 3275.00 3300.00 3325.00 3350.00 3375.00 3400.00 3425.00 3450.00 3475.00 3500.00 3525.00 3550.00 3575.00 3600.00 3625.00 3650.00 3675.00 3700.00 3725.00 3750.00 3775.00 3800.00 3825.00 3850.00 3875.00 3900.00 3925.00 3950.00 3975.00 4000.00 4025.00 4050.00 4075.00 4100.00 3.634 3.609 3.585 3.561 3.537 3.5 14 3.491 3.468 3.446 3.424 3.402 3.380 3.359 3.338 3.3 17 3.296 3.276 3.256 3.236 3.217 3.197 3.178 3.159 3.14 1 3.122 3.104 3.086 3.068 3.051 3.033 3.016 2.999 2.982 2.966 2.949 2.933 2.917 2.90 1 2.886 2.870 2.855 2.839 2.824 2.8 10 2.795 2.780 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 14 of 20 1600.00 1625.00 1650.00 1675.00 1700.00 1725.00 1750.00 1775.00 1800.00 1825.00 1850.00 1875.00 1900.00 1925.00 1950.00 1975.00 2000.00 2025.00 2050.00 2075.00 2100.00 2125.00 2150.00 2175.00 2200.00 2225.00 2250.00 2275.00 2300.00 2325.00 2350.00 2375.00 2400.00 2425.00 2450.00 2475.00 2500.00 5.636 5.588 5.541 5.494 5.447 5.400 5.353 5.307 5.26 1 5.2 16 5.171 5.126 5.082 5.03 8 4.995 4.952 4.910 4.868 4.827 4.786 4.746 4.706 4.667 4.629 4.590 4.553 4.5 15 4.479 4.443 4.407 4.372 4.337 4.303 4.269 4.236 4.203 4.171 4125.00 4150.00 4175.00 4200.00 4225.00 4250.00 4275.00 4300.00 4325.00 4350.00 4375.00 4400.00 4425.00 4450.00 4475.00 4500.00 4525.00 4550.00 4575.00 4600.00 4625.00 4650.00 4675.00 4700.00 4725.00 4750.00 4775.00 4800.00 4825.00 4850.00 4875.00 4900.00 4925.00 4950.00 4975.00 5000.00 2.766 2.752 2.737 2.724 2.710 2.696 2.682 2.669 2.656 2.643 2.630 2.617 2.604 2.591 2.579 2.5 66 2.554 2.542 2.530 2.5 18 2.506 2.494 2.483 2.471 2.460 2.449 2.438 2.427 2.416 2.405 2.394 2.3 83 2.373 2.362 2.352 2.341********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT

SUMMARY

MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED TEM-9002 ENGINEERING 09/29109 Rev. 0 1-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUF CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/ni FLAT TERRAJN 16.81 16.81 15.13 10.08 J1 FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 15 of 20 ,.ANNUAL CONC CONC[3) (ug/m3)1.68 1 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 136.00 meters IMPACT AT THE AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.2290E-04 0.2290E-04 0.2061E-04 0.1374E-04 0.2290E-05 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 100mtr 1.00 meters TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 16 of 20 Attachment 2 Average ambient Pollutant Concentrations for Missouri Table 1. Levels of CO in Springfield Missouri Maximum Maximum Year 8-Hour Average 1-Hour Average (ppm) (ppm)1993 5.4 14 1994 5.9 12 1995 5 9 1996 3.3 7 1997 5 7 1998 5.1 6 1999 4.1 5 2000 2.8 5 2001 4.3 7 2002 3.5 6 2003 2.4 4 2004 3.4 5 2005 3 5 2006 2.1 .4 2007 2.6 4 2008 1.3 1.9 2009--- --1.5- ..---2.3 --2010 1.9 2.3 Second Quarter 2013 1.1 2.3 Average (ppm) 3.35E+00 5.73E+00 Average ((gglm3) 3.84E+03 6.56E+03 Table 2. Nitrogen Dioxide -Hillcrest High School Springfield Year Annual Average Year (ppm)1993 0.011 1994 0.013 1995 0.012 1996 0.011 1997 0.011 1998 0.012 1999 0.013 2000 0.012 2001 0.013 2002 0.0107 2003 0.0111 2004 0.012 2005 0.0115 2006 0.0104 2007 0.01 2008 0.0089 2009 0.0083 Through 3rd Quarter 0.0079 Average (ppm) 1. 1OE-02 Average (ug/m3) 2.08E+01 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 17 of 20 Table 4. Inhalable PM10 -MSU Springfield Annual Average Maximum 24 hr Average Year (gg/m3) (gg/m3)1993 18 38 1994 18 58 1995 17 44 1996 18 64 1997 15 51 1998 17 43 1999 18 45 2000 18 47.2001 20 57 2002 18 46 2003 17 40 2004 16.7 36 2005 19.3 45 2006 15.7 35 2007 17.9 38 2008 15 39 2009 14 27 2010 17.2 36 2011 16.5 37 2012 16.9 38 Average(jgg/m

3) 17.16 43.2 Table 5. Inhalable PM-2.5 MSU Springfield Year Annual Average Year (ppm)1999 12.24 2000 12.28 2001 12.2 2002 12.7 2003 11.7 2004 10.91 2005 13.01 2006 10.82 2007 11.8 2008 10.7 2009 9.55 2010 9.89 2011 10.92 2012 10.09 Average (ppm) 1.1 3E+0 1 TEM-9002 09/29/ 09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 18 of 20 Table 6. Sulfur Dioxide MSU Springfield Year Annual Average Year (ppm)1993 0.003 1994 0.005 1995 0.002 1996 0.003 1997 0.002 1998 0.003 1999 0.004 2000 0.003 2001 0.004 2002 0.003 2003 0.002 2004 0.0014 2005 0.0017 2006 0.0019 2007 0.0018 2008 0.0022 2009 0.0022 Average (ppm) 2.66E-03 Average 6.97E+00 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 EGNEINGrat DESm iGNtIL EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 19 of 20

Attachment:

Excel spread sheets of calculations Inpur Data from Vista Process 10000 pph 111111 ________934.52 Btu/lb h for steam at 25 psi& ____________ 9345 Mbh______ 75% [Boiler Efficiency________ _______ 12460 Mbh Fuel energy content________________ ____ 12460 ft3/hr Gas Consumption 0.01246 1.046662 lb/hr______ 30% ___ Excess Air____ ___~Flue gas flow rate for each of two boilers~Flue, vendor informationgs velocit HVAC 962Mh Peak HVAC heating demand Flue gas flow rate frec ftobies ____~Flue, vendor information Flue as velocity_ ____ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0012 Rev. 1 Page 20 of 20 Peeuauil 10000 i5J45 I 7:P% 1 24)l 12460 Wva 2 100 _ 7 P 1H 2ELIEL. I ~~/fr)3.&tlb~h9 3.6 (,imU.&Di i~ a-i ,m- li- I m i5 i+Alit JI l134o0(16b): _______ O______ 0.6 ___SCOmlm 120.00I I,0 .4 11 4 0W L4 --I IMLOZ I 810 1 LSELO1 I o~16 liE-CO I 10SE..60 I SIE.~CO I 2t25.(O I 6A7E~0CI 416~E 1flF -OI -. -L42FO 0AL0 3 2 4-O 3i0E.02 I 006 I IS5!~02 I 0.00 0.13 2.31L01 OI 1oA1L01 I ZIOG,0I167L6 I.. sl it,1 12]IE.0]zmos '~'-~' '~- I ~" s~ss, s o~o. J ~ I Mat 51.~mUi~. mdi W)dIuhC~i ba*i~tC akiusm k~.m ThufE L~a1mIMIm8Itpemuu4bu. .*y.u4.bimat~RL1S~Rfl ~amd TmdRI h~..damd~aimd~ua...~L Cc~a1bULkl~ ~Iut*s ~ Tb~PMut~. uuWcc.4~ ~t~wEinfl~ Ctlillilli I 3mlawmiu' wmdii catm.,lo

tll l 11 tilt4
;.~:"NOhWESMEICI$T NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0 Appendix D -EDF-3124-0013, On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 0-i Document I D: EDF-3124-0013 Revision ID:1 Effective Date: July 31, 2015 Engineering Design File On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation Portage Project No.: 3124 Project Title: NWMI Environmental Report Portage TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0013 Rev. 1 Page 1 of 5 1. Portage Project No.: 3124 2. Project/Task:

NWMvI Environmental Report 3. DCN#4. Title: On-Road Emissions for Vehicles During Operation 5s. NIPHPC orSDC: N/A 6. SSC Safety Category: N/A 7 Summary: This EDF provides a calculation of the on-road emissions associated with vehicles during the operation of the RPF.7 Distribution: (Portage, Inc.)7. Review (R) and Approval (A) Signatures: _(Identify minimum reviews and approvals. Additional reviews/approvals may be added.) .Printed Namer R/A Organization Signature Date Author/Design Agent a Gary McManus )~d 7/31/15 Independent Review R Dave Thorne d@ Independent Review R Project Manager R/A John Beller 7/31/15 Registered Professional Engineer's Stamp (if required) Z]N/A TEM-9002 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0013 09/29/09 Rev. 1 Rev. 0 Page 2of 5 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE During the operations phase, vehicular air emissions would result from the commuting workforce and from routine deliveries to/from the proposed RPF. The California Air Resources Board Emission Database (EMFAC201 1 http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/) was used to calculate on-road vehicle emission factors for this period. The model estimates vehicle emission factors based on fuel type, vehicle type, vehicle speed, and climatological normal for temperature and humidity The volume of traffic generated during operations would be considerably lower than that expected during construction. Additionally, the lands on the developed RPF site are either developed surfaces (buildings, paved parking/access road) or consist of either agricultural or landscaped uses. Consequently, limiting routine vehicle use to paved areas would reduce emission of fugitive dust. In summary, impacts from vehicular air emissions and fugitive dust during operations would be far less than during the construction phase.ASSUMPTIONS On-road vehicle emissions were calculated using emission rate in grams(g)/(vehicle miles traveled) +g/day(idle) + g/day(starting). Total mileage estimates for on-road vehicles during the construction period are shown in Table 1. Calculations used to obtain the estimates are based on an average work force of 100 vehicles per day using a specific vehicle ratio (60% light-duty autos, 30% light-duty gas trucks, and 10%light-duty diesel trucks) and a round trip of 40 mi/day. The vehicles include construction vehicles, delivery trucks, and employee vehicles. Though RPF operations are assumed to occur for 50 weeks a year to allow for two weeks of maintenance and outages. On-road vehicle use is assume to occur for 52 weeks a year to account for personnel and deliveries that occur during maintenance and outages.Table 1. Total Mileage Estimates for On-road Vehicles during Operation Elquipment Activity Duration Total distance Traveled (quantity) (months/days) (kin) Miles Workforce travel (60) Commute -light duty gas vehicles (12/260) 1,004,230 624,000 Workforce travel (30) Commute -light duty gas trucks (1 2/260) 502,116 312,000 Workforce travel (10) Commute -light duty diesel trucks (12/260) 167,372 104,000 Estimates of the on-road vehicle emissions factors for different type vehicles for criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO 2) are provided in Tables 2 through 4 below. These values are from the EMFAC series of models. TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-3124-0013 Rev. 1 Page 3 of 5 Table 2 Emission Factor from EMIFAC20l11 (Running)CO NOx CO 2 PM10 PM2.5 SOx Vehicle Type (/ie Light Duty Auto (gas) 1.31E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.89E-03 1.73E-03 3.51E-03 Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.27E+00 3.36E-0i 4.02E+02 4.39E-03 4.01E-03 4.07E-03 LgtdtTrcs3.36E-01 6.70E-01 3.56E+02 6.11E-02 5.62E-02 3.40E-03 (diesel)Table 3 Emission Factor from EM7FAC2O1 1 (Idling)CO NOx CO 2 PM10 PM2.5 SOx~Vehicle Type (g/vehicle/day) Light Duty Auto (gas) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.OOE+00 Light duty Trucks (gas) 0.O0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 LgtdtTrcs0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 (diesel)Table 4 Emission Factor from EMFAC20 11 (Stationary) Veil yeCO NOx CO 2 PM10 PM2.5 SOx VhceTp (g/vehicle/day) Light Duty Auto (gas) 1.73E+01 1.13E+00 4.64E+02 1.86E-02 1.7E-02 4.95E-03 Light duty Trucks (gas) 3.90E+01 2.13E+00 5.14E+02 3.37E-02 3.08E-02 5.84E-03 LgtdtTrcs0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 (diesel)From Tables 1 through 4, the total emissions for each of the types of vehicles was calculated as shown below: The equations used to calculate total vehicle emissions are as follows: Total emission = emission (running) + emission (idling) + emission (stationary) Emissions while running = EFRi (days of operation) (miles/day) (number of vehicles)Emissions while idling =EFIi (days of operation) (number of vehicles)Emissions while idling = EFSi (days of operation) (number of vehicles)Where: EF~i = the individual emission factor for each pollutant, i.e. CO, NOx, C0 2 , PM10, PM2.5 and SOx TEM-9002 09/29/09 Rev. 0 ENGINEERING DESIGN FILE EDF-31 24-0013 Rev. 1 Page 4of 5 Example for Light Duty Gas Autos (GO)CO EFR = 1.3 1E+00 g/mile x 624,000 miles= 8.17E+05g CO EFl = 0.00+00 g/vehicle/day x 60 vehicles x 260 days-0.00E+00 g CO EFS = 1.73E+01 g/vehicle/day x 60 vehicles x 260 days=-2.70E+05 g Total CO Emissions = 8.17E+05 g + 0.00E+00 g + 2.70E+05 g 1 1.09E+06 g (2.40E+03 lbs)Similar calculations were performed for all of the vehicles listed in Table 1. The results are shown in Table 5 below.Table 5. On-road emissions from construction Activities co NOx CO 2 PM-b1 PM-2.5 SOx Vehicle Type Fuel (kgs) (Ibs) (kgs) (ibs) (kgs) (lbs) (kgs) (bbs) (kgs) (lbs) (kgs) (Ibs)Light Duty Gas 1,085 2,392 95 210 225,239 496,569 1 3 1 3 2 5 Autos LgTrDutys Gas 1,323 2,917 122 268 129,506 285,513 2 4 1 3 1 3 LgTrutks Diesel 35 77 70 154 37,004 81,580 6 14 6 13 0 1 Total (kg or lbs) 2,443 5,385 286 631 391,748 863,662 9 21 9 19 4 9 Total (tonnes or tons) 2.4 2.7 0.3 0.3 392 432 0.009 0.010 0.009 0.010 0.004 0.004 EMFAC20OR Emission Rates Region Type: Statewide Region: California Calendar Year: 2015 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMPAC2RO1 Categories Region CalYr Season Veh_.Class Fuel MdlYr Speed (miles/hr) StatewIde 2015 Annual LDA GAS Aggregateckggregated Statewide 2015 Annoal LDT1 GAS AggregatecAggregated Statewide 2015 Anoual LDT1 DRI AggregatecAggregated o o~r cc N2 Running -CO NOR COO PMIR PM2_s tOg I (gins/ssile) 1.01E+00 1.24E-01 3.49E+02 1.RRE-R3 1.73E-00 3.51E-03 3.36E-Ri 6.70E-01 0.566+02 R.10E-R2 5.620-02 0.40E-03 dli~ng CO "NOR COO PM1O PMOG GOR J[gms/vehlcle/duy) 0 0 0 R 0 R O 0 0 R 0 R 0 0 0 R S S 1.73E+01 ~dling 49E0 CO NOR COO PMIO PM2._ ROE (gms/vehslce/day) 1.7+1 03E+00 4.E4E+021.8Et-S020.706-SO402 0R ORO0nRD12.O3EO+000.46+R203.376-023R.ORE-0205'S.E4E-R light Duty Auto gas lightsOt/Truck gas Light Duty Truck diesel Miles 624,0R0 302,000 004,0oo CO 6.15E6+05 1.O2E.+]6 3.401+04 NOR COO PMOE 'MO2_5 00O Vehicles 0.05E+05 1.2E5E 08 .37E+00 0.25E+03 1.276+0 300 E.RRE+04 0.70E+07 0.35E+035,.85E+R3 ,53E+R2 10 Days CO 260 0 260 0 260 .R NOR COO 0 0 0 PM0R PMO._5 ROE Vehicles Gays 2CO+50 NOR COO PMIOR PM2... ROE O 0 R 60 060 O.R 10 .776+04 7.24E+06 O.ROE+0O 2.RSE+02 7.72E+01]O 0 R 300 260 3.04E+0051.66E+O4 4.61E+05O.60E+RO22.40E*02 4.56E+01 O 0 R0 O 260 0.006+00 0.00E+00 0.EO0E+00 0.00E+000,000+00 0.00E+00 CR t60x CO, P01-to PM2StS Vstlste Ttye Fontl itus) Phe) 1005) yhn) 0ni So'go) Old) flu ks) Os ightliylu3At gos 1,RR5 2,002 92 210 2252,9 400,369 1 3 l 3 2 Jt Truok 1,322 O,R17 [ 122 2RR 129.300 IRSOI3 2 4 I TeozloDt c dksel 05 77 7n[i 104 37.004 Ri,5tS S 4 6 1 T'ostz 2443 } 50360 290 631 001,746 603,662 0 21 9 i To0tdiol (t)2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 392 432 R.009 00OlO 0.009 .00 .04 .004 h'i z 0 i m h"m z"0 i-rn CD.

.,

NWMI-201 5-RAI-001 Rev. 0 Appendix E -Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Alternative Site Evaluation E-i 1111111 I I w euraE Ar/3l U3IRU31~iWA1UlAJIS3XUVU OI~J.T~ -e~PU WAT1m P'UW D WASTI MAN(T CA*W AES P03t 3....AL *alU ,mtru, iss iw 31W YAMu AII.3 1 MIRTH WEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES, 118 ALTERNATIVE SITE EVALUATISH 'U..NWMIl Altermative Sits Locatiosm._ .II in i~niifi iii n II I~l ! ...J~ k... ......... iJ _ .!i![!! 1! F ! I ..... ... rr t Imlllll m flI]I _ -.l-T> University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) -Columbia, MO>. Discovery Ridge Research Park -Columbia, MO> Oregon State University (OSU) -Corvallis, OR> McClellan Business Park (McClellan) -Davis, CA-University of California at Davis (UC Davis) Research Reactor located at McClellan NDU\, -,, ' U-\\ LO Site Selectlen Criteria , , , ... .......... IIH .... III I ... .. Y ] 1 ... r] .1! 1 .. o 1, , I11 1 l f .... .. ...Il l ...Political and local logistics support Ability of NWMI to leverage connections for local logistical support, based on regional politics and importance of project to economic develooment 10 Production logistics Number of 6-day Ci processed and delivered to distributor 10 Radioactive, hazardous, and mixed secondary waste generation (i.e., air, liquids, solids)Site ability to meet Federal, State, and local requirements and availability of waste disposition pathway 8 Federal and State taxes and incentives Includes costs associated with sales tax, property tax, corporate income tax, hiring credits, etc. Criteria does not include RPF ownership and lease terms; these would be dealt with by NWMI separately 3 Construction costs Site-specific cost estimates; variations in labor rates and materials; 2 and construction indices Total Weight 60*e j WM Scoring Details mmdii Ressuht-- -6~ S -40: 1 10 30 3 30 30 3 30 16 3 24 Facility operations 4 40 4 40 3 Txitingitc4 40 2 2 Transportation 4 32 4 32 2 Federal, State, county, and local require- 4 20 4 20 4 20 2 10 ments to construct and operate facility Feiaadtttxsnicnie 5 5 '15 391 3 Available space 5 15 3 9 1 3 2 6 Constr tiiiviosts4i8 4 3 6 Natural or human-made disaster potential 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 Percentaae 82% 73% 63% 489'Iii:~i 0~.NWMI uSflmUTinA+/- IUIWS ........... ........ .. i / T III .... ....... .. ..l r ........ .I IIII /llll _ ,,,, I II l r i i flrilrT iiiiii SUtilized SMART decision analysis methodology for site evaluations*

Reference:

Based on Department of Energy's Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods (WSRC-IM-2002-00002)

SDeveloped a list of site-specific criteriaCriteria weighted by their importance to NWMI's business plan* 10 = most important, 1 = least important) Each site scored on a scale of 1-5* 5 = most favorable, 1 = least favorable) Weighting applied to the raw scores to determine a total score for each location/~ iNWM I 1,I°T I~aEV Elseovery Bilge Characteristics > Location* Columbia, MO is -125 miles west of St Louis, MO, on Highway 70* Potential RPF site is adjacent to MURR on University of Missouri campus> Existing Conditions

Site is on ground that has been historically used for agriculture

> Roadways* Located near Highway 70; 5 miles from MURR (Columbia, MO)* No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist* Sufficient for transport of BRR Casks used for irradiated targets> Utilities* Required utilities are available through MU> Land Use* Land use is presently set aside for a technology research park/industrial > Soils* Soils are characterized by medium and narrow ridges with moderate to steep side slopes* Soils are clayey and formed in loess over glacial till; loess is thin or nonexistent on the side slopes* Area is broken up by a number of narrow and medium-sized stream bottoms* Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction > Groundwater

Average depth to groundwater in Columbia, MO vicinity is ~180 feet> Environmental Site Conditions
Prior to RPF construction, an Environmental Report will be completed per NUREG-1 537@ NWMI _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Current Dilscsvsry IRidge Laysut PhimI 13L0,0,t PlmE lOAM Fts212* Ac/I, I... W* frMT tA Prelimimary RPF Iiscovery Ridge Site Laysut...... .,I,,I, , ..... , ,. .. .. .... .... .........a in a mu EUU DEED flUME U~WEUYUt~M MUIR Site Characteristics I> Location* Columbia, MO is -125 miles west of St Louis, MO, on Highway 70* Potential RPF site is adjacent to MURR on University of Missouri campus> Existing Conditions

Potential RPF site is adjacent to existing building on a partially paved parking lot* Direct connection to existing reactor may require below ground construction

> Roadways* MURR is located near Highway 70; Just off main campus of University of Missouri (Columbia, MO)* No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist* Sufficient for transport of BURR Casks used for irradiated targets> Utilities* Required utilities are available within MURR> Land Use* Potential RPF site is on University of Missouri's campus and adjacent to MURR* Land is available for industrial use> Soils/Groundwater

Sameas DR> Environmental Site Conditions
Prior to RPF construction, an Environmental ReportWil becmpee n D S!NWMI EUR,-Current Layout/RPF Layout.... .... .... ... .... ... I r r ll lll IIII IIIIIII .. .. ... ... /I /I I I II I ,,,ID .. .... ..I!1 I I ,t i l l OSUE Site Characteristics

>. Location* OSU is located near the I-5 corridor in Corvallis,i OR (- 80 miles south of Portland, OR)* RPF site is adjacent to OSU Radiation Center (off SW Jefferson Way and SW 35th Street)> Existing Conditions

Potential RPF site -- immediately to the east of the reactor* Utilizing site would require relocation of two existing laboratory buildings and rerouting transportation access to reactor bay (i.e., modify roads)> Roadways* Access to OSU from I-5 requires traveling on the Corvallis-Lebanon Highway* Maximum weight limit of 80,000 lbs* Sufficient for transport of BRR Casks used for irradiated targets-...

OSE Site Characterlstics (cmnii> Utilities* Sewer, water, and electrical are available (i.e, on 35th street)>. Land Use* Site is part of OSU Master Plan and in Sector B of the Corvallis City Zoning Code* Sector requires 33% open space and allows for maximum building height of 75 ft and a minimum setback requirement of 40 ft from collector streets> Soils* According to the USDA* Soils on flood plains along Willamette River are well drained° Lower foothills around the western margin of the valley are underlain by soft to hard sedimentary rock, which has restricted permeability

Foothills are subject to earthflow and slumping, erosion, and varying cut-slope stability* Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction

> Groundwater

Water table varies between 10 and 25 feet below ground surface> Environmental Site Conditions
Prior to RPF construction, an Environmental Report will be completed per NUREG-1 537~NWMI OSU,-Current Site Layout/mPF' Layout.... ... ........ l ll lI IIIIII I III ....... ... 1[ " I il" " lI TII ...Preliminary RPF Layout I Current OSU Layout:;.. WMIM n U.,.:t II VNVU I¥11t McClellan Site Characteristics

> Location* UC Davis, McClellan Nuclear Research Center (MNRC) is located off campus at McClellan Business Park, 10 miles northeast of Sacramento, CA near I-5 corridor* McClellan Air Force Base was closed in 1995 and privatized from 1995-2003 (i.e., McClellan Business Park)> Existing Conditions

-45,000 sq ft clear span, high bay building --200 ft from reactor has been identified as potential site for RPF* Existing infrastructure (i.e., buildings, roads) meet current CA seismic codes> Roadways* McClellan Business Park is located along 1-80 and is served by 4 major interchanges.

Watt Avenue boarders McClellan to the east* No current roadway weight and height restrictions exist* Sufficient for transport of BURR Casks used for irradiated targets-l vmms uiNWMI0 1 Ecl~lellam Sits Charactsristics (cent]> Utilities* McClellan Business Park provides three dedicated electrical substations

Power is available at existing building* Water and sewer are available at or near existing building> Land Use* McClellan Business Park and potential site resides in Core Airfield/Industrial district* Designated for manufacturing, light industrial and high-tech uses* Special Planning Area designation within Sacramento County's zoning ordinance> Soils* Soils in urban areas of Sacramento County have been drastically altered during development of Air Force Base and privatization efforts* Cut areas consist mainly of truncated San Joaquin soils; Durixeralfs
Filled areas, which were once low areas, now consist of as much as 20" of physically mixed soil material; Xerarents* Soils report will be completed prior to RPF construction

> Groundwater

Depth to groundwater in Sacramento County varies between 2- 420 feet basin-wide

> Environmental Site Conditions

Prior to RPF construction, an Environmental Report will be completed per NUREG-1 5370~FNWMI.o. m5,uiu+/-i:w

-Current Sits Layout/RPF Layeut.... J, .. .. llllllll l BF I] I]]]I]] .... II II III I I I ,,,j, / III l lTl]]ff r lrrr rrrrrrT : ii f i p _ .. ii J 4 Preliminary RPF Layout Lo1!N.I 4 i1~--1 Current McClellan Layout M~n S~.3rwm~5 22A A~1' JG LOT 15 PLaR w gvwQI Ia WAIrn 11WIAgl3 TMq AWD wm~lrETAlS P.S WrATUl UQD WAre SCtmCLh MAILIT -AIEpf r mLOT 3 uwrum I-urnt IIWVA FIT=4PV R-ar IMW A£ N smftA NORTH EST MEEIDAL ISITIPES, LII ALTERNATIV SITE EVAUATION -DETILEE SI* , mN~a W M........ Psilitcal and Local Logistics Support> DRIMURR* University has high-level of political and local support and local and county ties* NWMI Team Member MURR has extensive connection with state and local network; however, NWMI should not expect as much support as in Oregon* University and State of Missouri are aware of MURR's capability and current/previous 9 9 Mo endeavors, and relationship with DOE-N NSA and 9 9 Mo community> OSU* NWMI has strongest network in OR; Samaritan and OSU have significant state and local ties* NWMI has been introduced to Oregon Governor* State of Oregon (including OSU) has significant interest in 9 9 Mo business model due to FTE generation as well as educational and R&D aspects> McClellan* Limited local political support and local and county ties* NWMI has little or no network in California

California unlikely to have significant interest in 9 9 Mo business due to nuclear aspect and minimal FTE generation (i.e., less than 50 FTEs)-..DR MURR OSU McClellan 4 4 4 1 BEUMIED I III VYMI Sperations

...... ............ !!l l l I I I F FI]H HF[[ ............ .......... .... ..... " ...... l ................................. .... Fr ......... I I I SDiscovery Ridge* NWMI would manage RPF* No reactor onsite> MURR* RPF to be entirely staffed and operated by university; NWMI and MURR would co-manage RPF* Will require a multi-story building due to land constraints and current research reactor facility layout; may present design/construction and operational challenges > OSU* Limited involvement in RPF operations; NWMI would manage RPF* Reactor will be co-located with RPF* Will require a multi-story building due to land constraints and current research reactor facility layout; may present design/construction and operational challenges

"Educational/R&D area" will need to be part of RPF (not requested by UC Davis or MURR)> McClellan* No involvement in management and operations of RPF since it will not be housed on UC Davis campus;proposed site is part of McClellan Business Park (which privatized McClellan Air Force Base in 2003 and has a 99 year lease)* NWMI would manage RPF* Reactor located in McClellan Business Park and would be adjacent to proposed RPF location (within --200 ft)* Design and construction of transportation corridor required..DR MURR 0 SU i~!i;!l!!~!i~~iiM cClellanil 4 4 3 3&WMJa Preductlen Isgistlcs> Time product spends in transit and processing determines delivered target activity SPrimary irradiation reactor is MURR/Secondary reactors are OSTR and hypothetical third reactor>Transportation Distance RPF Location:

DR/MURR RPF Location: OSU RPF Location: McClellan..~ -. .~ .I --.- .-S--S *~ S I Covi i, OR iii~McClellan, CA 200mi (40 hr)1800 mi (35 hr)Corvallis, OR McClellan, CA Columbia, MO 0 520 mi (12 hr)20o0(40ohr) Corvallis, OR McClellan, CA Columbia, MO 50nii 1 i 0 Irradiated LEU Target Processing/Product Conditioning and Packaging*All sites will have same processing and product conditioning timeframes ..DR 4 MURR 2 3 McClellan 3~NW¢MI Trahnsprtation > Two high-priority transportation activities can effect 6-day curies delivered* Irradiated target to RPF via ground* 9 9 Mo Product to Distributor via air or ground> Based on FEMA disaster declarations (1964-2007)

Transportation route between OSU and McClellan has a slightly greater density of disaster declarations than route between either location and DR/MURR* All routes require crossing significant mountain ranges, which may result in delays due to inclement weather* If RPF is located at DR/MU RR, more Rocky Mountain crossings may increase probability of delays 0 0 DR MUR QSU Mclellan' NWMI-------

Waste Generation SRadioactive and Mixed Wastes*All potential RPF locations have a radioactive/mixed waste disposition pathways* Missouri (DR/MURR) sends waste to Waste Control Specialists, Inc. (located in TX) -two state borders will be crossed during transport* Oregon (OSU) sends waste to U.S. Ecology located on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (located in WA) -one state border will be crossed during transport* California (McClellan) sends waste to Envirocare Inc. (located in UT) -two state borders will be crossed during transport SHazardous Waste* All potential RPF locations have disposition pathways for all types of hazardous waste* Disposal costs are expected to be more expensive in CA than in OR or MO (cannot be evaluated until more is known about type and quantity of waste).S DR MURR OU Mleln 4 4 4 3* MI________________ Feisral, Stats, and Loceal Iequlremsents SNRC licensing requirements (NUREG 1537) should not vary between sites because these are Federal requirements >Environmental Report (being developed under NUREG 1537 and NEPA) should not vary between sites; each site already has an existing research reactor within close proximity SState and local requirements are expected to be most significant at McClellan and less at OSU and DR/MURR SAir quality permitting and seismic design criteria are important aspects of the project but differences between locations are not anticipated to be significant SPublic Involvement (according to all Federal, State, and local requirements) is expected to be more significant at McClellan and less at OSU and DR/MURR S 0 DR MURR :OSU Mlellan 4 4 4 2 4 NWMI WALiiii~i Feisral ani Stats Taxes anl incesntivesSales tax on equipment and construction materials* MO sales tax = 4.225%; Equipment/supplies exempt; Construction materials non-exempt

OR has no sales tax* CA sales tax = 7.75%; Equipment or construction materials non-exempt SCorporate Income Tax* Missouri:

6.25%* Oregon: 7.60%* California: 8.84%(Note: single sales factor apportionment is available in all 3 states; may be subject to income tax where product is sold)SProperty Tax* University properties (OSU and DR/MURR) present opportunity for reduced property taxes based on the ownership model of government-owned facilities

McClellan does not appear to offer reduced property taxes* Cost savings will be determined by lease negotiations SIncentives
Oregon and Missouri are likely to offer more competitive tax and incentive packages than California S S DR MURR OSU Mclellan 5531 Available lpames> Discovery Ridge* Greenfield Location (Agricultural for many generations)

SMURR* Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for limited future expansion (next to Research Reactor)> OSU* Facility will be constructed on mostly greenfield (undeveloped) area on the (Northeast and East of Radiation Center)* Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for future expansion* RPF will need to include space for OSU educational and R&D use 0 SU campus-250 feet away SMcClellan

Site has sufficient space for initial build and has ability for future expansion

(,, from UC Davis Research Reactor)* RPF will have to fit within existing infrastructure; improvements can be made~0 *DR 5 MURR 3 OSU I McClellan 2:~ NWMI Construction Costs SRS Means City Construction Cost Indexes* DR/MURR (Columbia): 95.4* OSU (Corvallis): 98.6* McClellan (Davis/Sacramento): 109.9 SDiscovery Ridge* Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design* Construction cost expected be similar to OSU SMURR* Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design* Construction cost expected be similar to OSU> OSU* Site has existing infrastructure and few restrictions to building design* Site may require demolition and reconstruction of existing laboratory buildings> McClellan* Site has existing building and infrastructure resulting in slight cost savings* Existing building may require structural/mechanical modifications to meet code which will increase costs..:DR MURR OSU Mc~lellan 44 3 3* NWMI,,u. Natiurl anl Man-Male Disaster PotentialDiscovery Ridge/MURR (Boone County)* Has most disaster declarations (storm and flooding plus tornado) but low-to-no earthquake risk SOSU (Benton County)* Has fewest disaster declarations (mostly storm and flooding) and a moderate to low earthquake risk>" McClellan (Sacramento County)* Has more disaster declarations than OSU and less than MURR (mostly storm and flooding) and a higher earthquake riskof mfu~wtiuk wilb Mz 4.75 wli*t 50 yelu & 50klm'UeP e,,*u= djd 4 Le,.Mclela -Earthquk Risk Map OSU -cEaelhquakeaRisk Ma i .0.....r, Discovery RidgeIMURR -Earthquake Risk Map-S 0-I -D UR S clla 3 3 4 2 NW2M I..........}}

ML15328A072: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:33, 8 July 2018

Contents

Text

Attachment:

SUMMARY

Attachment:

Reference:

Attachment:

SUMMARY

Attachment:

Reference:

Navigation menu

ML15328A072: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:33, 8 July 2018

Text

Attachment:

SUMMARY

Attachment:

Reference:

Attachment:

SUMMARY

Attachment:

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search