ML17221A200

Attachment 3 to NWMI-LTR-2017-011 - NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 2, Chapter 2.0 - Site Characteristics Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility and Rev. 2 to Chapter 3.0, Design of Structures, Systems, and Components

ML17221A200
Person / Time
Site:	Northwest Medical Isotopes
Issue date:	08/05/2017
From:	Haass C C Northwest Medical Isotopes
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17221A370	List: ML17221A199 ML17221A200 ML17221A201 ML17221A202 ML17221A203
References
NWMI-LTR-2017-011 NWMI-2013-021, Rev. 2
Download: ML17221A200 (227)

Text

.. NWMI .*:.**.*.* . ......... !:* .. *****. * * **. *

• NOllTHWfST MEDICAL ISllTOPfS ATTACHMENT 3 Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC Docket No. 50-609 Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility Revision 1 of Chapters 10.0, 11.0, 12.0 (including Appendices 12A,12B, and 12C) and 14.0 and Revision 2 of Chapters 2.0, 3.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 13.0 of NWMl-2013-021, Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production (Document No. NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 1, August 2017) Public Version Information is being provided via hard copy Pre p ared by: * * * * * * * * * ****** * * ** ** * ** * ** * * * ** * ** * * ** * * . *. *. * . NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES *

• Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 August 2017 No rt hwest Medical Isotopes , LLC 815 NW gth Ave , Suite 256 Corvallis, OR 97330 This page intentionally left blank. NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Date Published:

August 5 , 2017 Document Number. NWMl-2013-021 I Revision Number. 2 Title: Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility Approved by: Carolyn Haass Signature:

This page intentionally left blank. NWM 1-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Rev Date 0 1/5/20 1 4 1 5/19/2017 2 8/5/2017 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Cha r acteristic s REV I S IO N H I S TOR Y Reason for Revision Rev i sed By Initial Application Not requ i red Incorpora t e change s based on responses to C. Haass NRC Requests for Additional Information Modificat i on based on ACRS comments C. Haass CONTENTS NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

............................

.........................

..................................................... 2-1 2.1 Geography and Demograph y ....................

.......................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Site Location and Description

.................................................

.............

................ 2-1 2.1.1.1 Specification and Location .................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1.2 Boundary and Zone Area Maps .......................................................... 2-4 2.1.2 Population Distribution

......................

.................................................................. 2-9 2.1.2. l Resident Population

.....................

..................

..........................

......... 2-10 2.1.2.2 Transient Population

...................

.......................

....................

........... 2-20 2.1.3 Combined Resident and Tran sie nt Population

...........................................

........ 2-33 2.2 Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilities

.............

..................................

2-41 2.2.l Location and Route s ........................................................................................... 2-41 2.2.1.1 Future Facilities

.............

................................

....................................

2-43 2.2.1.2 Industrial Facilities

.............

.....................

...........................

...............

2-45 2.2.1.3 Transportation Routes .......................................................................

2-45 2.2.1.4 Pipeline s ............................................................................................

2-46 2.2.1.5 Fuel Storage .........................................................

..............

............... 2-46 2.2.2 Air Tra ffic ......................................................

.................................................... 2-47 2.2.2.1 Airports .........................................................................................

.... 2-47 2.2.2.2 Airways .....................

...................................................................

..... 2-5 2 2.2.2.3 Military Airports and Training Routes ..............................................

2-53 2.2.2.4 Approach and Holdin g Pattern s ................

..........................

.............. 2-53 2.2.2.5 Evaluation of Aircraft Hazard ........................

.......................

............ 2-53 2.2.3 Analysis of Potential Accidents at Facilities

...........................

.......................

.... 2-55 2.2.3.1 Determination of Design-Basis Events .............................................

2-55 2.3 Meteorology

.....................................................................................................................

2-69 2.3.1 General and Local Climate ....................

..............................

............................... 2-69 2.3.1.1 Temperature

.................................

........................

.............................

2-70 2.3.1.2 Precipitation

....................................................................

.................. 2-71 2.3.1.3 Maximum Probable S nowpack .........................................................

2-72 2.3.1.4 Humidity .............

.................................................................

............. 2-73 2.3.1.5 Wind ..................

..............................

.........................................

......... 2-73 2.3.1.6 100-YearReturn Wind Speed .....................

...........................

........... 2-76 2.3.1.7 Ex treme Weather .............................

..................................................

2-76 2.3.2 Site M e teorolo gy ...................

...............................................................

.............. 2-82 2.4 Hydrology

.....................................

...............................................

...................

.................. 2-83 2.4.1 Surface Water ..................................................................................................... 2-83 2.4.2 Ground Wat e r ...............

.....................................................................

................. 2-86 2.4.3 Floods .............................

.....................................

............................................... 2-88 2.5 Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering

..................................................... 2-90 2.5.1 Regional Geology ..................................

...................

.........................................

2-90 2.5.1.1 Geomorphic Provinces

.....................................................

.................

2-90 2.5.1.2 Glacial History ...............................................................

................... 2-91 2.5.1.3 Local Topograph y and Soils of Boone County ................................. 2-92 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 2.5.2 Site Geology ....................................................................................................... 2-92 2.5.2.1 Quaternar y Age Holocene Series (Qal) ........................

..................... 2-94 2.5.2.2 Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Marmaton Group (Pm) and Cherokee Group (Pc) ......................................................... 2-96 2.5.2.3 Mississippian Age Osagean Series Burlington Formation (Mo) ....... 2-96 2.5.2.4 Mississippian Age Kinderhookian Series Chouteau Limestone (Mk) .................................................................................................. 2-97 2.5.2.5 L a te to Earl y Devonian Limestone (D) ............................................. 2-97 2.5.2.6 Early Ordo v ician Age Ibexian Series Dolomites (Ojc) ..................... 2-97 2.5.3 On-site Soil Types .............................................................................................. 2-97 2.5.4 Seismicity

........................

................................................................................... 2-98 2.5.5 Maximum Earthquake Potential

....................................................................... 2-103 2.5.6 Vibratory Ground Motion ..................

.............................................................. 2-105 2.5.7 Surface Faulting ............................................................................................... 2-106 2.5.8 Liquefaction Potential

...................................................................................... 2-108 2.6 References

......................................................................................................................

2-110 ii Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2. Figure 2-3. Figure 2-4. Figure 2-5. Figure 2-6. Figure 2-7. Figure 2-8. Figure 2-9. Figure 2-10. Figure 2-11. Figure 2-12. Figure 2-13. Figure 2-14. Figure 2-15. Figure 2-16. Figure 2-17. Figure 2-18. Figure 2-1 9. Figure 2-20. Figure 2-21. Figure 2-22. Figure 2-23. Figure 2-24. Figure 2-25. Figure 2-26. Figure 2-27. Figure 2-28. Figure 2-29. Figure 2-30. Figure 2-31. FIGURES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 200 km (124 mi) Radius with Cities and Roads .................

..............................

.............

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

................

2-3 Boundaries and Zones Associated with the Facility .......................

................................. 2-5 Prominent Features in Site Area ..................

.................................................................... 2-6 Topography in Site Area .........................................................................

......................... 2-7 The Rural and Urban Zones Surrounding the Radioisotope Production Faci li ty ............ 2-8 Population Groupings

.................................................................................................... 2-11 Resident Population Distribution

-20 10 .....................

.................

..........................

....... 2-13 Re s ident Population Distribution

-20 14 ....................................................................... 2-14 Re s ident Population Distribution

-20 15 ....................................................................... 2-15 Resident Population Distribution

-2019 ........................................

............................... 2-16 Resident Population Distribution

-2020 ..............................................

......................... 2-17 Resident Population Distribution

-2045 ....................................................................... 2-18 Re s ident Population Distribution

-2 050 ..........................

.............................................

2-19 Transient Population Distribution

-2010 ...............................

............

........................... 2-26 Tran sient Population Distribution

-2014 .........................

.....................

........................ 2-27 Transient Population Distribution

-2015 ...............................................

...............

........ 2-28 Transient Population Distribution

-2019 .....................................................

.............

.... 2-29 Transient Population Distribution

-2020 ...................................................................... 2-30 Transient Population Di stri bution -2045 ...................................................................... 2-3 1 Transient Population Distribution

-2050 ......................................................................

2-32 Combined Population Distribution

-2 010 ....................................................................

2-34 Combined Population Distribution

-2014 .................................................................... 2-35 Combined Population Distribution

-2015 .................................................................... 2-36 Combined Population Distribution

-2 019 .................................................................... 2-37 Combined Population Distribution

-2020 ........................................................

............ 2-38 Combined Population Distribution

-2045 ........................

.......................................

..... 2-39 Combined Population Distribution

-2050 ...............

...............................................

...... 2-40 Industrial and Transportation within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioi so tope Production Facility Site .............

....................................................................................................... 2-42 Industrial and Transportation within 16 km ( 1 0 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site Description s ...........

...................................

.................

............. 2-44 Wind Rose from South Farm , 2000-2010 (U niversit y of Missouri Agricultura l Experiment Station) ..................

...............

...................................................................... 2-74 iii Figure 2-32. Figure 2-33. Figure 2-34. Figure 2-35. Figure 2-36. Figure 2-37. Figure 2-38. Figure 2-39. Figure 2-40. NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Wind Rose from Automatic Weather Station, Columbia, Missouri , 2007-2012 (Western Regional Climate Center) .....................

............................................

..............

2-75 Streams of Southern Boone County, Missouri ..............................................................

2-84 Map Showing Bonne Femme Watershed

.................................................

..............

....... 2-85 Aquifer Map ..............................................................................

.....................................

2-87 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zones Around the Radioi sotope Production Facility ...........................................................

....................

.......................... 2-89 Geologic Features within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site ....................

..........................................................

.........................

.............

2-93 Map of Missouri Quaternary Age Geology .............

..................................

...........

......... 2-95 Hazard Mitigation Map ..........................................................

......................................

2-104 Geologic Faults Map ................................

.................................................................... 2-107 iv Table 2-1. Table 2-2. Table 2-3. Table 2-4. Table 2-5. Table 2-6. Table 2-7. Table 2-8. Table 2-9. Table 2-10. Table 2-11. Table 2-12. Table 2-13. Table 2-14. Ta ble 2-15. Table 2-16. Table 2-17. Table 2-18. Table 2-19. Table 2-20. Table 2-21. Table 2-22. Table 2-23. Table 2-24. Table 2-25. TABLES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Closest Permanent Re si dent s Within Each Compass Section Around the Proposed Site .............................................................................................

.................... 2-10 Resident Population Distribution within 8 km (5 mi) of the Proposed Site ...................

2-12 Employers (2 pages) ...................................................................................................... 2-20 Schools (2 pa ges) .............................

..........

........................................

............................ 2-2 2 Medical Facility ..................

..........................................................

................................. 2-23 Lodging Facilities

.......................................................

................................................... 2-24 Weighted Transient Population Estimates b y Source ..................................

.................. 2-25 Total Project Transient Population

.......................

......................................................... 2-25 Combined Re si dent and Transient Population

...............

................................................ 2-33 Significant Indu str ial Facilities within 16 km (10 mi) of the Radioi s otope Production Facility Site .........................

.................

...............................................

........ 2-45 Hazardous Chemical Potentially Tran s ported on Highways within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facility .................................

.....................

...... 2-46 Major Pipelines Located within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site ........................

...............

.........................

...........................

......................... 2-46 Major Storage Facilities Located within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facilit y Site ..................................

.................................................

............

.. 2-47 200 D 2 Limits .................

.....................

...........

.........................

.................

..................

.... 2-48 Orthonormal Coordinates for Columbia Regional Airport Runways to the Radioisotope Production Facility ....................................................

.....................

.......... 2-49 Probability of Crashes from Airport Operations (2 page s) ......................................

...... 2-49 Affecti ve Area for Helicopter

..............................................

.......................................... 2-52 Federal Designated Airways within 16 km (10 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facilit y Site ........................................................

...............................

.......... 2-52 Effective Area Input Values and Calculated Effective Plant Area ................................

2-54 Crash Impact Probabilities

...................

...........................

..........................

..................... 2-54 Distance from the Radioisotope Production Facility where the Peak Incident Pressure is 6.9 kPa (1 lb/i n.2) from an Ex plosion on U.S. Highway 63 ......................... 2-57 Analysis of Hazardous Chemicals Stored Within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility (2 pages) ...............................................

..........................................

2-58 Flammable Vapor Cloud Explosion Anal ys is for U.S. Highwa y 63 .............................

2-62 Flammable Vapor Clouds and Vapor Cloud Explosions from External Sources (2 pages) ...................................

..................

..................................

..................................

2-64 Columbia , Missouri , Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Temperature Summary , 1969-2012 ........................

.......................................................

2-70 v Table 2-26. Table 2-27. Table 2-28. Table 2-29. Table 2-30. Table 2-31. Table 2-32. Table 2-33. Table 2-34. Table 2-35. Table 2-36. Table 2-37. Table 2-38. Table 2-39. Table 2-40. Table 2-41. Table 2-42. NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Columbia , Missouri , Five-Year Temperature Summary , 2008-2012 ............................ 2-71 Columbia, Missouri , Average and Extreme Monthly Climate , Historic Precipitation Summary, 1969-2012 .........................

..........................................

............ 2-72 72-Hour Probable Maximum Precipitation

.................................................................... 2-72 Relative Humidity Data for Columbia, Missouri , 2008-2012

....................................... 2-73 Mean Wind Speed for Columbia , Mis so uri , from 2008-2012 .........................

.............. 2-73 Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scales Used to Determine Tornado Intensity

........... 2-76 Seasonal Frequency of Historical Tornadoes in Boone County , Missouri (1954 to 2016) .............

.............

..................................

...........................

....................................... 2-77 Annual Frequency of Historical Tornadoes in Boone County , Missouri (1954 to 2016) .......................

...................

............

.......................

.................................................

2-77 Boone County Seasonal Thunderstorm Wind Events (8/29/1955 to 5/11/2016) ........... 2-78 Boone Co unty Annual Thunderstorm Wind Events (8/29/1955 to 5/11/2016) ............. 2-78 Boone County Lightning Events (7 /5/1998 to 6 1 30 1 2016) ............................................. 2-79 Boone C ounty Seasonal Hail Events 4/23/1 958 -5/11/2016 ......................................... 2-79 Boone County Annual Hail Events 4/23/1958 -5/11/2016

.......................

....................

2-80 Boone County Winter Weather Events (1/1/1996 to 6/30/2016) (2 pages) ................... 2-80 Distances from Exhaust Stacks to Fence and Site Boundaries

........................

............

.. 2-82 Recorded Missouri Earthquake History ( 4 pages) ......................................................... 2-99 Projected Earthquake Hazard s for Boone County .......................................................

2-103 vi TERMS Acronyms and Abbreviations 82 Rb rubidium-82 ACI American Concrete Institute ALOHA Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres BLEVE boiling liquid expanding vapo r explosion NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics CA TSO Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHM Children's House Montessori Early Leaming Center CONUS Continental United States COU Columbia Regional Airport CUSEC Central United States Earthquake Consortium State Geologists DHSS Department of Health & Senior Services Discovery Ridge Discovery Ridge Research Park DOA Department of Administration EF scale enhanced Fujita tornado intensity scale ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute F sca le (original)

Fujita tornado intensity scale FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIPS Federal Information Proce ssi ng Standards GIS Geographical Information System IBC International Building Code IDLH immediately dangerous to life and health IROFS item s relied on for safety ISA integrated safety analysis ISCM Islamic School of Columbia Missouri LEL lower explosion limit MDE Missouri Department of Education MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity MMRPC Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission MU University of Missouri NAD National Geodetic Survey NCES National Center for Education Statistics NMSZ New Madrid Seismic Zone NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulator y Commission NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWMI Northwest Medical Isotopes , LLC OGP International Association of Oil and Gas Producers RAWS Remote Automatic Weather Station RSAC Radiological Safety Analysis Computer REDI Regional Economic Development, Inc. RPF radioisotope production facility SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Terracon Terracon Consultants, Inc. TNT trinitrotoluene U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code vii USCB USGS Units o c o p BTU cm ft ft 2 ft 3 g gal ha hr in. in.2 kg kgal kip km km 2 kPa kW L lb m m 2 m 3 MeV Mgal mi mi 2 rem sec yd yd 2 U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Geological Survey degrees Celsius degree s Fahrenheit British thermal unit centimeter feet square feet cubic feet g-forc e ga llon hectar e hour inch square inch kilogram thousand gallons kilopound kilometer s quare kilometers kilopascal kilowatt liter pound meter square meter cubic meter million electron volt million ga llon s mile square mile roentgen equivalent in man second yard square yar d viii NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

2.1 GEOGRAPHY

AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1.1 Site Location and Description This subsection describes the location and important features of the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) proposed Radioisotope Production Facility (RPF) site. 2.1.1.1 Specification and Location The proposed 3.0 hectares (ha) (7.4-acre) site is situated in Boone County, Missouri, within the University of Missouri (MU) Discovery Ridge Research Park (Discovery Ridge) in Columbia, Missouri , north of Discovery Ridge Drive. The site is situated in central Missouri approximately 201 kilometers (km) (125 miles [mi]) east of Kansas City and 201 km (125 mi) west of St. Louis. The site is 7.2 km (4.5 mi) south of United States (U.S.) Interstate Highway 70 just to the north of U.S. Highway 63. The Missouri River lies 15.3 km (9.5 mi) to the west of the site. The site is located 5.6 km (3.5 mi) to the southeast of the main MU campus and is shown on the map on Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2 provides the 8 km (5-mi) radius from the center of the facility and shows highways, rivers, and other local bodies of water. The approximate center of the proposed RPF (NAD 83 , 1983) is: Latitude and Longitude Longitude:

92° 16' 34.63" Latitude: 38° 54' 3.3 I" Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates (meters [m]) Northing: Easting: Zone: 4306031 m 562755 m 15S Missouri State Plane Coordinates (U.S. Survey feet [ft]) North: 1116979.02 ft US East: 1704082.07 ft US FIPS Zone: Missouri Central 2402 2-1 IOWA K HOlllA

• RPF ite 0 2 Okm 124 mil ) Radiu from RP it + 0 15 30 120 *--==--c::::J----====i---* Miles 60 90 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Major Ri er tale Boundari ity ---Int tat Highv ay ark Tv ain ational F re t Figure 2-1. 200 km (124 mi) Radius with Cities and Roads 2-2

• R.PF it -Inter tale Hi ghwa 0 km ( mile) Radiu from RPF ite -Highwa <.J: ity Limit Mark T' ain ational Fore t + 0 0.5 2 3 4 *-c::J**o****====-**-M il es NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Locat i on Ma C ity Jefferson City

• I URI Figure 2-2. Illustration of 8 km (5-mi) Radius from the Center of the Facility 2-3 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 2.1.1.2 Boundary and Zone Area Maps Figure 2-3 shows the boundaries and zones applicable to the proposed RPF site. The square area near the center of the site within which all safety-related structures are located gives the rough location and size of the operations boundary in accordance with ANSI/ ANS-15. 7, Research Reactor Site Evaluation, and ANSI/ ANS-1 5 .16, Emergency Planning for R esea rch R eactors. The Emergency Planning Zone is encompassed by the site boundary using the guidance in: * * *

• ANSI/ ANS-15 .16 , Emergency Planning for Res earch R eactors Regulatory Guide 2.6, Emergency Planning for R esearch and T est R eactors Title 10, Code of Federal R egu lation , Part 50.54 (10 CFR 50.54), "Co nditions of Licenses" 10 CFR 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Appendix E, "E mergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities." The site boundary is the property line around the perimeter of the RPF site in accordance with ANSI/ANS-1 5.7 and ANSl/ANS-15.16.

The controlled area (also referred to as the exclusion area) is the area within the site boundary in accordance with 10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation ," Subpart 20.1003, "Definitions," and 10 CFR 70.61(f), " Performance Requirements

." The area directly under the facility operating license will also be delineated by the site boundary.

Figure 2-4 shows the highways , railways, and waterways within the 8 km (5-mi) radius of the RPF site. The approximately 3.0 ha (7.4-acre) RPF site is located entirely on property owned by MU. The site presently consists of grass fields. Access to the site is provided from Discovery Drive and Discover y Parkway. The RPF site is primarily relatively flat surfaces at an elevation of 231 m (758 ft). Figure 2-5 shows the topography within the vicinity of the RPF site. Estimates of population density around the proposed project site included data from the most recent census year (USCB, 2010). Block groups and assoc i ated populations were identified within the 8 km (5-mi) radius of the RPF site using ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI, 2011). The associated population was divided by the calculated area (square mile [mi 2]) of each block group. The resulting population density was used to determine if the block group could be classified as either rural or urban. Block groups with a population density of more than 500 people/mi2 were identified as urban. Block groups with a population density of lesser than 500 people/mi 2 were identified as rural. Urban or rural zones are identified in Figure 2-6. 2-4 NWM I **.**.** * * *

• NClllTttWEST lllDICAt.

tlOTOf'U Rough estimate of Operations Boundary and Emergency Planning Zone c:J Site boundary , area directly under the NRC Facility Operating License , Controlled Area + 0 0.24 --===--=:::J----m:========:::::.----*

Miles 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.18 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Figure 2-3. Boundaries and Zones Associated with the Facility 2-5 RP F i t e -In t er tale Highwa y NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics L oc ation Ma D 8 k m (5 m i l e) R a d i u fro m RP F it -Highwa y City i t Limi t + 0 0.5 1 3 4 **m::::i**::::i****====-****M il es 2 Mark Twain ational Fore t Figure 2-4. Prominent Feature s in Site Area 2-6 Jefferson City* I UR. I fro m RP F . i t e -Interstate Hi g hway -Hi g hway c:ii City Limits + Mark T-. ain ational Forest 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 -*::::::1*-==-***

-===::::11**-Miles NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Location Ma City Jefhrson City* I URI Figure 2-5. Topography in Site Area 2-7

-Interstate Hi g hwa s

• RPF ite NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Location Ma -High w a y s 0 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site City -tate Routes U rban Areas (>500 people/square mile) Rural Areas (< 500 people/square mile) 0 0.5 4 *--=*--=---

c::=====---*M i les 2 3 Figure 2-6. The Rural and U rban Zone s Surrounding the Radioi s otope Production Facility 2-8 Jefferson City* I UR. I NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics

2.1.2 Population

Distribution This subsection describes the population distribution within 8 km (5.0 mi) of the center point of the safety-related area at the proposed site. The information includes estimates of the resident and transient populations for the most recent census year (2010) and projections of the resident and transient populations for the following future years: * * * * *

• Year submitting Construction Permit application (2015) Year of submitting Operating License application (2016) Five years after submitting Construction Permit application (2020) Five years after submitting Operating License application (2021) Approximate expected end of Operating License period (2047) Five years after approximate expected end of Operating License period (2052) Estimates and projections of resident and transient populations around the proposed project site are divided into five distance bands-concentric circles at 0-1 km (0-0.6 mi), 1-2 km (0.6-1.2 mi), 2-4 km (1.2-2.5 mi), 4-6 km (2.5-3.7 mi), and 6-8 km (3.7-5.0 mi) from the center point of the RPF-and 16 directional sectors (with each direction sector centered on one of the 16 compass points). For each segment formed by the distance bands and directional sectors, the resident population was estimated using U.S. Census Bureau 2010 census data , and the transient population was estimated using the best available data for major employers , schools, medical facilities, and lodging facilities.

Collected transient population data is intended to represent 2010 popu lati on levels. The future resident and transient population growth in each distance/direction segment was projected using specific growth rates that depend on whether the segment is located in the city of Columbia or in Boone County. The specific growth rates used in these areas are explained in the following paragraphs.

The City of Columbia comprehensive land u se plan (City of Columbia, 2013), presents projections on the city's future population calculated using several possible population growth rates. The plan states that the Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization (CATSO) model projects a greater rate of population growth and is considered the most reasonable and conservative ba s is for estimating the city's future population.

According to the plan , the CA TSO model growth rate was calculated by using historic population data and land use trends, which are then projected forward to estimate future growth. Based on these projections , the CATSO model estimated that the rate of population growth (growth rate) is 1.5 percent annually.

This growth rate was used to project future populations for areas within the analysis area that are within the Columbia city limits. The 2010 estimated resident and transient population in each distance/direction segment that is located partially or entirely within the city boundaries was increased b y 1.5 percent each year from 2011 to 2050. The Missouri Department of Administration (DOA) pro v ides state and county population projections that were developed using the cohort-component method (DOA, 2008). The cohort-component method reviews recent historical patterns to determine age-and sex-specific rates of fertility, mortality, and migration.

The DOA used the 2000 Census as a base for population counts. The base count is then advanced at five-year intervals to the year 2030 by using projected survival rates and net migration rates by age and sex. The DOA projections show that the population of Boone County is expected to increase by 7 .9 percent for the five-year period from 2010 to 2015 , by 7 .2 percent from 2015 to 2020, by 6.2 percent from 2020 to 2025, and by 5.0 percent for the period from 2025 to 2030. For each five-yea r period, the percent growth was divided by five to give the estimated annual growth rate within that period. The annual growth rates were used to project future populations for the areas around the project site that are entirely outside the boundaries of the city of Columbia.

The estimated 2010 resident and transient population in each distance/direction segment that is lo cated entirely outside of the city boundaries was increased by 1.58 percent each year from 2011to2015, by 1.44 percent from 2016 to 2020, by 1.24 percent from 2021 to 2025, and by 1.0 percent from 2026 to 2030. The growth rate of 1.0 percent was used for the period from 2031 to 2050. 2-9 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics The following subsections described the resident and transient population distribution surrounding the proposed RPF site. 2.1.2.1 Resident Population The permanent residences nearest to the proposed RPF site were identified through an examination of aerial photographs and geographic information system (GIS) data files using ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI, 2011 ). There are two permanent residences located approximately 0.48 km (0.3 mi) from the center point , one to the south and the other to the northeast.

These two hou ses are the closest residences to the center point of the safety-related area. Figure 2-7 shows places of significant population groupings (incorporated cities and unincorporated villages) within 8 km (5.0 mi) of the center point of the safety-related area. The map includes concentric circles drawn at distances of 1 km (0.6 mi), 2 km (1.2 mi), 4 km (2.5 mi), 6 km (3.7 mi), and 8 km (5 mi) from the center point , and is divided into 16 directional sectors, with each directional sector consisting of 22.5 degrees centered on one of the 16 compass points. Table 2-1 shows the closest permanent resident within each of the I 6 sectors. The 2010 resident population within the 1 km (0.6 mi) and 2 km (1.2 mi) concentric circles was estimated based on the number of occupied houses (as identified through an examination of aerial photographs) and the average number of people per household (as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau). U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that Boone County has an average of 2.36 people per household (USC B , 2013). Table 2-1. Closest Permanent Residents Within Each Compass Section Around the Proposed Site Nearest resident Quadrant North to North-Northeast 1.4 0.86 North-Northeast to Northeast 0.6 0.36 Northeast to East-Northeast 2.0 1.22 East-Northeast to East 1.1 0.7 East to East-Southeast 1.8 1.1 East-Southeast to Southeast 2.0 1.24 Southeast to South-Southeast 0.9 0.55 South-Southeast to South 0.8 0.48 South to South-Southwest 0.4 0.27 South-Southwest to Southwest 1.4 0.89 Southwest to West-Southwest 1.4 0.87 West-Southwest to West 2.0 1.23 West to West-Northwest 0.9 0.58 West-Northwest to Northwest 1.0 0.65 Northwest to North-Northwest 1.7 1.04 North-Northwest to North 1.4 0.86 2-10

.. ; NWMI ...*.. . ..

.:. ** llHIRTMWllT llOIKAl tsOTOrO Lo ati n Map J on City Population Groupm1 Saint Lo 0 0.5 2 3 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristic s 4 E E Proposed Location 1 km from Site 2 km from Site 4 km from Site 6 km from Site 8 km from Site Directional Sectors IMK::::JIMK::::Jl***-=

====-*--*Miles Incorporated Area Figure 2-7. Population Groupings 2-11 NWMl-2013-0 21, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics The 2010 resident population estimate was derived by multiplying the number of occupied houses by 2.36 people per house and rounding to the nearest whole number. The total resident population estimated in this manner for 2010 is 205 people at a distance of 0-1 km (0-0.6 mi) from the proposed site, and 1 , 862 people at a distance of 1-2 km (0.6-1.2 mi). These population estimates are shown in Tab l e 2-2, along with estimates for other distances.

Figure 2-8 shows the population estimates divided into the distance/direction sections.

Table 2-2. Resident Popu l atio n Distr i b u tion with in 8 km (5 mi) of the Proposed Site Distance band (km) Year Total 0-8 2010 205 1,862 7,070 16,919 21,508 4 7 , 5 64 2014 218 1,974 7,495 17,936 22,801 50,423 2015 221 2,004 7,608 18,205 23,143 5 1,1 8 1 2019 234 2,124 8,063 19,296 24 , 530 54,247 2020 238 2,156 8,184 19,585 24,897 55,06 0 2045 291 2 , 628 9,991 23 , 948 30 , 428 67,287 2050 313 2,820 10,727 25,728 32,683 72,271 The U.S. Census Bureau 2010 census block and tract data (USCB , 2012) was used to estimate the resident population within the 4 km (2.5 mi), 6 km (3.7 mi), and 8 km (5.0 mi) distance bands. For each segment formed by the distance bands and directional sectors , the percentage of each census tract's land area that falls, either partially or entirely, within that segment was calculated using ArcMap 10 GIS software (ESRI, 2011). The equivalent proportion of each census tract's population was then assigned to that segment. If portions of two or more census tract s fall within the same segment , the proportional population estimates for the census tracts were summed to obtain the population estimate for that segment. Table 2-2 shows total 2010 population estimates within the 4 km (2.5 mi), 6 km (3.7 mi), and 8 km (5.0 mi) distance bands , and Figure 2-8 shows the population estimates divided into the distance/direction sections.

Using the methodologies described above, the 2010 resident population estimates within the distance bands and directional sectors were extrapolated to the years 2014 , 2015, 2019 , 2020, 2045 , and 2050. Table 2-2 shows that tota l projected resident popu l ation for these years within the distance bands , and Figure 2-9 to Figure 2-14 show the projections for these y ears divided into the distance/direction sections.

2-12 Lo ati n Map J Sain t Lo Rcsldait Populauoo Otstnbutt<lll

-2010 ,..,,.;_,,.,.

• • _,.,_.,,,11l.t 1*1 .... 'ltlrtWC 0 0.5 2 3 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 4 Proposed Location <:::> 1 km from S i le <:::> 2 km from Site 4 km from Site <:::> 6 km from Site <:::> 8 km from Site Directional Sectors IMm:::::::JIMm:::::::JI****

====***-M i les Incorporated Area Figure 2-8. Resident Population Distribution

-2010 2-13 J et"5on C 11 y Saint Lo RcsKlcnr Populauon D1stnbut l<l9. -014 h,e/<<t* ....... ,.,., *il-' '"' ..... ftwc.* -' ,,,,_., NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 4 IMK::JIMK::J***m:

====-*--* M i les 0 0.5 2 3 .... _ E EE E Proposed L ocation <::> 1 km from S i te <::> 2 km from S i te 4 km from S i te <::> 6 km from S i te <::> 8 km from S i te Directiona l Sec t ors Incorporated Area Figure 2-9. Resident Population Distribution

-2014 2-14 NWM I ...**... * * *

• NORTHWEST llEDICAL ISOTOf'fS Loca t ion Map Col o a J er.;an C it y Saint Lo Resident Populauoo Oism tlOll

• 2015 Figure 2-10. s + 0 0.5 2 3 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics E _) 4 E ESE I* SE Proposed Locatton c::> 1 km from Site c::> 2 km from Site 4 km from Site c::> 6 km from Si t e c::> 8 km from Site Direction a l Sectors IMm:::JMm:::J***-=

====-*--* M i ies Incorpora t ed Ar e a Resident Population Distribution

-2015 2-15 NWM I ...**... *a** NOflTMWU l' lllDtCAl tsOTDfU Lo ati n Map J enoonC tt y Saint Lo Res1dcn1 Populauoa D1>uibu11oa.

2019

..

Figure 2-11. 0 0.5 2 3 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics E 4 ) ---/ ... .

• SE 96 ' . ..,_ E I H ES .... Proposed Location C::> 1 km from Site C::> 2 km from Site 4 km from Site C::> 6 km from Site C::> 8 km from Site Directional Sectors llllllC::::JMMllC::::J

........ C:::=:=:=

......... Incorporated Area Resident Population Distribution

-2019 2-16 NWM I ...**... * * *

• NOllTNWHT MCotCAL fSOTOIU Location Map ersonCny Saint Lo Resident Populauon Dlstnbtmoo

• 20.0 1>*"1.-i*

<<i***J,,,.,, MW.I 1* tu *-cn....i

,,.,,_,.., Figure 2-12. NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics s 0 0.5 2 3 4 IMm:::J1Mm:::J1***-=

====-**** Miles Resident Population Di s tribution

-2020 2-17 .. ,_ E . ) 97 I I ESE " . .. E Proposed Location C::> 1 km from Site C::> 2 km from Site 4 km from Site C::> 6 km from Site C::> 8 km from Site Directional Sectors Incorporated Area Location Map c a J onC n y Sain t Lo R esident Populauoo Dismbutto11

• _ S ,.._...., ......... , _,. .. J,(.,./ 111 Figure 2-13. s 0 0.5 2 3 --NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics E ) __/, "' .a.w._I E 11 2 ESE E -ft

• Proposed Location C:> 1 km from Site C:> 2 km from Site 4 km from Site C:> 6 km from Site C:> 8 km from Site Directional Sectors 4 M i ies Incorporated Area Re si dent Population Distribution

-2045 2-18 nMap Saint Lo Rcstdetll Pop Oii DtstributlOll

-20 0 l'.-J.n. .,,..._,"' '-W-' ,. ftW _,,_,,,,, Figure 2-14. 0 0.5 2 3 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 4 Proposed Location <::> 1 km from Site <:) 2 km from S i te 4 km from Site <::> 6 km from Site <::> 8 km rrom Site Directional Sectors IMm:::::J1Mm:::::J1***-=

===::11**** Miles Incorporated Area Resident Population Distribution

-2050 2-19 2.1.2.2 Transient Population NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics In the addition to permanent residents around the proposed RPF site, there are people who enter thi s area temporarily for activities such as employment, education, medical care, and lodging. Although, some residents ma y not leave the safety-related area for any o f these above activities, it is assumed that the estimated transient population estimates repre se nt the population that is using the area temporarily.

These transient populations were estimated based on data obtained from local officials , tourist boards , and gove rnment agency websites for major employers, schools, medical facilities (hospitals and nursing homes), and lodging facilities (hotels and motels) within 8 km (5.0 mi) of the center point. Transient populations using recreation sites were not u se d as part of the estimate becau se data could not be obtained for facility daily use. Table 2-3 lists the major employers identified within 8 km (5.0 mi) of the proposed site, the directional se ctor and distance band within which each employer is located , and the best available estimate of the total number of people employed at that location.

Data from Regional Economic Development, Inc. was used to estimate the number of e mployee per major employers within the safety-re l ated area (REDI, 2 011 ). Ta bl e 2-3. Employers (2 pages) Directional Distance Facility sector band (km) Employment ABC Laboratories, Inc. w 0 to 1 348 Discovery Office Park (2016) w 0 to 1 250 3 Columbia School District -New Havenb NW 1 to 2 23 Boone County Public Works SSE 1to2 74 Central Regional Conservation Office (2013) SW 1to2 40 3 KOMO SE 1to2 6 f Magellan Pipeline SSE 1to2 15 3 Co l umbia Auto Mart SE 1to2 8 3 Columbia School District -Cedar Ridge b N 2 to 4 15 Jones Honda SSE 2 to 4 8 3 MBS Textbook Exchange NW 2 to 4 1 , 084 State Farm Insurance Companies WNW 2 to 4 1,043 U.S. Postal Service 341 c NW 2 to 4 43 Woodhaven WNW 2 to 4 220 Meeks Lumber SSE 2 to 4 10 3 MFA, Inc. NW 2 to 4 250 Equine Medical Services SSE 4 to 6 6 3 University ofMissourid NW 4 to 6 3,162 University ofMissourid WNW 4 to 6 611 University ofMissourid NNW 4 to 6 2 Columbia School District -Gentry Middle SchooJ b w 4 to 6 64 Columbia S c h ool District -Rock Bri d geb WSW 4 to 6 40 Columbia School District -Rock Bridge High SchooJ b w 4 to 6 107 Columbia Sch o ol District -Sheppard Boulevardb NNW 4 to 6 30 Boyce and Bynum Pathology Laboratories, P.C. N 4 to 6 369 U.S. Postal Service c w 4 to 6 43 Boone County National Bank* WNW 4 to 6 16 Boone County National Bank* NNW 4 to 6 16 2-2 0 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Table 2-3. Employers (2 pages) Directional Distance Facility sector band (km) Employment Missouri Employers Mutual Insurance NNW 4 to 6 201 University of Missourid NW 6 to 8 3 , 273 University of Missouri d WNW 6 to 8 1,581 University Hospital and Clinics -Women's and N 6 to 8 1 , 412 Children's Hospitalf University Hospital and Clinics r NW 6 to 8 2,867 Columbia School District -Bentonb NNW 6 to 8 23 Co lumbia School District -Douglass High Sc hool b NW 6 to 8 15 Columbia School District -Grantb NW 6 to 8 23 Columbia School District -Jefferson Junior High b NW 6 to 8 65 Columbia School District -Leeb NW 6 to 8 21 Boone Hospital Center NW 6 to 8 1 ,64 7 City of Columbia NW 6 to 8 1,286 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs NW 6 to 8 1 ,250 Columbia College NW 6 to 8 490 Boone County Government NW 6 to 8 291 U.S. Postal Servicec NW 6 to 8 43 Century Link NW 6 to 8 230 U.S. Department of Agriculture NW 6 to 8 258 Boone County National Bank e w 6 to 8 16 Boone County National Bank e NW 6 to 8 16 Boone County National Bank e NW 6 to 8 16 Boone County National Bank e NNW 6 to 8 16 Boone County National Bank e NN E 6 to 8 16 Total: 22,615 So ur ces: DHS S, 2013, " DH SS Com muni ty Data Profil es -Ho s pi tal R eve nu es from 20 1 0-2 01 2," h ttp://h ea lth.mo.gov/dat a/C ommunityDataProfiles

/index.html, Missouri D e p a rtm e n t of H ea lth & Senior Services, J efferson City, Missouri , accesse d September 5, 2013. MOE, 20 1 3 , " Distri ct Stu d e nt S ta ff Ratios -Co lu mb i a 93," Mi sso ur i D epartme nt of E du cat ion , J effe r son C i ty, Missouri. REDI, 2011 , " 2011 Fact Book Co lumb ia/Boo n e Co un ty Mi ssouri," http://www.co lumb iare di.cco nt e n t/upl oa d s/20 11/04/REDl-Fac t-B ook-11.pd f , R egio n a l Economic Deve l opment, Inc., Colum bi a, Mi sso ur i. a Es timat e d. b E mplo yee est im a t es a r e b ase d on sc h oo l-t o-st ud ent and a dmin istrator-to-stude nt ratios. These are the est im ate d personnel who are mo s t lik e l y to be onsite 9 hour1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> s (hr)/day , 5 da ys/week. c The total number of post office emp l oyees (341) we r e di v id e d by the t o tal number of br anc h es (8) l ocate d w ithin the Co lumbi a m etro polit a n a r ea and di st ribut e d accordingly. <l The total number of Unive rsit y of Missouri employees (8,630) is proportional to th e area of the U ni versi t y of Missouri th at lie s within t h e di s tan ce/dir ect ion sector ba se d on th e area. e The tot al number of B oone Co un ty Na ti o n al B a nk e mplo yees (275) were d ivi d ed b y th e total numb er of bran c h es ( 17) and di s tribut ed acco rdin g l y. r The total number of U ni vers i ty H ospita l a nd C lini cs e mplo yees (4 , 279) is proportional to t h e numb e r ofl i ce n se d beds at th e U niv e r s ity Hospital and C lini cs a nd th e Women's and C hildr e n's Hospital.

2-21 NWM I ...*.. :*,*! NOllTHWHT M£OtCAl ISOTOf'fl NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics MU is located in several of the distance/direction sections.

For the employee estimate, the percentage of the university's area that falls, either partially or entirely , within that segment was calculated using ArcMap IO GIS software (ESRI, 2011). The equivalent proportion of university's employment was then assigned to that segment. To estimate the percentage of employees for the Columbia School District within the safety-related area, the distance/direction section for each school was noted , and the number of employees at each school was estimated using teacher-to-student and administrator-to-student ratios provided by the Missouri Department of Education (MDE , 2013). The University Hospital and Clinics operates several facilities within the safety-related area. The majority of facilities are located near MU in one distance/direction section; however, the Women's and Children's Hospital is separate from these facilities.

The number of licensed rooms that are managed by the University Hospital and Clinics was used to estimate the proportion of employees at the Women's and Children's Hospital (DHSS, 2013). For the population estimate for the U.S. Postal Service and Boone County National Bank, the total number of employees was divided by the total number of branches in Boone County and then assigned to the appropriate branches within the safety-related area. Table 2-4 lists the schools identified within 8.0 km (5 mi) of the proposed site, the directional sector and distance band within which each school is located , and the best available estimate of the tota l number of students at that location.

MU is located in severa l of the distance/direction sections.

For the enrollment estimate , the percentage of the university's area that falls , either partially or entirely, within that segment was calculated using ArcMap 10 GIS software (ESRI, 2011). The equivalent proportion of university's enrollment was then assigned to that segment. Tab l e 2-4. Schools (2 pages) Distance Facility Directional sector band (km) Enrollment Fr. Tolton Catho l ic High School (2013) WSW 1 to 2 233 New Haven NW 1to2 329 Bryan University NW 2 to 4 331 Cedar Ridge N 2 to 4 196 William Woods University NW 2 to 4 1 , 036 Christian Chapel Academy WNW 4 to 6 153 Columbia Career Center w 4 to 6 43 Country Day School WSW 4 to 6 150 Gentry Middle School w 4 to 6 787 Rock Bridge WSW 4 to 6 524 Rock Bridge High School w 4 to 6 1,820 Sheppard Boulevard NNW 4 to 6 504 University of Missouri a NW 4 to 6 12 , 731 University of Missouri a WNW 4 to 6 2,458 University of Missouri a NNW 4 to 6 8 B enton NNW 6 to 8 244 Chi l dren's House of Columbia NW 6 to 8 80 Columbia College NW 6 to 8 2,614 Co l umbia Independent NW 6 to 8 230 Columbia In d ependent School NW 6 to 8 11 7 Douglass High School NW 6 to 8 144 Fie l d NNW 6 to 8 257 2-22 Table 2-4. Schools (2 pages) NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Distance Facility Directional sector band (km) Enrollment Grant NW 6 to 8 3 04 Islamic School of Columbia NW 6 to 8 54 Jeffer s on Junior Hi g h N W 6 to 8 8 12 Lee NW 6 to 8 305 St e phens College NNW 6 to 8 1 , 0 2 9 Stephens College Children's School NNW 6 to 8 93 Uni v er s i ty of Mi s sour i 3 NW 6 to 8 13 , 1 8 0 University of Missouri a WNW 6 to 8 6 , 368 Total 46,751 So ur ces: CHM, 2 01 3; Co lumbi a Co ll ege , 2 01 3; I SC M , 2 01 3; MO E , 2 01 3; Movoto , 2 01 3; MU, 2 01 3; NCES, 2 01 3; New A m e ri ca Fo und at ion , 2 01 3; Sc ho o l Di gge r , 2 01 3; a nd US Ne w s, 20 1 3. a T h e tota l U ni ve r s i ty of Mi sso uri e nrollm e nt (34 , 748) i s p ro p ort i o n al t o the a r e a of the U ni ve r s i ty of M i sso uri th at l ies wi t hi n th e di stance/dir ection sector b ase d o n th e area. Ta ble 2-5 li s ts the m e di c al facilitie s (ho s pital s and nur s in g hom es) identifi e d w ithin 8 km (5.0 mi) o f th e propo s ed RPF s ite , the dir e ctional s ector and di s tance band within w hich each fa cilit y i s located , and th e best available e stimate o f the tot a l in-pati e nt c a p a city (number of licens e d bed s) a t that location. M e dical facilities that do not ha v e licens e d beds (out-patient facilitie s) for patients to re s ide for more than on e d ay w ere not included in th e tran s ient population es timate becau s e visitations for th es e facilities are temporar y (le ss than 8 hr/da y). Ta b le 2-5. Medical Facility Le noir Man o r Tiger Place Facility L enoir Health Care Center The Bluffs C olumbia Manor Care Bluff Creek Terrace Nei g hborhoods Rehabilitation and Skilled Nur s in g Boone Hospital Center L andmark Hospital University Hospital and Clinics Women's and Children's Ho s pital 3 Daybreak Residential Treatment Center Harambee Hou s e , Inc. Columbia Healthcare Center Harr y S Truman Memorial Veterans Directional sector WNW NW NW NW WNW NW NW NNW NNW NW N NW NW NNW NW lt!r'11 1to 2 2 to 4 2 to 4 2 to 4 2 to 4 2 to 4 2 to 4 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 Licensed beds 84 112 12 2 132 5 2 52 120 400 4 2 383 190 14 15 97 126 So ur ce: DH SS , 2 01 3 , " DH SS C ommun ity D a t a P rofi l es -H os p ital R eve nu es fro m 2 01 0-20 1 2," http://hea lth.m o.gov/d a t a/Co mmuni ty D a t aP rofil es/ind ex.h tm l , Mi sso u r i D e p a rtm e nt of H ea lth & Se ni o r Services, J e ff erson City , Mi sso uri , accesse d Se pt e mb er 5 , 20 1 3. a In 2 010 , Co lumbi a R eg i o n al H os pi tal b ec am e W ome n's an d C hild re n's H os p ita l. 2-23 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics T able 2-6 li s ts lodging facilities (hotels and motels) identified within 8 km (5.0 mi) of the proposed site , the directional sector and distance band within which each facilit y is located , and the best a v ailable estimate of the lodging capacity (number of rooms) at that location.

Facility Courtyard by Marriott Hampton Inn & Suites Table 2-6. Lodging Facilities Directional sector NW NW Stoney Creek Inn & Conference C enter WNW Candlewood Suites N Baymont Inn & Suite s N Country Inn & Suites N Fairfield Inn & Suite s N Hampton Inn N Holida y Inn E ast NNE Ramada Inn & Suites NNW Residence Inn N Staybridge N Sup e r 8 N Super 8 East NNE The Gathering Place NW The Tiger Hotel NW Universit y Ave Bed & Breakfa s t NW Wingate N Source s: Distance band (km) 2 to 4 4 to 6 4 to 6 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 6 to 8 C olumbia Conv e nt io n a nd Vi s it o r s Bur ea u , 2013 , " Wh e r e to s t ay-Hot e l s , Inn s, a nd M o t e l s," http://www.v i s itcolumbi a m o.com/s e c t ion/s t ay/, Co lumbia , Mi sso uri, a c ce s se d Se pt e mb e r 9 , 20 1 3. Room 125 134 181 81 65 85 91 120 1 2 6 89 80 82 75 56 5 62 4 81 Cve nt , 2 01 3 , " Hot e l s n e ar Columbi a MO ," http://www.c ve n t.co m/RFP Ne nu es.as p x?i s t=6&m a= 9 7&cs n=l &vtt=l #p age-6&s o-l , Cve nt S uppli e r Ne twork , Tyso ns C om e r , V i rg inia , a c cesse d Se pt e mb er 9 , 2 01 3. The estimates provided in Table 2-7 represent the total number o f people expected to be at each facility for an y part of the da y, with no consideration of the length oftime they are likely to be there. The anticipated growth of Discovery Ridge may be underestimated u s ing the abo v e methodology.

De v elopers a re planning for an additional 1 , 000 emplo y ee s supporting research at the park over the next 20 y ears (MMRPC , 2015). To account for thi s potential grow , an additional 30 new transient personnel are as s umed to be emplo y ed near Di s covery Ridge each y ear starting in 2020. This increase i s spread equall y between sectors over the estimating period. To more accuratel y represent the transient population around the proposed s ite , the values in Tabl e 2-7 were weighted according to the length oftime people could be e x pected to sta y at each facility , as s uming typical use patterns for that type of facility.

The estimates for employers and schools were multiplied b y a we i ghting factor of 0.27 , which assumes that each emplo y ee or student is present at the facility 9 hr/da y, 5 days/week. The estimates for medical facilities were multiplied b y a weighting factor that was determined by the specific use. For hospitals/clinics , the known occupation rate for each facility was multiplied by the number oflicensed beds , which assumes at any one time a percentage of the beds are in use (DHSS , 2013). 2-24 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Nursing homes were not multiplied by any weighting factor, effectively assuming that each available room is occupied 24 hr/day and 7 days/week. The estimates for lodging facilities in the city of Columbia were multiplied by the average occupancy rate (60 percent) (Reed, 2010). Table 2-7. Weighted Transient Popu l ation Estimates by Source Distance band (km) Major employersa Schoolsa Medical facilities (hospitals and assisted living) Lodging (hotels and motels) Totals 0 -1 162 0 0 0 162 l -2 45 152 84 0 281 2-4 722 423 590 75 1,810 4-6 1,260 5,184 0 189 6 , 633 6-8 4,011 6,982 804 661 12 ,458 0-8 (Total) 6,2 0 0 12,741 1,478 925 21,344

• Up d ated to include new employers and sc h ools as of Jun e 2017. The weighted 2010 transient population estimates calculated for each type of facility in each distance band area summarized in Table 2-7. Figure 2-15 shows the weighted 2010 transient population e sti mates divided into the distance/direction segments.

Using the same population projection methodologies used for resident populations , the 2010 transient population estimates within the distance bands and directional sectors were extrapolated to the years 2014, 2015, 2019, 2020, 2045 , and 2050. Table 2-8 shows the total projected transient population for these years within the distance bands , and Figure 2-15 through Figure 2-21 show the population projections for these years divided into the distance/direction segments.

Table 2-8. Total Project Transient Population 2010 94 207 1 , 807 6,633 12 , 452 21,193 2014 100 395 1,912 7,033 13 ,2 07 22, 6 47 2015 101 397 1 ,9 44 7 , 140 13,406 22,988 2019 107 486 2,060 7,566 14,210 24,429 2020 117 494 2,091 7,680 14,424 24,798 2045 341 657 2,562 9 , 426 17,669 30,447 2050 391 714 2 , 755 10 , 125 18 ,995 32,732

• Include s Fr. Tolton Catho l ic High School and the Ce ntr a l Re g i o nal Conservation Office start in g in 20 1 3. b Includ es Discovery Office Park s tarting in 20 1 6. c Includes e mplo yment growt h a t Discovery Ridg e R esearc h Park s tartin g 2020. 2-25

---

---

* ----w Location Map

• ML m r I Transien t Population Distribution

-2010 Popula6on

• tilt alu v. i.Ml.-1 in ii>> 6silnc

  . dit11Cionlll

IP9 erus F i g ure 2-1 5. s 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -S i te Characteristics 0 E Proposed Loc a tion C:=> 1 Km from site C:=> 2 km from site 4 Km from site 6 Km from site C:=> 8 Km from site 1*o*c**-===**11:==:::J1 Miles Directional Sectors Incorpor ated Area Tran s i e nt Population Di s tribution

-2010 2-26

... NWM I ...**... * * *

• NOllTNWHl llEDtCAl ISOTort: S Loca ti on Map

• J II I l\t I., Oll I I } Tr a nsi e nt Population Distribution

-2014 Popuia DOii *SLlll iUU .,. RM/..J., ti>> tiJ.saN>> OtKDOllal

""9 *ms NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Proposed Loc a tion C::) 1 km from site C::) 2 km from site 4 km from site 6 km from site C::) 8 km from s it e 0 0.5 1 5 *m::i*c:**-=

==**-==:::J' M i l e s 2 3 4 Directio na l Sectors Incorpor a ted Area Figure 2-16. Transient Population Distribution

-2014 2-27 Location Map ILIR [,

• 1\1 l t;O I I Transient Population Distribution

-2015 P a pu l da n Hi.a*Jts ue t.MIHS .. u. disra nt>>dl_,.,,, 1111 :11P9mMIS NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Proposed Location C=> 1 km from site C=> 2 km from site 4 km from site -0 0.5 1 5 **o*-=***===-**c:=::J I Miles 2 3 4 6 km from site C=> 8 km from site Directional Sectors Incorporated Area F igure 2-17. Transient Population Di s tribution

-2015 2-28 Location Map

• Tr a nsient Population Distribution

-2019 Poplbficn

• s11uiPs MP lal>>l..S nit>> disran<>>dirwctonlll Fi g ure 2-18. NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Proposed Location C=> 1 km from site C=> 2 km from site 4 km from site 6 km from s it e C=> 8 km from site 0 0.5 1 5 **o*-=**-=

==**-====i i M il es 2 3 4 Directional Sectors Incorporated Area Transient Population Di s tribution

-2019 2-29 Location Map 1\1 1 <, Ol l I

• J ti r " C l y Transient Population D i st ri but i on -2020 PopAaion a.. i.1>>/<<J 1111>> dlsanc.dirK"°"a/

'"9 *ms NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics P r oposed Location c::) 1 km from s it e c::) 2 km from site 4 km from site 6 km from s i te c::) 8 km f r om s i te 5 **o*-=***===-**c==:J1 M il es 3 0 0.5 1 2 4 D ir ect i ona l Sectors I ncorporated Area Figure 2-19. Transient Population Distribution

-2020 2-30 Location Map '-lum 1..1

• J t11 Qft l\f l'-!.OU I t) Transient Population Distribution

-2045 Popuhion Nl1HR$.,.

JI) the 3IPg Mis Figure 2-20. + -NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Proposed Location C::::> 1 km from site C::::> 2 l<m from site 4 l<m from site 6 l<m from site C::::> 8 km from site 0 0.5 1 5 **o*c:**-=

==**-===i1M i l es 3 2 4 Directional Sectors Incorporated A re a Transient Population Distribution

-2045 2-31 L oca tion Ma p

• J !IL f* CJ I M l . o*t I 1ty Transient Population D i stribution

-2050 Popua ion *srn U$ v. ., II>> disanc. do 1Kion al !!1'91ftPni:s NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics s + -5 *m:::::i*c**-=

==**-==:=J r Miles 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 I k (.) E Proposed Location 1 km from site 2 km from site 4 km from site -6 km from site 8 km from site Directional Sectors Incorporated Area Figure 2-21. Transient Population Distribution

-2050 2-32

2.1.3 Combined

Resident and Transient Population NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics The estimated 2010 and projected future resident and transient population values were summed to obtain an indication of the effective total population around the project site. Table 2-9 summarizes the combined resident and transient population values for all the years within the distance bands, and Figure 2-22 through Figure 2-28 show that combined populations for all years divided into the distance/directional segments. Table 2-9. Combined Resident and Transient Population 2010 299 2 , 069 8 , 877 23 , 553 33 , 968 68,766 2014 318 2,367 9,402 24,969 36,008 7 3, 0 64 2015 322 2 , 401 9 , 552 2 5 , 345 36,549 74,169 2019 341 2,610 10,122 26,862 38,740 78,675 2020 355 2 , 650 10 , 275 2 7 , 265 39 , 321 79,858 2045 632 3,282 12,553 33,374 48,097 97,73 0 2050 704 3 , 534 13 , 482 35 , 853 51,679 105,004 2-33 L Location Map M l '.() I I " 1umli

• J llr-on -*t y Combined Popul at ion Distribution

-2010 P,,,,.,,.

iion uril us .,.. H ,.11>> cisa"""' d11wciionill OIOglUnis Figure 2-22. NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chap t er 2.0 -Site Character i stics Proposed Location C) 1 km from site C) 2 km from site 4 km from site -6 km from site 0 0.5 1 5 *m:::i*c**-=

==**-==:=J' Miles 2 3 4 C) 8 km from site Directional Sectors Incorporated Are a Combined Population Di s tribution

-2010 2-34 1\1 1 Location Map Oll l -*I Ulll.&.J

• J lkr *1 r y Co m bined Populat i on Distribution

-2014 PopiMfon e sf*H R 3 .w i.Ml..S ii the dimrn>>dir.cfioniil Sii<) *nb NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 0 0.5 1 5 **o*c**-===**-====:J' M il es 2 3 4 P r oposed Location C) 1 km f r om site C) 2 km from si t e 4 km from site -6 km from site C) 8 km from site Directional Sectors Incorporated A r ea F igur e 2-23. Combined Population Di s tribution

-2014 2-35 Location Map

• M l tH I I Combined Population Distribution

-2015 Popatlan *stiulfs.,.,

.. m. dista111>>di,...,_,al .g uil:s NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -S i te Cha r acteristics 1 l ' 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 1*o*c**-===**-==::::J1 Miles Proposed Loc a tion C::> 1 l<m from site C::> 2 km from site 4 l<m from site 6 l<m from site C::> 8 km from site Directional Sectors Incorporated Area F igure 2-24. Combined Population Distribution

-2015 2-36 Location Map _.,, b

• J fl I Q I M l . tUI I Combined Popul a t i on Distribut i on -2019 P opu l uon e sln;a 1 u an w..l..t .,II>>

>>g e nls + ' ' ' NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -S i te Characteristics P ro posed L oca ti on C:> 1 km f r om site C:> 2 km f r om site 4 km f r om s it e 6 km f r om s it e C:> 8 km from site 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 D i rectiona l Sectors I ncorporated A r ea **o*c:**-=

==**-==::::::i i Miles Figure 2-25. Combined Population Distribution -2 019 2-37 Location Map

• M l I; Ill I Combined Popul a t i on D i stribution

-2020 ,,,,,,..ton Nllll**s ar.1"1>>/ed n rl>> dlsfan<>>di_.,,,ill *nis F igure 2-26. NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chap t er 2.0 -S i te Character i stics 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5

• • o*c:**-=

==***=:::J 1 Miles P r oposed Locat i on C) 1 km from site C) 2 km f rom site 4 km f r om site 6 km from site C) 8 km from site Di r ec ti ona l Sectors I ncorporated A r ea Combined Population Di s tribution

-2020 2-38 Location Map M l I -*I it..

• J I I I C*ll t y Combined Population Distribution

-2045 P.,,,.ai:!n utin*s-tM <islan<>>di11Cicnal 319

• IS NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 0 0.5 1 5 **o*-=**-=

==**-===:::Ji Miles 3 2 4 (. Proposed Location C:=:> 1 km from site C:=:> 2 km from site 4 km from site -6 km from site C:=:> 8 km from site Directional Sectors Incorporated Area Figure 2-27. Combined Population Distribution

-2045 2-39 Location Map _... 1lo

• J II I l\t I u.i I Combined Popul a tion Distribution

-2050 u tn H?s aie lill>>l..t., lhP di3ilnc>> o-mltl "'9 m*ms Figure 2-28. NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 1*o*c**-===**-===::J 1 Miles P r oposed Loc a tion C:> 1 km f r om site C:> 2 km f r om site 4 km from site 6 km from site C:> 8 km from site Di r ectional Sectors Incorporated Area Combined Population Distribution

-2050 2-40 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics

2.2 NEARBY

INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES This section identifies and evaluates present and projected future industrial , transportation, and military installations and operations in the area within 8 km (5 mi) of the RPF site. In addition, facilities and activities at a greater distance than 8 km (5 mi) are also considered as appropriate to their significance.

2.2.1 Location

and Routes Access to the proposed RPF site is from Discovery Ridge Drive. The site is situa ted in central Missouri, app roximatel y 201 km (125 mi) east of Kansa s City and 201 km (125 mi) west of St. Louis. The site is 7.2 km (4.5 mi) south of U.S. Interstate 70 , just north of U.S. Highway 63. The Missouri River lie s 15.3 km (9.5 mi) west of the site. The site is located 5.6 km (3.5 mi) southeast of the main MU campus. An investigation of industrial , transportation and militar y facilities within 5 mi (8 km) of the proposed site was performed.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Envirofacts Database was initially used to identify potential facilities within 8 km (5 mi). The Missouri Emergency Management Agency supplied Tier II chemical inventory report s for all of the facilities in Boone County. The following facilities were identified for further evaluation. Industrial Facilities

• Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories , Inc.

• Radii Discovery Ridge

• Gates Power Transmissions Materials Center

• MU South Farm

• MU Woman's and Children's Hospital

• Ryder Transportation

• Truegreen

• Schwan's Home Service

• Petro Mart #44 Pipelines

• Southern Star Central Gas Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline

• Magellan Pipeline Company Non-HL V product Hazardous Pipeline

• Magellan Pipeline Company Liquid Hazardous Pipeline

• Ameren Natural Gas Transmission Pipelin e #1

• Ameren Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline #2 Fuel Storage Facilities

• Magellan Pipeline Company Breakout Tank Mining and Quarrying Operations None Transportation Routes/Facilities

• Air State University Ho s pital s and Clinics Heliport University of Missouri Heliport Boone Hospital Center Heliport

• Land U.S. Highway 63 U.S. Interstate 70 State Route 16 3 State Route 740 State Route 763

• Waterwa ys -None

• Railroad s -COLT Transload Military Bases

• None Figure 2-29 shows the location of the transportation and industrial facilities id e ntified within 8 km (5 mi) of the proposed RPF site. 2-41 Ir ----........;

RPf Sttt Q S km (S mild lla&bm from RPf tt< -b>tmt** lil1b*"2>*

--liJsb*'>'S

==

Jtouin Cn>lmull City Mak !Wu . "*cal for.., Loudon

1. / lndmtnol f*cihbn

,' *' 1' * -Allolyacol Boocban111n l>bonzonn

• Gaes l'l>*w TniD.,,, .. Olls C<n1tt 8 So .. bram * * \\°c"21tn-. md Clildtcn-.

Kospit>l Hdipons -COLT Tr ... ilud Rnood NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics I . . -j .

• i I * ' Jb.cln TnnspoNDOD S<n-.ces oOS SS A 8 Sclr.-.n s Homt Str'1<< .-\mc:rm !Sllllnll Gu TniDlllUJaoo Pipehnt *I ,-.-\mtrm X--.1 G"' Tr*'tmisaon Piptlint-i

,-Southm1 Sta Callnl Gu Piptlint h>< JS*uul G., Tr:m-..aon Pipclme "" tllaa Piprlmt Comp* l1<1vid liu*dous l'lpdtot M*gdl* Pipdmt Compaav Xoo*H\'l Prodoc:t lb:adoos P,pdtot

• l'lpdmt Compaa' B<*>koat t>ot 0 05 2 3 4 m.:::li.::::::..

.... ..C:=:=:=:.. ..... ..ues Figure 2-29. Industrial and Transportation within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site 2-42 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics An investigation of industrial, military , and transportation facilities from 8 km to 16 km was also conducted and identified the following transportation facilities for further evaluation.

Figure 2-30 shows the airports , jet routes, and airway routes within 16 km (10 mi) of the proposed RPF site. Industrial Facilities

• 3M Company -Columbia

• AT&T , Inc.

• Columbia Municipal Power

• MPC #93 Major Waterways

• Missouri River Pipelines

• Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline 2.2.1.1 Future Facilities Airports

• Sugar Branch Airport

• Cedar Creek Airport

• Columbia Regional Airport Fuel Storage Facilities

• Midway Auto Truck plaza

• Ballenger Propane , Inc.

• Ferrellgas A review was conducted to identify potential future facilities and transportation routes (e.g., industrial growth) that if established or constructed , could have an adverse effect on the RPF. These future facilities

/routes were identified through several sources. The initial lists of local projects were identified using the City of Columbia comprehensive land use plan (City of Columbia , 2013). State and county planning documents were also reviewed, and potential projects were discussed with Regional Economic Development , Inc., to identify potential private facilities. The majority of projects identified in the City of Columbia comprehensive land use plan are infrastructure-type projects of a nature that would exclude potential accidents that could affect the RPF. Two new projects were identified that may be constructed near the Discovery Ridge , including:

• Global PET Imaging Facility -The proposed facility is being designed and constructed to process rubidium-82 (82 Rb) using a 70-million electron volt (MeV) cyclotron. This facility, along with any other potential facilities that might be constructed within the Discovery Ridge, are assumed to be similar in nature to the existing facilities and RFP with similar potential hazards. As such , accidents associated with future facilities are assumed to be similar to those currently at Discovery Ridge and are bounded within the current accident analysis. Odles' Discovery Park (residential/commercial development)

-Proposed development would be located approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) west of Discovery Ridge. The development is currently planned as a housing development intermixed with commercial shops and businesses.

These commercial facilities are not anticipated to store large quantities of hazardous or flammable materials and would not likely pose a hazard to the RPF. 2-43 Ufs .. 16 km (10 ... , 1,.., RPf Slit

--Hr ..... --=:: SUit a..... Mttlo1.111 RLIW"* ::;J Cll'\*l***

....... r..-** LoullooM1.p City NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics ( ,* I Ced* Aicpon *. s:.s-r. .. .... * .,. / 1aiiDm..alf*tllbt.

FecUyS*t 0 1.1c-_. c.-. +A?.u .<<.: *-

E r-.i..'

• b411 -Aaa "

...,..,.., +c.c ....

....... ri.1 .0.. , .. 'flt....-.....

Nit C:..-c * ).f'C.,J RWet tn..,_...

S..mcu *0,,,A e s-*. -.s.mco .... r.,. .. , ... '*'-' , ..... FtcU-,*S*t 0 ., * ..._, ...

• FllllUO.U 0 . Ww-oy.U TN<tPlm >.a<<n ",. Aai<<a s-al Oaa Tr*-* ... Plpd1M-.l .. rl.MI 1-pcf*C. s .. 110.n.-.... wc..-a1oaP1pd1MJKS-atOa1T,__, ... Plp41M* ->.bcdl*"pd*'C

.. p*YL .... Ka: ..........

• Maodl*fl ... l<ooH\1. ___ __

• M.,tl* 1'pdtM c..,*t *eat .. TMl' 0 1 25 25 5 7 5 10 .. c::mm c=:::.. ...... IC=======:ii ........ Miles Figure 2-30. Industrial and Transportation within 16 km (10 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site Descriptions 2-44 2.2.1.2 Industrial Facilities NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Descriptions of the industrial and transportation facilities identified within the 8 km (5-mi) radius of the RPF are provided below. For those facilities identified for future investigation, the Tier II reports were evaluated to determine ifthe facility used or stored large amounts of hazardous materials that could have a potential impact on the RPF. Of the facilities identified in Figure 2-29, Table 2-10 provides a description of those facilities that we re identified as having potentially hazardous materials onsite that could potentially affect the RPF. Table 2-10 provides a listing of these facilities , including their primary functions and major products, and the hazardous material s onsite. A detailed analysis was conducted of the potential accidents at these facilities and potential hazards and impacts to the proposed RPF. Table 2-10. Significant Industrial Facilities within 16 km (10 mi) of the Ra d ioisotope Production Facility Site Facility Product km mi Direction Hazardous material Gates Power Vehicle and 2.4 1.5 Northwest . [Proprietary Information]

Transmissions Materials machinery . [Proprietary Inform ation] Center drive belts MU South Farm Agriculture

1.6 Northwest

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

Ryder Transportation Rental trucks 2.4 1.5 South . [Proprietary Information]

3M Company Electronic 12.9 8 North . [Proprietary Information]

components Schwan's Home Service Food service 6.8 2.4 South . [Proprietary Information]

MU = Unive r sity of Missouri.

RPF Radioisotope Production Facility 2.2.1.3 Transportation Routes U.S. Highway 63 runs approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) south of the RPF site. U.S. Highway 63 proceeds north and intersects U.S. Interstate 70 approximately 7.64 km (4.75 mi) to the north. U.S. Highway 63 continues to Jefferson City , Missouri, approximately 50 km (31 mi) to the south. Other highwa ys within th e 8 km (5-mi) radius of the proposed RPF site include State Highway 63 that intersect s U.S. Highway 63 3.2 km (2 mi) south of the RPF and route s north approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) west of the RPF. State Highway 740 intersect s U.S. Highway 63 approximately 3.7 km (2.3 mi) north of t h e RPF , and routes west. State Highway 763 intersect s State Highway 740 5.3 km (3.3 mi) north of the RPF and routes north to U.S. Interstate

70. Information is not available about the materials transported on the roads in the vicinity of RPF site. To better understand the materials that could be transported over these roads, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III , Tier II reports for industrial facilities within 8 km (5 mi.) of the RPF site were consulted.

The Missouri's Commercial Vehicle Regulations (MoDOT, 2013) pro vi ded the maximum gross vehicle weight of 36,290 kilogram (kg) (80,000 pounds [lb]). Using the assumption that an average truck and tr a iler combination weighs 13 , 600 kg (30,000 lb), the allowable weight that a truck could carry on the highways would be 22,690 kg (50 , 000 lb). 2-45 For ana l ysis, all materials were assumed to travel on State Highway 63 , 0.4 km (.25 mi) south of the RPF. Table 2-11 summarizes the chemicals and anticipated amounts that are present at the industrial facilities that could pose a hazard when transported.

2.2.1.4 Pipelines Several natural gas distribution pipelines are located within 8 km (5 mi) of the proposed RPF site , as depicted in Figure 2-29. Available information about these pipelines is included in Table 2-12. Ameren Missouri operates a natural gas transmission line approximately 6.4 km ( 4 mi) and a pipeline installed in 2016 approximately 0.64 km (0.4 mi) north of the proposed RPF site. Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline , Inc. operates a natural g as transmission pipeline located approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) south of the proposed site. Magellan Midstream Partners , LP operates two pipelines within 8 km (5 mi) of the site, including a pipe l ine 2.4 km (1.5 mi) to the north , which carries refined petroleum products.

The company also maintains a recently reopened l ine approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) south of the proposed RPF site. NW M l-20 1 3-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Table 2-11. Hazardous Chemica l Potentially Transported on Highways w i thin an 8 km (5-mi) Radi u s of the Radioisotope Production Facility Ammonia 22 , 680 50,000 Ammonium nitrate 22,680 50,000 Chlorine 408 900 Diesel 22,680 50,000 Gasoline 22 , 680 50 , 000 Glycol ether PM 22,680 50,000 Hydrofluorosilicic acid 22 , 680 50 , 000 Hydrogen 1,497 3,300 JP-4 aviation fuel 22 , 680 50 , 000 Methyl ethyl ketone 22,680 50,000 Oil 22 , 680 50 , 000 Pentaerythritol distearate 22,680 50,000 Petroleum naphtha 22 , 680 50 , 000 Propane 22,680 50,000 Sulfur dioxide 22 , 680 50 , 000 Toluene (32-8413) 22,680 50,000 Zetpol (all types) 22 , 680 50 , 000 Table 2-12. Major Pipelines Located within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Prod u ction Facility Site l1fo!,,t§i§M Pressure (max) Distance from RPF Pipeline company Product ***'"*--------

Ameren Missouri Ameren Missouri Natural gas (# 1) [Proprietary Information]

North Natural gas (#2) Southern Star Central Natural gas Gas Pipeline, Inc. Magellan Midstream Partners, LP Magellan Midstream Partners , LP Refined petroleum Refined petroleum RPF = Radioi s otope Production Facility. 2.2.1.5 Fue l Storage [Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

North South North South/east Two major fuel storage facilities are located within the 8 km (5-mi) radius of the proposed RPF site , and include the Magellan Pipeline Company Breakout Tank and the Ferrellgas facility. Information of each of these facilities is provided in Table 2-13. 2-46 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Table 2-13. Major Storage Facilities Located within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site Volume Storage facility Product (gal) km mi Direction Magellan Pipeline Company Breakout Tanks Ferrellgas

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

RPF Radioisotope Production Facility. 2.2.2 Air Traffic 2.2.2.1 Airports [Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

1.6 Southeast

8 5 North There are three airports and three helicopter ports located within 16 km (10 mi) of the proposed RPF site. The three airports include: * *

• Columbia Regional Airport (COU) (public) located approximately 10.4 km (6.5 mi) south of the RPF site Cedar Creek Airport (private) located approximately 10.6 km (6.6 mi) northeast of the RPF site Sugar Branch Airport (private) located approximately 15.6 km (9.7 mi) northwest of the RPF site These airports are identified in Figure 2-30 (Section 2.2.1.1 ). The nearest airport to the RPF is COU, which is used by commercial and privately owned aircraft. The airport is situated on approximately 0.53 ha ( 1 , 314 acres) and is owned and operated by the City of Columbia.

This airport is the only public use airport located in Boone County , Missouri , for which records are kept. For January through December 2016 , the airport had 21,894 (22,439 , including overflights) aircraft operations (Parks , 2017a), including:

• * *

• 67.6 percent general aviation 17. 7 percent air taxi 9.3 percent military 4.8 percent air carrier Cedar Creek airport is a private, turf landing strip approximately 10.6 km (6.6 mi) northeast of the RPF site. The facility houses two private single engine aircraft.

The specific number of flights to and from the facility is not available. T he Sugar Branch airport is a private, turf landing strip approximately 15.6 km (9.7 mi) northwest of the RPF site. The facility houses one single engine aircraft.

The specific number of flights to and from the facility are not available. Three helicopter ports are located within 16 km (10 mi) of the RPF site and support hospital operations , including:

• University of Missouri heliport located 6 km (3.7 mi) northwest Boone Hospital Center heliport located 6.3 km (3.9 mi) northwest For calendar year 2016 (January through December), the heliports have a total of 654 flights annually , as follows: *

• University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics -308 flights (Jones , 2017) Boone Hospital Center heliport-346 flights (Eidson, 2017) 2-47 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Based on NUREG-153 7, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Power Reactors -Format and Content, sites located between 8 km (5 mi) and 16 km (10 mi) from an existing or projected commercial or military airport with more than approximately 200 d 2 (where dis the distance in kilometers from the airport to the RPF site) commercial or military aircraft movements per year, the probability of aircraft accidents is considered less than an order of magnitude of 10-7 per year. The number of operations at the Cedar Creek and Sugar Branch airports are not available.

However , daily operations were assumed based on the aircraft housed, including two operations per day from Cedar Creek (730 operations

/year) and one operation per day from Sugar Branch (365 operations

/year). Based on the results presented in Table 2-14, all three airports are under the 200 d 2 limits. Airport Columbia Regional Airport Cedar Creek Sugar Branch Table 2-14. 200 D 2 Limits Distance km (mi) 10.4 (6.5 mi) 10.6 (6.6 mi) 15.6 (9.7 mi) Flights per year 21,894 730 365 a d is the distance in kilometers fro m the airport to the RPF site (200 x di stance s quar ed). RPF = radioisotope production facility.

200 d 2 limitsa 21,632 22,472 48 , 672 Based on this requirement, COU needs to be further eva luat ed. The guidance a l so requires that special consideration be given to facilities sited within the trajectory of a runway of any airport. The RPF site is not located within a trajectory of a runwa y of the airport. NUREG-0800, Standard Re view Plan for the Revi ew of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclea r Pow e r Plants , Section 3.5.1.6, provides a methodology for determining the probability of an aircraft crash into a facility from airports.

The probability of an aircraft crashing into the RPF site is estimated using the following equation.

Where: L M Pa= LL c 1 NiJAJ i=l }=1 M Number of different types of aircraft using the airport L Number of flight trajectories affecting the airport Ci Probability per square mile of a crash per aircraft movement for the j th aircraft Ni Number (per year) of operations by the jth aircraft along the it h flight path A i Effective area (in square miles) for the jth aircraft The different aircraft using COU include those categorized as air carrier, air taxi, military, and general aviation.

Military aircraft are further divided into large (bombers , cargo aircraft , and tankers) and small (fighters, attack aircraft, and trainers).

The effective area for each aircraft associated with the RPF was calculated in EDF-3124-0015, Evaluation of Aircraft Hazards. Because the probability per square mile of a crash per aircraft movement (Ci) is not available in NUREG-0800, for most aircraft at distances greater than 5 mi , the probability was calculated using DOE-STD-3014-2006 , Acc ident Analysis for Airc raft Crash into Hazardous Facilities.

2-48 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics This methodology uses the orthonormal distance from the RPF measured as the closest point to the center of each runway at COU [f(x,y)].

The aircraft crash probability is obtained from Tables B-2 through B-13 of DOE-STD-3014-2006.

If the orthonormal distance is outside the boundaries of the tables , the f(x , y) is assumed to be zero. For military aircraft, the "pattern" side of the runways needs to be identified.

For COU , the pattern side is left (AirNav, 2017). Table 2-15 provides the orthonormal coordinates for each runway. Table 2-15. Orthonormal Coordinates for Columbia Regional Airport Runways to the Radioisotope Production Facility Runway Distance (mi) Bearing to RFP Runway bearing 20 6.69 333.17 133.17 2.27945 6.28969 2 6.69 329.23 309.23 -1.43955 6.53328 13 6.32 329.23 199.23 1.63167 6.10574 31 6.32 329.23 19.23 -5.86812 2.34682 RPF radioisotope production facility. Because the exact number of landings and takeoffs is not known for each aircraft, half of the operations are considered to be takeoff and halflandings.

This is conservative because total operations include activities such as an aircraft contacting the tower for a change of vector. In addition , the City of Columbia has an annual airshow on Memorial weekend , this activity is included in the Columbia Regional Airport annual flights per year. COU has two runways: 13-31 and 2-20. It is assumed that 95 percent of all aircraft currently use runway 2-20 because runway 13-31 is a crosswind runway. In addition, large aircraft currently cannot use runway 13-31. COU is currently expanding and upgrading the airport, and by 2019 , runway 13-31 will be usable for large aircraft.

The number of operations per year was distributed between the two runways by this percentage.

Probabilities of a crash for each aircraft was calculated for each bearing associated with each runway (130 , 310 , 200 , and 20). The probability crash rates for each type of aircraft category is obtained from DOE-STD-3014-2006 , Table B-1. The impact frequency is then calculated by multiplying the f(x , y) value by the crash rate and affective area. Table 2-16 provides the results. Table 2-16. Probability of Crashes from Airport Operations (2 pages) Runway/Type of operations

• 11111111 II . 20 General aviation takeoff 7 , 025 -2.27945 6.289691 0 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+OO General aviation landing 7,025 -2.27945 6.289691 0 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+OO Commercial air carrier takeoff 503 -2.27945 6.289691 0 4.00E-07 0.018606226 O.OO E+OO Commercial air carrier landing 503 -2.27945 6.289691 0 4.00E-07 0.018606226 O.OOE+OO Air taxis takeoff 1 , 839 -2.27945 6.289691 0 1.00E-06 0.015346798 O.OOE+OO Air Taxis landing 1,839 -2.27945 6.289691 0 l.OOE-06 0.015346798 O.OOE+OO Military large takeoff 760 -2.27945 6.289691 0 2.00E-07 0.020269746 O.OOE+OO Military large landing 760 -2.27945 6.289691 2.90E-03 2.00E-07 0.020269746 8.93E-09 2-4 9 Table 2-16. Runway/Type of operations 2 General aviation takeoff General aviation landin g Commercial air carrier takeoff Co mmerci al air carrier landing Air taxis takeoff Air Taxis landing Military large takeoff Military lar ge landing 13 Genera l aviation takeoff General aviation landing Co mmercial air carrier takeoff Commercial air carrier landing Air taxis takeoff Air Taxis landing Military lar ge takeoff Military large landing 31 General aviation takeoff General aviation landing Commercial air carrier takeoff Commercial air carrier landing Air taxis takeoff Air Taxis landing Military large takeoff Military large landing NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characterist i cs Probability of Crashes from Airport Operations (2 pages) *11111111 Ill . 7,025 -1.43956 6.5332 82 0 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+OO 7 , 025 -1.4 3956 6.533282 0 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OO E+OO 503 -1.43956 6.533282 0 4.00E-07 0.018606226 O.OOE+OO 503 -1.43956 6.533282 0 4.00E-07 0.018606226 O.OO E+OO 1 ,83 9 -1.43956 6.533282 0 l.OOE-06 0.015346798 O.OOE+OO 1 ,8 39 -1.43956 6.533282 0 l .OOE-06 0.015346798 O.OO E+OO 760 -1.43956 6.533282 0 2.00E-07 0.020269746 O.OOE+OO 760 -1.43956 6.533282 2.30E-03 2.00E-07 0.020 2697 46 7.08E-09 370 1.631671 -6.10574 0 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+OO 370 1.631671 -6.10574 0 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+oO 26 1.631671 -6.10574 1.1 OE-05 4.00E-07 0.0186 06226 2.17E-12 26 1.631671 -6.10574 0 4.00E-07 0.018606226 O.OOE+OO 194 1.631671 -6.10574 l.lOE-05 l .OOE-06 0.015346798 3.27E-11 97 1.631671 -6.10574 0 l.OOE-06 0.015346798 O.OOE+OO 40 1.631671 -6.10574 0 2.00E-07 0.020269746 O.OOE+OO 40 1.631671 -6.10574 l.OOE-05 2.00E-07 0.020269746 l.62E-12 370 -5.86812 2.346824 0 2.00E-04 0.00482234 O.OOE+OO 370 -5.86812 2.3 46824 5.00E-04 2.00E-04 0.00482234 l.78E-07 26 -5.86812 2.346824 0 4.00E-07 0.018606226 O.OOE+OO 26 -5.86812 2.346824 7.lO E-05 4.00 E-07 0.018606226 l.40E-11 194 -5.86812 2.346824 0 l.OOE-06 0.015346798 O.OOE+OO 97 -5.868 12 2.346824 7.lO E-05 1.00 E-06 0.015346798 l.05E-10 40 -5.86812 2.346824 0 2.00E-07 0.020269746 O.OOE+OO 40 -5.86812 2.3 46824 3.40E-03 2.00E-07 0.020269746 5.51E-10 The impact frequency for each aircraft category i s as follows;

• General aviation 1.78£-07

• Commercial air carrier 1.61£-11

• Air taxis 3.27£-11

• Military large 1.66£-08 Because the three heliports are closer than 8 km (5 mi) to the RPF site, the frequency of an aircraft crashing into the site needs to be evaluated.

NUREG-0800 , Section 3.5.1.6, "A ircraft Hazards," provides a methodology for determining the probability of an aircraft crash into a facility from airways. However , the approach requires knowledge of the number of flights per year along the airway. 2-50 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Because this information is not available for the flight paths near the RPF, DOE-STD-3014-2006 was used to determine the frequency of crashes. The following equation is used. Where: Fh = Nh x Phxfh(x,y)xAh Crash impact frequenc y Flight per year Probability of a crash Probability , given a crash , that the crash occurs in a 2.6 km 2 (1-mi 2) area surrounding the facility Effective plant area The effective area for an aircraft was determined by two components:

the aircraft crashing into the facility either by skidding or by flying directly into it. The effective area was calculated based on an aircraft skidding or flying into the facility in the direction that produces the largest area (i.e., cra s hing in a direction perpendicular to the largest diagonal of the building). The fo ll owing formula was used to calculating the skid and fly in areas of an aircraft crashing into the facility. Where: and: Where: A r As ws R H cot<l> L w s (ZxlxWxWS)

Ar= (WS + R)xHxcotcp

+ R + LxW Effective fly-in area Effective skid area Aircraft wingspan A 5 = (WS + R)xS Length of the diagonal of the facility=

.,,/L2 + W 2 Facility height , facility-specific Mean of the cotangent of the aircraft impact angle Length of facility , facility-specific Width of facility, facility-specific Aircraft skid distance (mean value). DOE-STD-3014-2006 notes that in calcu latin g an effective area , the analyst needs to be cognizant of the " critical areas" of the facility.

The critical areas are locations in a facility that contain hazardous material and/or l ocations that , once impacted by a cra s h , can le ad to cascading fai lur es (e.g., a fire , collapse, and/or explosion that wou ld impact the hazardous material).

The critical areas of the RPF are considered to be the hot cell and waste management areas. The critical areas dimensions are estimated at 30.5 x 24 m (100 x 80 ft), which provides a diagonal (R) of 39 m (128 ft). The facility height (H) of22.9 m (75 ft) was used. DOE-STD-3014-2006 provides estimates for aircraft wingspan, mean of the cotangent of the aircraft impact ang l e, and skid distance for five different aircraft types. For helicopters , the cot<l> value is 0.58 and the skid length is typica ll y assumed to be 0. The effective area is calculated in Table 2-19. 2-51 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Table 2-17. Affective Area for Helicopter

' Aircraft Wing spana ws (ft) cot<l>3 Skid distance 3 s (ft) Effective plant area Ah (mi 2) He li copter 50 0.58 0 0.0007 9 a DO E-STD-3014-2006 , Accident Ana l ysis for Aircraft Cra s h into Ha za rd ous Faciliti es, U.S. Department of Energy , Wash in gton, D.C., 1996 (R2006). For a helicopter , fh(x,y) is estimated based on half the average l ength of a flight wi th the lateral variations in crash locations assumed to be 0.4 km (0.25 mi) on the average from the centerli ne of the flight path , or 2/L. The probability Ph (2.50E-05) is taken from DO E-STD-3014-2006 , Appendix B , Table B-1. The total number of flights from the three helipad s i s estimated at 1 , 825 per year. A conservation estimate is that 5 percent of these helicopters overfly the faci lity. In addition , a conservative estimate of total flight path is the distance to the closest helipad or 6 km (3.7 mi). Based on these assumptions, the helicopter impact frequency is calculated as follows: 2 Fh = 91x 2.SE-05 x 3.7 x7.9E-04 Fh = 9.7E-o7 The calculated crash impact frequency from the heliport is les s than the requirement ofNUREG-0800 of being within an order of magnitude of 10-7 per year. 2.2.2.2 Airways There are seven federal airways located within 16 km (10 mi) of the RPF site. NUREG-1537 calls for the evaluation of frequency and type of aircraft movement, flight patterns , local meteorology , and topography. NUREG-0800 , Section 3.5.1.6 , was used to eva lu ate airways near the RPF site. NUREG-0800 indicates that an evaluation is not requir ed when the nearest edge of the airway is greater than 3.2 km (2 mi) from the facility.

Four of the seven airways (J24, 1181, Vl2, and V63) fall within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the proposed RPF s ite (Table 2-18). J24 Jl81 Vl2 V44 V63 Vl75 V178N239 RPF = Table 2-18. Federal Designated Airways within 16 km (10 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility Site 17.3 10.75 Not specified Not spec ified Within 4.8 3 Not specified Not specified Within 6.8 4.2 5 14.8 9.2 Within 11.2 7 14.8 9.2 3.8 0.40 0.25 14.8 9.2 Within 19.3 12 14.8 9.2 11.9 11.2 7 14.8 9.2 3.8 radioi so tope production fac ility. Within Within Within 2.4 Within 7.4 2.4 The hazards associated with these airways are evaluated in Section 2.2.2.5. Figure 2-30 identifies the centerline offederal airways within 10 mi (16 km) of the RPF site. 2-52 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 2.2.2.3 Military Airports and Training Routes There are no military airports or training routes located within 16 km (10 mi) of the RPF s ite. 2.2.2.4 Approach and Holding Patterns According to air traffic control at the Columbia Regional Airport, the controllers do not typical hold any traffic. However, if traffic is held , the aircraft are typically within their designated airspace, 8 km (5 mi) (Figure 2-29). The hazards associated with these airways are evaluated in Section 2.2.2.5. 2.2.2.5 Evaluation of Aircraft Hazard NUREG-0800, Section 3.5.1.6 , provides a methodology for determining the probability of an aircraft crash into a facility from airways. However, the approach requires knowledge of the number of flights per year along the airway. Becau se this information is not available for the flight paths near the RPF , DOE-STD-3014-2006 was used. This method uses crash rates for non-airport operations.

The following formula from the DOE standard was used. Where: Fi J Ni Pi fj(x , y) A J Crash impact frequency Each type of aircraft suggested in DOE-STD-3014-2006 Expected number of in-flight crashes per year Probability , given a crash, that the crash occurs in a l-m i2 area surrounding the facility Effective plant area. DOE-STD-3014-2006 provides estimated NjPjfj(x,y) values for general and commercial aviation, and the average continental U.S. (CONUS) values were used. The effective area, Aj, for each aircraft category is determined by two components; the aircraft crashing into the facility either b y skidding or by flyin g directly into it. The effective area is calculated based on an aircraft skidding or flying into the facility in the direction that produces the largest area (i.e., crashing in a direction perpendicular to the largest diagonal of the building). The following formula was used to calculating the skid and fly-in areas of an aircraft crashing into the facility.

Where: (2xLxWxWS)

Ar= (WS + R)xHxcot<f>

+ R + LxW and: As= (WS + R)xS Where: Ar Effective fly-in area As Effective skid area WS Aircraft wingspan R Length of the diagonal of the facility= .JL 2 + W 2 H Facility height , facility-specific cot<l> Mean of the cotangent of the aircraft impact angle 2-53 L w s Length of facility, facility-specific Width of facility, facility-specific Aircraft skid distance (mean value). NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics DOE-STD-3014-2006 notes that in calculating an effective area , the analyst needs to be cognizant of the "critical areas" of the facility. The critical areas are loc a tion s in a facility that contain hazardous material and/or locations that, once impacted by a crash, can lead to cascading failures (e.g., a fire, collapse, and/or explosion that would impact the hazardous material).

The critical areas of the RPF are considered to be the hot cell and waste management areas. The RPF critical areas dimensions are estimated at 30.5 x 24 m (I 00 x 80 ft), which provides a diagonal (R) of 39 m (128 ft). The height (H) is 13.7 m (45 ft). DOE-STD-3014-2006 provides estimates for aircraft wingspan, mean of the cotangent of the aircraft impact angle, and skid distance for five different aircraft types. The most conservative values were used in cases where there were more than one available for the specific aircraft.

These values, along w ith the calculated effective plant area , are summarized in Table 2-19. Table 2-19. Effective Area Input Values and Calculated Effective Plant Area Aircraft Ai r carrier Air taxi Large military Small military General aviation ai rplan es Average CONUS values NiPif 1 (x,y)* 4 E-7 lE-6 2E-7 4E-6 2E-4 II 98 59 223 78 73 -... . 10.2 1440 10.2 1440 9.7 b 780 10.4 c 447 8.2 60 Effective plant area Ai (mi 2) 0.01861 0.01535 0.0 2027 0.00971 0.00482 Non-airport crash frequency Fi 7.4 E-09 l.5E-08 4. I E-0 9 3.9E-08 9.6E-07 Source: E DF-3 124-0 0 1 5, Evaluation of Aircraft Ha za rds, Rev. 2, Port age, Inc., I d a ho Fa ll s, Idah o, 20 1 7.

• DO E-ST D-30 1 4-2006, Acc id e nt Ana l ys i s/or Aircraft Crash into H azardous Facilities, U.S. D e p art ment of E n ergy, Washington , D.C., 2 006. b Takeoff c Landing CONUS = continental United States. The crash impact probabilities from airways , airport operations , and helicopt e r overflights are summed together to determine the overall probabilit y for small a nd large aircraft.

Th e resulting probability is l .88E-06 (Table 2-20). Table 2-20. Crash Impact Probabilities Airport operations Overflights Total Genera l Aviation l .7 8E-07 6.77E-07 8.55E-07 Commercial Air Carrier l.61E-ll 6.27E-09 6.29E-09 Air T ax is 3.2 7 E-11 l .3 0 E-08 1.3 0 E-08 Military Large l.66E-08 3.12E-09 l.97E-08 Military Small O.OOE+OO 2.82E-08 2.82E-08 Helicopters 9.70E-07 9.7 0E-07 Total l.89E-06 2-54 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics NUREG-1537 does not provide acceptance criteria to be used to evaluate the aircraft accident probability.

However, NUREG-0800 does provide criteria for assessment of aircraft accidents.

For aircraft accidents , NUREG-0800, Section 3.5.1.6 , sta tes that "Ai rcraft accidents that could lead to radiological consequences in excess of the exposure guidelines of 10 CPR 100 with a probability of occurrence greater than an order of magnitude of 10-7 per year s hould be considered in the design of the plant." The calculated crash impact probabilities from airways for all five a ircraft types is slightly larger than an order of magnitude of 10-7 per year. Therefore , a general aviation crash will be evaluated as part of the integrat e d safety analysis (ISA) external event analysis and included in the Operatin g License Application.

2.2.3 Analysis

of Potential Accidents at Facilities On the ba s is of the information provided in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, the potential accidents to be considered as design-basis events and the potential effects of tho se acc ident s on the facility, in term s of de s ign parameters (e.g., overpressure, mi ss il e energies) or ph ys ical phenomena (e.g., impact , flammable or toxic clouds), were identified in accordance with: * * * * * * * * * * *

• 10 CPR 20, "Sta ndards for Protection Against R a diation" 10 CPR 50.34, "Co ntent s of Applications; Technical Inform a tion" Regulatory Guide 1. 78 , Eva luatin g the Habitab ility of a Nuclea r Po wer Plant Co ntrol R oom Dur ing a Postulat e d Ha zardo us Chemical R e l ease Regul a tor y Guide 1.91, Eva luations of Explosions Po stu l ated to O ccur at Nea rb y Facilities and on T ransporta t ion Ro utes Near Nuclea r Pow er Plants Regulator y Guide 1.2 06 , Com bin ed License Ap pli ca tion s for Nuclear P ower Plant s Regulator y Guide 4.7 , General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclea r Power Stations NUREG-1537 , Guidelines for Pr eparing and R eview ing Applicati on s for the Licensing of NonP ower R eactors -Fo rmat and Content. NUREG-0800, Standa rd Review Plan for the R eview of Safety Analysis R e port s for N ucl ear Po wer Plants H andboo k of Chemical H azard A nal ysis Pro cedures (PEMA , 1989) NUREG-1520, Standard Review Plan for the R eview of a License Application for a Fue l Cycle Facility NUREG-1805 , Fire D ynam i cs Tool s (FD'I') -Quantitative Fire Ha zard A nal ysis Me thods for the US. Nuclear R egul at ory Co mmission Fire Prot ection In spectio n Pro gra m NUREG/CR-6624, R ecomme ndation s for R ev i sion of R egulatory Guide 1. 78 The events are discussed in the following subsections.

2.2.3.1 Determination of Design-Basis Events NUREG-1520, Standard R ev i ew Plan for the Review of a License App li ca tion for a Fuel Cycle Facility, defines an external event as being not credible " if the event has a frequency of occurrence that can conservatively be estimated as less than once in a million y ears (1 o-6)." Design-basis events external to the NWMI RPF are defined as tho se accidents that have a probability of radiological relea se to the public lxI0-6 ye ar , or greater, with the potential consequences se rious enough to affect the sa fe ty of the plant to the extent that the guidelines in 10 CPR 50.34 could be exceeded.

2-55 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics The following accident categories were considered in selecting design-basis events: explosions , flammable vapor clouds (delayed ignition), toxic chemicals , and fires. The postulated accidents that would result in a chemical release were analyzed at the following locations:

• Nearby transportation routes such as U.S. Highway 63 and nearby natural gas pipelines Nearby chemical and fuel storage facilities . 2.2.3.1.1 Explosions The impacts associated with accidents that involve high explosives , munitions, chemicals, and liquid or gaseous fuels stored or used by facilities near the proposed RPF were evaluated to analyze the structural response to blast pressures. This analysis included the evaluation of explosions from nearby railways, highways , or facilities and the resulting blast pressure on critical plant structures to ensure that such an exp lo sion would not adversely affect the RPF's operation or safe shutdown.

The Regulatory Guide 1.91 and its recommended

6.9 kilopascal

(kPa) (1 pound per square inch [lb/in 2]) value of peak positive incident overpressure was used to provide guidance in defining the allowable (i.e., standoff) and actual distances of hazardous chemicals transported or stored. This value is considered.

Analyses that result in pressure below 6.9 kPa (1 lb/in 2) are not expected to result in significant damage. The guide defines this standoff distance by the correlation of R > kWl/3, where R is the distance in feet from an explosion comprised of W pounds of trinitrotoluene (TNT), and a constant value k. NUREG-1805 was used to define the TNT mass equivalent (W). This guide compares the heat of combustion of the chemical is to the heat of combustion of TNT. In some cases , the result using the NUREG-1805 methods returned standoff distances greater than the actua l distance of the analyzed incident to the RPF. In those cases , a probabilistic analysis was used to show that the rate of exposure to the overpressure in excess of 6.9 kPa ( 1 lb/in 2) is less than 1 x 10 6 per year using conservative assumptions.

The conservative assumptions included an explosion yield factor , the estimation of the available combustion energy released during an explosion , of 100 percent. This accounts for an in-vessel confined explosion and is considered to be conservative because a 100 percent yield factor is not achievable. Another conservative assumption used was that for liquid s at atmospheric conditions, the storage tank was assumed to contain vapors at the upper explosive limit. Because the upper explosive limit produces the maximum explosive mass and liquid vapor explodes , not the liquid , this is considered conservative.

These assumptions are consistent with those used in Chapter 15 ofNUREG-1805.

The analysis performed does not bound an explosion of the total inventory of nearby facilities. The analysis uses the largest tank for two identified facilities to determine the effect on RPF operations or safe shutdown.

It was determined to be highly unlikely for the total inventory from both facilities to be involved in the explosion scenario due to the following:

(1) at the MU South Farm , the closest facility , the total inventory of propane is in multiple disperse locations; and (2) for the Magellan Pipeline facility , an accidental explosion of multiple tanks at one time adding to the pressure wave is also highly unlikely.

For compressed or liqu efied gases (i.e., propane, hydrogen), the entire contents of the storage vessel were assumed to be between the upper and lower explosive limits. An instantaneous depressurization of the vesse l would result in vapor concentrations all within the explosive range at varying pressures and temperatures some of which would be below explosive limits. Therefore , assuming the entire contents are within the explosive limits is considered conservative.

For unconfined explosions of propane, methane, or hydrogen, the yie ld factor of 3 percent from the Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis Procedures (FEMA, 1989) was used. 2-56 Pipelines NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics A stationary pipeline explosion is bounded by the delayed ignition explosion of that pipeline due to the wind is assumed to blow the release towards the RPF with a constant mass release rate from the pipeline that results in a much larger total exp l osive mass. Thus , the distance from the point of the explosion to the NWMI RPF is therefore much smaller for flammable vapor clouds than for pipeline explosions at the release point. Waterway Traffic There are no navigable waterways within 8 km (5 mi) of the RPF. Highways Hazardous materials with explosive potential that may possibly be transported on U.S. Highway 63 is shown in Table 2-21 (EDF-3124-0016, Analysis of Potential Accidents at Facilities) include [Proprietary Information].

The remaining chemicals identified in Table 2-21 are nonexplosive.

The maximum quantity of the identified chemicals assumed to be transported on the highway was 22,679 kg (50,000 lb) per Regulatory Guide 1.91. The volume of hydrogen was assumed to be 1,496 kg (3 , 300 lb) on a single truck per 49 CFR 173 .318 , "Cryogenic Liquids in Cargo Tanks." Table 2-21 provides the results of the analysis using the TNT equivalency methodologies described in within this section. For all chemicals analyzed , the minimum separation distances (i.e., safe standoff distances) are less than the shortest distance (0.4 km [0.25 mi]) to a safety-related RPF structure from any point on U.S. Highway 63. The peak incident pressure is 6.9 kPa (l lb/in.2) at a distance greater than the shortest distance from U.S. Highway 63 to a safety-related RPF structure of 0.4 km (0.25 mi). Ta bl e 2-21. Distance from the R a d ioisotope Prod u ction Facility where t h e Peak Incident Press u re is 6.9 kPa (1 l b/in.2) fro m an Exp l os ion on U.S. Highway 63 Ammonia 22,680 50 , 000 0.27 0.17 Diesel 22,680 50,000 0.1 0.06 Gasoline 22 , 680 50 , 000 0.1 0.06 Glycol ether PM 22,680 50,000 0.1 0.06 Hydrogen 1 , 497 3 , 300 0.21 0.13 JP-4 aviation fuel 22,680 50,000 0.1 0.06 Methyl ethyl ketone 22,680 50 , 000 0.1 0.06 Petroleum naphtha 22,680 50,000 0.1 0.06 Propane 22 , 680 50 , 000 0.34 0.21 Toluene (32-8413) 22,680 50,000 0.1 0.06 Source: EDF-3 1 2 4-0016 , A n a l y si s of P o t e ntial Acc id e nts at Fa c iliti e s , Rev. 2 , Portage , Inc., Idaho Fall s, Idaho , 20 I 7. 2-57 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics A boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE) is an explosion caused by the rupture of a vessel containing a pressurized liquid above its boiling point (Roberts , 2000). A BLEVE overpressure for the propane tank was analyzed in detail. The 22 , 680 kg (50 , 000 lb) propane tank , i.e., 45,425 liter (L) (12-thousand gallon [kgal]), was assumed to fail at 55 degrees Celsius (0 C) (320 lb/in.2 absolute). The entire contents of the tank (e.g., gas and l iquid) were assumed to be involved in the BLEVE. The acceptable distance to 6.9 kPa (I lb/in.2) overpressure is 0.21 km (0.13 mi). The shortest distance to a safety-related RPF structure from any point on U.S. Highway 63 is 0.4 km (0.25 mi). A BLEVE overpressure for the hydrogen tank was also analyzed in detail. The 1,497 kg (3 , 300 lb) propane tank (i.e., 45 , 425 L [12 kgal]) was assumed to fail at -240°C (183 lb/in.2 absolute), the point before the hydrogen becomes supercritical.

The entire contents of the tank (e.g., gas and liquid) were assumed to be involved in the BLEVE. The acceptable distance to 6.9 kPa (1 lb/in.2) overpressure is 0.08 km (0.05 mi). The shortest distance to a safety-related RPF structure from any point on U.S. Highway 63 is 0.4 km (0.25 mi). Based on the above , an explosion involving potentially transported hazardous materials on U.S. Highway 63, would not adversely affect operation of the RPF. The results of the highway explosion analyses are provided in Table 2-21 (EDF-3124-0016).

2.2.3.1.2 Nearby Facilities Analysis identified six off-site facilities that have explosive chemicals that are identified as the bounding instances of explosion analysis.

The hazardous materials stored at nearby facilities that were identified for further analysis with regard to exp l osive potential are identified in Table 2-22. [Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

Tab l e 2-22. Analysis o f Hazar d o u s Chemica l s Store d Within 8 km (5 mi) of the Ra d ioisotope Production Facility (2 pages) 3M Company >8 >5 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information]

Information]

Information]

Schwan's Home 3.2 2 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Service Inc. Information] Information] Information]

Gates Power 2.4 1.5 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Transmissions Information] Information] Information]

Materials Cent e r Gates Power 2.4 1.5 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Transmissions Information]

Information]

Information]

Materials Center MU South Farm 1.6 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information] Information] Information]

MU Sout h Farm 1.6 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information]

Information]

Information]

MU South Farm 1.6 [Proprietary [Proprietary [Proprietary Information]

Information]

Information]

Ryder Transportation 2.4 1.5 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information]

Information]

Information]

Magellan Pipeline 1.7 1.1 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Company Information] Information] Information]

2-58 [Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

[Proprietary Information]

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Table 2-22. Analysis of Hazardous Chemicals Stored Within 8 km (5 mi) of the Radioisotope Production Facility (2 pages) [Proprietary Information]

Magellan Pipeline Company 1.7 1.1 [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary [Proprietary

[Proprietary Information]

Information]

Information]

Source: E DF-3124-0016 , A nal ys i s of Pot e ntial Acci d e nt s at F ac iliti es, Re v. 2, Porta g e , In c., Idaho F a ll s, Idaho , 2 01 7. a Actual tank ma s s pro v ided b y own e r wa s used. b [Proprietary Information]

c [Proprietary Information]

d [Proprietary Information]

e [Proprietary Information]

MU = U niversity o f Missouri A conservative analysis using TNT equivalency methods , as described in Section 2.2.3.1 , was used to determine standoff distances for the storage of the identified hazardous materials.

Table 2-22 provides the results of the analysis (EDF-3124-0016).

The analysis showed that a [Proprietary Information]. The nearest tank of propane is approximately

[Proprietary Information].

However, the propane at this location is stored in multiple tanks , the largest of which is [Proprietary Information]. The results using this methodology indicate that the minimum separation distances (i.e., safe standoff distances) are less than the shortest distance from an RPF safety-related area to the storage location of the identified chemicals.

Therefore, an explosion of any of these chemicals would not adversely affect operation of the RPF. Railways The only railroad within the 8 km (5 mi) radiu s of the RPF is the COLT Transload, which provides service for the Columbia Municipal Power Plant and a commercial lumber facility to the north of downtown Columbia. This rail line dead-ends approximately 7.2 km (4.5 mi) from the RPF. A review of the Tier II facilities did not identify any facilities with potentially hazardous chemicals near the rail line within 8 km (5 mi) radius of the RPF. Explosion-Related Impacts Affecting Design R egulatory Guide 1.91 cites 6.9 k:Pa (1 lb/in.2) is considered a conservative value of peak positive i ncident overpressure , below which no significant damage would be expected. Thus, facility is acceptable w hen the calculated rate of occurrence of severe consequences from any external accident is less than 1 x 1 o-6 occurrences per year, and reasonable qualitative arguments can demonstrate that the realistic probability is lower. The RPF safety-related areas are designed to withstand a peak positive overpressure of at least 6.9 k:Pa (1 lb/in.2) without loss of function/significant damage, as shown in Table 2-21 and T able 2-22. As a result, postulated explosion event scenarios will not result in severe consequences. 2-59 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics On-Site Diesel Fuel Tank The RPF will have a 3, 785 L (1-kgal) tank of diesel fuel within 9 .1 m (30 ft) of the building.

A tank containing 3 , 785 L (1 kgal) of diesel fuel is acceptable at a distance of 49.1 m (161 ft). Therefore , the on-site diesel explosion is analyzed using a probabilistic analysis.

The total probability of a significant explosion is estimated using the probability of a spill and the conditional probability of an explosion given a spill. The probability of a large release from a single-walled stationary tank at a fixed facility is 1 x 10-5 spills per year, and the probability of a spill from a double-walled stationary tank is 1 x 1 o-6 spills per year (FEMA , 1989). The rate of explosions per spill from diesel tanks is very low. A report on ignition probabilities for oil and gas (OGP , 2010) states that for releases of " combustible liquids stored at ambient pressure and at temperatures below their flash point from onshore outdoor storage area" tanks , the ignition probability is at most 0.24 percent. Combined with the single-walled tank spill probability , the frequency of an ignition is 2.4 x 1 o-s ignitions per year , significantly less than the acceptance criteria.

2.2.3.1.3 Flammable Vapor Clouds (Delayed Ignition)

When a flammable chemical (e.g., liquid or gaseous state) is released into the atmosphere and forms a vapor cloud , the chemical disperses as it travels downwind. The portions of the vapor cloud where the concentration is within the flammable range , between the lower and upper flammabilit y limits , may burn if the cloud encounters an ignition source. Deflagration or a detonation of the vapor cloud is determined by the pace of the flame through the vapor cloud. If the cloud burns fast enough to create a detonation, an explosive force is generated.

Chemicals were evaluated to ascertain which hazardous materials had the potential to form a flammable vapor cloud or vapor cloud explosion.

The chemicals identified within flammability range, the Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA) air dispersion computer model was used (ALOHA , 2008). ALOHA was used to determine:

• The distances where the vapor cloud may exist between the upper explosion limit and the lower explosion limit (LEL), presenting the possibilit y of ignition and potential thermal radiation effects. Model the worst-case accidental vapor cloud explosion , including the standoff distances and overpressure effects at the nearest RPF safety-related area -worst-case scenario was assumed to be ignition by detonation was chosen for the ignition source with the standoff distance measured as the distance from the spill site to the location where the pressure wave is at 6.9 kPa ( 1 lb/in. 2) overpressure. Conservative assumptions were used in both ALOHA analyses with regard to meteorological inputs and identified scenarios. The following meteorological assumptions were used as inputs to the ALOHA model: * * * *

• Pasquill Stability Class F (stable), with a wind speed of 1 meter per second (rn/sec) (3.3 ft/sec) Ambient temperature of 27°C (81 degrees Fahrenheit

[°F]) Relative humidity 50 percent Cloud cover 50 percent Atmospheric pressure of 1 atmosphere . 2-60 NWM I **.**.** NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics

• * *

• llltOllTMWUl llE:DICAL ISOTIM'U Pasquill Stability Class F was selected based on local weather data. Class F represents the 5 percent worst-case weather conditions at the RPF site. For each of the identified liquid chemicals, the entire contents of the vessel were conservatively assumed to have leaked , forming a 1 centimeter (cm) (0.4-inch

[in.]) thick puddle. For gaseous chemicals, the entire contents were released instantaneously as a gas. This provides a significant surface area to maximize evaporation and the formation of a vapor cloud in the case of liquid releases , and maximizes the peak concentration in the case of gas releases. Pipelines There are three natural gas transmi ss ion pipelines within 8 km (5 mi) of the proposed RPF. These pipelines include the Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline , Inc. located 1.6 km (1 mi), Ameren natural gas transmission pipeline #1 located approximately 0.64 km (0.40 mi), and Ameren natural gas transmission pipeline #2 located approximately 6.0 km (3.75 mi) from the RPF site. Transmission pipe) ines are made of steel and generally operate at pressures ranging from 344 kPa (500 lb/in.2) to 9,652 kPa (1,400 lb/in.2) gauge. Pipelines can measure anywhere from 15.25 cm (6 in.) to 122 cm (48 in.) in diameter (ANL/EVS/TM/08-5 , Natural Gas Pipeline Te c hnolo gy Overview).

Each natural gas pipeline was modeled as a complete break , with a constant source of natural gas available to break. An analysis was performed using the ALOHA model. A summary of the results is provided below , and the calculations are provided in EDF-3124-0016):

• *

• Southern Star Natural Gas Transmission Pipelin e: [Proprietar y Information]

Highest typical transmission pipeline pressure of 9 ,6 52 kPa (1400 lb/in.2) was assumed Distance to the LEL is [Proprietary Information], which i s less than the distance of [Proprietary Information]

to the RPF Results: Due to the concentration of natural gas being below the LEL at the RPF , a dela ye d flammable vap or cloud ignition cannot occur at the facility, and therefore , there will be no explosive overpressure.

Ameren Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline #1: [Proprietary Information]

Highest typical transmission pipeline pressure of 2,000 kPa (290 lb/in.2) was assumed Distance to the LEL is [Proprietary Information], which i s much le ss than the [Proprietary Information]

distance to the RPF Results: Due to the concentration of natural gas being below the LEL at the RPF , a delayed flammable vapor cloud ignition cannot occur at the facility; therefore , there will be no resulting explosive overpressure.

Ameren Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline #2: [Proprietary Information]

Highest typical transmission pipeline pressure of 9,652 kPa (1 , 400 lb/in.2) Distance to the LEL from the Ameren natural gas pipeline is [Proprietary Information], which is less than the distance of [Proprietary Information]

to the RPF site Results: Due to the concentration of natural gas being below the LEL at the RPF , a dela ye d flammable vapo r cloud ignition cannot occur at the facility , and therefore, there will be no explosive overpressure.

2-61 Waterway Traffic NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics There are no navigable waterways within 8 km (5 mi) of the RPF. Highways The hazardous materials potentially transported on U.S. Highway 63 that were identified for further analysis are diesel, gasoline , JP-4 , petroleum naphtha , toluene , glycol ether PM , meth y l ethyl ketone, hydrogen , propane , and ammonia. The remaining chemicals are nonexplosive.

The closest RPF related area is located approximately 0.40 km (0.25 mi) from U.S. Highway 63. Consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.91, the tanker trucks are conservatively estimated , at most , to carry and release 22 , 680 kg (50 , 000 lb) of the identified chemical.

The analyzed effects of flammable vapor clouds and vapor cloud explosions from external sources are summarized in Table 2-23 (EDF-3124-0016). Table 2-23. Flammab l e Vapor C l oud Explosion Ana l ysis for U.S. Highway 63 Hazardous material Ammonia Diesel Gasoline Glycol ether PM Hydrogen JP-4 aviation fuel Methyl ethyl ketone Petroleum naphtha Propane Toluene (32-8413)

Quantity Acceptable distance (LEL) -----22,680 50,000 0.93 0.58 22,680 50 , 000 0.35 0.22 22,680 50,000 0.35 0.22 22,680 50 , 000 0.06 0.04 1,497 3 , 300 1.24 0.77 22 , 680 50 , 000 0.35 0.22 22,680 50 , 000 0.19 0.12 22,680 50 , 000 0.35 0.22 22,680 50,000 1.37 0.85 22,680 50,000 0.13 0.08 Probabilitya 2.2 x 10-1 3.0 x 10-1 >1 x 10-6 Source: EDF-3124-0016 , A nal y si s of Pot e nti a l Acc id e nt s at Fa c iliti es, Rev. 2 , Porta g e , Inc., Idaho F all s, Idaho , 2017.

• Prob a bility only c al c ulat e d for c hemicals w ith a cc e ptable di s tanc es g reater than 0.4 km (0.2 5 mi). L E L = lower e xplosion limit. To determine the probability of an accident affecting the RPF, the number of transports per year needs to be known. The number of trucks hauling hazardous materials on U.S. Highway 63 is not available.

To determine the probability that an explosion could affect the RPF , estimates of truck shipments were made based on the major uses of these materials within 8 km (5 mi) of the RPF. The hydrogen releases from a truck on U.S. Highway 63 were analyzed using a probabilistic analysis.

The l argest amount of hydrogen on a truck that was analyzed was 1 , 496 kg (3,300 lb). Accident data were taken from NUREG/CR-6624 , R e commendations for Revision of Regulatory Guid e 1. 78, and FEMA (1989). The accident frequency used was 2 x 1 o-6 accidents per truck mile, where 20 percent of accidents result in a spill. When a spill occurs, 20 percent of the spills are between 10 and 30 percent of the contents, and 20 percent of spills are complete release. The analysis showed that a 30 percent release of hydrogen resulted in a distance to the LEL of 0.79 km (0.49 mi). The accident analysis showed that a 10 percent release of hydrogen resulted in a distance to the LEL of0.53 km (0.33 mi) (EDF-3124-0016).

2-62

... NWMI ...**... * * *

• NORTMWUT Ml:OtCAL llOTOfl'ff NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics The probability of an explosion from a hydrogen truck accident is 1.6 x 1 o-8 per truck mile (e.g., 2 x 1 o-6 accidents per truck mile x 0.2 spills/accident x 0.2 spills greater than I 0 percent/spill x 0.2 ignition probability).

The probability of this accident within 1.24 km (0.77 mi) of the RPF (i.e., 0.96 km [1.54 mi] total for U.S. Highway 63) would be 2.5 x l0-8 per truck release scenario to meet the LEL. The Colombia Municipal Power Plant is the major user of hydrogen with 1 , 497 kg (3,300 lb) being stored within 8 km (5 mi) radius of the RPF. This hydrogen is assumed to be used for generator cooling. The annual usage is not available; however , an assumption is made that hydrogen makeup requires the tank to be refilled monthly. This would result in 12 shipments of hydrogen potentially passing the RPF annually, and change the probability to 3.0 x 10-7 per year. The propane releases from a truck on U.S. Highway 63 were analyzed using a probabilistic analysis.

Accident data were taken from NUREG/CR-6624 and FEMA (1989). The accident frequency used was 2 x 1 o-6 accidents per truck mile, where 20 percent of accidents result in a spill. When a spill occurs, 20 percent of the spills are between 10 and 30 percent of the contents , and 20 percent of spills are complete release. The analysis showed that a 30 percent release of propane resulted in a distance to the LEL of 0.87 km (0.54 mi). The accident analysis showed that a 10 percent release of propane resulted in a distance to the LEL of 0.58 km (0.36 mi). The probability of an explosion from a propane truck accident is 1.6 x I o-8 per truck mile (e.g., 2 x I o-6 accidents per truck mile x 0.2 spills/accident x 0.2 spills greater than 10 percent/spill x 0.2 ignition probability). The probability of this accident within 1.4 km (0.85 mi) of the RPF (e.g., 2.7 km [1.7 mi] total for U.S. Highway 63) would be 2.7 x I0-8 per truck release scenario to meet the LEL There are three propane distributers in the Columbia , Missouri area: MFA Oil Company, Ballenger's Propane Inc., and Ferrellgas. The MFA Oil Company is located north of the RPF on U.S. Highway 63 , while Ballenger's Propane Company and Ferrellgas are located north oflnterstate

70. The distribution centers can receive their propane via rail and tanker trucks from terminals located in Kearney or Moberly , Missouri, along the Mid-American Pipeline, or Jefferson City along the Gold Line pipeline. The majority of bulk propane transported to these facilities is assumed to be transported via Interstate 70 and does not bypass the RPF. However , propane could also be transported via U.S. Highway 63 from the terminal in Jefferson City to suppl y the distribution centers north of the RPF. The exact number of trucks transporting propane past the RFP is not known and could result in a probability exceeding 10-6; therefore, this event will be evaluated as part of the ISA external event analysis and included in the Operating License Application.

The ammonia releases from a truck on U.S. Highway 63 were analyzed using a probabilistic analysis.

Accident data were taken from NUREG/CR-6624 and FEMA (1989). The accident frequency used was 2 x I o-6 accidents per truck mile, where 20 percent of accidents result in a spill. When a spill occurs , 20 percent of the spills are between IO and 30 percent of the contents , and 20 percent of spills are complete release. The analysis showed that a 30 percent release of ammonia resulted in a distance to the LEL of 0.6 km (0.37 mi). The accident analysis showed that a I 0 percent release of ammonia resulted in a distance to the LEL of 0.4 km (0.25 mi). The probability of an explosion from a propane truck accident i s 1.6 x I o-8 per truck mile (e.g., 2 x I o-6 accidents per truck mile x 0.2 spills/accident x 0.2 spills greater t han 10 percent/spill x 0.2 ignition probability).

The probability of this accident within 0.93 km (0.58 mi) of the RPF (e.g., 1.9 km [1.2 mi] total for U.S. Highway 63) would be 1.9 x 10-8 per truck release scenario to meet the LEL. Kraft Foods stores 22 , 680 kg (50 , 000 lb) of ammonia , which is assumed to be used for refrigeration and potentially for heat pumps. In both cases, the losses and required makeup is expected to be small. A very conserva tive estimate of makeup would be to replace the entire 22,680 kg (50,000 lb) of ammonia monthly, or 12 shipments passing the RPF annually, and change the probability to 2.2 x 10-7 per year. 2-63 NWMI ...... : * * ! NOlllTMWt:rT MmtCAl tsOTOPU Nearby Facilities NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics There are eight off-site facilities that have explosive chemicals identified as the bounding instances of explosion analysis.

The hazardous materials stored at nearby facilities that were identified for further analysis with regard to explosive potential are identified in Table 2-24. The methodology presented previously in this section was used for determining the standoff distance for vapor cloud ignition and delayed vapor cloud explosion.

A conservative analysis using TNT equivalency methods , as described earlier in this section, was used to determine standoff distances for the storage of the identified hazardous materials.

The distance to the LEL for the propane tank containing

[Proprietary Information]

of propane corresponds to more than [Proprietary Information].

The nearest tank of propane is approximately

[Proprietary Information]

from the RPF. However , the propane at this location is stored in multiple tanks, the largest of which is [Proprietary Information]. The maximum content of a propane tank to meet the LEL at [Proprietary Information].

Flammable vapor clouds and vapor cloud explosions from external sources are summarized in Table 2-24 (EDF-3124-0016).

Table 2-24. Flammable Vapor Clouds and Vapor Cloud Explosions from Externa l Sources (2 pages) [Proprietary Plasma Motor Fuels 1.6 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary lnformati on] LLC Information]

Information]

Information]

Information]

[Proprietary 3M Company >8 >5 [Proprietary [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information]

Information] Information] Information]

Information]

[Proprietary Schwan's Home 3.2 2 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information]

Service Inc. Information]

Information]

Information]

Information]

[Proprietary Gates Power 2.4 1.5 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information]

Transmissions Information] Information]

Information]

Information]

Materials Center [Proprietary Gates Power 2.4 1.5 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information]

Transmissions Information]

Information]

Information]

Information]

Materials Center [Proprietary MU South Farm 1.6 1 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information]

Information]

lnformati on] Information]

Information]

[Proprietary MU South Farm 1.6 [Proprietary [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information] Information] Information]

Information]

Information]

[Proprietary MU South Farm 1.6 1 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information

] Information]

Information] Information] Information]

[Proprietary Ryder Transportation 2.4 1.5 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information] Information] Information] Information]

Information]

[Proprietary Magellan Pipeline 1.7 1.1 [Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary

[Proprietary Information]

Company Information]

Information]

Information]

Information]

2-64 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Table 2-24. Flammable Vapor Clouds and Vapor Cloud Explosions from External Sources (2 pages) Distance Mass Acceptable distance (LEL) [Proprietary Magellan Pipeline Information]

Company 1.7 1.1 [Proprietary Information] [Proprietary [Proprietary

[Proprietary Information] Information]

Inform at ion] Source: EDF-3 1 24-0016, Ana l ysis of Pot e ntial Accidents at Fa cili ti es, R ev. 2, Portage , Inc., Id a h o Fall s, Idaho , 2017. a Actual tank ma ss u se d. b The maximum area of a sp ill in ALO H A is 3 1 , 400 sq uar e met e rs (m 2) -the inventory excee ds this va lu e from a spi ll -therefore , 31,400 m 2 was u se d. c [Propri etary Inform at ion] ct [Propr ietary In formation]

e [Propri etary Inform at ion] ALOHA L E L Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres.

= lower explosion limit. MU U ni versity of Missouri. Flammable Vapor Cloud (Delayed Ignition)

Related Impacts Affecting the Design Regulator y Guide 1.91 cites 6.9 kPa (1 lb/in.2) is considered a conservative value of peak positive incident overpressure , below which no significant damage would be expected. Thus, facility is acceptable when the calculated rate of occurrence of severe consequences from any external accident is less than 1 x 1 o-6 occurrences per yea r, and reasonable qualitative arguments can demonstrate that the realistic probabilit y is lower. The RPF safety-related areas are de s igned to withstand a peak positive overpressure of at least 6.9 kPa (1 lb/in.2) without loss of function/significant damage , as shown in Table 2-21 and Table 2-22. As a result , postulated explosion event scenarios will not result in severe consequences. 2.2.3.1.4 Toxic Chemicals Impacts Affecting Design Accidents involving the release of toxic chemicals from nearby mobile and statio nary sources were considered.

Toxic chemicals known to be pre se nt in the vicinity of the propo se d RPF site or to be frequently transported in the vicinity were evaluated.

The potential hazardou s materials transported on U.S. Highway 63 were evaluated to ascertain which ha zar dous materials should be anal yze d with respect to their potential to form a toxic vapor cloud following an accidental release. The ALOHA air dispersion model was used to predict the concentrations of toxic chemical cloud s as they di s perse downwind for all facilities and sources. The maximum distance a cloud can travel before it disper ses enough to fall below the immediatel y dangerous to life and health (IDLH) concentration in the vapor cloud was determined using ALOHA. The ALOHA model was also used to predict the concentration of the chemical in the control room following a chemical release to ensure that , under worst-case scenarios , control room operators will have sufficient time to take appropriate action. 2-65 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics The IDLH is defined by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health as a situation that poses a threat of exposure that is likely to cause death or immediate or delayed permanent adverse health effects, or one that could prevent escape from such an environment.

The IDLHs determined by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health are established such that workers are able to escape such environments without suffering permanent health damage. Conservative meteorological assumptions were used: F (stable) stability class with a wind speed of 1 m/sec, ambient temperature of 25°C, relative humidity of 50 percent, cloud cover of 50 percent , and atmospheric pressure of one atmosphere.

A Pasquill stability category "F" and a wind speed of 1 m/sec typically represent the worst 5 percent of meteorological conditions observed at a majority of nuclear plant sites. For each of the identified chemicals, the entire contents of the vessel are conservatively assumed to have l eaked, forming a one-centimeter-thick puddle. Review of the chemicals at nearby facilities did not contain any toxic materials that would be greater than those located on U.S. Highway 63; therefore, only toxic chemicals on U.S. Highway 63 were considered in the analysis.

The toxic chemicals considered in the analysis were ammonia , chlorine, and sulfur dioxide. * *

• The distance to the IDHL for an ammonia release from a truck on U.S. Highwa y 63 is 9.7 km (6 mi). This is greater than the distance from U.S. Highway 63 to the RPF of 0.40 km (0.25 mi). The distance to the IDHL for a chlorine release from a truck on U.S. Highway 63 is 1.8 km (1.1 mi) . This is greater than the distance from U.S. Highway 63 to the RPF of 0.40 km (0.25 mi). The distance to the IDHL for a sulfur dioxide release from a truck on U.S. Highway 63 is 3.1 km (1.9 mi). This is greater than the distance from U.S. Highway 63 to the RPF of 0.40 km (0.25 mi). The ammonia releases from a truck on U.S. Highway 63 were analyzed using a probabilistic analysis.

Accident data were taken from NUREG/CR-6624 and FEMA (1989). The accident frequency used was 2 x 1 o-6 accidents per truck mile , where 20 percent of accidents result in a spill. When a spill occurs , 20 percent of the spills are between 10 and 30 percent of the contents, and 20 percent of spills are comp l ete release. The accident analysis showed that a 30 percent release of ammonia resulted in a distance to the IDHL of 5.3 km (3.3 mi). The accident analysis showed that a 10 percent release of ammonia resulted in a distance to the IDHL of 3.1 km (1.9 mi). The probability of a spill from an ammonia truck accident is 8 x 1 o-8 per truck mile (e.g., 2 x 1 o-6 accidents per truck mile x 0.2 spills/accident x 0.2 spills greater than 10 percent/spill). The probability of this accident within 9.7 km (6 mi) of the NWMI RPF (i.e., 19 km [12 mi] total for U.S. Highway 63) would be 9.6 x 10-7 per truck release scenario to meet the IDLH (EDF-3124-0016).

The probability , when multiplied by 12 ammonia trucks annually , is greater than 1 x 10-6 per year; therefore , this event will be evaluated as part of the ISA external event analysis and included in the Operating License Application.

The chlorine re l eases from a truck on U.S. Highway 63 were analyzed using a probabilistic analysis.

Accident data were taken from NUREG/CR-6624 and FEMA (1989). The accident frequency used was 2 x 1 o-6 accidents per truck mile , where 20 percent of accidents result in a spill. When a spill occurs , 20 percent of the spills are between 10 and 30 percent of the contents, and 20 percent of spills are complete release. The accident analysis showed that a 30 percent release of chlorine resulted in a distance to the IDHL of 1.2 km (0. 73 mi). The accident analysis showed that a 10 percent release of chlorine resulted in a distance to the IDHL of 0.8 km (0.52 mi). The probability of a spill from a chlorine truck accident is 8 x 1 o-8 per truck mile (e.g., 2 x 1 o-6 accidents per truck mile x 0.2 spills/accident x 0.2 spills greater than 10 percent/spill). The probability of this accident within 1.8 km (1.1 mi) of the RPF (i.e., 3.6 km [2.2 mi] total for U.S. Highway 63) would be 1. 76 x 10-7 per truck release scenario to meet the IDLH (EDF-3124-0016). The probability, when multiplied by only six trucks annually , is greater than 1 x 1 o-6 per year; therefore , this event will be evaluated as part of the ISA externa l event analysis and included in the Operating License Application.

2-66 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics The sulfur dioxide releases from a truck on U.S. Highway 63 were analyzed using a probabilistic analysis.

Accident data were taken from NUREG/CR-6624 and FEMA (1989). The accident frequenc y u se d was 2 x 1 o-6 accidents per truck mile, w here 20 percent of accidents result in a s pill. When a spill occurs, 20 percent of the spills are between 10 and 30 percent of the contents , and 20 percent of spills are complete release. The accident analysis showed that a 30 percent release of s ulfur dio xi de resulted in a distance to the IDHL of 1.8 km (1.1 mi). The accident analysis showed that a 10 percent release of sulfur dioxide resulted in a distance to the IDHL of 1.1 km (0.66 mi). The probability of a spill from a chlorine truck accident is 8 x 1 o-s per truck mile (e.g., 2 x 1 o-6 accidents per truck mile x 0.2 spills/accident x 0.2 spills greater than 10 percent/spill). The probability of this accident within 3.1 km (1.9 mi) of the RPF (i.e., 6.2 km [3.8 mi] total for U.S. Highway 63) would be 3.0 x 10-7 per truck release scenario to meet the IDLH. The probabilit y, when multiplied b y only four trucks annually , i s greater than 1 x 1 o-6 per year; therefore, this event will be evaluated as part of the ISA ex ternal event analysis and included in th e Operating License Application.

2.2.3.1.5 Fires Fires in adjacent industrial plants and storage facilities, oil and gas pipelines , and fires from transportation accidents were evaluated as events that could lead to high-heat fluxes. Three types of fires are analyzed for high-heat flux: * *

• BLEVE fireballs

-Occur s when a tank containing a flammable liquefi e d gas bursts (e.g., s imilar to a BLEVE overpressure, the liquefied gas flashes which has a s hort duration)

Pool fires -Occur s when a chemical that is liquid at standard conditions spills and catches fire Jet fires -Occurs when a pipeline ruptures or pressurized tank has a hole causing the continuous relea se of flammable gas The limiting BLEVE fireba ll for the RPF is the rupture of a propane truck that contains 22,679 kg (5 0 , 000 lb) ofliquefied propane and is 0.4 km (0.25 mi) from the RPF. ALOHA was used to calculate the heat flux and duration of the firebal l. The results s how that the heat flux on the RPF is 8.36 kilo wa tt (kW)/m 2 (2,650 British thermal units [BTU]/hr*s quare foot [ft2]) and the duration of the fireball i s 11 sec. The American Concrete Institute has specified standards for short-term maximum bulk concrete temperatures of l 77°C (350°F) following accidents (ACI 349-06 , Code R equire ments for Nuclea r Safety R e lat ed Concrete Structures (AC/ 349-06) and Commentary).

NUREG/CR-3330, Vulnerability of Nuclear Power Plant Structures to Large External Fires , provides incident heat flux (kW/m 2) values and expos ure times (hr) nece ss ar y for concrete to reach a temperature of l 77°C (350°F). A heat flu x of 15 kW /m 2 requires 11.6 hr of exposure for concrete to reach a temperature of l 77°C (350°F), while a heat flux of 450 kW/m 2 requires I .5 hr of exposure.

Therefore , the heat flux from the propane BLEVE fireball will not impact the integrity of the RPF concrete structures (EDF-3124-0016).

The limiting pool fire would come from a gaso lin e truck on U.S. Highway 63. The truck contains 22,680 kg (50,000 lb) of gasoline and is 0.4 km (0.2 5 mi) from the RPF. The ALOHA model was used to calculate the heat flux for the pool fire. The re s ults show that the maximum heat flux is 1.36 kW /m 2 (43 1.1 BTU/hr*ft2) and the duration of the fireball i s 60 sec. ACI 349-06 has s pecified standards for s hort-term maximum bulk concrete temperatures of l 77°C (350°F) following accidents.

Based on the NUREG/CR-3330 incident heat flux (kW/m 2) values and exposure times (hr) necessar y for concrete to reach a temperature of l 77°C (350°F) discussed above, the heat flux from the gasoline pool fire will not impact the integrity of the RPF concrete structures.

The Magellan pipelines were assumed to contain [Proprietary Information].

A conservative analysis was performed using the ALOHA model. The pipelines were assumed to be breached and spill the liquid contents in the soil, resulting in a liquid puddle that is [Proprietary Information].

2-67 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics The duration of the evaporating release was 1 hr. The total release of [Proprietary Information]. Based on the guidance used by the state of California (URS, 2007), which is a liquid flow rate of 2.13 m/sec (7 ft/sec) and the known pipeline diameter of [Proprietary Information].

URS (2007) also provides guidance for the time of release, which is 15 min. The liquid flow rate, along with the 15-min release duration, would result in a total release of [Proprietary Information]. Therefore , a conservative release of [Proprietary Information]

was modeled in ALOHA based on the size of the release pool. The distance to the LEL from the Magellan pipeline is 0.52 km (0.32 mi), which is less than the distance of 2.0 km ( 1.25 mi) to the proposed RPF site. Because the concentration of gasoline is below the LEL at the RPF, a delayed flammable vapor cloud ignition cannot occur at the facility and there will be no explosive overpressure.

The three natural gas transmission pipelines within 8 km (5 mi) of the RPF are identified in Table 2-12. Transmission pipelines are made of steel and generally operate at pressures ranging from 344 k:Pa (500 lb/in.2) to 9,652 k:Pa (1,400 lb/in.2) gauge. Pipelines can measure anywhere from 15.25 cm (6 in.) to 122 cm (48 in.) in diameter (ANL/EVS/TM/08-5). A summary of the jet fire analysis that was performed using the ALOHA model (EDF-3124-0016) is provided below. The pipeline was modeled as a complete break, with a constant source of natural gas available to the break. * *

• Southern Star Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline:

Pipeline diameter is [Proprietary Information]

-Highest typical transmission pipeline pressure of 9,652 k:Pa (1400 lb/in.2) was assumed -Distance to the LEL is [Proprietary Information], which is less than the distance of [Proprietary Information]

to the RPF Results: (1) Maximum heat flux is [Proprietary Information];

heat flux is negligible compared with the solar heat flux of approximately 1 kW/m 2 (0.088 BTU/ft 2), and (2) pipeline jet fire is not considered a threat to the RPF. Ameren Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline #1: Pipeline diameter is [Proprietary Information]

Highest typical transmission pipeline pressure of 2 , 000 k:Pa (290 lb/in.2) was assumed Distance to LEL is at [Proprietary Information], which is much less than the [Proprietary Information]

distance to the RPF -Results: (I) Maximum heat flux is [Proprietary Information]

at the RPF; heat flux is negligible compared with the solar heat flux of approximate l y 1 kW/m 2 (0.088 BTU/ft 2), and (2) pipeline jet fire is not considered a threat to the RPF. Ameren Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline #2: Pipeline diameter is [Proprietary Information]

-Highest typical transmission pipeline pressure of9 , 652 k:Pa (1 , 400 lb/in.2) Distance to the LEL from the Ameren natural gas pipeline is [Proprietary Information], which is less than the distance of [Proprietary Information]

to the RPF site Results: (I) Maximum heat flux is [Proprietary Information]; heat flux is negligible compared with the solar heat flux of approximately 1 kW/m 2 (0.088 BTU/ft2), and (2) pipeline jet fire is not considered a threat to the RPF. 2-68

... NWM I **.****. * * *

• NOlmfWllT lllf:DKAL llOTOf'O 2.3 METEOROLOGY

2.3.1 General

and Local Climate NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics The purpose of this climate analysis is to provide the information that supports the dispersion analysis of airborne releases from the proposed RPF site. Local dispersion climatology includes consideration of airflow and atmospheric turbulence.

The following subsections address local topography, the source of local meteorological d ata, wind ro ses, and atmospheric stability distribution.

The proposed RPF site is located in central Missouri.

The purpose of conducting a climate analysis is to understand the climate (a statistical description of weather) at the local project site within the context of the climate of the broader surrounding area. Geomorphic, or physiographic, regions are broad-scale subdivisions of the nation that are based on terrain texture , rock type, geologic structure, and history. There are eight regions, subdivided into 25 provinces, and further subdivided to 85 sections within the U.S. (Fenneman, 1946). The characteristics and locations of these landforms influence local and regional climate and weather pattern s. The RPF site lies at the southern edge of the Central Lowlands physiographic province, within a few miles of the adjacent Ozark Plateau province , both of which lie within the larger Interior Plains ph ys iographic region. The Central Lowlands includes most of the Com Belt and lies within the heartland of America. The RPF location places it in the Humid Continenta l-Warm Summer climatic zone. This type of climate has a characteristic long , warm summer with moderate relative humidity. The winters are cool to cold and mark a period of lower precipitation than during the remainder of the year. Because of its geographical location far inland, the region is subject to sign ificant seasonal and daily temperature variations.

Air masses moving over the state during the year include co ld continental polar air from Canada, warm and humid maritime tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, and dry eastward flowing air masses from the Rocky Mountains located to the west. Prolonged periods of extreme hot or cold temperatures are unusual (MU, 2006). The general geostrophic airflow pattern and the prevailing jet stream track shuttle precipitation-producing mid-latitude cyc lones (lows) across the state from west-to-east throughout the yea r. Consequently, precipitation events in all seasons move through from a westerly direction (MU , 2006). Spring, summer, and early fall precipitation occurs in the form of rain and thunderstorm

s. Severe thunderstorms typicall y occur during the period from mid-to late-spring through early summer. Hail may b e expected as a product of these storms. Wind speeds of up to 97 km/hr (60 mi/hr) or more may be experienced once or twice a year during a severe thunder s torm (MU, 2006). Winter precipitation is generally light to moderate and occurs in the form ofrain or snow, or a mixture of both , with an occasional, though infrequent , thunderstorm.

Occasional heavy snowfall episodes do occur, but not often , and the accumulation does not last for any significant duration.

Surface temperature conditions sometimes produce freezing rain or drizzle , although normall y not more than a couple times each season. The historical climate data within thi s section primarily came from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) High Plains Regional Climate Center's historical climate data summaries for Columbia reporting stations 231790 and 231791. MU also has a weather station at South Farm , J ess than 1.6 km (1 mi) away from the proposed site and approximately 6.4 km ( 4 mi) from Columbia.

The weather station is used in conjunction with the school's agricultural program , and the weather data is available on the MU website. Simple se arche s and averages can be obtained through thi s database. 2-69 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Other sources, as needed , were u se d to augment NOAA data, particularly to better und erstan d the immediate area around t he proposed RPF site. 2.3.1.1 Temperature Though temperatures reached a record high in 2012 of 41. 7°C ( 107°F), in general, temperatures rarely exceed 38°C (100°F) in the summer and rarely fall below -18°C (0°F) in the winter. The mean maximum temperatures in Columbia, collected from the reporting stat ion at the Columbia Regional Airport (Stat ion 23 1791) over a 43-year period ranged from 2.8°C (37.2°F) in January to 31.4°C (88.5°F) in July. Daily temperatures during that period showed a wider variance, from -28.8°C (-20°F) in Dec em ber to 44°C (111°F) in July. A summary of average and ex treme temperature data for 1969 through 2012 is provided in Table 2-25 (W RCC , 2013a). Table 2-25. Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Temperature Sum mar y, 1969-2012 Measurement

---

f;i.!.!lfill Average max. o c 2.9 6.1 12.7 1 8.9 23.6 28.5 31.4 30.7 26.0 19.6 12.0 5.1 18.1 temperature O f 37.2 43.0 54.9 66.1 74.4 83.3 88.5 87.3 78.8 67.2 53.6 41.2 64.6 Ave r age min. o c -6.8 -4.3 1.2 6.8 12.1 17.0 19.6 18.4 13.7 7.4 l.5 -4.3 6.8 tem perature O f 19.7 24.2 34.2 44.3 53.7 62.6 67.2 65.2 56.7 45.3 34.7 24.2 44.3 Daily extreme o c 23.3 27.8 29.4 32.2 33.3 a 89 43.9 43.3 38.3 34.4 28.3 24.4 43.9 high O f 74.0 82.0 85.0 90.0 92.0 *1 07 111.0 110.0 I 01.0 94.0 83.0 76.0 111.0 Daily extreme o c -28.3 -26.J -20.6 -7.2 -1.7 4.4 8.9 5.6 0.0 -5.6 -17.8 -28.9 -28.9 low O f -19.0 -15.0 -5.0 19.0 29.0 40.0 48.0 42.0 32.0 22.0 0.0 -20.0 -20.0 Average mean o c -1.9 0.9 6.9 1 2.9 17.8 22.8 25.4 24.6 19.9 13.5 6.7 0.4 12.5 O f 28.5 33.6 44.5 55.2 64.1 73.0 77.8 76.3 67.8 56.3 44.1 32.7 54.5 Source: WRCC , 20 I 3a, "Per i od of Record Genera l C lim ate Summary -Temperature , 1969 to 2012 , Stat ion 23 1 791 Co lumbi a WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliG CS tT.pl?mo 1791 , Western Regiona l C lima te Ce nt er, Reno , Nevada, accessed August 20 1 3.

• Occurred durin g 2008-20 1 2 time period. Average temperature data for the Columbia Missouri weather station was reviewed for the most recent five years that data were available (2008 to 2012). The lowest average temperatur e was -4.1°C (24.65°F), recorded in January 2010, and the highest average temperature was 29.5°C (85.06°F), recorded in July 2012. The five-year annual average temperature was 13.1°C (55.58°F). A five-year temperature summary is presented in Table 2-26 (WRCC , 2013b). 2-70 NWM I NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 * * *

• NCIRTMWHT llfDltAl ts0111'8 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Table 2-26. Columbia, Missouri, Five-Year Temperature Summary, 2008-2012 m1m.1*1*1111mmm1111mmmmm1a.1.1*m*

o c -0.6 -0.9 6.1 11.6 1 7.1 23.3 2 4.7 22.8 19.0 16.0 2.4 -I. I 12.2 2 008 O f 3 1.0 30.3 42.9 52.9 62.8 73.9 76.4 73.0 66.3 60.9 36.3 3 0.1 54.0 o c -3.1 2.4 8.1 11.7 17.9 23.3 22.5 21.9 18.6 10.2 9.8 -I. I 11.8 2009 O f 26.5 36.3 46.5 53.1 64.2 73.9 72.5 71.4 65.5 50.3 49.6 30.0 53.3 o c -4.1 -2.7 7.4 16.1 1 8.0 24.6 25.6 25.5 19.8 14.8 7.6 -1.6 1 2.6 20 10 O f 24.7 27.1 45.3 60.9 64.4 76.2 78.0 77.9 67.6 58.6 4 5.7 29.1 54.6 o c -3.9 -0.1 6.6 14.0 16.9 24.0 27.5 24.9 17.6 14.2 8.9 3.1 12.8 2011 O f 24.9 31.9 43.9 57.2 62.5 75.1 81.6 76.7 63.7 57.5 48.1 37.5 55.0 oc 1.7 4.3 14.9 15.0 21.6 25.0 29.5 25.8 19.6 12.0 7.7 7.5 1 6.1 20 1 2 O f 35.0 39.7 58.8 59.0 70.9 77.1 85.1 78.5 67.3 53.6 45.8 45.5 61.0 o c -2.0 0.6 8.6 13.7 18.3 24.0 25.9 24.2 18.9 12.8 8.5 -0.2 13.1 Mean O F 28.4 33.1 47.5 56.6 64.9 75.3 78.7 75.5 66.1 55.0 47.3 31.7 55.6 Source: WRCC , 20 I 3b, "Sta tion Monthly Tim e Series, Co lumbi a, Mi sso uri , 2008-2012 , Stat ion 23 1 791 Co lumbia WSO AP ," www.wrcc.dri.e du/c g i-bi n/wea_mn s imt s.pl?laK COU , Western R eg i onal C lim ate Ce nt e r , R e no , Nevada , accesse d Aug u s t 2013. The five-year average temperature , for the same time period , reported at the MU South Farm weather statio n was 12.3°C (54.2°F). The average minimum temperature was 6.9°C (44.5°F) and the average maximum temperature was 17.9°C (64.3°F) (MU, 2013). 2.3.1.2 Precipitation According to the historical data from Station 231791, precipitation in the Columbia , Missouri area averages approximately 103.1 cm (40.6 in.) per year. Of that amount , the mean snowfa ll is 57.7 cm (22.7 in.) per ye ar. The city has measurable amounts of precipitation 111 day s/ye ar. The maximum annual precipitation of 159 cm (62.49 in.) was measured in 1993 , and the minimum annual precipitation of 60 cm (23.66 in.) was measured in 1980. On a monthl y basis , rainfall amount s range from a high of 12.4 cm (4.89 in.) in Ma y to a lo w of 4.62 cm (1.82 in.) in January (WRCC , 2013a). The maximum probably pre cipitatio n in a one-hour period is 3.14 (NOAA At las 14 , Pr ec ipitation-Fr e qu e n cy At la s of the Unite d Stat es). According to the historical data from Station 231791 , snow falls from November through April. During that period , a high of 16 cm (6.3 in.) was recorded in February 2011, and a lo w of I .5 cm (0.6 in.) was recorded in 1980. A summ ary of average and extreme pr eci pitation data for 1969 through 20 I 2 is pro v ided in Table 2-27 (WRCC, 20 l 3a). A recent five-year precipitation summary of the statio n data was obtained and re vie wed. For each month d uring this time period , approx imat ely I 5 to 30 percent of the data was missing. Precipitation data from t h e MU South Fa rm weather s tation was a l so r ev i ewe d; however , the averages show n on the s ite were different than the Co lu mbia weather sta tion by a factor of five. Thus , the Columbia , Mi ssouri weather s tation hi storical summary serves as the mor e comp l ete picture of pr ecipitation at the proposed RP F site. 2-71 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Table 2-27. Columbia, Missouri, Average and Extreme Monthly Climate, Historic Precipitation Summary, 1969-2012 Measurement n1m1Em1m111mmmm1mmm1.1.11;11 Average cm 4.62 5.44 8.10 11.23 12.42 10.24 9.58 10.06 9.53 8.28 7.72 6.02 103.12 total precipitation in 1.82 2.14 3.19 4.42 4.89 4.03 3.77 3.96 3.75 3.26 3.04 2.37 40.60 cm 15.09 15.70 25.63 29.69 31.27 26.11 30.84 25.88 30.63 "2 7.9 26.47 17.68 158.72 High in 5.94 6.18 10.09 11.69 12.3 1 10.28 12.14 10.19 12.06 " 10.99 10.42 6.96 62.49 cm 0.1 3 0.28 1.9 8 2.26 " 3.33 0.89 0.61 0.53 1.1 4 *0.91 1.07 1.22 60.10 Low in 0.05 0.11 0.78 0.89 *1 .3 1 0.35 0.24 0.2 1 0.45 *o.36 0.42 0.48 23.66 cm 4.47 6.10 9.98 11.43 12.14 8.15 15.09 10.85 7.11 12.40 7.04 6.88 15.09 1-day max in 1.76 2.40 3.93 4.50 4.78 3.21 5.94 4.2 7 2.8 0 4.88 2.77 2.71 5.94 Ave rag e cm 1 5.75 " 16.0 0 7.37 1.5 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.57 12.70 57.66 total s no wfa ll m 6.20 3 6.3 2.90 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 5.00 22.70 High cm 59.69 59.18 54.86 18.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 21.08 45.2 1 134.11 snowfall in 23.50 23.30 21.60 7.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 8.30 17.80 52.80 So ur ce: WRCC , 20 l 3a, " Period of R ecor d Genera l C lim ate Summary -Temperatu r e , 1969 to 2012, Statio n 231791 Co lumbia WSO AP ," www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bi n/c liG CStT.p l?mol 79 1 , We s tern R eg ion a l C l imate Center, Reno, Nevada, accessed Aug ust 20 1 3.

• Occurred durin g 2 008-201 2 time p e riod. Hydrometeorological Report No 51 , Probabl e Maximum Pr ecipitatio n Estimates, Unite d States East of the 105th Meridian (NOAA, 1978) provides probable maximum precipitation data for the U.S. east of the Rocky Mountains. Probable maximum precipitation va lues for a specific location are provided in Table 2-28 over ranges of time (6 to 72 hr) or ranges of geographic area (10 mi 2 to 20 , 000 mi 2). Table 2-28. 72-Hour Probable Maximum Precipitation 10 mi 2 28 33 37 38.5 40 200 mi 2 20 24.5 26 29.5 33 1 , 000 mi 2 15 18.5 20.5 2 4 25.5 5,000 mi 2 9 12 14 17 19 10 , 000 mi 2 7 9.5 11.5 15 16.5 20,000 mi2 5.1 7.5 9.5 12.5 14 2.3.1.3 Maxim u m Probable Snowpack NUREG-1537, Part 1 , Section 2.3.1, states that the snow load should be based on the 100-year return period snow accumulation.

For MU facilities, the 2012 International Buildin g Code (IBC) (IBC , 2012) has been levied as the required building code. The ground snow load is 20 lb/ft2. To modify the snow load to be based on a 100-yea r return period , an importance factor of 1.2 is applied to the load determined using the nominal snow load (ASCE 7-10 , Minimum D es ign Loads for B uildings and Oth er Structures , Section C7.3.3). The nominal ice thickness is 2.54 cm (1 in.) concurrent with a 64.4 km/hr (40-mi/hr), 3-sec wind gust. To modify the ice load to be based on a 100-ye ar return period , an importance factor of 0.82 is applied to the load determined using the nominal ice load (ASCE 7-10, Section Cl0.4.4).

2-72

• i*;h NWMI ...**... * * *

• Nu..TtfWfn UlDtCAL ISOTOPH NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 2.3.1.4 Humidity Average relative humidity data for the Columbia, Missouri weather station was reviewed for 2008 to 2012. The lowest average relati ve humidity was 51.89 percent , recorded in August 2012, and the highe s t average rel ative humidi ty was 82.13 percent , recorded in September 2008. The five-year annual average was 69.18 percent. The five-year relative humidity data i s summarized in Table 2-29 (WRCC, 2013b ). Table 2-29 . Relative Humidity Data for Columbia, Missouri, 2008-2012

', ', ', ', ', ', ', ', ', ', ', ...............

2008 60.51 72.02 66.68 64.85 69.49 7 1.40 74.38 78.87 82.1 3 77.52 65.87 7 1.4 8 71.1 8 2009 64.95 63.73 63.28 66.52 68.42 73.66 7 4.46 76.90 75.92 76.62 68.08 72.33 70.41 20 10 75.69 73.42 70.33 61.24 74.7 1 76.64 79.19 75.1 9 76.1 7 58.65 6 4.86 72.85 71.58 2011 71.86 71.51 71.26 64.73 7 4.6 1 72.69 76.29 75.19 70.82 59.46 71.92 74.84 7 1.27 20 1 2 64.05 63.72 63.58 65.03 61.33 54.89 52.96 5 1.89 69.64 66.76 62.25 70.9 1 61.46 Mean 67.41 68.88 67.03 64.47 69.71 69.86 71.46 71.61 74.94 65.37 66.78 72.88 69.18 So ur ce: WRCC , 20 I 3b , " Sta ti on Mont hl y Time Series , Co lumbi a , Mi ssouri , 2008-20 1 2 , Statio n 23 1 79 1 Co lumbi a WSO AP ," www.wrcc.d ri.e du/cg i-bi n/wea_mnsimts.pl?laK COU, Western Regional C l imate Ce nt er , Reno , Nevad a , accesse d A u gu s t 201 3. 2.3.1.5 Wind Extreme wind s peeds are uncommon in central Mi sso uri. Wind that does occur i s usuall y caused b y pre ss ure gradients and temperature contrasts present in the mid-latitude cyclones that pas s through the state. These cy clones may s pawn sto rms that produce hi g h winds from gust fronts, microbur s t s, and tornadoes.

Non-storm-related extreme winds are rare. Occasionally, co ld high-pre ss ure air filling in behind a front will cause hi g h wind, especially in the winter when temperatur e contrasts are large. Average wind s peed data for the Columbia, Missouri weather station was revie we d for 2 00 8 to 2012. The lowe s t mean w ind speed was 8.8 km/hr (5.47 mi/hr) in August 2008 and the hi g he st was 19.1 km/hr (11.87 mi/hr) recorded in December 2 008. Th e five-year a nnual av erage was 14.2 5 km/hr (8.86 mi/hr). The five-year mean w ind s peed data is s ummari ze d in Table 2-30. Table 2-30. Mean Wind Speed for Columbia, Missouri, from 2008-2012 lllM@NlmlmlE!IE!lllllMll!,Mll!lllJll.IBIBllmllEDtt.1.11;11 (km/hr) 1 8.85 17.03 16.96 17.53 15.76 1 3.97 11.28 8.80 10.01 11.59 14.32 1 9.10 14.93 2008 (mi/hr) 11.7 1 10.58 10.54 10.89 9.79 8.68 7.0 1 5.47 6.22 7.20 8.90 11.87 9.28 (km/hr) 15.24 17.96 18.3 1 17.99 12.38 12.47 10.32 11.91 10.40 14.58 14.7 1 17.0 3 14.44 2009 (mi/hr) 9.47 I I.I 6 I 1.38 11.18 7.69 7.75 6.41 7.40 6.46 9.06 9.14 10.58 8.97 (km/hr) 13.74 1 3.73 1 5.96 17.06 1 2.79 11.4 3 10.06 9.88 1 2.1 7 16.30 14.73 13.41 1 3.10 2010 (mi/hr) 8.5 4 8.53 9.92 10.6 0 7.95 7.10 6.25 6.14 7.56 1 0.13 9.15 8.33 8.14 (km/hr) 13.63 16.87 17.08 18.49 15.14 14.45 2011 10.09 10.38 1 I .89 13.66 18.8 8 14.15 14.56 (mi/hr) 8.47 10.48 10.61 11.49 9.41 8.98 6.27 6.45 7.39 8.49 11.73 8.79 9.05 (km/hr) 1 6.98 1 5.64 1 6.5 3 15.19 1 3.42 1 3.68 10.56 11.35 11.5 7 13.79 14.97 14.1 8 1 3.97 2012 (mi/hr) 10.55 9.72 10.27 9.44 8.34 8.50 6.56 7.05 7.1 9 8.57 9.30 8.8 1 8.68 (km/hr) 15.69 16.24 16.96 17.25 13.90 13.20 10.46 10.46 11.20 14.08 15.92 16.25 14.26 Mean (mi/hr) 9.75 10.09 10.54 10.72 8.64 8.20 6.50 6.50 6.96 8.75 9.89 10.10 8.86 So ur ce: WRCC, 20 l 3 b , " Sta tion Monthly T im e Series , Co l umb ia , Missouri , 2008-2 012 , Statio n 23 1 79 1 Co lumbia WSO AP ," www.wrcc.dri.e du/cgi-bin/wea

_mn s im t s.pl?l aKCOU , Western Regional C lim ate Ce nt e r , Reno , Neva d a , accesse d Aug u st 2 01 3. 2-73 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Wind data from the MU South Farm weather station was also reviewed.

The average shown on the site was different than the Columbia weather station by a factor of two. Thus, the Columbia weather station data serves as the more complete picture of wind activity at the proposed RPF site. Two wind roses are presented to show the general historic wind flow patterns in the immediate area and the study area. Figure 2-31 shows the wind pattern as measured at MU South Farm, located immediately north of the proposed RPF site. This data is collected b y MU. Figure 2-32 s hows the wind patterns recorded at the Remote Automatic Weather Station (RAWS) in Columbia.

Figure 2-31. Wind Rose from South Farm, 2000-2010 (University of Misso u ri Agricultural Experiment Station) 2-74 W I OSP EE O (mph) * .0

• 5..0-20 0

• 0-150 D 5 .. 0 D t -0 c . 000.._

COL

• A 11 0 J!,. lf 92* 0 w 18% NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics H 1.3 -4 4 -8 8 -13 1 3 -19 19 3 32 -39 39 -7 47 + Figure 2-32. Wind Rose from Automatic Weather Station, Columbia, Missouri, 2007-2012 (Western Regional Climate Center) Both wind roses show that the prevailing surface wind direction is from the south. The MU South Farm wind rose shows a total average wind speed of 11.3 km/hr (7 mi/hr), while the Columbia wind rose shows a total average speed of 14.16 km/hr (8.8 mi/hr). Both wind roses show that the average frequency of higher speed winds falls into the 24 to 40 km/hr (15 to 25-mi/hr) range. 2-75 2.3.1.6 100-Year Return Wind Speed NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics NUREG-1537 , Part 1 , Section 2.3.1, states that the wind load should be based on the 100-yea r return period wind speed. For MU facilities, IBC (2012) has been levied as the required building code. The basic wind speed for Category III and IV facilities is 193.1 km/hr (120 mi/hr). An evaluation of the effective return period for the basic wind speeds for Category III and IV facilities determined that the effective return period is 1,700 yea rs (3 percent in 50 yea rs , or 5.7 percent in 100 years) (ASCE 7-10, Section C26.5.1 ). Note that an event with a 100-year return period has a 63 percent chance of occurring at least once in a 100-yea r period. 2.3.1.7 Extreme Weather The heartland of the country has the distinction of also being known as " tornado alley," a meteorological term that references the area where 90 percent of tornadoes have occurred as a result of the mixing of cold , dry air from Canada and the Rocky Mountains , with warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico and hot, dry air from the Sonoran Desert. This area exhibits a lot of atmospheric instability , heavy precipitation , and many intense thunderstorms. Tornados are extreme wind speed events that are classified according to the Enhanced Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale (EF scale). The scale matches wind speeds to the severity of damaged caused by a tornado. The process involves determining the degree of damage according to a predefined damage scale of 28 indicators.

The observed damage is associated with estimated wind speeds during the storm, and an EF scale number is assigned.

Measuring tornadoes from EF-1 to EF-5 , the sca le uses more specific structural damage guidelines than the original Fujita scale (F scale), which was established in 1971. Table 2-31 shows the F and EF sca les. 0 1 2 3 4 5 E F sca le F scale Table 2-31. Fujita Scale and Enhanced Fujita Scales Used to Determine Tornado Intensity F scale Fastest 1/4-mi 3-sec gust EF scale 3-sec gust llZIJiD*llm!?JlllllZIJllllllll 11:111111 (mi/hr) 64 -116 40-72 72-126 117 -180 73-112 127-188 182-253 113-157 189-259 254-333 158-207 260-336 334-418 208-260 337-420 419-512 261-318 421-510 enhanced Fujita torn a do inten s ity scale. Fujita tornado inten s ity sca le. 45-78 79-11 7 118-161 162-2 09 210-261 262-317 0 1 2 3 4 5 105-137 138-177 178-217 218-265 26 6-322 Over 322 65-85 86-110 111-135 136-165 166-200 Over 200 The seasonal and annual frequencies of tornadoes, thunderstorms , lighting, and hail are provided in Table 2-32 through Table 2-38. 2-76 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Table 2-32. Seasonal Frequency of Historical Tornadoes in Boone County, Missouri (1954 to 2016) Magnitude (Fujita Scale) Month January 1 February March 2 April 1 2 5 May 1 1 2 June 1 1 July 2 August September 2 October 2 November 3 December So urc e: NOAA , 2016 , "Storm Events D atabase ," www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents , ational Center s for Environmenta l Informat ion , Natio n a l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini s tration , Washington , D.C., accessed ovember 2016. Table 2-33. Annual Frequency of Historical Tornadoes in Boone County, Missouri (1954 to 2016) Magnitude (Fujita Scale) Year Total 1954 3 3 1956 1 1959 2 1 3 1965 1966 1972 1 1973 1 1 3 1980 1 1982 1 1 2 19 84 3 3 1985 1 1987 1990 2 2 1992 2 1995 1 1998 1999 2 2 2000 1 2 2001 1 1 Source: NOAA , 20 1 6, "Sto rm Events D ata b ase," www.n cdc.n oaa.gov/stormeve nt s , National Ce nt e r s for Environmental Information , National Oceanic and Atmospheric A dm ini s tration, Washingto n , D.C., acce s sed November 2016. 2-77 NWM l-20 1 3-021 , Rev. 2 Chap t e r 2.0 -Si t e Characte r istics T a bl e 2-3 4. Boone C oun ty Se a s on a l T hunde rst orm W ind Eve nts (8/29/1955 to 5/1112016) Wind Velocity (mph) Month Wl*fZMWJjajil:f.j:(ll:f j:PICliJ#if}f#iiM*IHllli}jl*kllllilljl Janu ary 2 Fe b ruary Ma r c h 8 I 3 2 April 12 5 2 2 I Ma y 13 7 9 3 2 I I 2 J un e 20 3 6 3 2 Jul y 12 8 1 0 6 I 2 2 A u gust 18 6 2 3 I S ep te mb er 4 I 3 Octo b er N o ve mb er I I December 2 Source: NOAA , 2016 , "Storm Events Database ," www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sto rmevents , Nationa l Centers for Environmenta l Informat i on, Nationa l Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington , D.C., accessed November 2016. Tabl e 2-35. B o one C oun ty A nnu a l Thund e r s torm W ind Eve nts (8/29/1955 to 5/11120 1 6) Year 1956 1 957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 196 3 1964 1965 1 966 1967 1 968 1969 1 970 M@§utWIE!!lmM@§.itW-M4@*itW 3 3 2 2 3 I 1971 1972 1973 19 74 1975 19 77 1978 1 9 79 1980 1 98 1 1982 1 983 1984 19 85 1986 1 7 16 1 3 3 198 7 2 1988 2 1989 1990 3 199 1 1 99 2 I 1 993 1 994 2 1995 5 1996 2 1 99 7 1 199 8 9 1 999 1 2000 17 20 01 6 Year 2002 2 00 3 2004 2 00 5 2006 2 0 0 7 2008 2 0 09 2010 2 0 11 2012 2 0 13 2014 2 0 15 2016 *M§.lt* 6 8 7 11 8 6 6 6 1 5 1 5 4 2 Source: NOAA, 2016 , "Sto rm Events Databa se," www.ncdc.noaa.gov

/stormeve n ts , Nationa l Centers for E n vironmenta l Infor m ation, Nationa l Ocean ic a nd Atmosp h er i c Administrat i on, Wash in gton, D.C., accessed Nove m ber 20 1 6. 2-78

' Location NW Ml-2 01 3-021 , R e v. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Cha racteristics Tab l e 2-36. Boone Co u nty Lightning Events (7/5/1998 to 6/30/2016)

IEim Description Columbia 7 /5/1998 Lightning strike was b l amed for a fire at a residence in southwest Columbia.

Firefighters arrived to find flames shooting through a hole in the roof. Columbia 5/22/2 002 A fire started by lightning destroyed 50 percent of a home in Columbia.

Co l umbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Sapp Columbia COU Memorial Airport Brown s Harg Columbia 8/25/20 04 Lighting strike melted power lines at Providence and Green Meadows roads. About 5 , 000 peopl e were affected b y the resulting power outage, including New Haven Elementary School. 8/2 5/2004 Lightning strike started a house fire. 6/6/20 05 Lightning strike started a house fire. 8/2 6/2 006 Five radi o stations were knocked off the air when lig h tning struck a Cumulus 7 /19/200 7 4/23/2008 5/30/2 008 6/13/2 008 6/17/2009 7/3/2 011 7/23/20 11 Broadcasti n g transmitter tower. Control boards in the studios, comp u ters, and magnetic door l ocks in the b uilding were also damaged by the strike. Li ghtn ing strike started a fire at a photography stu dio. Lightning strike starte d a house fire. Lightning strike started a house fire. Lightning strike started a house fire. Lightning strike killed woman in an open field at Rocky Fork Lakes Conservation Area. Lightning strike started a house fire. Lightning struck ce ll phone being used by woman in Cosmo Park. Source: NOAA , 2016 , " Storm Events Database ," www.n cdc.noaa.g ov/stormevents, Nationa l Centers for Env ir onmental Information , Nationa l Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., accessed Nove mb er 2016. Location Ja nu ary February February March April May June Ju l y August September Octo b er November December Table 2-37. Boo n e Co u nty Seaso n a l Hail Events 4/23/1958

-5/11/2016 Diameter (in.) HllHl=lli'l'llffllt1'111tlHIHl1'1fhJP.I*ll<<*!ollll 2 1 3 9 18 4 20 21 6 18 33 21 21 15 8 9 5 3 1 1 2 8 2 4 2 5 2 2 2 3 11 4 3 15 2 3 22 3 12 2 1 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 61 72 105 49 11 6 19 1 13 5 Source: NOAA, 2 016 , "Sto rm Events Database ," www.ncdc.noaa.g ov/stormevents , ational Centers for Environmental Information , Natio nal Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini s tration , Wa s hington , D.C., accessed November 2016. 2-7 9 _I Year 1958 1959 1960 1959 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Table 2-38. Boone County Annual Hail Events 4/23/1958

-5/11/2016 l{i§h?WIE!lllfl§.l?W-lfJ§.i?W 1 1972 1987 1 1973 3 1988 5 1974 6 1989 1 1 1975 1 1990 4 1 1976 2 1991 5 2 1977 1 1992 7 1978 1993 4 1979 1994 3 1 1980 1 1995 10 2 1981 4 1996 5 1 19 82 15 1997 1 3 1983 1998 3 1984 15 1999 7 2 1985 2 2000 13 1 986 2 2 001 10 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2 008 2009 2 010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 lfl§.J?W 13 13 36 49 5 19 11 7 21 8 8 9 3 2 So ur ce: OAA , 2016 , "Sto nn Events D atabase ," www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sto nnevents , Nationa l Centers for Environmental Information , Nationa l Oceanic and Atmosp heric Admin i strat i o n , Was hin gton, D.C., accessed Nove mb er 20 16. Winter weather events since 1996 in Boone County, Missouri, are provided in Table 2-39. These events include snowstorms , ice storms, and extreme cold events. The RPF is being designed to ASCE 7 , Minimum D es ign Loads for Buildings and Oth er Structures, to withstand expected meteorological events. This information will be factored in the design requirements of Section 3.2.5, " Rain , Snow , and Ice Loading," for the RPF. Table 2-39. Boone County Winter Weat h er Events (11111996 to 6/30/2016)

(2 pages) .. Storm type 1/2/96 Winter storm 113 1 96 Winter storm 11/25/96 Ice sto rm 1/8/97 Winter storm 1/15/97 Winter storm 1/27/97 Winter storm 4/10/97 Winter storm 12/8/97 Winter storm 1/12/98 Winter storm 3/8/98 Winter storm 12/21/98 Winter storm 1/1/99 Winter storm m!lllmll Im.ml 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Description 6-9 inches of s now in region 2-4 inches of snow in region Numerous traffic accidents 5-7 inches of snow, strong winds, very cold temperatures Freezing rain and sleet with 11.i to Yi in. o f ice acc umulation followed b y 3 to 8 in. of snow in the region Freezing rain with Yi to 1 in. of ice accumulation 2 to 6 in. of s now in the region 2 to 4 in. of snow in region Freezing drizzle resulting in thin glaze of ice on roads 4 to 6 in. of snow in region Light freezing drizzle , sleet, and snow left a thin coating of ice on roads 6 to 10 in. of snow across region with about an inch of freezing rain an d sleet; very cold temperatures 2-80 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site C h aracteristics Table 2-39. Boone County Winter Weather Events (1/1/1996 to 6/30/2016)

(2 pages) .. Storm type 1127 1 00 Winter storm 3/11/00 Winter storm 12/13/00 Heavy snow 12/ 16/00 Extreme cold/wind chill 1/29/02 Ice storm 312 1 02 Winter storm 3 1 25 1 02 Winter storm 12/4/02 Winter storm 12/24/02 Winter storm 1/1/03 Winter storm 2 1 23 1 03 Winter storm 12/9/03 Winter storm 12/13/03 Winter storm 1/25/04 Winter storm 11/24/04 Winter storm 12/8/05 Winter storm 11/29/06 Winter storm 1112/07 Ice storm 12/8/2007 Ice storm 1/31/2011 Winter storm 12/21/2013 Ice storm 115/2014 Winter storm 2/4/2014 Winter storm m!l!!m -3 1 2 2 1 4 to 5 in. across region 4 to 7 in. of snow 6 to 12 in. across region Description Wind chills from -20°F to -40°F 1 Y<i to Y2 in. of ice accumulation; power outages Yi in. of sleet followed by 4 to 6 in. of snow; winds of 20 to 30 mi/hr 2 Sleet followed by snow; 3-to 4-in. accumulation of the mix 2 to 5 in. of snow across region 4 to 8 in. of snow across region 2 Sleet accumulation up to 1 in. followed by 6 to 8 in. of snow across the region 2 3 to 6 in. of snow across the region 2 3 to 5 in. of snow across the region 1 3 to 6 in. of snow across the region 1 Freezing rain followed by 1 to 2 in. of sleet and then 1 to 2 in. of snow 4 to 6 in. of snow across region 1 2 in. of snow 3 Over a foot of s now in some areas 3 Up to 1.5 in. of sleet and Y<i to Yi in. of ice accumulation in reg10n 4 Up to a Yi in. of ice accumulated along with up to 1 in. of sleet 2 Up to 20 in. of snow fell along with winds gusting over 40 mi/hr. 1 Average ice accumu l ation on tree s and other overhead surfaces was from 0.25 to 0.3 0 in; about Y2 inch of sleet also fell in some locations 6 to 9 in. of snow across with strong northerly winds produced snow drifts of 2 to 5 ft 6 to 13 in. of snow across the region Source: NOAA, 2016 , " Storm Eve nt s Database ," www.ncdc.no aa.g ov/stormevents , National Centers for E nvironm e ntal Information , Na tional Oceanic and At mo s pheric Administration , Washington , D.C., accesse d November 2016. 2-8 1 2.3.2 Site Meteorology NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Conservative assumptions were used, in both the Radiological Safety Analysis Computer (RSAC) code to support 10 CFR 100.11, "Determination of Exclusion Area, Low Population Zone, and Population Center Distance," analyses and the ALOHA air dispersion model to support the preliminary safety analysis report with regard to meteorological inputs and identified scenarios.

The RSAC code, Version 6.2, was used to determine ifthe dose rate requirements in IO CFR JOO.I I would drive the required size of the exclusion area boundary (controlled area) for the NWMI RPF. 10 CFR I 00. I 1 requires that an exclusion area be sized so that an individual located at any point on its boundary for 2 hr immediately following onset of the postulated fission product release would not receive a total radiation dose to the whole body in excess of 25 roentgen equivalent in man (rem). In the preliminary safety analysis report, design-basis events and the potential effects of those accidents on the facility, in terms of design parameters (e.g., overpressure, missile energies) or physical phenomena (e.g., impact, flammable or toxic clouds) were identified in accordance with IO CFR 20, IO CFR 50.34, Regulatory Guide 1.78, Regulatory Guide 1.91, Regulatory Guide 1.206 , Regulatory Guide 4.7 , and NUREG-I537. Design-basis events, external to the proposed RPF, are defined as those accidents that have a probability of radiological release to the public on the order of magnitude of IE-07 per year, or greater , with the potential consequences serious enough to affect the safety of the plant to the extent that the guidelines in 10 CFR 50.34 could be exceeded.

Chemicals were evaluated to ascertain which hazardous materials had the potentia l to form a flammable vapor cloud or vapor cloud explosion.

For those chemicals with an identified flammability range, the ALOHA air dispersion model was used to determine the distances where the vapor cloud may exist between the upper explosion limit and the LEL, presenting the possibility of ignition and potential thermal radiation effects (ALOHA, 2008). Conservative meteorological assumptions were used in both the RSAC and ALOHA analyses.

Conservative Pasquill stabi l ity classes, including F and G , along with a wind speeds of 1 to 2 m/sec were assumed for the analyses.

Site-specific meteorological measurements were not necessary to complete these bounding analyses.

Table 2-40 provides a tabulation of the distance from the exhaust stacks where airborne releases might be expected to points on the fence and site boundaries in each of the 16 compass directions to support dispersion analyses of airborne releases.

Tab l e 2-40. Distances from Ex h a u st Stacks to Fence an d S i te Bo u n d a ri es Compass direction North North Northeast Northeast East Northeast East East Southeast Southeas t South Southeast South South Southwest Southwest West Southwest West West Northwest Nort h west North Northwest 2-82 Fence line .. 29 94 70 231 82 269 103 338 76 250 65 213 65 213 72 238 110 363 95 3I3 80 263 42 138 23 75 19 63 19 63 19 63 Site boundary .. 76 250 76 250 86 281 1 IO 363 84 2 7 5 69 225 69 225 76 250 118 388 I56 513 149 488 112 369 6 5 213 57 188 57 188 7 6 250 Regional Data Sources NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Meteorological measur eme nts would be available for use in responding to accidental radiological releases , other emergencies , and any other routine purpo ses that require access to meteorological information during the licensing period. That meteorological information would be obtained for local government weather monitoring stat ion s that observe wi nd and other surface meteorological paramet e rs on an hourly basis. When needed during an emergency , real-time hourl y surface m eteoro logical measurements of wind direction , wi nd speed, air temperature, and weather type would be accessed by NWMI through Government data sources. Access wo uld be attempted durin g the emergenc y in the following sequence , until reliable data is obtained , as fo llows: 1. Internet access to hourly s urface weather observations recorded at Station 231 791, Columbia Regional Airport (wl .weather.gov

/dat a/o bhistory/KCOU.html). 2. Telephone access to an automated vo ic e recording at (573) 499-1400 of the mo st recent hourl y surface observations r ecor ded at the Co lumbia Re g ional Airport. 3. If weat her observations are not avail ab le from the station at the Columbia Regional Airport , weather information from another statio n with hourly meteorological data in the site climate region would be used. The following Missouri stat ion s would be u se d as listed in order of increa s in g distance from Co lumbia: a. Jefferson City Memorial Airport: wl.weather.gov

/dat a/o bhisto ry/KJEF.html b. Kansas City International Airport: wl.weather.gov

/dat a/obhistor y/KMC I.html c. Sedalia Memorial Airport: wl.weather.gov

/data/obhistory

/KDMO.html

d. Spirit of St. Louis Airport: wl .weather.go v/data/obhistory

/KSUS.html During normal operations , data would be obtained b y internet access to hourl y surface weather observations recorded at the Columbia Re gio nal Airport at w l .weather.gov

/dat a/ob histor y/KCOU.html. 2.4 HYDROLOGY

2.4.1 Surface

Water Surface waters in central and so uthern Boone Co unty drain into the Missouri River through a number of tributaries , including Bonne Femme , Cedar, Little Cedar, Hinkson, Jemerson , and Perche Creeks (Figure 2-33). The other major drainage feature in the county is a system of karst topography west and south of Columbia.

Numerous sinkholes, some filled with water, overlie a complex network of caves and sp rings. Gans Creek , which drains Discover y Rid ge and the propo se d RPF site, is located within the Bonne Femme Watershed.

Bonne Femme Watershed The Bonne Femme Watershed is comprised of two major s ub-watersheds:

the Bonne Femme and the Little Bonne Femme. Topographical contours of the land define the Bonne Femme Watershed , which encompasses approximately 241 s quare kilometers (km 2) (93 m i2), approximately 15 percent of Boone County, including the proposed RPF site (BFSC , 2007). The RPF site is located within the northern portion of this watershed (Little Bonne Femme sub-watershed) and is appro xima tely 0.4 km (0.25 mi) north of Gans Creek (Figure 2-34). 2-83 N + NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 0 km (5 mile) Radiu from RPF ite -Interstate Highway Highway ity Limit trearns Lakes 4 --c::i-*c::i****

c:===***-Miles 0 0.5 2 3 \11),'"KlOl.l

\rrt.-, ...... ditul t\p * (OMm ..... :'Ol.l '<<1.,.._\01-1 l* .. P_.Jlirllf't Figure 2-33. Streams of Southern Boone County, Missouri 2-84 Middle-Hink en reek NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics reek Miller r e k Bonne Femme reek + RPF ite 0 km (5 mile) Radiu from RP -Inter tale Highway -Highwa y ity Limit 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 -*o-*::::i****

====-**-Miles ite Fowler Bonne l'emmc reek allahan Crcck-l'crche Creek Fowler Creek-edar reek Linlc Bonne Femme rccl..-Mis ouri River Linlc Cedar reek Lower II inkson reek M iddlc II ink on reek Millers Crc..'Ck-Ccdar reek Rock y Fork Creek Figure 2-34. Map Showing Bonne Femme Watershed 2-85 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Both the Bonne Femme and Little Bonne Femme creeks flow from east to west in a dendritic alignment into the Missouri River and are interconnected by the Devil's Icebox Cave Branch. Where Gans Creek meets Clear Creek, the Little Bonne Femme begins and flows south toward the Mayhan Branch. The Little Bonne Femme enters the Missouri River approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south of this confluence.

To the south , the Bonne Femme meets with the Fox Hollow Branch and then flows into the Missouri River (BFSC, 2007). The most distinctive characteristic of the Bonne Femme Watershed is its kar st topography.

Within the karst terrain , the hydrology becomes complex because of losing and gaining sections of streams. Rough estimates show approximately 33 stream segments comprising approximatel y 37 km (23 mi) of losin g streams (143 km [89 mi] of gaining s tream) within the watershed.

There are two main recharge areas tied to these losing and gaining sections of stream , includin g Devil's Ice Box recharge zone (3,3 97 ha [8,394 acres] of drainage), and Hunter's Cave recharge zone (3,330 ha [8 ,228 acres] of drainage) (BFSC, 2007). A mixture ofland use s occurs within the Bonne Femme watershed.

The predominant land use accounting for 61.5 percent of the watershed is agricultural activities , including row crop production s, pasture , and range lands. Forested areas make up nearl y one-third of the watershed , mainly within the central and western portion of the watershed. These forested areas also encompass most of the publicly owned lands , including Rock Bridge Memorial State Park and Three Creeks Conservation Area (BFSC, 2007). 2.4.2 Ground Water Groundwater is the source of 7 4 percent of all rural dome s tic self-supplied water, 7 5 percent of all irrigation water, and 39 percent of all industrial self-supplied water, excluding water for thermoelectric power generation.

The six principal aquifers in Missouri include: * * * * *

• Major river valleys Alluvia l (in southeastern Missouri)

Wilcox and Claiborne McNairy Ozark Mississippian Aquifer (Kimmswick-Poto si) The groundwater aquifer beneath the proposed RPF si te i s the Mississippian aquifer (also referred to as the Kimmswick-Potosi aquifer).

Figure 2-35 is a map of the aquifer. The Mis siss ippian aquifer is the principal aquifer supplying groundwater to Boone County. The Mississippian aquifer consists of consolidated dolomite , lime sto ne, and some sandstone beds that are generally confined.

The Keokuk limestone and Burlington limestone are the principal water-yielding formations within this aquifer. Both formations con sis t of crystalline limestone and yie ld water primarily from solution cavities.

In most places , the aquifer is overlain by a confining unit of Pennsylvanian shale and sandstone and glacial till. The aquifer is typically underlain b y a confining unit o f Mississippian shale. Recharge occurs primarily from precipitation infiltrating overlying aquifers.

The top of this aquifer is approximately 548.6 m (1 , 800 ft) below-ground surface and is a primary source of water in seven counties north of the Mis s ouri River (Miller and Appel , 1997). In accordance with drillers' reports generated from 1987 to 2005 , the estimated static water le ve l in the area near the proposed site was approximately 198 m (650 ft) below-ground surface (MDNR, 2006). During previous in ves tigations at Discovery Ridge , groundwater was observed at depths rangin g from approximate l y 3.7-5.6 m (12-18.5 ft) below-ground surface. 2-86 63 +

......

I * ... I : .* I .. _, __ ,. " NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics

-** .. *-**--*-.. ..-. .....c..*

I I ... .... i,6, ...;. ... >wP* -1 ! 1-**-**-.. -.... ! ! .. -1':*,:. i l *. !. t I f* ! : r.. ...._ ______ _. "\.-** i. ** _ ** _ .. ./ Static Water Level RPF ite 0 8 km (5 mile) Radiu from RPF ite -Inter tate Highway 0 0.5 4 **c:::i**::::i****

====-**-Miles 2 3 Highway (,f ity Limit MJNk IW.lln' .. R<r-'b

... **fKH 1 ...... 1 dtt.ll np Rbilll' *tli>f.lllin cdu, rwt-Jabnil \\atn k("WMl\._"l"Ji.

\fO -.. tn t linauc. Jip np Figure 2-35. Aquifer Map 2-87

2.4.3 Floods

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics This subsection identifies the effects of potential floods on the proposed RPF site. Figure 2-36 provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map of the area around the proposed RPF site. The site is located outside of the 500-year flood plain. The nearest FEMA flood zone A is located along Gans Creek located to the southeast of the site. The elevation of this zone is 242 m (795 ft). The RPF site elevation is 248 m (815 ft). There are no water impoundments or dams upstream of the RPF site on Gans Creek that could affect the facilit y. There are also two ponds located near the RPF site within Discovery Ridge. These ponds include the 7 .9 ha ( 19 .6-acre) common grounds storm water management pond located to the northwest of the site. The top of the dam for this pond is 246 m (807 ft), with the spillway at 245 m (804 ft). The second pond , currently approximately 4 ha (I 0 acres), is located to the northeast of the site. The elevation of the dam is approximately 244 m (801 ft). Failure of either of these two ponds would not likely affect the RPF because the elevation of the dams is lower than the elevation of the RPF. 2-88 0 8 km (5 mile) Radius from RPF Site -Interstate Highways -Highways 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 **c:::m*c:m---=

====::::i---Miles JUIAFlilodM*

FEMA Flood Zones ZO E Zone A ZoneAE ZoneX Zone X500 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Figure 2-36. Federal Emergency Management Agenc y Flood Zones Around the Radioisotope Production Facility 2-89 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 2.5 GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING This subsection provides summary descriptions of geomorphic provinces and their tectonic development, a nd the glacial history responsible for surface topography features found today in the state of Missouri.

The descriptions are based on a review of relevant , readily available published reports and maps , and where available, records and unpublished reports from federal and state agencies.

Information on the site characteristics has been acquired from these same sources and from site-specific investigations, including geotechnical field studies. 2.5.1 Regional Geology 2.5.1.1 Geomorphic Provinces The state of Missouri is divided into three geomorphic provinces:

• *

• Interior Plains Province , also referred to as the Central Lowland Pro v ince (northern Missouri , north of the Missouri River) Interior Highlands (central Missouri , south of the Missouri River) Atlantic Plains , also referred to as the Coastal Plains Province (the " boot heel" or southeastern corner of Missouri). The proposed RPF site is located north of the Missouri River within the Interior Plains province.

The Interior Plains are defined by the general texture of the surface terrain , rock type, and geologic structure.

They are characterized by moderately dissected, glaciated, flat to rolling plains that slope gently toward the Missouri and Mississippi River valleys. Local relief is 6.1-50.3 m (20-165 ft). Drainage is dendritic , current geomorphic processes are fluvial erosion, transport and deposition , and minor mass wasting. Elevations range from 183-457 m (600-1,500 ft) above mean sea level , with the proposed RPF site averaging 245 m (805 ft) above mean sea level (USGS , 2013a). 2.5.1.1.1 Interior Plains Province The Interior Plains Province is a vast region spread across the stable core (craton) of North America. This area formed when several small continents collided and welded together over a billion years ago, during the Precambrian Era. Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks now form the basement of the Interior Plains and make up the stable core of North America. Throughout the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras, the low lying Interior Plains remained relatively unaffected by mountain building and tectonic collisions in the western and eastern margins of the continent.

During the Mesozoic Era, the majority of the North American continental interior was above sea level , with two notable exceptions. The first occurring during the Jurassic Era (208-144 million years ago), when rising seas flooded the low-lying areas of the continent and most of the Interior Plains were eventually submerged beneath the shallow Sundance Sea. The second exception occurred during the Cretaceous Period , when record high sea levels flooded the continental interior with shallow seas. During this time , the Interior Plains continued to receive deposits from the eroding Rocky Mountains to the west and Appalachian and Ouachita-Ozark Mountains to the east and south throughout the most recent Cenozoic Era. The flatness of the Interior Plains is a reflection of the platform of mostly flat-l yi ng marine and stream deposits laid down in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras. The overlying sedimentary rocks are composed mostly of limestone, sandstone , and shales (USGS , 2013a). 2-90 2.5.1.1.2 Interior Highlands Province NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics The southern portion of Missouri , south of the Missouri River, is located within the Interior Highlands Province.

The Interior Highlands includes the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains of southern Missouri, Arkansas, and eastern Oklahoma.

The rocky outcrops that make of the core of the Interior Highlands are Paleozoic age carbonates and other sedimentary rocks that were originally deposited on the sea floor. In the Ouachita Mountains, these ancient marine rocks are now contorted by folds and faults. The ancient, eroded mountains of the Interior Highlands stand surrounded by nearly flat-lying sedimentary rocks and deposits of the Interior and Atlantic Plains provinces. The Interior Highlands consist of thick bedrock units of sandstone and shale, with lesser amounts of chert and novaculite (a fine-grained silica rock, like flint), deposited in a deep sea that covered the area from Late Cambrian through Early Pennsylvanian time. The area was then folded and faulted in such a manner that resistant beds of sandstone, chert, and novaculite now form long , sinuous mountain ridges that tower 152-457 m (500-1,500 ft) above adjacent valleys formed in easil y eroded shale (USGS, 2013a). 2.5.1.1.3 Atlantic Plains Province The Atlantic Plain Province is the flattest of all the provinces and stretches over 3,540 km (2,200 mi) in length from Cape Cod to the border of Mexico and southward another 1 , 609 km (1 , 000 mi) to the Yucatan Peninsula. The Atlantic Plains s lop e gently seaward from the Interior Highlands in a series of terraces.

The gentle sloping continues far into the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, forming the continental shelf. Eroded sediments from the Interior Highlands were carried east and southward by streams and gradually covered the faulted continental margin , burying it under a wedge of layered sedimentary and volcanic debris thousands of feet thick. The sedimentary rock layers that lie beneath much of the coastal plain and fringing continental shelfremain nearly horizontal or tilt gently toward the sea (USGS, 2013b). 2.5.1.2 Glacial History " Re cent studies of ice c or es , stalagmites, and other temperature dating m e thods hav e concluded that there hav e been 30 sustained p erio ds of frigid temperatures in the last 3 million years. Of the classical glacial periods , only two: pre-Jllinoian (Nebraskan-Kansan) and Illinoian are now recognized as having left glacial deposits in th e State of Missouri.

Th e pr e-Illinoian was the mo st severe. Amongst its legacy was the changing of the course of the Missouri Riv er to its pres ent location , the scouring and JU!ing of Northern Missouri topography , and exte nsiv e outwash gravels left to the south of the present Missouri River. Although th e O za rks were not glaciated in the r ecent past, a cove r of Pleistocene loess of varying thicknesses ex tends over all of the state except for the highest parts of the Ozark Mountains.

Re siduu m , otherwise kno wn as soil, clay, and rockfragments degrad e from exposed and subsurface b edroc k. Gravity and streams mov e this residuum , depositing it in sometimes graded layers." (MDNR, 2013a) In Boone County, the glacial till averages over 43 m (140 ft) thick in the northeastern portion of the c ounty, and the loess material reaches a maximum depth of 6.1 m (20 ft) along the Missouri River Bluffs (Boone County, 2013). 2-91 NWM I ...... :*.*! #OftTHWllT MlDtCAl ISOTWU NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 2.5.1.3 Local Topography and Soils of Boone County The topography of Boone County ranges from highly dissected hills to flat floodplains and nearly flat uplands. Elevations range from approximately 274.3 km (900 ft) above mean sea level along the northern boundary of Boone County to about 164.6 m (540 ft) above mean sea level in the southern tip of the county. Several areas of the county contain well developed cave and sinkhole formations. Ordovician to middle Pennsylvania-aged dolomite, limestone , sandstone , coal , and shale deposits are visible throughout Boone County in geologic outcrops and roadcuts.

The Mississippian-aged Burlington limestone is easily weathered by acidic groundwater and contains some unique natural resources of Boone County, including the most famous-Devil's Ice Box cave system , which is located approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) southwest of the proposed RPF site. There are numerous caves in Boone County and 418 documented sinkholes (Boone County, 2013) Pennsylvanian aged deposits are overlaid by glacial till and loess. The soils of Boone County are included in parts of two major land resource areas: the Central Claypan Area and Central Mississippi Valley Wooded Slopes. *

• Central Claypan Area -The Central Claypan Area soils were formed in glacial till and cover the northeastern and east-central portions of Boone County. Claypan soils display extreme variability within the soil profile and across the landscape; therefore , plant growth within these soils must contend with distinctively contrasting physical , chemical , and hydrologic properties at different soil depths. The depth to the claypan soils varies from approximately 10 cm (3.9 in.) on ridge tops up to 100 cm (39.4 in.) on backslopes.

The soil horizons preceding the claypan are depleted of clay minerals , cations , and have a very low pH. The claypan horizon typically has an abrupt upper boundary with 100 percent more clay than the preceding horizon, and very low permeability. Central Mississippi Valley Wooded Slopes -This major land resource area consists of a dissected glacial till plain comprising rolling narrow ridge tops and hilly-to-steep ridge slopes. The small streams in this area have narrow valleys with steep gradients. The major rivers have nearly level broad floodplains, and the valley floors are tens of meters below the adjoining hilltops. Most of the soils within the central Mississippi valley wooded slopes area are found in silty loess or glacial till, are moderately to fine-grained in texture with a mixed mineralogy, and are well drained to moderately well-drained.

These soils are typically observed on ridge tops and support forest flora (Boone County , 2013). The proposed RPF site is lo cated in a tectonically stable Interior Plains Province.

2.5.2 Site Geology The stratigraphy of the geologic units that underlie the proposed RPF site and/or properties within a mile radius from the project site (Figure 2-37), are l isted below from youngest to oldest: * * * * * *

• Quaternary Age Holocene Series (Qal) Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Marmaton Group (Pm) Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Cherokee Group (Pc) Mississippian Age Osagean Series Burlington Formation (Mo) Mississippian Age Kinderhookian Series (Mk) Late to Early Devonian aged (D) Early Ordovician Age lbexian Series (Ojc) 2-92 al

• RPF ite 0 8 km (5 mile) Radiu from RPF ite -Inter tate Hi ghway -Highway .;*l . . . : ... r 1ty L1m1t 0 0.5 2 3 4 + *-c:::-m:=----=

=====---*Miles NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Geolo g ic Feature Label , Rock T y pe I , Rock T y pe 2 D , lime ton . and tone Mk. lime tone , ilt tone Mo. lime tone. chert Ojc. dolo tone (dolomite). sand tone Pc. hale , and tone Pm , lime tone , hale Qal. clay or mud, silt Pm Figure 2-37. Geologic Features within an 8 km (5-mi) Radius of the Radioisotope Production Facilit y Site 2-93 2.5.2.1 Quaternary Age Holocene Series (Qal) NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics The surface topography of the proposed RPF site and surrounding properties consists of Quaternary age bedrock overburden characterized by upland areas covered by a thin loess blanket and glacial drift. Previous investigations of Discovery Ridge noted that " Highly plastic clays that exhibit volume change with variations in moisture are commonly encountered near the ground surface" (Terracon, 2011 ). Figure 2-38 depicts the Quaternar y age bedrock overburden at the proposed RPF site as clay loam till (No. 27). Clay loam till is also depicted on all adjacent properties to the north, east, south, and west. Additional Quaternary age deposits located within an 8 km (5-mi) radius of the proposed RPF site include alluvium (No. 10), loess (No. 18), sandy clay (No. 40), and thin , cherty clay solution residuum (No. 41). The typical Quaternary age groundcover found in Boone County consists of alluvial (stream-deposited) clays, sand , and gravels (with a few poorly consolidated sandstones);

glacial till s (sand and well-sorted gravels);

and eolian (windblown) clays and Joess (an extremely fine "rock flour," which forms solid masses) (MDNR, 2013b). These glacial deposits mantle the upland areas and consist of a heterogeneous mixture of clay , sand, and pebbles of diverse rock types. The deposits vary greatly in thickness and are as much as 42.7 m (140 ft) thick in the northern portion of Boone County. This material is relatively impermeable and supplies very little water to wells (MU, 2006). A site-specific geotechnical investigation of the RPF site will be conducted to identify specific soil characteristics.

If highl y plastic clays are identified at the site, the design will include excavation of the clays and then backfill with structural fill. The RPF structural design will be completed during the final design and will be included as part of the Operating License Application.

2-94 41 10 '1

• D 5 mile) Radiu from RP -Highwa -Interstate High\ ay .,:.f'")

it y Limit 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 ** Miles U 1996 M O 1996 Quat muif) Gcolos> t UP I ite NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 10 41 uat mary of M i ouri D RIPT I 10-Allu ium 27 -la loam till I -Loe 40 -and clay 41 -Thin chert cla olution re iduum (d*J*tal data( flp m..tis m1 ioun edu'pub 11 Gtoph) 1 11 1 0 1996 Quat<mal)

Gcaloio p 11p Figure 2-38. Map of Missouri Quaternar y Age Geolog y 2-95 -__J NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 2.5.2.2 Pennsylvanian Age Desmoinesian Series Marmaton Group (Pm) and Cherokee Group (Pc) Pennsylvanian age strata (both Marmaton and Cherokee Groups) consists largely of clay and shale, with minor accounts of coal and thin, impure limestone beds. The total thickness may be as much as 33.5 m (110 ft). These beds produce only small quantities of water and are not used in this area as a source of supply. The water found in this unit is usually high in iron and sulfur content (MU, 2006). Limestone and shale beds are generally thin and very widespread lateral units. Pennsylvanian deposits are quite extensive across Missouri, and they usually form thin-to medium-bedded layers of distinctive composition, called cyclothems.

A cyclothem results when a sea transgresses and regresses very rapidly along a coastal area, and in a repeating pattern. Often , this pattern consists of a sandstone (beach), silty shale or siltstone (tidal), freshwater limestone (lagoon), underclay (terrestrial), coal (terrestrial swampy forest), shale (near shore tidal), limestone (shallow marine), and black shale (deep marine). This sequence can then repeat itself as the sea first regresses from the land , and then transgresses again (MDNR, 2013c). 2.5.2.3 Mississippian Age Osagean Series Burlington Formation (Mo) The Mississippian age Burlington Formation stratum is the most extensively studied Mississippian age strata in Missouri.

This crystalline, extremely fossiliferous limestone covers most of the state and extends into Iowa and Arkansas.

Typical characteristics include white-to-gray, medium-to-coarsely grained layers of chert nodules, and a coarse-grained sedimentary structure called "styolites" formed from pressure solution. The pores in the styolites are often filled with chert or quartz deposits (MDNR , 2013d). Burlington limestone is the principal limestone exposed in quarries, creek banks , and roadcuts near and around Columbia.

This limestone is approximately 49 m (160 ft) thick in the Columbia area (but the thickness can vary) and may contain minor amounts of pyrite and limonite.

Burlington limestone has historically been economically important as a limestone resource where exposed and as host rock for lead and zinc deposits in the presently inactive Tri-State mining district of Missouri, Kansas , and Oklahoma (MU, 2006). Burlington limestone contains many shallow-drilled wells and yields sufficient quantities ofrelatively hard water for rural domestic supplies. The limestone is quite soluble and contains many caverns and solutions passages.

Solution features , including caves and sinkholes, are commonly present in this formation (MU, 2006). Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) reported the following:

No caves or sinkholes are known to exist , or are published to exist within approximatel y 1 mi of the Discovery Ridge R e search Park. How e ver , several areas of known karst activity ar e pres e nt west and south we st of this project ar e a and are in various s tages of development. Site grading and drainage may alt e r site conditions and could possibl y caus e sinkholes in areas that have no history of this a c tivity. (Terracon , 2011) No sinkholes have occurred at the RPF site since the Terracon preliminary report was issued in 2011. The most recent study (Boone County, 2015) shows that the project site is northeast of the nearest areas considered to have the potential for sinkholes.

The most recent sinkhole occurred in May 2014 and was located on East Gans Creek Road , approximately 1.17 km (0. 73 mi) to the southwest of the RPF site. 2-96 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics A site-specific geotechnical investigation of the RPF site will be conducted to ensure that the area does not have the potential for sinkholes.

If the investigation does identify the potential for sinkholes, the RPF final design would incorporate one of the following alternatives:

(1) excavate site both vertically and horizontally to remove that potential and backfill with structural fill, or (2) install piers to bedrock to support the substructure if a sinkhole was to occur. If one of these alternatives needs to be implemented, the approach will be determined after the geotechnical investigation is complete, incorporated in the final RPF design, and included in the Operating License Application.

2.5.2.4 Mississippian Age Kinderhookian Series Chouteau Limestone (Mk) The Mississippian age Chouteau Limestone stratum is a very fine-grained carbonate and , for the most part, is an evenly bedded bluish gray limestone.

The upper part is somewhat massive and high in magnesium.

Chouteau limestone is relatively impermeable due to its fine texture , restricting the movement of water to joints and small fissures.

This unit is a poor source of water but yields small quantities to a few wells (MU, 2006). 2.5.2.5 Late to Early Devonian Limestone (D) Devonian limestone strata deposits greatly vary in lithology , and range from very fine-grained to coarsely textured beds. Some of the beds are slightly sandy. In some areas of Columbia , Missouri, the Devonian limestone beds are approximately 9 m (30 ft) thick; in other well locations, this limestone bed is completely absent. Devonian limestone is not a valuable water producer (MU , 2006). 2.5.2.6 Early Ordovician Age Ibexian Series Dolomites (Ojc) Ordovician age deposits found in the Columbia area include the following, from youngest to oldest (MU, 2006): * * *

• 2.5.3 St. Peter Sandstone

-This formation, which is a very important aquifer in eastern and northern Missouri, has no importance in the Columbia area. It is present only as localized masses in the depressions of older rocks. Jefferson City Formation

-This predominantly dolomite formation averages approximately 122 m (400 ft) in thickness in the Columbia area, and wells drilled into it produce moderate quantities of relatively hard water. The formation probably has more rural domestic wells terminating in it than any other formation is this area. Roubidoux Formation

-This formation consists of alternating sandstone and dolomite beds and averages approximately 30.5 m (100 ft) in thickness. The formation is a very dependable water producer.

Gasconade Formation

-This unit consists of mostly light-gray dolomite with sandstone (Gunter) at the base. The thickness is approximately 85.3 m (280 ft). This dolomite unit is very cavernous and contains many interconnected solution passages.

The sandstone is approximately 4.6 m (15 ft) thick , is very permeable, has a wide aerial extent, and is a good source of water. On-site Soil Types The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic database for Boone County (NRCS , 2012) lists the soil type beneath the proposed RPF site as t he Mexico Silt Loam. 2-97 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics In 2011, Terracon completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Discovery Ridge Certified Site Program, which included Lot 2 and Lots 5 through 18 of Discovery Ridge (Terracon, 2011). The proposed RPF site (Lot 15) is within the investigation area. The purpose of the investigation was to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, and pavements for Discovery Ridge properties.

As part of the study, nine soil borings (B-1 through B-9) were installed to depths ranging from 4--6 m (13-20 ft) below-ground surface to determine shallow subsurface soil geotechnical properties and shallow groundwater depth. Soil boring B-5 is nearest to the proposed RPF site , along the eastern boundary between Lots 14 and 15. Discovery Ridge surface soils from 0.6-0.15 m (0.2-0.5 ft) below-ground surface were found to be brown, friable topsoil with significant amounts of organic matter. Subsurface soils from approximately 0.9-3.6 m (3-12 ft) below-ground surface were lean clay, Jean-to-fat clay, and fat clay with high plasticity.

Material beneath 3.6 m (12 ft) is li sted only as limestone.

Plasticity and liquid limit tests were completed for soils encountered from only four soil borings. At the time of drilling , some of the soils displayed moisture levels greater their measured plastic limits. " Soils with moisture levels above their measured plastic limits may be prone to rutting and can develop unstable subgrade conditions during general construction operations" (Terracon , 2011 ). Moderate to high plasticity clays were observed at the site. Such soils are commonly referred to as "expansive" or " swelling" soils because they expand or swell as their moisture content increases. These soils in turn , contract or shrink as the moisture content decreases.

Footings, floor slabs , and pavements supported on expansive soils often shift upward or downward causing possible distortion , cracking , or structural damage. A site-specific geotechnical investigation of the RPF site will be conducted to identify the site-specific soil characteristics. If highly plastic clays are identified at the site, the design will include excavation of the clays and then backfill with structural fill. The structural details will be developed in the final RPF design and included in the Operating License Application. 2.5.4 Seismicity The most significant seismological feature in Missouri is the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), located in the southeastern corner of the state and extending into parts of the contiguous states of Arkansas , Tennessee , Kentucky , and Illinois.

The NMSZ is the most seismically active region in the U.S. east of the Rocky Mountains and is loc ated approximately 483 km (300 mi) southeast of the proposed RPF site. During the winter of 1811-1812 , the NMSZ was the location of some of the highest intensity seismic events ever noted in U.S. history. Hundreds of aftershocks , some severely damaging , continued for years. Records show that since 1900 , moderatel y damaging earthquakes have struck the NMSZ every few decades. Prehistoric earthquakes similar in size to those of 1811-1812 occurred in the middle 1400s and around 900 A.D. Strongly damaging earthquakes struck the southwestern end of the NMSZ near Marked Tree , Arkansas , in 1843 (magnitude 6.0), and the northeastern end near Charleston , Missouri , in 1895 (magnitude 6.6) (USGS , 201 la). The NMSZ is made up ofreactivated faults that formed when what is now North America began to split or rift apart approximately 500 million years ago. The resulting rift system died out before an ocean basin was formed, but a deep zone of weakness was created , referred to as the Reelfoot rift (USGS , 201 lb). This fault system extends 241 km (150 mi) southward from Cairo , Illinois , through New Madrid and Caruthersville, Missouri, down through Blytheville , Arkansas, to Marked Tree , Arkansas.

The Reelfoot rift dips into Kentucky near Fulton and into Tennessee near Reelfoot Lake , extending southeast into Dyersburg , Tennessee.

The rift then crosses five state lines and crosses the Mississippi River in at least three places. The fault system is buried beneath as much as 8 km (5 mi) of sediment for much of the fault length and typically cannot be seen at the surface (USGS , 2011 b ). 2-98 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Four of the largest faults are recognized as alignments of abundant small earthquakes , and movements along two of these faults dammed rivers and created lakes during the earthquakes of 1811-1812. A few more deeply buried faults were detected during oil and gas exploration , and a few small faults are known from geologic mapping (USGS, 2011 b ). The remainder of the state, including the proposed RPF site located in central Missouri , is typical of the stable midcontinent U.S. Earthquakes occur on faults within bedrock , usually several miles deep. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), earthquakes in the central and eastern U.S. typically are felt over a much broader region than in the western U.S. East of the Rocky Mountains, an earthquake can be felt over an area ten times larger than a similar magnitude earthquake on the west coast. According to information from Missouri's State Emergency Management Agency Earthquake Program , some of the earthquakes measure at least 7.6 in magnitude and five of them measured 8.0 or greater. The 1811-1812 series changed the course of the Mi s souri Ri v er , and some shocks were felt as far away as Washington D.C. and Boston (MMRPC, 2010). The NMSZ has experienced numerous earthquakes since the 1811-1812 series, and at least 35 aftershocks of intensity V or greater that have been recorded in the Missouri since 1811. Numerous earthquakes originating outside of the state's boundaries have also affected Missouri.

Table 2-41 summarizes the historical earthquakes that ha v e affected the state of Missouri.

Table 2-41. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (4 pages) Date Location Magnitude Recorded damage 12116/1811 New Madrid (1811-1812 Region, Missouri series) 12/23/1812 New Madrid, (1811-1812 Missouri series) 2/7/1812 New Madrid , (1811-1812 Missouri series) 114/1843 New Madrid, Missouri 7. 7 Generated great waves on the Mississippi River causing major flooding , high river back cave-ins.

Topographic changes affected an area of78 , 000 to 130 , 000 km 2 (30, 116 to 50 , 193 mi2). Later geologic evidence indicated that the epicenter was likely in northeast Arkansas.

The main shocks were felt over an area covering at least 5, 180 , 000 km 2 (2 , 000,000 mi 2). Chimneys were knocked down in Cincinnati , Ohio, and bricks were reported to have fallen from chimneys in Georgia and South Carolina.

The first shock was felt distinctively in Washington, D.C., 1,127 km (700 mi) away. 7.5 Second major shock more violent than the first. 7. 7 Three main shocks reaching MMI of XII , the maximum on scale. Aftershocks continued to be felt for several years after the initial tremor. Historical accounts and later evidence indicate that the epicenter was close to the town of New Madrid, Missouri.

This quake produced the largest liquefactions fields in the world. Not listed Cracked chimneys and walls in Memphis, Tennessee, and reportedly collapsed one building.

The earth sank in some places near the town of New Madrid, Missouri, and an unverified report indicated that two hunters were drowned during the formation of a lake. The total felt area included at least 1,036,000 km 2 ( 400,000 mi 2). 2-99 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Table 2-41. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (4 pages) Date Location Magnitude Recorded damage 4/2411867 Eastern Kansas Not li ste d 8/31/1886 Charleston, South Not listed Carolina 10/31/1895 Charleston , Missouri 1903 New Madrid, Missouri 6.6 5.1 4/9/1917 St. Genevieve/ St. Not listed Mary's Area , Missouri 5/1/1920 Missouri or Illinois Not listed Reports indicated that an earthquake occurred in eastern Kansas and was felt as far eastward as Chicago, Illinoi s. It may have b een noticeable in Columbia.

An MMI of II earthquake recorded in St. Louis, Missouri , and was felt as far westward as Columbia.

There were no reports of structural damage. Largest eart hquake to occur in the central Mississippi River va lley s ince the 1811-1812 series. Structural damage and liquefaction phenomena were reported along a line from Bertrand , Missouri, in the west to Cairo , Illinoi s, to the east. Sand blow s were observed in an area so uthwest of Charleston , Puxico , and Taylor , Missouri; Alton , and Car io , Illinois; Princeton , Indiana; and Paducah , Kentucky. The earthquake caused extensive damage (including downed chimneys , cracked walls, shattered windows , and brok en plaster) to sc hool s, ch urches , and private residences.

Every building in the commercial area of Charleston was damaged. Cairo , Illinois , and Memphis, Tennessee , suffered sign ificant damage. Near Charleston, 1.6 ha ( 4 acres) of ground sank and a lak e formed. The shock was felt over all or portions of 24 states and in Canada. Ground shaking was recorded along the Ohio River Valley. No information given. A sharp disturbance at St. Genevieve and St. Mary's, Missouri.

According to the Dail y Missourian, No. 187 , dated April 9, 1917 , the earthquake was not felt in Columbia.

However , on the following da y severa l people report e d feeling the shock and attributed it to an explosion. No damage was reported in Columbia.

Reportedly felt over a 518 , 000 km 2 (200 , 000 mi 2) area from Kansas to Ohio and Wisconsin to Mississippi.

This earthquake reportedly shook buildings across St. Louis. Two shocks were felt in Mt. Vernon, Illinois, and three were felt in Centralia, Illinois.

The epicenter of this earthquake is unknown and is thought to have originated east of Columbia in Illinois.

In the Evening Missourian, No. 207, dated May 1, 1920, the U.S. Weather Bureau reported that the shock was not felt in Columbia.

However, in a later investigation a few people reported feeling a slight tremor. 2-100

NWM I ...**... * * *

• N091TMWHT lllDICAl I SOTOl'U Table 2-41. NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (4 pages) Date Location Magnitude Recorded damage 8/19/1934 Rodney, Missouri Listed as At nearby Charleston, windows were broken and chimneys strong collapsed or were damaged. Similar effects were observed in Cairo, Mounds, and Mounds City , Illinois , and at Wickliffe, Kentucky.

The area of destructive intensity included more than 596 km 2 (230 mi 2) 11/2311939 Western Illinois Not listed An earthquake occurred near Red Bud, Illinois, and a reported MMI of II was recorded in Columbia, Missouri.

The approximately distance from the epicenter to Columbia was 213 km (132 mi). 3/3/1963 Near Not listed MMI of III was recorded in Columbia.

The approximately Menorkanut, distance from the epicenter to Columbia was 3 I 7 km Missouri (197 mi). 10/2111965 Eastern Missouri Not listed MMI ofV in Columbia.

The approximate distance from the epicenter to Columbia was 163 km) (101 mi). 1119/1968 Wabash Valley Seismic Zone , southern Illinois 1987 Wabash Valley Seismic Zone, near Olney, Richland County, SE Illinois 2002 Wabash Valley Seismic Zone , Posey County , SW Indiana 8/16/2003 20 km WNW of Alton, Missouri 5/1 8/2005 Missouri 7 /3112005 Missouri 6/7/2011 18 km NNW of Potosi, Missouri 9/22/2011 22 km NNE of Doniphan, Missouri 5.4 5.0 4.6 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.9 3.6 Strongest magnitude in central U.S. since the 1895 earthquake.

Moderate damage to chimneys and walls at Hermann , St. Charles , St. Louis , and Sikeston, Missouri. Shaking was felt. Areas include all or portion s of 23 states from Minnesota to Georgia and from Pennsylvania to Kansas, and in multi-story buildings in Boston , Massachusetts and southernmost Ontario , Canada. Chimneys and bricks fell, underground pipes were damaged, and sidewalks and streets cracked in at least four cities in Illinois , Indiana, and Kentucky.

Shaking was felt in 17 states, from Pennsylvania to Kansas and from Alabama to Minnesota and southernmost Ontario, Canada. Moderate earthquake caused chimney damage and cracked windows in and near Evansville , Indiana. Shaking was reported in seven states , including Missouri. Minor quake, no damage reported Minor quake , no damage reported Minor quake, no damage reported Minor quake , no damage reported Minor quake, no damage reported 2-101 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Table 2-41. Recorded Missouri Earthquake History (4 pages) Date Location Magnitude Recorded damage 1116/2 015 15 km N of 3.5 Minor quake, no dama ge reported Doniphan , Missouri 10116/2015 14 km NNW of 3.2 Minor quake, no damage reported Doniphan , Missouri 7/5/2016 6 km SW of 3.0 Minor quake, no damag e reported Caruthersville , Missouri Sources: USGS, 20 1 3c, "Three Centur i es of Earthq u akes Poster ," pubs.usgs.g ov/imap/i-28 1 2/i-28 l 2.jpg, U.S. Geo l ogical Survey, Reston, Virginia, accessed July 23, 2013. USGS, 2002, "Ea rthquakes in the Ce ntral United States 1699-2002 ," pub s.usgs.gov/imap/i-28 1 2/i-2812.jpg, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston , Virginia, June 18 , 2002. MU, 2006, Missouri University R esearch R eactor (MU RR) Safety Analysis R epor t , MU Project# 000763 , University of Missouri , Columbia, Mi sso uri , August 1 8, 2 006. USGS, 20 1 6, "Search Ea rthquake Catalog," http://earthquake

.u sgs.gov/earthquakes

/searc h/, U.S. Geolog i ca l Survey, Re s ton , Virginia, accessed October 7, 2016. MMI = Modified Mercalli Intensity.

2-102 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics

2.5.5 Maximum

Earthquake Potential In 2002, the USGS released the following projected hazards for Boone County , if an earthquake occurred along the NMSZ in the following 50 years (MMRPC, 2012): *

• 25 to 40 percent chance of a magnitude 6.0 and greater earthquake 7 to 10 percent chance of a magnitude 7.5 to 8.0 earthquake . According to the USGS , Boone County is one of the 47 counties in Missouri that would be severely impacted b y a 7 .6 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter on or near the NMSZ. According to the Boon e County Hazard Mitigation Plan for 2010 (MM RPC , 20 10), the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency has made projections of the highest earthquake intensities that would be experienced throughout the state of Missouri if various magnitude earthquakes occur along the NMSZ (Figure 2-39, on the next page), as measured by the Modified Mercalli Inten s it y (MMJ) sca le. The pertinent information for Boone County is summarized in Table 2-42.

• 6.7 7.6 Table 2-42. Projected Earthq uake Hazards for Boone County Probability of occurrence (2002-2052) 25-40% 7-10% Intensity in Boone County (MMI) Expected damage VI, strong Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors , walk unsteadil y. Windows , dishes , glassware broken; books fall off shelves; some heavy furniture mo ve d or turned; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage s light. VII , very strong Difficult to stand; significant damage to poorly or badly designed buildings, adobe houses , old walls, spires , and other; damage would be slight to moderate in well-built buildings; numerous broken windows; weak chimneys break at roof lines; cornices from towers and high buildings fall; loose bricks fall from buildings; heavy furniture is overturned and damaged; and some sand and gravel streambanks cave in. Source: MMRPC , 20 10 , Boon e County Hazard Mitigation Plan , www.mmrp c.org/th e-r egion/boon e-county, Mid-Mi sso uri R egiona l Pl a nn ing Co mmi ssio n , S tat e of Missouri Emerge n cy Mana ge ment Agency , Ashland , Mis s our i , Jul y 1 5, 2 010. MMI = Modified Mercalli Inten s i ty. NMSZ = New Madrid Seis mi c Zone. The USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps di sp la y earthquake ground motion s for va rious probabilit y le ve ls across the U.S. and are applied in seismic provi s ion s of buildin g code s, insurance rate structures , ris k assessments, and other public policy. U pd ates to these maps incorporate new findin gs on earthquak e ground s haking , faults , se ismicity , and geodesy. The re s ultin g map s are deri ve d from seismic hazard curves calculated on a grid of s ites across the U.S. that describe the frequency of ex ceedin g a set of ground motions. In accordance with the 2008 USGS Scientific Investigation Map (No. 3 I 95) (USGS , 2008), the proposed RPF site is within the third lowest earthquake ha zar d area with peak acceleration potentials of 2-3 (Petersen et al., 2 011 ). This category indicates an estimated horizontal ground-shaking le ve l betw ee n 8-in-100 to 16-in-100 chance of being exceeded in a 50-year period. 2-103 R I " . . pringficld RPF itc NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics km 5 mile) Radiu from RPF itc Mi ouri ei mi Hazard Map Modified Mercalli l nten ity cale late Boundaric

+ -Highway ounty Boundaric Cit 0 20 40 80 120 1smocllalard<M.op Boone ourtt)" :':01: #1."f()ltt' f '"'"" lla:rwJ \11t1KiJllOlf

/lJ.ut !0/0 Figure 2-39. 160 Miles Hazard Mitigation Map 2-104 V -Rather trong I -trong 11 -Very trong I ll -De tructi e I X -R uinou X -Di a trou NWM I .*.**... * * *

• NOllTIIWUl llfDKAL lSOTIN'U NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics According to MMRPC (20I 0), the entire county is at risk for effects of an earthquake along the NMSZ. Areas near the Missouri River could be particularly vulnerable due to the soil or alluvium along river channels being susceptible to liquefaction from amplification waves. 2.5.6 Vibratory Ground Motion NUREG-I 537, Part I , Section 3.4 requires that seismic design for non-power reactors should, at a minimum, be consistent with local building codes and other applicable standards.

For MU facilities , the 20I2 IBC has been levied as the required building code. Therefore , seismic design parameters for the proposed project are discussed in terms of the 20I2 IBC and associated standards. Seismic provisions in 20 I 2 IBC, Chapter 16 ,Section I 3 , "Earthquake Loads ," and ASCE 7-I 0, Chapter I I, are based on 5 percent damped spectral accelerations for a maximum-considered earthquake with a return period of 2,475 years (equivalent to a ground motion with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years). Spectral acceleration values for the maximum considered earthquake are for soil Site Class B (rock). The short-(S s) and long-(S1) period spectral accelerations for rock sites are provided by Boone County and are based on USGS (2009) data. In the 20 I 2 IBC, Site Class B soil conditions require modification for other soil site classes by the application of the site coefficients F a (site coefficient for 0.2-sec period) and F v (site coefficient for I-sec period). Soil-modified S s becomes SM s (maximum-considered earthquake spectral response for 0.2 sec modified for soil Site Class) and soil-modified S1 become SM1 (maximum-considered earthquake spectral response for 1-sec period modified for soil Site Class) where SMs = S s x F a and SM1 = S 1 x F v (Equations 16-36 and I6-37 in IBC , 20I2). Boone County , Missouri indicates S s and SI values of 0.2 I 3 g-force (g) and 0.093 g , respectively (Fa and F v = I) for the site. The Boone County site is classified as soil Site Class C , which is defined as soils predominately of very dense glacial tills , sands , and gravels , and soil sites with very shallow rock often qualify. NWMI has committed to using the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60, Design Response Spectra for Seismic D es ign of N uclear Po we r Plants, for the final seismic design. The estimated maximum ground acceleration at the RPF site will meet Regulatory Guide 1.60 free-field response spectrum anchored to a peak ground acceleration of 0.20 g. The Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum eliminates the need for soil classifications used as part of the IBC methodology.

In addition, Chapter 3.0 , Sections 3.4 and 3.5 provide design criteria and the analysis methodology for seismic events, including a safe shutdown earthquake.

The seismic design of the RPF and associated items relied on for safety (IROFS) will ensure the functionality and/or integrity of structures, systems, and components required to prevent radiological release below the performance requirements of 10 CFR 70.61. Additional information on the seismic requirements and evaluations of the RPF and associated IROFS will be provided in the Operating License Application.

2-105 2.5. 7 Surface Faulting NWMl-2013-0 21 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics There is one major fault zone located within a five-mile radius of the proposed RPF site (Figure 2-40). The Fox Hallow Fault is located approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) southeast of the proposed RPF site. The Fox Hollow Fault is a small fault, striking northeast, and fades into a monocline at its two ends. The fault is reportedly a normal fault with a throw of approximately 37 m (120 ft) down to the southwest, and shows Mississippian-aged Chouteau limestone beds faulted against Ordovician-aged Jefferson Dolomite (Union Electric Company, 2008). During the Union Electric Company study, the Fox Hollow fault was investigated at six waypoints where visual observations of the fault were made. These, plus other road cuts in the local area, were investigated for evidence of offsets and shears. No new roads have been cut or significant new development has occurred recently in the area. At Waypoint 1 , which is in Fox Hollow where the valley runs normal to the Fox Hollow Fault, the valley is heavily vegetated and reworked for agriculture.

An outcrop of Jefferson Dolomite , about 91 m (300 ft) long , was observed on the north side of the valley. The Jefferson is dipping about 5 degrees to the west on the west flank or down-dipping of a monocline. At the other waypoints along the fault alignment, the vegetation was heavy and the ground surface had been reworked for agriculture. No evidence of the fault was observed in any road cuts in the area , and no surface manifestation of the fault was observed at any of the waypoints.

The field investigation was expanded to the east of the fault alon g State Highway 63, which runs parallel to the main feature and reportedl y on the up-thrown side. Depending on the location, State Highway 63 runs about 4.8 to 5.6 km (3 to 3.5 mi) to the east of the feature. All road cuts along State Highway 63 , and the east-west roads running from the fault to State Highw ay 63, were examined for offsets, abrupt changes in dip, and evidence of shearing.

In each case, questionable features were Jinked to non-tectonic cause s, primarily erosion or slumping associated with the road itself. Based on th e Union Electric Company investigation , the fault was inactive at the time of their study. 2-106 1 .i 0 D -...... ) .. ,, 0.5 --8 km (5 mile) Radiu Inter tate Highway Highway City Limit 2 3 4 \l oO 'R 2010 MO 2010 Te<10n>< F1ul1 Stn><tum ( ll Pl from RPF M il es MoDXR '00 G P (dt;>ta l data) (1p msd* mmoun cdu. pub G<oloj:Kal G<oph).,.al

'MO_lOlO Tnoo>< Faull IN<1Utn >hp-up ite Figure 2-40. r**-.. *-**1 I : : t 1 ; . f NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Fa ult tructure AM E * ................ Bonne Femme reek graben -*--** Fox Hollow fault and monocline app monocline Geologic Faults Map 2-107 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics

2.5.8 Liquefaction

Potential Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts as a fluid when exposed to strong seismic shaking. The shaking causes the grains to lose grain-to-grain contact , so the sediment tends to flow. Liquefaction most likely occurs in loose sandy soil with a shallow water table (which is common for areas around floodplains or ba y s). Liquefaction often leads to overpressured fluids that can erupt to the surface , forming features known as sand blows. The 1811-1812 earthquakes caused ground subsidence by soil liquefaction across the Mississippi River flood plain and along tributaries to the Mississippi River over at least 15 , 000 km 2* Liquefaction along the Mississippi River Valley during the 1811-1812 earthquakes created one of the world's largest sand blown fields. According to the USGS , recent sand blows dot the landscape surrounding New Madrid , Missouri (USGS , 201 lb). The Association of Central United States Earthquake Consortium State Geologists (CUSEC) established regional maps identifying areas of higher and lower potential for amplification of earthquake ground motion by soils or liquefaction of the soils. The areas were defined on the basis of the geology of the upper 15 m (50 ft). Their map identifies the RPF area as an area of having lower potential for amplifying earthquake ground motions or liquefaction (CUSEC , 1999). The Terracon (2011) preliminary g eotechnical investigation for the Discovery Ridge Certified Site Program included Lot 2 and Lots 5 through 18 of the Discovery Ridge Research Park. The proposed RPF s ite (Lot 15) is located within Terracon's project area. As part of their study , Terracon installed nine soil borings (B-1 through B-9) to depths ranging from 4 to 6 m (13 to 20 ft) below-ground surface. Soil boring B-5 was drilled nearest to the proposed RPF site and was installed along the eastern boundary between Lots 14 and 15. Soils -Terracon described the subsurface soils in soil boring B-5 as listed below: * * * * *

• 6-9.1 cm (0.2-0.3 ft) below-ground surface; brown , friable topsoil with significant amounts of organic matter 9.1-91 cm (0.3-3.0 ft) below-ground surface; lean clay (CL), brown , stiff , water content 24 percent , dry unit weight 98 lb/ft 3 , and unconfined strength 4 , 000 kilopounds per square foot (kip/ft 2) 0.9-2.4 m (3.0-8.0 ft) below-ground surface; fat clay (CH), gray with red , stiff , water content 31 percent , dr y unit weight 91 lb/ft 3 , and unconfined strength 4 , 000 kip/ft2 2.4-3.7 m (8.0-12.0 ft) below-ground surface; fat clay (CH), reddish brown and light gray , trace sand and gravel , possible cobbles , stiff (glacial drift), water content 16 percent , dry unit weight l 16 lb/ft 3 , and unconfined strength 7 , 000 kip/ft 2 3.7-5.2 m (12.0-17 ft) below-ground surface; sandy lean to fat clay (CL-CH), reddish brown with light gray, trace gravel , possible cobbles, stiff (glacial drift), water content 21 percent, and unconfined strength 4,000 kip/ft2. 5.2-6.l m (17-20 ft) below-ground surface; fat clay (CH), reddish brown and light gray, trace sand and gravel, possible cobbles , very stiff (glacial drift), standard penetration test blow count = 19 , water content 18 percent, and unconfined strength 7 , 500 kip/ft2. Laboratory testing indicated that the lean clay tested from soil boring B-5, 0.3-0.91 m (1-3 ft) ground surface , had a liquid limit of 31 percent, a plastic limit of 21 percent , and a plasticity index of 10 percent. 2-108 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Groundwater level -Shallow grou ndwater encountered at the time of drilling in soil boring B-5 was at 5 m (16.5 ft) below-ground surface and the stat ic water level stabilized at 3.7 m (12.0 ft) below-ground surface. Shallow groundwater was not encountered in soil boring B-6 (located on Lot 1 0) during the drilling operation , but later stabilized at 5.6 m (18.5 ft) below-ground surface. Liquefaction potential

-Based on the preliminary geotechnical study conducted b y Terracon (2011 ), liquefaction of soils at the proposed RPF site cannot be determined. Contradictory information is listed below: * *

• In accordance with liquefaction potential sc reening techniques , cohesive soi ls with fines content greater than 30 percent and fines that are either classified as clays based on the Unified Soil Classification System or have a pla stic ity index greater than 30 percent with natural water contents lower than 90 percent, can be considered nonliquefiable.

Soils logged in soil borin g B-5 are listed as clays under the Unified Soil Classification System; however , the plasticity index is only 10 percent, with water contents ranging from 16 to 31 percent. Depth below-ground surface -A soil la ye r within 50 ft of the ground s urface is more likel y to liquefy than deeper layers. Soil penetration resistance

-Soil la yers with a normalized standard penetration test blow count less than 22 ha ve been known to liquefy. The standard penetration test blow count listed for soil boring B-5 is 19. In accordance with the statement above , this would depict soils susceptible to liquefaction. Additional geotechnical analysis will be conducted at the RPF site to determine the liquefaction potential of the soils onsite and included in the Operating License Application.

2-109

2.6 REFERENCES

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics 10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation ," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended. 10 CFR 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Code of Federal Regulations , Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 10 CFR 50.34, "Contents of Applications; Technical Information

," Code of Federal R egu lations , Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 10 CFR 50.5 4, "Conditions of Licenses," Code of Federal R egu lations, Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 10 CFR 70.6 1 , "Performance Requirements

," Code of Federal Regulations , Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 10 CFR 100 , "Reactor Site Criteria," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 10 CFR 100.11 , " Determination of Exclusion Area, Low Population Zone, and Population Center Distance ," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 49 CFR 173.318 , "Cryoge nic Liquids in Cargo Tanks," Code of Federal Re gu lations , Office of the Federal Register , as amended. ACI 349-06, 2007, Code Requir emen ts for Nuclear Safety R e lat ed Concrete Structures (AC! 349-06) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute , Farmington Hills , Michigan , 2007. AirNav, 2017, "C olumbia Regional Airport, FAA Information Effective June 22, 2017," https://www.aimav.com/airport/KCOU, AirNav, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia , 2017. ALOHA, 2008, "Co mputer Program: Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres," Version 5.4.1, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 2008. ANL/EVS/TM/08-5, 2007, Natural Gas Pipeline T echno logy Overview, Argonne National Laboratory , Argonne, Illinois , November 2007. ANSI/ANS-15.7, 1977 , R esea r ch R eacto r Site Evaluation, Withdrawn 1996 , American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park , Illinoi s, 1977. ANSI/ ANS-15.16, 1982, Emergency Planning for R esearch R eactor, Withdrawn 2008, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park , Illinois , 1982. ASCE 7-10 , 2010, Minimum D esig n Load s for Buildings and Other Stru ctures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston , Virginia , 2010. BFSC , 2007, Bonn e Femme Watershed Plan , www.cavewatershed.org/plan.asp, Bonne Femme Stakeholder Committee, Boone County Planning and Building Department , Columbia, Missouri , February 2007. Boone County, 2010, Boone County Ha zar d Mitigation Plan , Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, Jul y 15 , 2010. Boone County, 2013, " Boone County Stormwater Management Program ," www.showmeboone.com/stormwater, accessed July 16 , 2013. Boone County, 2015 , " Boone County Hazards Mitigation Plan 2015," Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, July 20, 2015. 2-110 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics CHM , 2013 , "About Children's House ," http://www.comomontessori

.com/about.php

1. l , Children's House of Columbia , Montessori Early Leaming Center , Columbia , Missouri, accessed September 9, 2013. City of Columbia , 2013 , "Columbia Imagined , The Plan for How We Live & Grow ," Public Hearing draft dated June 17 , 2013, http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/community

_development/comprehensive

_plan/ documents/ColumbiaimaginedPublicHearing.pdf, accessed August 25 , 2013. Columbia College, 2013 , "Quick Facts ," https://web.ccis.edu/en/Offices

/Institutiona!Research/facts

/ -/media/Files

/Insti tutional%20Research/F acts/Enrollment

/ l 2F A 1 %20Enrol led%20Student

%20D emographics.pdf , Columbia , Missouri , accessed August 25 , 2013. Columbia Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2013 , "Where to stay-Hotels , Inns , and Motels ," http://www.visitcolumbiamo.com/section/stay

/, Columbia , Missouri , accessed September 9 , 2013. CUSEC, 1999 , " Soil Amplification/Liquefaction Potential Map ," Association of Central United States Earthquake Consortium State Geologists, Memphis , Tenne s see, 1999. Cvent, 2013 , " Hotels near Columbia MO ," http://www.cvent.com/RFP

/Venues.aspx?ist

=6&ma= 97&csn=1&vtt=1 #page-6&so-l , Cvent Supplier Network , Tysons Comer , Virginia , accessed September 9 , 2013. DHSS , 2013 , "DHSS Community Data Profiles -Hospital Revenue s from 2010-2012 ," http://health.mo.gov

/dat a/CommunityDataProfiles

/index.html , Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services , Jefferson City , Missouri , accessed September 5 , 2013. DOA , 2008 , "Population Projections by Age , Missouri Counties:

2000 through 2030 , March 2008 ," content.oa

.mo.gov/budget-planning/demographic-information/population-projections

/2000-2030-projections , Missouri Department of Administration , Jefferson City , Missouri , accessed September 6 , 2013. DOE-STD-3014-2006 , A cc ident A nal y sis for Air c raft Cra s h into Ha z ardous Fa c iliti e s, U.S. Department of Energy , Washington , D.C., 1996 (R2006). EDF-3124-0015 , Evaluation of Air c raft Ha z ard s, Rev. 2 , Portage, Inc., Idaho Falls , Idaho , 2017. EDF-3124-0016 , Anal y sis of Pot e ntial Accident s at Faciliti e s , Rev. 2 , Portage , Inc., Idaho Falls , Idaho , 2017. E idson , B. A., 2017, " FW: Boone Contact Us Form," (email to M. B a lazik , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Jul y 19), Boone Hospital Center , Columbia , Missouri , 2017. ESRI , 2011, " ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10," Environmental System s Research Institute , Redlands , California, 2011. FEMA, 1989 , Handbook of Chemical Hazard A nalysis Proc e dures , 1989-626-095-10575 , Federal Emergency Management Agency , U.S. Department of Transportation , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 1989. Fenneman, N. M., 1946, Ph y siographic Divisions of the Conterminous U.S., Department of the Interior , Geological Survey , Reston , Virginia , 1946. IBC, 2012 , "International Building Code," International Code Council, Inc., Washington, D.C., 2012. ISCM, 2013 , " Islamic School of Columbia Missouri," http://www.theiscm.org/, Columbia , Missouri , accessed August 25, 2013. 2-111 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics Jones, M. R., 2017, "RE: Helicopter Flights University of Missouri Hospital ," (email to M. Balazik , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 28), University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics, Columbia, Missouri, 201 7. MDE, 2013, "District Student Staff Ratio s -Columbia 93," http://mcds.dese.mo.gov

/guidedinquiry

/ District%20and

%2 0Building%20Education

%20S taff>/o20Indicators/District

%20S tudent%2 0Staff %20Ratios.aspx?rp:District=O 10093&rp:Schoo1Year=2013&rp:Schoo1Year=2012&rp

Sc hoo1Yea r=2 01 l&rp:Schoo1Year=2010 , Mis so uri Department of Education, Jefferson City, Missouri , 2 013. MDNR, 2006, "Groundwater Elevation, From Driller Report s 1987-2005 ," ftp://msdis.missouri.edu/pub

/ inland_ water _res ources/MO_ 2006 _G roundwater

_ Elevation_ shp.zip, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, 2006. MDNR, 20 l 3a, " The Geology of Missouri," member s.socket.ne t/-joschaper/geo.html, Missouri D epa rtment of Natural Resources , Jefferson City, Missouri , accessed July 16, 2013. MDNR, 20 l 3b, "Tertiary/Quaternary Period," member s.s ocket.ne t/-joschaper/terquat.html , Missouri Department of Natural Re so urces , Jefferson City, Missouri , accessed July 10 , 2013. MDNR, 2013c, "Pennsylvanian Period ," m e mbers.socket.ne t/-joschaper/penn.html , Missouri Department of Natural Resources , Jefferson City, Missouri, accessed July 10 , 2013. MDNR , 20 l 3d, " Mississippian Period ," members.s ocket.ne t/-joschaper/misp.html, Missouri Department of Natural Resources , Jefferson City, Missouri , accessed July 11 , 2013. Miller, J. A., and C. L. Appel , 1997 , Ground Water Atlas of th e United States , Kansas , Missouri , and Ne braska HA 73 0-D , pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730

/ch_d/, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston , Virginia, accessed Jul y 2013. MMRPC, 2010, Boon e County Hazard Mitigat ion Plan, http://www.mmrpc.org, State of Missouri Emergency Management Agency, Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, Ashland , Missouri, Jul y 15 , 2010. MMRPC, 2015, " Discovery Ridge Research Park Development

," http://www.midmorpc.org/2015

/02/ discovery-ridge-research-park-d eve lopmen t/, Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, Ashland, Missouri , February 20, 2015. MoDOT , 2013, " Missouri Commercial Vehicle Regulation s," Missouri Department of Transportation , Jefferson City, Missouri , 2013. Movoto 2013, "Sc hool Features for Christian Chapel Academy," http://www.movoto.com/schools

/ columbia-mo

/christian-chapel-academy-a9502571

/, Columbia, Missouri , acc ess ed September 9, 2013. MU, 2006, Missouri U niv ersity R esea r ch R e a c tor (MU RR) Safety Analysis R e port , MU Project #000763 , University of Missouri , Columbia, Missouri , August 18 , 2006. MU , 2013, "MU Facts," http://missouri.edu/about/facts

.php , Columbia, Missouri, accessed September 9, 2013. NAD 83, 1983 , "North American Datum of 1983 ," National Geodetic Survey, Silver Spring, Maryland, as amended. NCES, 2013, "College Navigator-Bryan University," http://nces.e d.go v/collegenavigator

/ ?q=bryan+university&s=all&id=475583#fedloans, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., accessed September 9 , 2013. 2-112 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics New America Foundation, 2013, "Federal Education Budget Project-Columbia Area Career Center," http://febp.newamerica.net/higher-ed/M0

/2289200, Washington , D.C., accessed September 9, 2013. NOAA, 1978, Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates , United States East of the 105th Meridian, Hydrometeorological Report No 51, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., 1978. NOAA, 2016, "Storm Events Database," www.ncdc.noaa.gov

/stormevents , National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., accessed November 2016. NOAA Atlas 14, Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United State s , Volume 8 , Version 2.0: Midwestern States , National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, 2013. NRCS, 2012 , "Soi l Data Mart," websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov

/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx , Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., accessed July 16, 2013. NUREG-0800, 2010 , Standard Revi e w Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 4, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation , Washington, D.C., March 2010. NUREG-1520, 2010, Standard Revi e w Plan for the Review of a Lic e nse Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility, Rev. 1 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, D.C., May 2010. NUREG-1537, 1996, Guidelines for Preparing and Revi ew ing Applications for the Licensing Power Reactors -Format and Content , Part 1 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., February 1996. NUREG-1805, 2004, Fir e Dynami cs Tools (FD'I') -Quantitative Fire Hazard Analysis Methods for th e US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fire Protection Inspe c tion Program, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., December 2004. NUREG/CR-3330 , 1983 , Vulnerability of Nuclear Power Plant Stru ct ures to Large External Fir e s, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Regulatory Research , Washington , D.C., August 1983. NUREG/CR-6624, 1999, Recomm e ndations/or Revision of Regulatory Guide 1.78, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Office of Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C., November 1999. O GP, 2010, OGP Risk Assessment Data Directory:

I gnition Probabilities, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Report No. 434-6.1 , March 2010. P arks, M., 2017a, "2016 Traffic Summary Columbia Regional Airport," (email to C. Haass, Northwest Medical Isotopes , LLC , June 27), Columbia Regional Airport , Columbia , Missouri , 2017. Parks , M., 2017b, "2014 COU" and "2015 Traffic Summary" (emails to C. Haass, Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, June 28), Columbia Regional Airport, Columbia, Missouri , 2017. Petersen, M. D., A. D. Frankel, S. C. Harmsen , C. S. Mueller , K. M. Haller, R. L. Wheeler , R. L. Wesson , Y. Zeng, 0. S. Boyd , D. M. Perkins, N. Luco , E. H. Field, C. J. Wills, and K. S. Rukstales, 2011, Seismic Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States , 2008 Peak Horizontal Acceleration with 10 Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years , USGS Scientific Investigation Map No. 3195, 6 sheets [digital data], geohazards.usgs.gov, accessed July 11, 2013. 2-113 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics REDI, 2011 , "2011 Fact Book Columbia/Boone County Missouri ," http://

content/uploads

/2011/04/REDI-Fact-Book-11.pdf , Regional Economic Development, Inc., Columbia, Missouri , 2011. Reed, D., 2010 , "Columbia Hotel Market Rebounds ," Columbia Bu s in es s Tim e s , http://columbiabusinesstimes.com/9227

/2010/10/01 /columbia-hotel-market-rebounds

/, Columbia, Mi s souri, accessed September 9, 2013. Regulatory Guide 1.60 , D e sign R es pons e Sp ec tra for S e i s mi c D es i g n of N ucl e ar Pow e r Plants , Rev. 2 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Washington , D.C., July 2014. Regulator y Guide 1. 78 , E v aluatin g th e Habitabili ty of a N ucl e ar Pow e r Plant C ontrol Room Durin g a Po s tulat e d Ha z ardous C h e mi c al R e l e a se , Rev. 1 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis s ion , Washington , D.C., Decemb e r 2001. Regulato ry Guide 1.91 , Ev aluation s of E x plo s ion s Po s t u lat ed t o O cc ur at Ne arb y Fa c il i ti e s and on Tr a nsportation Rout es Ne ar N ucl ea r Pow e r Plant s, Rev. 2 , U.S. Nuclear Regul a tor y Commission , Wa s hington , D.C., April 2013. Regulator y Guide 1.206 , Combin e d Li ce n se A pplication s for N u cle ar Pow er Plants , Re v. 0 , U.S. Nuclear Regulator y C o mmission , Washington , D.C., June 2007. Regulator y Guide 2.6 , Em e rg e n cy Plannin g/or Re se ar c h and T est R e a c tor s, Rev. 1 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Washington , D.C., 1983. Regulator y Guide 4.7 , G e n e ral S it e Suitab i li ty Crit e ria f or N ucl ea r Pow e r S t ation s, R e v. 2 , U.S. Nuclear R e gulatory Commission , Washington , D.C., April 1998. Roberts , M.W., 2000 , " Anal ys is of Boilin g Liquid Expanding Vapor Explo s ion (BLEV E) Events at DOE Sites ," Safe ty A nal y si s Wo rkshop 20 00 , (http://www.efcog.or g/w g/sa/docs/minutes/archi ve/2000 Conference

/papers_pd f/roberts.pdf), EQE International , Inc., Kno x ville , Tennessee , acce s sed September 2014. School Di g ger , 2013 , " Stephens College Children's School -Overview ," http://www.s chooldigg e r.com/ go/MO/school s/9999916496

/s chool.aspx , Columbia , Mi s souri , acce ss ed September 9 , 2013. Sup e rfund A m e ndm e nts and R ea uthori z ation Ac t of 19 8 0 , 2 U.S.C. 11001 et seq., Publi c Law 99-499. Terracon , 2011 , Pr e limina ry G e ot ec hni c al Engin ee rin g R e port Di sc o very Rid ge-Ce r tifi e d Sit e P r o gr am L o ts 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 1 2, 1 3 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 1 7 , and 1 8, Trabue , Hansen & Hinshaw , Inc. and Terracon Project No. 09105094.1 , Februar y 11 , 2011. Union Electric Company , 2008 , Combin e d Li ce n se A ppli c ation , Part 11 G: Si t e Ar ea P a l e oliqu ef a ct ion and S u rfa ce F a ultin g In ves ti g ation Pro gr am , Re v. 1 , pbadupw s.nrc.gov/docs/ML0833/ML083360118

.pdf, St. Louis , Missouri , No v ember , 2008. URS , 2007 , Guidan ce Proto co l for Scho o l Sit e Pip e l i n e Ri s k A n a l y sis: V o l ume 2 -Ba c kground T ec hni c al Information a nd A pp e ndic e s," http://www.cde.ca.gov/l s/f a/s f/protocol07.asp , prepared for the California Department of Education , Sacramento , California, b y URS Corporation , Au s tin , Texas , February 2007. U.S. New s, 2013 , " Rankings and Reviews , William Woods Uni v ersity , Quick Fact s," at http://college s.usnews.rankingsandreview s.com/best-colleges

/william-wood s-university-2525 , Fulton , Mis s ouri , acce s sed September 9 , 2013. USCB , 2 010 , " 20 I 0 Census Interactive Population Search," www.census.gov

/201 Ocensu s/ popmap/ipmtext.php , U.S. Censu s Bureau , Washington , D.C., acce s sed July 2 013. USCB , 2012 , " 2010 Census Summary File 1 ," U.S. Cen s us Bureau, Washington , D.C., September , 2012. 2-114 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 2.0 -Site Characteristics USCB, 2013, "State and County Quick Facts-Boone County, Missouri," http://quickfacts.census.gov

/qfd/ states/29/29019.html, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., accessed September 9, 2013. USGS, 2002, "Ea rthquakes in the Central United States 1699-2002," pubs.usg s.gov/imap/i-2812/i-2812.jpg, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston , Virginia, June 18 , 2002. USGS, 2008, "2 008 United States National Seismic Hazard Map No. 3195," earthquake.usgs.gov

/hazards/products/conterminous, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston , Virginia accessed July 29 , 2013. USGS, 2009 , "Eart hquake Hazard in the New Madrid Seismic Zone Remain s a Concern ," Fact Sheet 2009-3071 , U.S. Geological Survey, Reston , Virginia, 2009. USGS, 201 la, " Poster of the New Madrid Earthquake Scenario of 16 May 2011 -Magnitude 7.7 ," earthquake.usgs.gov

/earthquakes

/eqarchives

/poster/2011/20110516.php, U.S. Geological Survey , Re s ton , Virginia, accessed July 23, 2013. USGS, 2011 b, " Putting Down Roots in Earthquake County -Your Handbook for Earthquakes in the Central United States," U.S. Geological Survey, General Information Product 119 , Reston , Virginia, 2011. USGS, 2013a, "Geo lo gic Provinces of the United States: Interior Plain Provinc e," http://geo maps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/pro v ince/intplain.html , U.S. Geological Survey , Reston , Virginia, accessed July 12 , 2013. USGS, 2013b , "G eolo gic Province s of the United States: Atlantic Plain Pro vi nce," http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov

/parks/pro vi nce/atlantpl.html U.S. Geological Survey, Reston , Virginia , accessed July 23 , 2013. USGS, 2013c, "T hree Centuries of Earthquakes Poster ," pubs.usgs.gov

/imap/i-2812/i-2 812.jpg, U.S. Geological Survey, Re s ton , Virginia, accessed Jul y 23, 2013. USGS, 2016 , " Search Eart hquake Catalog," http://earthquake.usgs.gov

/earthquakes

/search/, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston , Virginia , accessed October 7 , 2016. WRCC , 2013a, " Period of Record General Climate Summary -Temperature , 1969 to 2012 , Station 231791 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.e du/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl

?mo l 791, We ste rn Regional Climate Center , Reno , Nevada , accessed August 2013. WRCC , 2013b, "Station Monthly Time Series, Columbia , Missouri, 2008-2012 , Station 231791 Columbia WSO AP," www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/wea

_mnsimt s.pl?laK COU, Western Regional Climate Center, Reno , Nevada , accessed August 20 13. 2-115

• * * * * * * * * ****** * * ** * * * ** * ** * * * ** * ** * * ** * * . *. *. * . NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES *

• Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems, and Components Pr e pared by: Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 August2017 N o rthwest Medical Isotopes, LLC 815 NW gth Ave , Suite 256 C o rvallis , Oregon 97330 This page intentionally left blank.

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design o f Structures , Systems and Components Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems, and Components Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Date Published:

August 5 , 2017 Document Number. NWMl-2013-021 I Revision Number. 2 Title: Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Construction Permit Application for Radioisotope Production Facility Approved by: Carolyn Haass Signature:

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components This page intentionally left blank.

Rev Date 0 6/29/2015 1 6/26/2017 2 8/5/2017 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components REVISION HISTORY Reason for Revision Revised By Initial Application Not required Incorporate changes based on responses to C. Haass NRC Requests for Additional Information Modifications based on ACRS input C. Haass

.; .. ; NWMI *::**::* ...... *

• NCMTNWUT ll£DtCAl ISOTO,t:S NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Thi s p age int e ntion a ll y left bl a nk.

NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components CONTENTS 3.0 DESIGN OF STRUCTURES , SYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS

............................................

3-1 3.1 Design Criteria ..............

......................................

.........................................................

.. 3-4 3.1.1 Radioisotope Production Facility Structures , Systems, and Compo nents ........... 3-4 3.1.2 Code of Federal Regulations

.....................

.......................

............................

.... 3-8 3.1.3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

..............................................................

3-8 3.1.4 Other Federal Regulations , Guidelines, and Standards

....................................

3-10 3.1.5 Local Government Documents

.......................................................................

3-10 3.1.6 Discovery Ridge/University ofMissouri

............................

...........................

.. 3-11 3.1. 7 Codes and Standards

............

....................

....................................

..................

3-12 3.2 Meteorological Damage .....................

..................................

........................................

3-24 3.2.1 Combinations of Loads ................................

......................

............................

3-25 3.2. 1 .1 Nuclear Safety-Related Structures, Systems , and Compo nent s ........ 3-26 3.2.1.2 Commercial and Nuclear Non-Safety-Related Structures, Systems , and Components

..............................................................

3-26 3.2.2 Combinations for Serviceability Based Acceptance Criteria ............................

3-27 3.2.3 Normal Loads .......................................

..............

...........................................

3-27 3.2.4 Wind Loading .........................

.....................

..................

................................

3-30 3.2.4. 1 Wind Load ........................

........................

..................................... 3-30 3.2.4.2 Tornado Loading ...............................

............................................ 3-30 3.2.4.3 Effect of Failure of Structures, Systems , or Components Not Designed forTornadoLoads

.............................................

............... 3-32 3.2.5 Rain, Snow, and Ice Loading ...................

....................

...................................

3-33 3 .2.5.1 Rain Loads .......................

..............................................................

3-33 3.2.5.2 Snow Load ............

......................................................................... 3-33 3.2.5.3 Atmospheric Ice Load ...................................

.................................

3-34 3.2.6 Operating Thermal/Self-Straining Loads .............

.........................................

.. 3-35 3.2.7 Operating Pipe Reaction Loads ......................................................................

3-35 3.2.8 External Hazards ............................................................................

................ 3-35 3.3 Water Damage .................................

.............

...............................................................

3-36 3.3.1 Flood Protection

.............................................................................

................ 3-36 3.3.1.1 Flood Protection Measures for Structures, Systems , and Components

.........................

......................................................

.... 3-36 3.3.1.2 Flood Protection from Externa l Sources .......................................... 3-37 3.3.1.3 Compartment Flooding from Fire Protection Discharge

...................

3-38 3.3.1.4 Compartment Flooding from Postulated Component Failures ..........

3-38 3.3.1.5 Permanent Dewatering System .............

..........................................

3-38 3.3.1.6 Structural Design for Flooding ..........................................

............. 3-38 3.4 Seismic Damage .....................

.......................

............................

..................................

3-39 3.4.l Seismic Input ...................................

...................................................

...........

3-39 3.4.1.1 Design Response Spectra ..........................

.......................

..............

3-39 3.4.1.2 Method of Analysis ...............

..............

............................

............... 3-40 3.4.2 Seismic Qualification of Subsystems and Equipment..

....................................

3-41 3.4.2.1 Qualification by Analysis ........................................

....................... 3-41 3.4.2.2 Qualification by Testing .......................

................................

.......... 3-42 3.4.3 Seismic Instrumentation

........................

...........

..............................................

3-4 2 3.4.3.1 Location and Description

...................

............................................

3-43 3.4.3.2 Operability and Characteristics

.............

..............

............................

3-43 3-i

... .-:;**NWMI ..... ........... * * ' NORTHWEST MCDfCAl ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components

3.5 Systems

and Components

.................................

............................................................

3-44 3.5.1 General Design Basis Information

.................................................

..............

.... 3-44 3.5.1.1 C la ssification of Systems and Components Important to Safety ....... 3-44 3.5.1.2 Class ific ation Definitions

..................

..............................

...............

3-44 3.5.1.3 Nuclear Safety Classifications for Structures , Systems , and Components

.........................

..........................................................

3-45 3.5.2 Radioisotope Production Facilit y .......................

.....................................

........ 3-48 3.5.2.1 System Classification

.........................

............................................ 3-53 3.5.2.2 C las sification of Systems an d Compo nent s Important to Safet y ...... 3-53 3.5.2.3 Design Basis Functions , Values , and Criteria ........................

.........

3-55 3.5.2.4 System Functions/Safety Functions

................................................ 3-55 3.5.2.5 Systems and Components

...............................................................

3-55 3.5.2.6 Qualification Methods .............................

..........................

.............

3-56 3.5.2.7 Radioisotope Production Facility Specific System Design Basis Functions and Value s ..............................

.............................

.......... 3-56 3.6 References

.......................................................

........................

.................................... 3-6 7 3-ii Table 3-1. Table 3-2. Table 3-3. Table 3-4. Table 3-5. Table 3-6. Table 3-7. Table 3-8. Table 3-9. Table 3-10. Table 3-11. Table 3-12. Table 3-13. Table 3-14. Table 3-15. Table 3-16. Table 3-17. Table 3-18. Table 3-19. Table 3-20. Table 3-21. Table 3-22. Table 3-23. Table 3-2 4. Table 3-25. NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components TABLES List of System and Associated Systems a nd C on str uction Permit Application Cr os swa lk (2 pages) ......................................

................................

..............................

3-4 Summary ofltems Relied on for Safety Identified b y Accident Analyses (3 pa ges) .................

...........

......................

...................

................................................ 3-5 Relevant U.S. Nuclear R egu lator y Commission Guidance (3 pa ges) ............................ 3-8 Other Federal Regulation s, Guidelines , a nd Standards

............................................... 3-10 Local Government Document s (2 pa ges) ...........................................

..................

...... 3-11 Di scove r y R i d ge/University of Missouri Requirement s ........................................

...... 3-11 D es ign Codes and Standard s (12 pa ges) .................

....................................

................

3-12 Load Symbol Definition s (2 pages) ...........................

.....................

............................ 3-24 Load Combinations for Strength Ba se d Acceptance Criteria, Nuclear Safety-R e lat e d .........................

..............................

......................

.........................................

3-26 Load Com bin at ions for Strength Ba se Acceptance Criter i a, Commercia l ...................

3-27 Load Com bin at ion s for Servicea bilit y Based Acceptance Criteria ..............................

3-27 Lateral Earth Pressure Loads ............................

.................

........................................ 3-28 Floor Live Loads ..........

...............................

....................

....................................

...... 3-29 Cra ne Load Crite ria ...................................

...........

...............................

......................

3-29 Wind Loading Criteria ............

..................

.............

....................................................

3-30 D es ign-Ba sis T ornado Field C haract er i stics ...............................................................

3-31 De s ign-Ba sis Tornado Missile Spectrum ..............................................................

..... 3-32 R a in Load Criteria ..........................................

...........................

................................ 3-33 Snow Load Criter ia .......................................

............................................................

3-34 Extreme Wint er Precipitation Load Criteria ...................................

..................

.......... 3-34 Atmospheric Ice Load Criteria .................

.............

.....................................................

3-34 D es ign Criteria Requirem ents ( 4 pages) ................

..........................................

........... 3-48 System Classifications

.........................................

..............

........................................

3-53 System Safety a nd Seismic C l assificat ion and Associated Quality Leve l Group (2 pages) ...........

......................

...................

...............................................................

3-53 Likelihood Index Limit Guidelines

............

...............................

.................................

3-54 3-iii

.... ; NWMI *::**::* ...... ' * * ' NOlmfWUT MEOK:AL ISOTOP(S NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Compo n ents TERMS Acronyms and Abbreviations 99 Mo mol y bdenum-99 AASHTO American Association of State Highwa y and Transportation Officials ACGIH American Conference on Governmental Industrial Hygienists ACI American Concrete Institute AHRI Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration In st itute AISC American Institute of Steel Construction ALARA as low as reasonably achievable AMCA Air Movement and Control Association ANS American Nuclear Society ANSI American National Standards Institute ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration , and Air-Conditioning Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASNT American Society for Nondestructive Testing ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials A WS American Welding Society BMS building management system CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CFR Code of Federal Regulations CRR Collected Rules and Regulations CSR Missouri Code of State Regulations Discovery Ridge Di scove ry Ridge Research Park DBE design basis event DBEQ design basis earthquake DOE U.S. Department of Energy EIA Electronic Industries Alliance ESF engineered safety feature FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FPC facility proces s control FSAR final safety analysis report H 2 hydrogen gas HR hydrometeorological report HV AC heating , ventilation, and air conditioning I&C instrumentation and control IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IBC International Building Code ICC International Code Council ICC-ES International Code Council Evaluation Service IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IES Illuminating Engineering Society IFC International Fire Code IROFS items relied on for safety ISA International Society of Automation ISG Interim Staff Guidance IX ion exchange LEU low enriched uranium MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources Mo mol y bdenum 3-iv NWM I ...... * * ! NOATHWUT MEDICAL ISOTOPES MO DOT MRI MU MURR NECA NEMA NEP NESHAP NETA NFPA N10SH NOAA NRC NS NSR NWMI NWS PMF PMP PMWP QA QAP P RCA RPF SEP SMACNA SNM SR SSC TIA U.S. UL UPS USGS Units o c o p µ cm cm 2 ft ft 2 ft 3 g gal hp hr m. i n.2 k g NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Missouri Department of Transportation mean recurrence interval University of Missouri University of Missouri Research Reactor Nationa l Electrical Contractors Association Nationa l Electrical Manufacturers Association normal electrical power Nationa l Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants InterNational Electrical Testing Association National Fire Protection Association Nationa l Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Nationa l Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission non-seismic non-safety-related Northwest Medical Isotopes , LLC National Weather Service probable maximum flood probab le maximum precipitation probable maximum winter precipitation qua lit y ass u rance qua lit y ass u ra n ce program p l an radiologically controlled area Radioisotope Production Facility stand b y electrical power Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association specia l nuclear material safety related structures , systems and components Telecommunications Industry Association United States Underwriters Laboratory uninterruptible power supply U.S. Geological Survey degrees Celsius degrees Fahrenheit micron centimeter square centimeters feet square feet cubic feet acceleration of gravity gallon horsepower hour inch square inch kilogram 3-v NWM I ...... ! * * ' NOmfWUT MEDICAl ISOTOPES kip km kW L lb lbf m m 2 m1 mi 2 mm MT rad sec NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components thou s and pounds-force kilometer kilowatt liter pound pound-force meter square meter mile square mile minute metric ton absorbed radiation dose second 3-vi 3.0 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components DESIGN OF STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS This chapter identifies and describes the principal architectura l and engineering design criteria for the facility structures, systems and components (SSC) for the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) Radioisotope Production Facility (RPF). The information presented emphasizes the safety and protective functions and related design features that help provide defense-in-depth against the uncontrolled release of radioactive material to the environment.

The bases for the design criteria for some of the systems discussed in this chapter are developed in other chapters of the Construction Permit Application and are appropriately cross-referenced, when required.

NWMI's RPF design is based on applicable standards, guides, codes, and criteria and provides reasonable assurance that the RPF SSCs, including electromechanical systems, are: * * * * * *

• Built and will function as designed and required by the analyses in Chapter 13 .0, "Accident Analysis" Built to have acceptable protection of the public health and safety and environment from radiological risks (e.g., radioactive materials , exposure) resulting from operations Protected against potential meteorological damage Protected against potential hydrological (water) damage Protected against seismic damage Provided surveillance activities and technical specifications required to respond to or mitigate consequences of seismic damage Based on technical specifications developed to ensure that safety-related functions of electromechanical systems and components will be operable and protect the health and safety of workers , the public , and environment The design of the RPF and SS Cs are based on defense-in-depth practices. The NRC defines design-in-depth as the following:

An approach to designing and operating nuclear facilities that prevents and mitigates accidents that release radiation or hazardous materials. The ke y is creating multiple independent and redundant layers of defense to compensate for potential human and mechanical failures so that no singl e layer , no matt e r how robust , is exclusivel y relied upon. Defense in d e pth includes the use of a cc ess c ontrols , physical barriers , r e dundant and div e rs e key safety functions , and e mergenc y r e sponse measures.

Defense-in-depth is a design philosophy, applied from the outset and through completion of the design , that is based on providing successive levels of protection such that health and safety are not wholly dependent on any single e lem ent of the design , construction , maintenance, or operation of the facility.

The net effect of incorporating defense-in-depth practices is a conservatively designed faci lit y and s y stems that exhibit higher tolerances to failures and external challenges.

The risk insights obtained t hr ough performance of accident analysis can then be used to supplement the final design by focusing attention on the prevention and mitigation of the higher risk potential accidents.

3-1 NWM I .. * .. * .. *,

• NORTMWEST MEOtCAl ISOTOPU NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components This application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) seeks to obtain a license for a production facility under Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50 (10 CFR 50), "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." Embedded in the 10 CFR 50-licensed facility will be several activities subject to 10 CFR 70, "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material," to receive , possess, use, and transfer special nuclear material (SNM) and 10 CFR 30, " Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material ," to process and transport molybdenum-99 (99 Mo) for medical applications. This 10 CFR 50 license application for the RPF follows the guidance in NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Revi ewing Applications for the Licensing of Non Power Rea ctors -Format and Content, that encompasses activities regulated under different NRC requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 70 and 10 CFR 30), in accordance with 10 CFR 50.31 , "Combining Applications," and 10 CFR 50.32 , "E limination of Repetition

." The NRC has determined that a radioisotope separation and processing facility, which also conducts separation of SNM, will be considered a production facility and as such, will be subject to licensing under 10 CFR 50. The operation of the NWMI RPF will primarily be focused on the disassembly of irradiated low-enriched uranium (LEU) targets, separation and purification of fission product 99 Mo, and the recycle of LEU that is licensed under 10 CFR 50. RPF operations will also include the fabrication of LEU targets , which will be licensed under 10 CFR 70. These targets will be shipped to NWMI's network of research or te s t reactors for irradiation (considered a connected action) and returned to the RPF for processing.

The LEU used for the production of LEU target materials will be obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and from LEU reclaimed from processing the irradiated targets. NWMI's licensing approach for the RPF defines the following unit processes and areas that fall under the following NRC regulations:

• *

• 10 CFR 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" Target receipt and disassembl y system Target dissolution sys tem Molybdenum (Mo) recovery and purification system Uranium recovery and recycle system Waste management system Associated laboratory and support areas 10 CFR 70 , " Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material" Target fabrication system Fresh LEU (from DOE) receipt area Associated laboratory and support area s 10 CFR 30, " Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material" An y byproduct materials produced or extracted in the RPF Design information for the complete range of normal operating conditions for various facility sys tems is provided throughout the Construction Permit Application , and includes the following.

• RPF-specific design criteria (e.g., codes and standards, NRC guidelines) for SSCs are provided in Sections 3 .1. NRC general design criteria and associated applicability to the RPF SSCs are addressed in Section 3.5. 3-2

• * * * * * * * * * *

• NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components RPF description is presented in Chapter 4.0, "Radioisotope Production Facility Description." Postulated initiating events and credible accidents that form the design basis for the SSCs are discussed in Chapter 13.0. Potential hazards and credible accidents that could be encountered in the RPF during operations involving SNM, irradiated and unirrradiated , Mo recovery and purification , uranium recovery and recycle , waste management, and/or the use of hazardous chemicals relative to these radiochemical processes that form the bases for the SSCs located in the RPF, are discussed in Chapter 13.0. Design redundancy of SSCs to protect against unsafe conditions with respect to single failures of engineered safety features (ESF) and control systems are described in Chapter 6.0 , "Engineered Safety Features ," and Chapter 7.0 , "Instrumentation and Control System ," respectively.

ESFs are described in Chapter 6.0 , and the administrative controls are discussed in Chapter I 4.0, "Technical Specifications." Quality standards commensurate with the safety functions and potential risks that were used in the design of the SSCs are described in Table 3-7 (Section 3.1.7). Hydrological design bases describing the most severe predicted hydrological events during the life of the facility are provided in Chapter 2.0 , " Site Characteristics

," Section 2.4. Design criteria for facility SSCs to withstand the most severe predicted hydrological events during the lifetime of the facility are provided in Section 3.3. Seismic design bases for the facility are provided in Chapter 2.0 , Section 2.5. Seismic design criteria for the facility SSCs are provided in Section 3.4. Analyses concerning function , reliability, and maintainability of SSCs are described throughout the Construction Permit Application. Meteorological design bases describing the most s evere weather extremes predicted to occur during the life of the facility are provided in Chapter 2.0 , Section 2.3. Design criteria for facility SSCs to withstand the most severe weather extremes predicted to occur durin g the life of the facility are provided in Section 3.2. Potential conditions or other items that will be probable subjects of technical specifications associated with the RPF structures and design features are discussed in Chapter 14.0. 3-3

.. :*:; .... NWM I .. : ... * * *

• NOltTHWEIT MEDICAL ISOTOPES 3.1 DESIGN CRITERIA NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Section 3.1 describes the design criteria applied to the RPF and SSCs within the facility.

The principal design criteria for a production facility establish the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and performance requirements for SSCs important to safety (i.e., those that provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of workers and the public). The systems associated with the RPF are identified. Those items relied on for safety (IROFS) are identified in Chapters 6.0 and 13.0. Requirements are derived from:

• Code of Federal Regulations

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Federal regulations , guidelines , and standards Local government regulations and requirements

• Discovery Ridge Research Park (Discovery Ridge) covenants University of Missouri System (MU) requirements

• Other codes and standards

3.1.1 Radioisotope

Production Facility Structures, Systems, and Components Table 3-1 lists the RPF systems and identifies the RPF material accountability area and the Construction Permit Application reference chapter that provides the associated detailed system descriptions. Table 3-1. List of System and Associated Systems and Construction Permit Application Crosswalk (2 pages) Primary structure and associated systems Construction Permit Application reference (primary references)

Radioisotope Production Facility (RPF -primary structure) 10 CFR 70" Target fabrication 10 CFR sob Target receipt and disassembly Target dis s olution Molybdenum recovery and purification Uranium recovery and recycle Waste handling Criticality accident alarm Radiation monitoring Normal electrical power Standby electrical power Process vessel ventilation Facility ventilation Fire protection Plant and instrument air Emergency purge gas Gas supply Chapter 4.0, Sections 4.1.3.1 and 4.4 Chapter 4.0, Section 4.1.3.2, 4.3.2, and 4.3.3 Chapter 4.0 , Sections 4.1.3.3 and 4.3.4 Chapter 4.0, Sections 4.1.3.4 and 4.3.5 Chapter 4.0 , Sections 4.1.3.5 and 4.3.6 Chapter 4.0, Section 4.1.3.6; Chapter 9.0, Section 9. 7.2 Chapter 6.0 , Section 6.3.3.1; Chapter 7.0, Section 7.3. 7 Chapter 7.0, Section 7.6; Chapter 11.0, Section 11.1.4 3-4 Chapt e r 8.0 , Section 8.1 Chapter 8.0, Section 8.2 Chapter 9.0, Section 9.1 Chapter 9.0, Sectioo 9.1 Chapter 9.0 , Section 9.3 Chapter 9.0, Section 9. 7.1 Chapter 6.0 , Section 6.2.1. 7 .5 Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Table 3-1. List of System and Associated Systems and Constr uction Permit Application Crosswalk (2 pages) Primary structure and associated systems Process chilled water Facility chilled water Facility heated water Process stream Demineralized water Chemical supply Biological s hield Facility process control Construction Permit Application reference (primary references)

Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.4 Chapter 4.0, Section 4.2 Chapter 7.0, Section 7.2.3

• I 0 CFR 70 , "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material ," C od e of Fed e ral R e gulation s, Office of the Federal Register , as amended. b 10 CFR 50 , " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Faci li ties ," Cod e of F e d e ral R e gulations , Office of the Federal Register , as amended. In additio n to Table 3-2, NWMI-2015-LIST-00 3, NWMI Radioisotope Production Facility Master Equipment List, provides a summary of the RPF systems, components, and equipment used in the RPF design. Table 3-2 provides a summary of the IROFSs identified by the accident analyses in Chapte r 13.0, and a c rosswalk to where the IROFSs are described in the Construction Permit Application. Chapter 13.0 also p rovides the associated detailed descriptions.

Table 3-2 also identifies whether the IROFS are considered E SFs or administrative controls.

Additional IROFS may be identified (or the current IROFS modified) d uring the RPF final design and development of the Operating License App lication.

Table 3-2. Summary of Items Relied on for Safety Identified by Accident Ana l yses (3 pages) IROFS Construction Permit Application designator Descriptor ESF AC crosswalk (primary references)

RS-01 Hot ce ll liquid confinement boundary RS-02 Reserved" RS-03 Hot cell secondary confinement boundary RS-04 Hot cell shielding boundary RS-05 Reserved" RS-06 Reserved" RS-07 Re served" RS-08 Sample and analysis of low-dose waste tank dose rate prior to transfer outside the hot cell shielded boundary 3-5 ,/ ,/ ,/ Chapter 6.0, Sections 6.2.1.1 -6.2.1.6 Chapter 13.0 ,Section I 3.2.2.8 Chapter 6.0, Sections 6.2. I. I -6.2. I .6 Chapter I 3.0, Sections I 3.2.2.8, I 3.2.3.8 Chapter 6.0, Sections 6.2.1.1 -6.2.1.6 Chapter 13.0, Sections 13.2.2.8, 13.2.4.8 ./ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.1 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Table 3-2. Summary of Items Relied on for Safety Identified by Accident Analyses (3 pages) IROFS Construction Permit Application designator Descriptor ESF AC crosswalk (primary references)

RS-09 Prim ary offg a s r e li ef sys t e m ,/ C h a pt er 6.0 , Sec tion 6.2. l. 7 C h a pt er 1 3.0 , Sec tion 13.2.3.8 RS-10 Acti v e radiation monitoring and isolation of ,/ Chapter 6.0 , Section 6.2. l. 7 low-dose waste transfer Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.7.l R S-11 R ese r ve d* RS-12 Cask containment s ampling prior to closure ,/ Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.7.1 lid remo v al R S-1 3 Ca sk l oca l ve ntil at i o n durin g cl os ur e lid ,/ C h a pt e r 6.0 , Sec tion 6.2. l. 7 r e mo va l and d o ckin g pr e parati o n s C h a p t er 13.0 , Sec ti o n 13.2.7.l RS-14 Reserved* RS-1 5 Cask d oc kin g p o rt ena bling s en so r C h a pt e r 6.0 , Sect i o n 6.2. l. 7 C h ap t e r 13.0 , Sec ti on 1 3.2.7.1 CS-01 Reser v ed" CS-0 2 Ma ss and b a t ch h an dlin g lim its fo r uraniwn C h a p ter 1 3.0 , Section 1 3.2. 7.2 m e t a l , uranium ox id es, tar ge t s , and l a b o r ato r y s ample o ut s id e pr ocess sys t e m s CS-03 Interaction control spacing provided by ,/ Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.7.2 administrative control CS-04 Int e ra ct i o n co ntr o l s p ac in g p rov id ed b y ,/ C h a pt e r 6.0 , Sect i o n 6.3.1.2 p ass i ve l y d es i gne d fix tur es and wo rk sta ti o n Cha pt e r 1 3.0 , Sec t ion 1 3.2. 7.2 pla ce m e n t CS-05 Container batch vo lume limit ,/ C hapter 13.0 , Section 13.2. 7.2 CS-0 6 P e n c il tank , vesse l , o r pipin g safe ge om e tr y ,/ Cha pt e r 6.0, Sec tion 6.3. l .2 co nfin e m e nt u s in g th e diam e t er o f tank s, C h a pt e r 13.0 , Sec tion 1 3.2.4.8 vesse l s, o r pipin g CS-07 Pencil tank and vessel spacing control using ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1.2 fixed interaction spacing of individual tanks Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.2.8 or ve sse ls CS-08 F l oo r an d s ump geo m etry co n tro l of s l a b ,/ C h a pt er 6.0 , Sec ti on 6.3.1.2 d e pth, s ump di amete r or d e pth fo r fl oo r s p i ll Cha pt e r 1 3.0 , Sec ti on 1 3.2.2.8 co nt a inm e nt berms CS-09 Double-wall piping ,/ Chapter 6.0 , Section 6.2.1. 7 Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.2.8 CS-10 C l ose d s a fe geo m e tr y h ea ting o r coo lin g l oo p ,/ C h a pt e r 6.0 , Sec tion 6.3.1.2 with m o nitorin g an d a larm C h a pter 13.0 , Sec tion 1 3.2.4.8 CS-11 Simple overflow to normally empty safe ,/ Chapter 6.0 , Section 6.3.1.2 geometry tank with level alarm Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.7.2 CS-1 2 Co nd e n s in g p o t o r seal p o t in ve ntil a ti o n ve nt ,/ C h a p t er 6.0 , Sec ti o n 6.3. l .2 lin e C h a pt er 1 3.0 , Sec tion 1 3.2.7.2 CS-13 Simple o v erflow to normally empty safe ,/ Chapter 6.0 , Section 6.3.1.2 geometry floor with level alarm in the hot cell Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.7.2 containment boundary 3-6 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-2. Summary of Items Relied on for Safety Identified by Accident Analyses (3 pages) IROFS Construction Permit Application designator Descriptor ESF AC crosswalk (primary references)

CS-14 Active discharge monitoring and isolation

,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1.2 Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2. 7.2 CS-15 Independent active discharge monitoring and ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1.2 isolation Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.7.2 CS-16 Sampling and analysis ofuraniwn mass or ,/ Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.7.2 concentration prior to discharge or disposal CS-17 Independent sampling and analysis of ,/ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2. 7.2 uranium concentration prior to discharge or disposal CS-18 Backflow prevention device ,/ Chapter 6.0 , Sections 6.2.1.7 and 6.3.1.2 Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.4.8 CS-19 Safe-geometry day tanks ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1.2 Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.4.8 CS-20 Evaporator or concentrator condensate

,/ Chapter 6.0 , Section 6.3.1.2 monitoring Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.4.8 CS-21 Visual inspection of accessible surfaces for ,/ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 foreign debris CS-22 Gram estimator survey of accessible surfaces ,/ Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.7.2 for gamma activity CS-23 Nondestructive assay of items with ,/ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 inaccessible surfaces CS-24 Independent nonde s tructive assay of items ,/ Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.7.2 with inaccessible surfaces CS-25 Target housing weighing prior to disposal ,/ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 CS-26 Processing component safe volwne ,/ Chapter 6.0 , Section 6.3.1.2 confinement Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.2 CS-27 Closed heating or cooling loop with ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1.2 monitoring and alarm Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.4.8 FS-01 Enhanced lift procedure

,/ Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.2.8 and 13.2.7.1 FS-02 Overhead cranes ,/ Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.7.3 FS-03 Process vessel emergency purge system ,/ Chapter 6.0 , Section 6.2.1. 7 Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2. 7.3 FS-04 Irradiated target cask lifting fixture ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2. l. 7 Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.6.5 FS-05 Exhaust stack height ,/ Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.1. 7 Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.7.3

• Reserved -lROFS designator currently unas s igned. AC administrative control. lROFS it e m s relied on for sa fet y. E SF = engine e red safe ty fe a ture. 3-7

........... ' * * ! . NORTHWEST MfDICAl ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components 3.1.2 Code of Federal Regulations NWMI-DRD-2013-030, NWMI Radioisotope Production Facility Design R equire ment s Document , summarizes the CFR design inputs (in whole or in part) for the RPF, which include the following:

• * * * * * * * * * * * *

• 10 CFR 20, "Sta ndards for Protection Against Radiation" 10 CFR 30, " Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material" 10 CFR 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" 10 CFR 70, " Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material" 10 CFR 71, "E nergy: Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material" 10 CFR 73, "P hysical Protection of Plants and Materials" 10 CFR 74 , "Mate rial Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material" 10 CFR 851, "W orker Safety and Health Program" 21 CFR 210, "C urrent Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Processing , Packaging , or Holding of Drugs' 21 CFR 211, "C urrent Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals" 29 CFR 1910 , " Occupational Safety and Health Standards" 40 CFR 61, "Na tional Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)" 40 CFR 63 , "NES HAP for Source Categories" 40 CFR 141 , "Na tional Primary Drinking Water Regulations" 3.1.3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Table 3-3 lists the NRC design inputs for the RPF identified in NWMI-DRD-2013-030.

The RPF system design descriptions identify the sp ecific requirements for that sy s tem produced by each applicable reference.

Table 3-3. Relevant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Guidance (3 pages) Title Docket Number: Final Int erim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-153 7 , " Guidelines for Pr eparing and NRC-2011-0135 R eviewing Applications for the Li c e n s ing of No n-Pow er R eac tor s," Parts 1and 2,for (NRC, 2012) Licensing Radioi sotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homo geneous R eactors NRC Regulatory Guides -Power Reactors (Division

1) Regulatory Guide 1.29 Regulatory Guide 1.53 Regulatory Guide 1.60 Regulatory Guide 1.61 Regulatory Guide I . 7 6 Regulatory Guide 1.92 Regulatory Guide 1.97 Seismic Design Classification Application of the Single-Failure Criterion to Safety Systems, 2003 (R201 l) D esign R espo ns e Spectra for Seismic D esign of Nuclear Power Plants, 20 14 Damping Values of Seismic De sign of Nuclear Power Plants D esig n Basis Tornado and Tornado Missiles for Nuclear Power Plant s, 2007 Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis Criteria fo r Accident Monitoring Instrum e ntation for Nuclear Power Plants, 2006 (R2013) Regulatory Guide 1.100 Seismic Qualification of Electrical and Active Mechanical Equipment and Functional Qualification of Active Mechanical Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants, 2009 Regulatory Guide I. I 02 Flood Protection for Nuclea r Po wer Plants Regulatory Guide 1.122 Development of Floor Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Floor-Supported Equipment or Components 3-8 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-3. Relevant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Guidance (3 pages) CF Ra Title Regulatory Guide 1.152 Criteria for Use of Computers in Safety Systems of Nuclear Pow er Plants, 2011 Regulatory Guide 1.166 Pre-Earthquake Planning and Immediate Nuclear Power Plant Operator Post Earthquake Actions, 1997 Regulatory Guide 1.167 R estart of a N uclear P ower Plant Shut down by a Seismic Event , 1997 Regulatory Guide 1.208 Peiforman ce Based Approach to Define the Site-Spe cific Earthquake Ground Motion, 2007 NRC Regulatory Guides -Fuels And Materials Facilities (Division

3) Regulatory Guide 3.3 Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Fuel Reprocessing Plants and for Plutonium Processing and Fuel Fabrication Plants, 1974 (R2013) Regulatory Guide 3.6 Content of Technical Specification for Fuel R eprocessi n g Plant s, 1973 (R2013) Regulatory Guide 3 .10 Re g ulatory Guide 3.18 Regulatory Guide 3.20 Liquid Waste Treatment System Design Guide for Plutonium Processing and Fuel Fabrication Plants , 1973 (R2013) Confinement Barri ers and Systems for Fuel R eprocessing Plant s , 1974 (R2013) Pro cess Ojfgas Systems for Fuel Repro cess ing Plant s, 1974 (R2013) Re g ulatory Guide 3.71 Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards fo r Fuels and Materials Facilities, 2010 NRC Regulatory Guides -Materials and Plant Protection (Division

5) Regulatory Guide 5.7 Entry/Exit Control for Protected Areas , Vital Areas , and Material Access Areas, May 1980 (R2010) Regulatory Guide 5 .12 General Use of Locks in the Protection and Control of Faciliti es and Special Nuclear Materials, 1973 (R2010) Re g ulatory Guide 5.27 Special Nuclea r Material D oorway Monitors, 1974 Regulatory Guide 5 .44 Perimeter Intrusion Alarm Systems , 1997 (R2010) R egu latory Guide 5.57 Shipping and R eceiving Co ntr ol of Strategic Special Nuclear Material, 1980 Regulatory Guide 5.65 Vital Area Access Control, Protection of Physical Security Equipment , and Key and Lock Controls, 1986 (R2010) R egu latory Guide 5.71 Cyber Security Programs for Nuclear Facilities, 20 10 NUREG-0700, Human-System Inteiface Design Review Guidelines NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition Section 2.3.l Section 2.3.2 Section 3.3.1 Section 3.3.2 Section 3.7.1 Section 3.7.2 Section 3.7.3 "Regional Climatology

," Rev. 3, March 2007 "Local C limatolog y," Rev. 3, March 20 07 "Wind Loading ," Rev. 3, March 2007 "To rn ado Loading," Rev. 3, March 200 7 "Seismic Design Parameters

," March 2007 "Seis mic System Analysis," Re v. 4, September 20 13 "Seismic Subsystem Analysis," Rev. 4, September 2013 NUREG-1513, Integrated Safety Analysis Guidance Document NUREG-1520, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility Part 3, Appendix D "Natura l Hazard Phen o mena" NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors -Format and Content, Part 1 3-9

.; .. NWMI *::**:*:** ...... ' *. !

• HORTifWEST MEDICAl ISOTOP£S NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-3. Relevant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Guidance (3 pages) CF Ra Title NUREGICR-4604, Statistical Methods/or Nuclear Material Management NUREGICR-6410, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook Process hazard analysis "Development of Quantitative Risk Analyses" NUREGICR-6463, Review Guidelines on Software Languages for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Safety Systems -Final Report NUREGICR-6698, Guide for Validation of Nuclear Criticality Safety Calculational Methodology

• Complete references are provided in Section 3.6. 3.1.4 Other Federal Regulations, Guidelines, and Standards Table 3-4 lists other Federal design inputs for the RPF (NWMI-DRD-2013-030).

The RPF system design descriptions identify the specific requirements for that system produced by each applicable reference.

Table 3-4. Other Federal Regulations, Guidelines, and Standards Reference a Title Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) N I A National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Boon e County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas" National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Hydrometeorological Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates , United States East of the 105th Meridian Report No. 51 Hydrometeorological Application of Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States East of the J05th Report No. 52 Meridian Hydrometeorological Seasonal Variation of JO-Squar e-Mil e Probabl e Maximum Precipitation Estimates , United Report No. 53 States East of the 105th Meridian U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) N I A "2 008 U.S. Geological Survey Nati o nal Seismic Hazard Maps" Open-File Report 2008-1128 Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) NIOSH 2003-136 Guidance for Filtration and Air-Cleaning Systems to Prote ct Building Environments from Airborne Chemical, Biological , and Radiological Attacks

• Complete referenc es are provid ed in Section 3.6 CDC FEMA NIOSH Ce nters for Disease Con trol and Prev e ntion. NOAA Federal E mergenc y Management Agency. National In s titute for Occupational Safety and USGS Health. 3.1.5 Local Government Documents National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. U.S. Geological Survey. Table 3-5 lists the de s ign inputs for the RPF from the State of Missouri, City of Columbia, and Boone County government sources (NWMl-DRD-2013-030).

The RPF system design descriptions identify the specific requirements for that system produced by each applicable reference.

3-10

.. NWMI ..... .... .. .. . . ' *

• NcmTHMST MEOfCAl ISOTDPH NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Table 3-5. Local Government Documents (2 pages) Referencea Title Missouri Code of State Regulations (CSR), Title 10 10 CSR 10-6.01 Ambient Air Quality Standar d s Missouri CSR, Title 20 20 CSR 2030-2.040( I) Eva lu ation Criteria for Building Design Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) Standards and Specifications Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Missouri State Adopted International Code Council (ICC) Building Code Set 2012 Boone County Building Code City of Columbia, Missouri, Code of Ordinances Article II -Building and Fire Codes Section 6-16, Adopted Building Code Section 6-17 , Amendments Section 9-21 Section 9-22 Building Code Fire Code Fire Code

• Comp l ete references are provided in Section 3.6 CSR ICC Code of State Regulations.

= International Code Council. 3.1.6 Discovery Ridge/University of Missouri MDNR MO DOT Mi sso uri Department of Natural Resources. Missouri Department of Transportation. Table 3-6 li sts the MU system requirements and Discovery Rid ge covenants design inputs for the RPF identified in NWMI-DRD-2013-030.

The RPF system design descriptions identify the specific requirements for that system produced by each applicable reference.

Table 3-6. Discovery Ridge/University of Missouri Requirements Requirements Reference section/requirement 3 Civil Design and construct ion of the civi l system is regulated by the NRC as required b y Discovery Ridge/MU. Collected Rules and Regulations (CRR) Structura l CRR Section 70.060.1 , "Codes and Standards" -A dopts ICC codes University of Missouri, Consultant Procedures and Design Guidelines Electrica l Section 2.4.2, " Building Codes and Standards for University Facilities" HV AC CPDG Division 23, "Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning (HV AC)" Instrumentation Section 2.4.2, "Bui ldin g Codes and Standards for University Facilities" and Contro l s Planning CPDG Section 2.4, "Planning, Design and Contract Document Development Guidelines for Master Construction Delivery Method" Plumbing CPDG Division 22, "P lumbing" Process Section 2.4.2, "Building Codes and Standards for University Facilities" University of Missouri, Facilities Management Policy and Procedures Manual Electrical Chapter 2, "Design and Construction Policy" 3-11 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-6. Discovery Ridge/University of Missouri Requirements Requirements Reference sectionlrequirementa Instrumentation Chapter 2, " Design and Construction Policy" and Controls Structural Section 3.A, Refers to CRR 70.060 for the Basic Building Code Section 3.0, Refers to the University Building Adopted Codes for currently adopted codes University Building Adopted Codes IMC-2012 S tru c tural Int e rnational M ec hanical Code Adopts IBC 2012

• Co mplete references are provided in Section 3.6 C RR Collected Rules and Regulations.

IBC International Building Code. ICC = Internation a l Code Council. 3.1. 7 Codes and Standards MU NRC University of Missouri. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co mmis s ion. Table 3-7 lists design inputs for the RPF identified in NWMI-DRD-2013-030. The RPF system de s ign descriptions identify the specific requirements for that system produced by each applicable reference.

The Construction Permit Application and associated preliminary design documents identify codes, standards, and other referenced documents that may be applicable to the RPF. The specific RPF design codes, standards, and other referenced documents , including exceptions or exemptions to the identified requirements, will be finalized in the RPF final design and provided to the NRC. In addition, the codes, s tandards, and referenced documents for the RPF safety SSCs that are needed to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements will be identified and committed to in the Operating License Application.

Table 3-7. Design Codes and Standards (12 pages) Document numbera Document title American Concrete Institute (ACI) ACI 349 Code R e quirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Stru c tur es and CommentGJy, 2013 American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) ANSI/ AISC N690 Sp ec(fi.ca tionfor Safety-R e lat ed S t ee l Structures for Nuc lear Fa c iliti es, 2012 Air Movement and Control Association (AMCA) AMCA Publication 201 AMCA Publication 203 ANSl/AMCA 210 AMCA Publication 211 AMCA Publication 311 Fans and Systems , 2002 (R2011) Field P erformance M e asurement of Fan Systems, 1990 (R201 l) Laboratory Methods for Testing Fans for Aerodynamic Performance Rating, 2007 Certified Ratin gs Program -Product Ratin g Manual for Fan Air Performance, 2013 Certified Ratings Program -Product Rating Manual for Fan Sound Performance, 2006 (R2010) American Conference on Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) ACGIH 2097 Industrial Ventilation:

A Manual of Recommended Practice for Design, 2013 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) ANSl/ITSDF B56. l Safety Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks 3-12

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

• NORTHWEST MEDtCAl ISOTIWS ' Document number* ANSI/IEEE C2 ANSI C84.l ANSI N13 seri es ANSIN13.1 ANSI N323D ANSl/AIHA/ASSE Z9.5 ANSI/NEMA Z535. l ANSI/NEMA Z535.2 ANSI/NEMA Z535.3 ANSIINEMA Z535.4 ANSI/ AMCA 204 ANSI/AMCA 210 ANSI/ AHRI Standard 390 ANSI/ AHRI Standard 410 AN SI/ AHRI Standard 430 ANSI/ AHRI Standard 850 ANSI/HI 3.1-3.5 ANSI N42.17B ANSI N42.18 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-7. Design Codes and Standards (12 pages) Document title 2 01 2 N ational El ec tri c al Saf ety Cod e (N ESC), 2012 American National Standard for Electric Power Systems and Equipment

-Voltage Ratings (60 Hert z), 2011 Addres se s radiation monitoring e quipment Sampling and Monitoring Rel e ases of Airborne Radioa c tiv e Substances from th e Stacks and Ducts of Nuclear Fa c ilities 2011 A m e ri c an N ati o n a l S tandard fo r In s tall e d Ra d iati o n Pr o t ec ti o n In s trum e nt a ti o n , 2 002 Laboratory Ventilation, 2012 S a f ety C o lor s, 2006 (R2011) Environmental and Facility Safety Signs , 2011 C rit e ria for Saf ety Sy mb o l s, 2 011 Product Safety S i gns and Label s , 2011 B a lan ce Quali ty a nd Vibrati on L eve ls f o r Fan s, 2 005 (R201 2) Laboratory Methods of Testing Fans for Aerodynamic P e rformance Rating, 2007 P e r fo rman ce Ratin g of Sin g l e Pa c ka ge V e rti c al A ir-C o nditi o n e r s and H e at Pump s, 2003 Forced-Circulation Air-Coolin g and Air-Heating Coils , 2001 P e rf or man ce R ati ng of C e ntr a l S t a t io n A ir-H a ndlin g U nit s, 2 009 Performance Rating of Commer c ial and Industrial Air Filt e r Equipment, 2013 R o t ary Pump s, 2 00 8 American National Standard Performance Specifications for Health Physics Instrumentation

-O c cupational Airborne Radioactivity Monitoring Instrum e ntation, 1989 Sp ec ification and P e rf o rman ce of On-Sit e In s trum e ntation f o r C ontinuousl y M o nitoring Radi o a c ti v ity in Efflu e nts, 2004 ANSI/IEEE N320 American National Standard Performance Specifications for Reactor Emergency Radiological Monitoring Instrumentation, 1979 American Nuclear Society (ANS) ANSI/ANS-2.3 A N SI/ANS-2.26 ANSI/ ANS-2.27 ANSI/ ANS-2.29 ANSI/ ANS-6.4 Estimating Tornado , Hurricane , and Extreme Straight Line Wind Characteristics at Nuclear Facility Sites, 2011 C at eg ori z ati o n of N ucl e ar Fa c ili ty Stru c tur es , S ys t e m s , and Co mp o n e nts for S e i s mi c D es i g n , 2004 (R2010) Criteria/or Investigations of Nuclear Facility Sites for Seismic Hazard Assessments, 2008 Pr o babili s ti c S e i s mi c Ha z ard A n a l ys i s, 2008 Nuclear Analysis and Design of Con c rete Radiation Shielding for Nuclear Power Plants , 2006 3-13 Document numbera ANSI/ ANS-6.4.2 ANSI/ANS-8.l ANSI/ANS-8.3 ANSl/ANS-8.7 ANSI/ ANS-8. I 0 ANSI/ANS-8.19 ANSI/ ANS-8 .2 0 ANSI/ ANS-8.21 ANSI/ ANS-8.24 ANSI/ANS-10.4 ANSI/ANS-10.5 ANSl/ANS-15.17 ANSI/ ANS-40.3 7 ANSI/ANS-55.l ANSI/ ANS-5 5 .4 ANSI/ ANS-55.6 ANSI/ANS-58.3 ANSI/ ANS-58.8 ANSI/ANS-59.3 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-7. Design Codes and Standards (12 pages) Document title Specification for Radiation Shielding Materials, 2006 Nuclear Criticality Safety in Operations with Fissionable Materials Outside Reactors , 1998 (R2007) (W2014) Critically Accident Alarm System, 1997 (R2012) Nuclear Criticality Safety in the Storage of Fissile Materials, 1998 (R2007) Criteria for Nuclear Criticality Control in Operations wit h Shielding and Confinement, 1983 (R2005) Administrative Practices for Nuclear Criticality Safety, 1996 (R2014) Nuclear Criticality Safety Training, 1991 (R2005) Use of Fixed Neutron Absorbers in Nuclear Facilities Outside Reactors, 1995 (R201 l) Validation of Neutro n Transport Methods for Nuclear Criticality Safety Calculations, 2007 (R2012) Verification and Validation of Non-Safety-Related Scientific and Engineering Computer Programs for the Nuclear Industry, 2008 Accommodating Use r Needs in Computer Program Development, 2006 (R201 l) Fire Protection Program Criteria for Research Reactors, 1981 (R2000) (W2010) Mobile Low-Level Radioa ctive Waste Processing Systems, 2009 Solid Radioactive Waste Processing System for Light Water Cooled Reactor Plants, 1992 (R2009) Gaseous Radi oactive Waste Processing Systems for Light Water Reactor Plants, 1993 (R2 007) Liquid Radioactive Waste Processing System for Light Water Reactor Plants, 1993 (R2007) Physical Prot ectio n for Nuclear Safety-Related Systems and Components, 1992 (R2008) Time Response Design Criteria for Safety-Related Operator Actions, 1994 (R2008) Nuclear Safety Criteria for Co ntrol Air Systems, 1992 (R2002) (W2 012) Design Guides for Radioactive Material Handling Facilities and Equipment, Remote Systems Technology Division, 1988, Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) ANSI/ AHR1 Standard 365 P erfo rmance R ating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning Condensing Units, 2009 ANSI/ AHR1 Standard 410 Forced-Circulation Air-Conditioning and Air-Heating Coils, 2001 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) ASCE4 ASCE 7 ASCE43 Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary, 2000 Minimum De sign Loads for Buildin gs and Oth e r Structures, 2005 (R2010) Seismic Design Criteria for Structures , Systems , and Components in Nuclear Facilities, 2005 3-14 NWM I ...... , ' * * ! ' NOkTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Document number* ASCE Manual of Practice 37 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Table 3-7. Design Codes and Standards (12 pages) Document title Design and Co n str u ct i o n of Sanitary and S t orm Sewers, 1969 American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard Safety Standard for R efr ig eratio n Systems, 2013 15 ANSI/ASHRAE 51-07 Laboratory Methods of Testing Fans for Certified Aerodynamic Performance R ating, 2007 ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 52.2 ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 ANSl/ASHRAE Standard 62.1 ASHRAE Standard 70 ANSI/ ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 ANSI/ ASHRAE 110 Method for T esti n g General Ventilation Air Cleaning D ev i ces for R e mo va l Efficiency b y Particle Size, 2007 Thermal Environm e ntal Conditions for Human Oc c upancy , 2013 Ventilation for Accept abl e Ind oor Air Quality, 20 10 Method of Testing the P erformance of Air Outlets and Air Inlets , 2011 Energy Stand ard for Buildin gs Except Low-Rise R eside ntial Buildings, 2010 Method of T esting Petforman ce of Laboratory Fume Hoods, 1995 ANSI/ ASHRAE 111 Measurement , T esti n g , Adjusting and Balan cing of Buildin g Heating , Ventilation , Air-Conditioning and R efrigeratio n Systems, 2008 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) ASMEA1 7.l ASMEAG-1 ASME Bl6.5 ASME B20.l ASME B30.17 ASME B30.20 ASME B31.3 ASME B31.9 ASME B31.12 ASME B40. l 00 ASME B40.2 00 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code ASME HST-1 ASMEN509 ASME N510 ASME NQA-1 Safety Co d e for Elevators and Escalators, 2013 Cod e on Nuclear Air and Gas Treatment, 2012 Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings:

NPW Yi through 2 4 , 2003 Safety Standard for Conveyors and R elated Equipment, 2012 Overheard and Gantry Cra n es (Top Runnin g Bridge, S in g l e Girder , Un d erhu n g Hoist), 2006 Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices, 2013 Process Pipin g, 2014 Build ing Services Piping, 2011/2014 H ydroge n Pipin g and Pip e lin es, 2014 Pr ess ure Gaug es and Gauge Attachments, 2013 Thermometers , Dir ect R ea din g and R e mot e R eading, 2013 Section VIII Di visio n 1, 2010/2013 Section IX P etfor man ce Standard/or Electric Chain H oists, 2012 Nuclear Po wer Plant Air-Cleaning Units and Components, 2002 (R2008) Testing of Nuclear Air-Treatment Systems, 2007 Quality Assurance R eq uir eme nt s for Nuclea r Facility Applications, 2008 with la-2009 addenda 3-15

.; .. NWMI ...... .. ... .*.* .. *.*. ' * * ' NOflTHWf:ST MEDICAl ISOTOPES Document numbera NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-7. Design Codes and Standards (12 pages) Document title ASME QM E-1 Qualifi c ation of Ac tiv e M ec hani c al Equipment U se d in N uclear Po we r Plant s, 2012 American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) SNT-TC-lA R ec omm e nd e d Pra c ti ce N o. S N T-TC-JA: P e r s onn e l Qualifi c ati o n and C e rt ifica tion in N ond es tru c tiv e T e stin g, 2011 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) ASTM Cl055 ASTMC1217 ASTM C1533 ASTM C1554 ASTM Cl572 ASTM C1615 ASTM Cl661 ASTM E493 Standard Guid e for H e at e d S ys t e m Sur f a ce Conditi o n s that Pr o du ce Conta c t Burn Injuri es, 2003 (2014) Standard Guide for Design of Equipment for Processing Nuclear and Radioactive Materials , 2000 S tandard Guid e for G e n e ral D es ign C o n s id e ration s fo r Hot C e ll Equipm e nt , 2 015 Standard Guide for Materials Handling Equipment for Hot Cells, 2011 S tandard Guid e for D ry Lead Glas s and Oil-Fill ed L ea d Gla ss Radiation Sh ie ldin g W i nd ow Co mp o n e nt s f or R e m o t e l y Op e r a t ed F ac ili t i es , 2010 Standard Guide for Mechanical Drive Systems for Remote Operation in Hot Cell Facilities, 2010 Standard Guid e f o r Vi e win g Sys tem s f or R e mot e l y Op e rat ed F ac ili t i es, 2013 Standard Practice for Leaks Using the Mass Spectrometer Leak Detector in the Inside-Out Testing Mode, 2011 ASTM F l471 S tandard T est M e th o d for A ir Cl e anin g P e rforman ce of Hi g h-E ffic i e n cy Parti c ulat e A i r-Filt e r S ys t e m , 2009 American Welding Society (A WS) A WS B2.l/B2.1M Sp ecific ation f or W e ldin g Pr oce dur e and P e rforman ce Qualifi c ati o n , 2009 AWS Dl.1/ Dl.lM Stru c tural Welding Code -Steel , 2010 A WS Dl.3/Dl.3M A WS Dl.6/Dl.6M AWS D9.1/ D9.1M AWS QCl Stru c tural W e ldin g C od e -Sh ee t St ee l , 2008 Stru c tural Welding Code -Stainless Steel, 2007 Sh ee t M e tal W e ldin g Cod e, 2006 Standard for A WS Certification of Welding Inspe c tors, 2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) -National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Guidance for Filtration and Air Cleaning Systems to Protect Building Environment s No. 2003-136 from Airborne Chemical , Biological , and Radiological Attacks , 2003 Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA)/Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) ANSI/TIA-568-C.1 ANSI/TIA-568-C.2 ANSl/TIA-568-C.3 ANSI/TIA-569 ANSl/TIA-606 Commercial Building Tele c ommunications Cabling Standard, 2012 B a l a n ced T w i s t e d-Pair T e l eco mmuni ca ti o n s Cablin g and C o mpon e nts St a ndard s, 2014 Opti c al Fiber Cabling and Components Standard, 2011 T e l ec ommuni c ations Path w a y s and Spa ce s , 2013 Administration Standard for Commercial Telecommunications Infrastructure, 2012 3-16 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-7. Design Codes and Standards (12 pages) Document numbera ANSl/TIA-607 ANSI/TIA-758-A International Code Council ICCA117.1 IE C C IMC Document title C omm e r c ial Buildin g Grounding (Earthin g) and Bondin g R e quir e m e nt s f o r T e l e communi c ati o n s , 2013 Customer-Owned Outside Plant Telecommunications Infrastructure Standard, 2004 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities Standard, 2009 20 I 2 Int e rn a ti o nal En e r gy C o ns e rv a tion C o d e, May 2011 20I 2 International Mechanical Code, June 2011 IPC Int e rnational Plumbin g C od e, April 2011 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) IE EE 7-4.3.2 St a ndard Crit e ri a f o r Di g it a l C omput e r s in S a fety S ys t e m s o f N ucl ea r P owe r G e n e rating S t a ti o n s, 2003 IEEE 141 IE EE 142 IEEE 241 I EEE 242 IEEE 308 IE EE 315 IEEE 323 IE EE 336 IEEE 338 I EEE 344 IEEE 379 IE EE 3 84 IE EE 399 IEEE 446 IEEE 493 Recommended Practice for Electric Power Distribution for Industrial Plants (Red Book), 1993 (Rl999) R eco mm e nd e d Pr ac ti ce f o r Gr o und i n g of In d u s trial and C o mm e r c ial Pow e r S y st e m s (G ree n Book), 2 007 Recommended Practice for El e ctric Power Systems in Commercial Buildings (Gray Book), 1990 (Rl997) R eco mm e nd e d Pr ac ti ce for Prot ec ti o n and Coor dination of Indu s trial and Co mm e r c ial P owe r S ys t e m s (Buff B o ok), 2001 Standard Criteria for Class IE Power Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, 2012 G r a phi c S y mb o l s fo r El ec tri c al a nd El ec troni cs Di agr am s, 1975 (RI 993) Standard for Qualifying Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Pow e r Generating Stations, 2003 R eco mm e nd e d Pr ac ti ce for In s tallati o n , Insp ec ti o n , and T est in g/o r Cla ss IE P owe r , In s trum e ntation , a nd Control Equipm e nt at N u clear F ac iliti es, 2010 Standard for Crit e ria for the Periodic Surveillance Testing of Nuclear Power Generating Station Safety Systems, 2012 R eco mm e nd e d Pr ac ti ce for S e i s mi c Qualifi ca t io n o f C las s IE E quipm e nt f or N ucl e ar Pow e r G e n e r a ting S tati o n s, 2013 Standard Application of the Single-Failure Criterion to Nuclear Power Generating Station Safety Systems, 2014 St a ndard C riteria f or Ind e p e nd e n ce o f Clas s I E Equipm e nt a nd C ir c uits, 2008 Recommended Practice for Power Systems Analysis (Brown Book), 1997 R eco mm e nd e d Pr ac ti ce for Em e r ge n cy and Standb y Pow e r S ys t e m s for Indu s trial and C omm e r c ial A ppli c ation s (O ra n g e Book), 1995 (R2000) Recommended Practice for the Design of Reliable Industrial and Commercial Power Systems (Gold Book), 2007 3-17

.; .. ;. NWMI ...... .. .... ..... .. .. .. ' * * ! ' NORTHWtST MEDICAL ISOTOPES Document numbera IE EE 497 IEEE 519 IE EE 535 IEEE 577 IEE E 60 3 IEEE 650 I EEE 739 IEEE 828 IE EE 829 IEEE 902 IE EE 946 IEEE 1012 IEEE 1015 IEEE 1023 IE EE 1028 IEEE 1046 IE E E 1050 IEEE 1100 IE E E 12 8 9 IEEE 1584 ANSI/IE EE C2 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Table 3-7. Design Codes and Standards (12 pages) Document title Standard Criteria for A cc id e nt Monitorin g Instrum e ntation for N ucl e ar P owe r G e n e ratin g Stati o n s, 2010 Re c ommended Practice and Requirements for Harmonic Control in Electrical Power Systems, 2014 St a nd a rd for Qualifi c ation of Cla ss JE L ea d Stor age Batteri es fo r N ucl e ar P o w e r G e n e ratin g Stat io n s, 2013 Standard Requirements for R e liability Analysis in the Design and Operation of Safety Systems for Nuclear Facilities, 2012 Standard Crit e r ia f o r Saf ety Sys t e m s f or N ucl e ar P owe r G e n er atin g St a ti o n s, 2009 Standard for Qualification of Class JE Static Battery Chargers and Inverters for Nuclear Power Generating Station s , 2006 R eco mm e nd e d Pr ac ti ce fo r En e r gy Mana ge m e nt in Indu str ial and C o mm e r c i a l Fa c iliti es (Bron ze Book), 199 5 (R2000) Standard for Configuration Management in Systems and Softwar e Engin e ering, 2012 Standard for S of twar e and S ys t em T est D o cum e nt a t i on , 2008 Guide for Maintenance , Operation , and Safety of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems (Yellow Book), 1998 G ener atin g St at i o n s , 2004 Standard Crit e ria for Software Verifi c ation and Validation, 2012 R eco mm e nd e d Pra c ti ce A ppl y in g L ow-V o lt age C irc uit Br e ak e r s Use d in Indu s trial and C omm e r c ial P o w e r Syste m s (Blu e B oo k), 2006 (C2007) Guide for the Application of Human Factors Engineering to System s, Equipment , and Facilities of Nuclear Power Generating Stations, 2004 (R2010) St a nd a rd for S o f tw ar e R ev i ews and A udit s, 2008 Application Guide for Distributed Digital Control and Monitoring/or Pow e r Plants, 1991 (Rl 996) Gu i d e for In s trum e ntation a nd Co ntr o l Equipm e n t G ro undin g in G e n e ratin g S t a t io n s, 2004 Re c ommended Pra c tice for Powering and Grounding Ele c tronic Equipm e nt (Emerald Book), 2005 Guid e for the A ppli c ati o n of Hum an F ac t o r s En g in ee rin g in th e D es ign of C o mput e r-Ba sed Monit o rin g and C o ntrol Di s pl ays fo r N ucl ea r Po we r G e n e ratin g St a ti o ns, 1998 (R2004) IEEE Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations, 2002 201 2 National El ec tri c al S a f e ty C o d e (N ESC), 2012 Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (JES) IES-2011 Th e Li g htin g Handbo o k , 2011 ANSI/IES RP-1-12 Ameri c an National Standard Practice for Office Lighting, 2012 3-18

".. NWM I ........ *.* "NORT H WUTMEOICALISOTOPES Document number 3 IES RP-7 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-7. Design Codes and Standards (12 pages) Document title American National Standard Practice for Lighting Industrial Facilities, 1991 (W2001) International Society of Automation (ISA) ANSI/ISA-5.1-2009 ISA-5.3-1983 ISA-5.4-1991 ISA-5.5-1985 ANSl/ISA-5.06.01-2007 ANSI/ISA 7.0.01-1996 ANSI/ISA-12.01.01-20 1 3 ISA-18.1-1979 ISA-TR20.00.01-2007 ISA-RP60.1-1990 ISA-67.01.01-2002 ANSI/ISA-67.04.01-2006 ISA-RP 67.04.02-2010 ANSI/ISA-75.05.01-20 00 ANSl/ISA-82.03

-1 988 ISA-TR84.00.04-201 l ISA-TR84.00.09-2013 ISA-TR91.00.02-2003 ANSI/ISA-TR99.00.01-2007 Instrumentation Symbols and Id entification, 2009 Graphic Symbols for Distribut ed Contro l/Shared Displ ay Instrumentation , Logic , and Computer Systems, 1983 Instrument Loop Diagrams, 1991 Graphic Symbols for Pro cess Displays, 1985 Functional Requirem e nts Do c umentation for Control Software Applications, 2007 Quality Standard for Instrument Air Definitions and Information Pertaining to Electrical Equipment in Hazardou s (Classified)

Locations, 2013 Annunciator Sequences and Specifications, 1979 (R2004) Specification Forms for Proc ess Measurement and Control Instruments Part 1: Genera l Considerations Updated wit h 27 n ew specifica tion forms in 2004-2006 and updated with 11 new specification forms in 2007 Contro l Center Facilities, 1990 Transducer and Transmitter Installation for Nuclear Safety Applications, 2002 (R2007) Setpointsfor Nuclear Safety-Related Instrumentation, 2006 (R2011) Methodologies for th e Determination of Setpointsfor Nuclear Safety-Related Instrumentation , 2010 Contro l Valve Terminology, 2000 (R2 005) Safety Standard for Electrical and Electronic T est, Measuring, Controlling, and R elated Equipment, 1988 Part 1 Guideline for the Implementation of ANSIIISA-84.00.01-2004

(!EC 61511), 2011 Security Countermeasures Relat ed to Safety In stru m ented Systems (S IS), 2013 Criticality Classification Guideline for In strumentation, 2003 Security Te c hnolo gies for Industrial Automation and Control Systems, 2007 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) I AEA-TECDOC-1250 Seismic D esig n Considerations of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Faciliti es, 2001 IAEA-TECDOC-1347 Consideration of External Events in the D esign of Nuclear Facilities Oth er Than Nuclear Po wer Plants, With Emphasis on Earthquakes, 2003 IAEA-TECDOC-1430 Radioisotope Handling Faci li ties and Automation of Radioisotope Production , 2004 International Code Council (ICC) IBC 2012 IFC 2012 International Building Co d e, 2012 International Fire Code, 2012 3-19

.... ;. NWMI ...... .. *.. ........... " "NORTHWEST MEDtCAl. ISOTOPt:s Document number 3 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-7. Design Codes and Standards (12 pages) Document title IMC 2012 International Mechanical Code, 2012 International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) ICC-ES AC156 "Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Certification by Shake-Table Testing of Nonstructural Components

," 20 I 0 National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) NECA 1 NECA 90 NECA JOO NECA 101 NECA/AA 104 NECA/NEMA 105 NECA 111 NECA 120 NECA 202 NECA 230 NECAIFOA 301 NECA331 NECA 400 NECA402 NECA/EGSA 404 NECA407 NECA 408 NECA409 NECA410 NECA411 NECA420 NECA430 NECA/IESNA 500 NECA/IESNA 501 NECA/IESNA 502 NECA/BICSI 568 Standard Practice of Good Workmanship in Electri c al Construction , 2010 R ecommended Practice for Commissioning Building Electrical Systems (ANSI), 2009 Symbols for Electrical Construction Drawings (ANSI), 2013 Standard for Installing Steel Conduits (Rigid, IMC, EMI) (ANSI), 2013 Standard for Installing Aluminum Building Wire and Cable (ANSI), 2012 Standard for Installing Metal Cable Tray Systems (ANSI), 2007 Standard for Installing Nonmetallic Raceways (RNC, ENT, LFNC) (ANSI), 2003 Standard for Installing Armored Cable (Type AC) and Metal-Clad Cable (Type MC) (ANSI), 2013 Standard for Installing and Maintaining Industrial Heat Tra c ing Systems (ANSI), 2013 Standard for Selecting, Installing, and Maintaining Electric Motors and Motor Controllers (ANSI), 2010 Standard for Installing and Testing Fiber Optics, 2009 Standard for Building and Service Entrance Grounding and Bonding, 2009 Standard for Installing and Maintaining Switchboards (ANSI), 2007 Standard for Installing and Maintaining Motor Control Centers (ANSI), 2007 Standard for Installing Generator Sets (ANSI), 2014 R ecommended Practice for Installing and Maintaining Pane/boards (ANSI), 2009 Standard for Installing and Maintaining Busways (ANSI), 2009 Standard for Installing and Maintaining Dry-Typ e Transformers (ANSI), 2009 Standard for Installing and Maintaining Liquid-Filled Transformers (ANSI), 2013 Standard for Installing and Maintaining Uninterruptible Power Supplies (UPS) (ANSI), 2006 Standard for Fuse Applications (ANSI), 20 14 Standard for Installing Medium-Voltage Metal-Clad Switchgear (ANSI), 2006 Recommended Practice for Installing Indoor Lighting Systems (ANSI), 2006 R ecomme nded Practice for Installing Exterior Lighting Systems (ANSI), 2006 Re c ommended Practice for Installing Industrial Lighting Systems (ANSI), 2006 Standard for Installing Building Tele com muni catio ns Cabling (ANSI), 2006 3-20

.... ;. NWMI ...... ..* ... ..... .... .. * *! NORTHWEST M£1HCAL. ISOTOP£S Document numbera NE CA/NCSCB 600 NECA/NEMA 605 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-7. Design Codes and Standards (12 pages) Document title R ec omm e nd e d Pr ac ti ce for In s t a llin g and M ai ntainin g M e dium-V o lta ge Ca bl e (AN SI), 2014 In s talling Underground Nonmetallic Utility Duct (ANSI), 2005 National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) NEMAMG-1 Motors and G e nerators, 2009 InterN ational Electrical Testing Association (NET A) ANSI/NETA ATS-2013 Standard for A c ceptan c e Testing Sp e cifi c ati o ns for Electrical Power Distribution Equipment and Systems, 2013 ANSI/NE TA E TT-2010 ANSI/NETA MTS-2011 S t a ndard for Ce rtifi c ation o f El ec tri c al T es tin g T ec hni c ian s, 2010 Maintenance Testing Specifi c ations for Electrical Power Di s tribution Equipment and Systems, 2011 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) NFPA 1 Fire Cod e , 2015 NFP A 2 NFPA4 NFPA 10 NFPA 13 NFPA 14 NFPA20 NFPA 22 NFPA 24 NF P A 25 NFPA 30 NFPA 37 NFPA45 NF PA 55 NFPA68 NF PA 69 NFPA 70 NFPA 70B NFPA 70E NFPA 72 NFPA 75 NFPA 79 NFPA 80 H y dr ogen T ec hn o l og i es C o d e, 2 011 Standard for Integrated Fir e Protection and Lif e Safety S ys t em T es ting, 2015 S t a ndard f or P o rtabl e Fir e E x tin g ui s h e r s, 2013 Standard for the In s tallation of Sprinkler Sy s t e ms , 2013 S t a nd a rd f o r th e In s tallati o n of S tandpip e and H ose Sys t e m s, 2 013 Standard for th e Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fir e Protection, 2013 S t a ndard f or W ate r Tank s fo r P riva t e Fir e P ro t ec tion , 2013 Standard for th e Installation of Private Fire Servi c e Mains and Their Appurtenances, 2013 Sta nd ar d for th e In spec ti o n , T esti n g , a nd M ai nt e n a n ce o f Wa t e r-Ba se d Fi re P ro t ec t i on S ys t e m s, 2014 Flammable and Combustibl e Liquids Cod e , 2015 Sta nd a rd fo r th e In s tall a ti o n and Use o f St ati o n ary Co mbu s ti o n En g in es a n d Gas Tu r b i n es, 2 01 5 Standard on Fir e Protection for Laboratori es U s ing Chemicals, 2015 Co mp res s ed G ases a nd C ry oge ni c Fluid s C o d e, 2013 Standard on Explo s ion Prote c tion by D e flagration V e nting, 2013 S ta nd a rd on E xp lo s i o n Pr eve nti o n Sy st e m s , 2 014 National Electri c al Cod e (NEC), 2014 R eco mm e nd e d Pr ac ti ce f o r El ec tri ca l Equipm e nt Maint e nan ce, 2013 Standard for Ele c tri c al Saf e ty in the Workpla c e , 2015 Na t io nal Fire A l a rm and Si gna lin g Co d e, 201 3 Standard for th e Fire Prote c tion of Information T e chnology Equipment, 2013 El ec tr ic al Stand a rd for Indu s tri a l Ma c hin e ry , 2015 Standard for Fire Doors and Oth e r Opening Prot e ctives, 2013 3-21 "NWMI ...... ..* **: .... .... .. ' *.* ! . NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOHS Document numbera NFPA 80A NFPA86 NFPA 86C NFPA90A NFPA 90B NFPA 91 NFPA 92 NFPA 92A NFPA 92B NFPA lOlB NFPA 105 NFPA 110 NFPA 111 NFPA 170 NFPA 204 NFPA220 NFPA 221 NFPA 262 NFPA 297 NFPA 329 NFPA 400 NFPA 496 NFPA 497 NFPA 704 NFPA 730 NFPA 731 NFPA 780 NFPA 791 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-7. Design Codes and Standards (12 pages) Document title Recommended Practice for Protection of Buildings from Exterior Fire Exposures, 2012 Standard for Ovens and Furnaces, 2015 Standard for Industrial Furnaces Using a Specia l Processing Atmosphere, 1999 Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating System, 2015 Standard for the Installation of Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Systems, 2015 Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids, 2015 Standard for Smoke Control Systems, 2012 Standard for Smoke-Control Systems Utilizing Barri ers and Pressure Differences , 2009 Standard for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large Spaces, 2009 Code for Means of Egress for Buildings and Structures, 2002 (W-Next Edition) Standard for the Installation of Smoke Door Assemblies and Other Opening Protectives, 2013 Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems, 2013 Standard on Stored Electrical Energy Emergency and Standby Power Systems, 2013 Standard for Fire Safety and Emergency Symbols, 2012 Standard for Smoke and Heat Venting , 2012 Standard on Types of Building Construction, 2015 Standard for High Challenge Fire Walls , Fire Walls , and Fire Barrier Walls, 2015 Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for Use in Air-Handling Spaces, 2015 Guide on Principles and Practices for Communications Systems, 1995 Recommended Practice for Handling R e l eases of Flammable and Combustible Liquids and Gases, 2015 Hazardous Materials Code, 2013 Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2013 Recommended Practice for the Classification of Flammable Liquids, Gases , or Vapors and of Hazardous (Classified)

Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas, 2012 Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response, 2012 Guide for Premises Security, 2014 Standard for the Installation of Electronic Premises Security Systems, 2015 Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems, 2014 Recommended Practice and Procedures for Unlabeled Electrical Equipment Evaluation, 201 3-22

..... NWMI ..**.. .. *.. .... .. .. . . ' *. * ! . NORTHWEST MEDtCAL ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Table 3-7. Design Codes and Standards (12 pages) Document numbera Document title NFPA 80 1 Standard for Fire Protection for Facilities Handling Radioactive Materials , 2014 Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association (SMACNA) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Vol. 8 Version 2.0 , 2013 SMACNA 1143 HVAC Air Duct Leakage Test, 1985 SMACNA 1520 R ound Industrial Duct Construction Standard, 1999 SMACNA 1922 Rectangu l ar Industrial Du c t Construction Standard, 2004 SMACNA 1966 HVAC Duct Construction Standard-Metal and Flexib l e, 2006 SMACNA-2006 HVAC Systems Duct Design, 2006 ANSI/SMACNA 001-2008 Seismic R estraint Manual: Guidelines for Mechanical Systems, 2008 U.S. Weather Bureau Technical Paper No. 40 R airifa ll Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and R eturn Periods from 1to100 Years, 1963 Underwriters Laboratory, Inc. (UL) Federal S pecification s UL 181 UL499 UL 555 UL586 UL900 UL 1995 Standard for Factory-Made Air Ducts and Connectors, 2013 Standard for Ele c tric Heating Appliances, 2014 Standard for Fire Dampers, 2006 Standard for High Efficiency , Particu l ate, Air Filter Units, 2009 Standard for Air Filter Units, 2004 H e ating and Cooling Equipment, 2011

• Comp l ete refere n ces are provided in Section 3.6 ACGIH American Conference on Governmenta l lAEA lnternational Atomic Energy Agenc y. Industrial Hygienists. ICC International Code Counc il. AC! American Concrete lnstitute. ICC-ES International Code Counc il Eva lu ation Service. AHR! Air Conditio nin g , Heating and Refrigeration lEEE lnstitute of E l ectrical and Electronics E ngineers.

In s titute. rES Ill uminati n g Engineering Society. AISC American lnstitute of Stee l Construction.

ISA lntemational Society of A ut omation. AMCA Air Movement and Contro l Association. NECA National E l ectrical Contractors Associat i on. ANS Amer i can N ucl ear Society. NEMA National E l ectrical Manufacturers Association.

ANS I American National Stan d ards lnstitute. NETA lnterNational E l ectrical Testing Association.

ASC E American Society of Civi l Engi n eer s. NFPA National F ir e Protection Associat i on. ASHRAE American Society of Heating , Refrigeration N I OSH National lnstitute for Occupational Safety and and Air-Co nditi oning Eng in eers. Health. ASM E American Society of Mec h anical En g ineers. NOAA National Oceanic and Atmosp h eric ASNT American Society for Nondestructive Administrat i o n T e sting. SMACNA S h eet Meta l and Air Con diti oning Contractors ASTM American Society for Testing and Materia l s. National Association. AWS American We ldi ng Society. T I A Telecommun i cat i ons lndustry Association. CDC Centers for Disease Contro l and Prevention.

UL Underwriters Laboratory.

ElA E lectronic Industries A lli ance. 3-23 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components

3.2 METEOROLOGICAL

DAMAGE RPF meteorological accidents with radiological consequences are evaluated in NWMI-2015-SAFETY-011, Evaluation of Natural Phenomenon and Man-Made Events on Safety Features and Items Relied on for Safety. The basis for the structural design of the RPF is described in NWMI-2013-043 , NWMI Radioisotope Production Facility Structural Design Basis. Updates and development of technical specifications associated with the meteorological design of the RPF SSCs will be provided in Chapter 14.0 as part of the Operating License Application.

The demands on structural elements due to applied loads are evaluated using the criteria and methodology discussed below. The effect of each load case is determined separately , and total demand is determined by combining the load effects using the load combinations for evaluating strength and evaluating the serviceability criteria given below. Four categories of load cases are used: normal, severe environmental, extreme environmental, and abnormal loads. The definition of each load is the following:

• * *

• Normal loads are loads that are expected to be encountered during normal plant operations and shutdown , and load due to natural hazard phenomena likely to be encountered during the service life of the facility.

Severe environmental loads are loads that may be encountered infrequently during the service life of the facility.

Extreme environmental loads are loads that are credible but are highly improbable to occur during the service life of the facility.

Abnormal loads are loads generated by a postulated high-energy pipe break accident used as a design basis. Definitions of load case symbols are provided in Table 3-8. Table 3-8. Load Symbol Definitions (2 pages) Symbol Definition Normal Load Cases D Dead loads due to the weight of the structural elements, fixed-position equipment, and other permanent appurtenant items; weight of crane trolley and bridge F Load due to fluids with well-defined pressures and maximum heights H Load due to lateral earth pressure, groundwater pressure, or pressure of bulk materials L Live load due to occupancy and moveable equipment , including impact L, Roof live load C 0 , Rated capacity of crane (will include the maximum wheel loads of the crane and the vertical, lateral , and longitudinal forces induced by the moving crane) S Snow load as stipulated in ASCE 7" for risk category IV facilities R Rain load T 0 Self-staining load, thermal effects, and loads during normal operating, startup, or shutdown conditions , based on the most critical transient or steady-state condition 3-24

"

.... ** ..... ... * * *

• NORTHWEST MEOICA.L ISOlOHS NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-8. Load Symbol Definitions (2 pages) Symbol Definition Ro Pipe reactions during normal operating , startup, or s hutdown conditions, ba se d on the mo s t critical transient or steady-state condition Severe Environmental Load Cases Di Weight of ice F a Flood load W Load due to wind pre ss ure Wa Load based on serviceability wind speed Wi Wind-on-ice E 0 Where required as part of the design basis, loads generated by the operating basis earthquake, as defined in IO CFR 50,b Appendix S , "Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants ," or as specified by the authority having jurisdiction Extreme Environmental Load Cases S, Weight of the 48-hour probable maximum winter precipitation superimposed on S W1 Loads generated b y the specified de s ign ba s is tornado , including wind pre ss ure s, pressure diff ere ntials , and tornado-borne missiles, a s defin e d in NUREG-0800,c or as s pecified b y the a uth or ity having jurisdiction Ess Loads generated by the safe shutdown, or design basis earthquake, as defined in IO CFR 50,b Appendix S, or as specified by the authority having jurisdiction Abnormal Load Cases P a Maximum differential pressure load generated by the postulated accident Ra Pipe and equipment reactions generated by the po s tulated accident, includin g R o Ta Thermal loads generated by the postulated accident, including T 0 Yi Jet impingement l oa d g enerated b y th e postulated accident Y m Missile impact load , such as pipe whip generated by or during the postulated accident Y, Loads on the structure generated by the reaction of the brok e n high-ener gy pipe during the po s tulated acci d e nt

• ASCE 7, Mini mum D esign Loads for Buildings a nd Other Structu r es, American Soc i e t y of Civi l E n g in ee r s, R esto n , Virginia, 2005 (R20 I 0). b I 0 CFR 50, "Do me s tic Licensing of Produ ct i o n and U tili za ti o n Fac iliti es ," Code of F e d e ral R egu lati ons, Office of the Fe d era l Re g ist e r , as amended. c NUREG-0800 , Sta nd ard R ev i ew Plan for the R ev i ew of Safety A nal ys i s R epo rts for N ucl ea r Pow e r Plants, L WR Ed ition , U.S. Nu c l ea r Regulatory Co mmi ss ion , Office of Nucle a r Material Sa f e ty a nd Safeguards , Washington, D.C., 1 987. 3.2.1 Combinations of Loads Load combinations used for evaluating strength and serviceability are given in the following subsections.

Combinations for strength-based acceptance criteria are given for both nuclear safety-related SSCs and for commercial SSCs. 3-25

.. ;.:; .. NWMI ..... .... .... .. ' *. * . HOflTHWHT MEDtCIJ. ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components 3.2.1.1 Nuclear Safety-Related Structures, Systems, and Components For nuclear safety-relat ed SSCs, the loading combinations from ACI 349, Code R equirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures and Commentary, are used. The load combinations from ACI 349 are essentially identical to the combination from ANSI/ AISC N690, Specification for Safety-Related Steel Structures for Nuclear Facilities.

Table 3-9 presents nuclear safety-related SSC loads. In addition , the load combination for extreme winter precipitation load (Sr) takes DC/COL-ISG-007, Interim Staff Guidance on Assessment of Normal and Extreme Winter Precipitation Loads on the Roofs of Seismic Category I Structures, guidance into account. Table 3-9. Load Combinations for Strength Based Acceptance Criteria, Nuclear Safety-Related Combination Normal Load Combinations 1.4(0+F+Ro)+To 1.2(0 + F + T 0 +Ro)+ 1.6(L + H) + 1.4C c r + 0.5(Lr or S or R) 1.2(0 + F + Ro) + 0.8(L + H) + 1.4Ccr + l .6(Lr or S or R) Severe Environmental Load Combinations 1.2(0 + F + Ro) + l.6(L + H + Eo) 1.2(0 + F + Ro) + 1.6(L + H + W) Extreme Environmental and Abnormal Load Combinations 0 + F + 0.8L + Ccr + H +T o+ Ro+ E ss 0 + F+ 0.8L+ H +To+ Ro+ W1 0 + F + 0.8L + Ccr + H +T a+ Ra+ 1.2P a 0 + F + 0.8L + H +Ta+ Ra+ Pa+ Yr+ Yj + y m + E ss O+ F+ 0.8L+ Ccr+ H+ T o+ Ro+ Sr *43fH+ ANSl/AISC N690b (9-1) (NB2-1) (9-2) (NB2-2) (9-3) (NB2-3) (9-4) (NB2-4) (9-5) (NB2-5) (9-6) (NB2-6) (9-7) (NB2-7) (9-8) (NB2-8) (9-9) (NB2-9) a AC! 349, Code Requir e m e nts for N ucl ea r Safety-Related Concrete Structures and Commentary , American Concrete Institute, Farm in gton Hills, Michigan , 2013. b ANSI/ AI SC N690, Specification for Safety-Related Steel Structures for N ucl ear Facilities, American In stitute of Steel Co n struction, Ch ica go, Illinois, J anuary 31, 2012. 3.2.1.2 Commercial and Nuclear Non-Safety-Related Structures, Systems, and Components For commercial and nuclear non-safety-related SSCs, the loading combinations from American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7, Chapter 2 are used. When the loading includes earthquake effects, the spec ial seismic load combinations are taken from ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Chapter 12. The basic load combinations for the strength design of commercial type and safety-re lated nuclear SSCs are given in Table 3-10. The combinations listed are obtained from the 2012 International Building Co de (IBC) and ASCE 7. The crane li ve load case (C c r) is separated from other li ve loads in the combinations for design purposes.

3-26 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Table 3-10. Load Combinations for Strength Base Acceptance Criteria, Commercial Combination Basic Load Combinations l.4(D +F) l .2(D + F) + l .6(L + Ccr + H) + 0.5(L, or S or R) 1.2(D + F) + l.6(Lr or Sor R) + l.6H + l/1(L + C cr) or 0.5W] l.2(D + F) +I.OW+ /1(L + Ccr) + l.6H + 0.5(L, or Sor R) l.2(D + F) +I.OE+ f 1(L + C cr) + l.6H + fzS 0.9D+ I .OW+ 1.6H 0.9(D + F) +I.OE+ l.6H Load Combinations, including Flood Load l .2 D + (O.SW + I .OF.)+ L + 0.5(L, or Sor R) 0.9 D + (0.5W + I.O F a) Load Combinations, including Atmospheric Ice Where: l .2D + 1.6 L +(0.2 D; + 0.5S) 1.2D + L + (D; + W; + 0.5S) 0.9D + (D; + W;) fl = 0.5 for other live lo ads. IBC* (16-1) (16-2) (16-3) (16-4) (16-5) (16-6) (16-7) § 1605.2.1 §1605.2.1 § 1605.2.1 §1605.2.1

§1 605.2.1 t2 = 0. 7 for flat roof configurations, w hich do not s h e d s now , a nd 0.2 for other r oof co nfi g urati o n s a IBC 2 01 2, lnt e rnational Building Code, Int ernatio n a l Code Co un c il , lnc., Washington D.C. ASCE 7b I 2 3 4 5 6 7 §2.3.3.2 §2.3.3.2 §2.3.4.l §2.3.4.2 §2.3.4.3 b ASCE 7, Minimum D es i gn Loads for Buildin gs and Other Structures, American Soc i ety of Civi l E n gi n eers, R esto n , Virginia, 20 I 0. 3.2.2 Combinations for Serviceability Based Acceptance Criteria Bas e d on ASCE 7 , Appendix C Commentary , the load combinations g i ven in Table 3-11 are u sed whe n evaluating serviceabi li ty ba sed acceptance criteria. 3.2.3 Normal Loads The RPF is required to resist loads due to: * *

• Operating conditions of the systems a nd components within the RPF Normal and severe natural phenomena hazards , remaining operational to maintain life-safety and safe ty-related SS Cs Extreme natural phenomena ha zards, maintaining li fe-safety and related SSCs Table 3-11. Load Combinations for Serviceab ili ty Based Acceptance Criteria Combination Short-Term Effects D+L D + 0.5 S ASCE7 (CC-la) (CC-lb) Creep , Settlement and Simi lar Long-Term of Permanent Effects D + 0.5L Drift of Walls and Frames D + 0.5L+ W. Seismic Drift Per ASCE 7 , Section 12.8.6 (CC-2) (CC-3)

• Appendix C, Commentary , of ASCE 7, Mi nimum Design Loads for Buildings and Oth er Struc tur es, American Society of Civ il E n gineers, R es ton , Virginia, 2 01 3. 3-27 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Structural loads are due to the following:

• * *

• Self-weight of building materials and SS Cs Occupancy and normal use of the RPF Off-normal conditions and accidents Natural phenomena hazards Section 3.1 describes the structural discipline source requirements for these criteria.

Structural load criteria are summarized below. Site-specific natural phenomena hazard criteria are based on the physical location of the RPF given in Chapter 2.0 , Sections 2.3 and 2.5. 3.2.3.1.1 Dead Loads Dead loads consist of the weight of all materials of construction comprising the building , including walls, floors, roofs, ceilings , confinement doors , stairways , built-in partitions , wall and floor finishes , and cladding. Dead loads also consist of the weight of fixed equipment, including the weight of cranes. The density of all interconnections (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

[HV AC] ductwork , conduits , cable trays , and piping) between equipment will be conservativel y estimated and included in the final design for dead load for fi x tures attached to ceilings or anchored to floors in the RPF. 3.2.3.1.2 Lateral Earth and Ground Water Pressure Loads Lateral earth and groundwater pressure loads are lateral pressures due to the weight of adjacent soil and groundwater , respectively.

The design lateral earth load is a function of the composition of the soil. The Discovery Ridge Phase 1 Environmental Assessment (Terracon , 2011 a) indicates that the soils present are clayey gravels consistent with the Unified Soil Classification "GC." In addition , the assessment indicates that expansive soils are present. Chapter 2.0 , Section 2.5.3 presents additional on-site soil information.

The design lateral earth pressure load for the RPF is based on ASCE 7, Table 3.2.1, and has been augmented to account for the expansive soils (e.g., surcharge load is applied to account for the weight of the facility above the soils adjacent to the tank hot cell). The design groundwater depth is estimated to be approximately

5.5 meters

(m) (18 feet [ft]) ground surface and will be verified pending final geotechnical investigation.

Additional information is presented in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.4.2. The lateral earth pressure loads for the RPF are presented in Table 3-12. Table 3-12. Lateral Earth Pressure Loads Element Value Base design lateral soil load 45 lb/ft 2 per ft Design lateral load (expansive increase) 60 lb/ft2 per ft

Reference:

Table 3 .2-1 of ASCE 7 , Mi nimum D es i g n Load s fo r Buildin gs a nd Oth e r S tru c tur es , American Society of Civil E n g in e er s, R es ton , Vir g ini a, 2013. 3-28 NWM I ...... * * . NORTMWlST MEDICAi. tsOTOPlS NWM l-2 0 13-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components 3.2.3.1.3 Live Loads Floor Live Load Live loads are produced by the use and occupancy of the RPF , and as s uch , different live load magnitudes are appropriate for different areas of the facility.

Design floor loads provided in Table 3-13 are based on ASCE 7 , Sections 4.3 and 4.4 , and Section C4.3 Commentary. During the structural analysis , unknown loads (e.g., hot cell roof in Table 3-13) will have a con se rvative value assumed and marked with "(H OLD)." As the design matures , the actual values will be inserted in the analysis and the HOLDs removed. Final design media cannot be issued if there are HOLDs identified.

The facility live loads will be established during the completion of the final facility design and provided as part of the Operating License Application.

Roof Live Load Table 3-13. Floor Live Loads Description Uniform Concentrated Production area 250 lb/ft 2 3, 000 lb Hot cell roof TBD TBD Cover block layd own TBD TBD Mechanical rooms 200 lb/ft 2 2,000 lb Laboratory I 00 lb/ft 2 2,000 lb Office 50 lb/ft 2 2,000 lb Office partition s 20 lb/ft 2 Corridors I 00 lb/ft 2 Truck bay Per AASHTO Based on Sections 4.3, 4.4 , and C4.3 Co mmentary of ASCE 7, Minimum D es ign Loads for Building s a nd Oth e r Stru c ture s, American SocietyofCivil E n g in ee r s, Reston, Virginia , 20 1 3. AASHTO TBD American Assoc iation of State Highw ay a nd Tran s portation Offici a l s. to be determined. The minimum roof live load (Lr) prescribed b y the City of Columbia is 20 pounds (lb)/square foot (ft 2), n on-reducible (Ordnance No. 21804, Section 6-17). Snow loads (e.g., normal and extreme rain-on-snow) a re discussed separately in Section 3.2.5.2. C rane Loads The design basis crane load criteria are given in Table 3-14 and are based on a preliminary quote provided in NWMI-2015-SDD-001 , RPF Facility S DD. The crane design is to run a top-running bridge crane with a remotely operated, powered bridge and hoist. T he crane design basis will be refined in the final d esign and Operating License Application to account for the following:

• ASCE 7 , Chapter 3 -Include weights of crane and runway beams in dead load s Tab l e 3-14. Crane Load Criteria Element Crane capacity Crane weight (with hoists) Bridge weight Hoist and trolley weight Wheel load (static) Value 75 ton (150 kip) 69,990 lbf 62,330 !bf 7 , 660 lbf 54.3 kip

• ASCE 7, Chapter 4 -Increase wheel load by 25 percent to account for vertical impact *

• ASCE 7 , Chapter 4-Determine lateral force by multiplying sum of hoist and trolley weight and rated capacity of crane by 20 percent ASCE 7 , Chapter 4 -Determine longitudinal force by multiplying the wheel load by 1 0 percent 3-29 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components 3.2.4 Wind Loading 3.2.4.1 Wind Load Per NUREG-1537, Section 2.3.1, "General and Local Climate," wind loads will be based on the 100-year return period wind speed. In addition, based on NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nucl e ar Power Plants , Section 3.3.1 , the wind speed will be transformed to equivalent pressure per ASCE 7-05. For RPF SSCs per current applicable 2012 IBC guidance, ASCE 7-10 is used for this transformation of wind speed to equivalent pressure.

From Table 1.5-1 of ASCE 7-10 and based on use and occupancy of the RPF , a Risk Category IV is assigned to RPF SSCs. Figure 26.5-lB for a Risk Category IV building of ASCE 7-10 is used to obtain the basic wind speed for the RPF site. The mean recurrence interval (MRI) of the basic wind speed for Risk Category IV buildings is 1 , 700 years. Since the MRI stipulated in ASCE 7-10 is more stringent than NUREG-1537 100-year wind speeds, wind loads will be determined in accordance with ASCE 7-10, Chapters 26 through 30 , as applicable , for a Risk Category IV building. The surface roughness surrounding RFP SSCs is currently Surface Category C, which in turn indicates Exposure Category C for the RFP per ASCE 7-10. The RPF main building is an enclosed building. The wind loading criteria are provided in Table 3-15. The basic wind speed given in Table 3-1 5 is a 3-second (sec) gust wind speed at 10 m (33 ft) aboveground for Exposure Category C and Risk Category IV. The wind loading criteria will be updated in the Operating License Application.

3.2.4.2 Tornado Loading Table 3-15. Wind Loading Criteria Element Ba s ic wind speed , V Exposure category E nclosure classification Risk category Value 193.1 km/hr (120 mi/hr) c Enclosed IV Sourc e: ASC E 7-10 , Minimum D es ign Load s for Buildin gs and Oth e r S tru c tur es, Am e ric a n Soci e ty of Civil E ngineer s, Reston , Vir g ini a, 20 I 0. Tornado loads are a combination of tornado wind effects , atmospheric pressure change, and generated missile impact effects and are discussed separately in the following sections.

NUREG-1520 , Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Licens e Application for a Fu e l C y cl e Fa c ili ty , Part 3, Appendix D , states that an annual exceedance probability of 10-5 may need to be considered.

The maximum tornado wind speed from NRC Regulator y Guide l.76 , Design-Basis Tornado and Tornado Missiles for N uclear Power Plants, for Region I , has an annual exceedance probability of 10-7 that is significantly lower than the target probability stated in NUREG-1520.

For the RPF preliminary safety analysis report, the maximum tornado wind speed from NRC Regulatory Guide 1. 76 for Region I will be used. The tornado load criteria will be updated by using tornado loading in accordance with 10-5 annual probability of exceedance in the Operating License Application. 3-30 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components 3.2.4.2.1 Maximum Tornado Wind Speed Tornado wind field characteristics used to calc ulate tornado wind pressures on the RPF are provided in Table 3-16 per NRC Regulatory Guide 1. 76. The maximum tornado wind speed has two components:

translational and rotational.

The maximum total tornado wind speed is the sum of these two components and is applied to the RPF building from each direction separately.

Based on NUREG-0800 , Section 3.3.2, ASCE 7-05 may be used to transform maximum tornado wind speed to equivalent pressure.

Table 3-16. Design-Basis Tornado Field Characteristics Description Tornado r egion Maximum wind speed Translational speed Radiu s of maximum rotational speed Pre ss ure drop, t.P Value Region I 370.1 km/hr (230 mi/hr) 74.0 km/hr (46 mi/hr) 45. 7 m (150 ft) ( 1.2 lb/in. 2) Source: NRC Regulatory Guide 1.76, D es ign-Basis Tornado and Tornado Missil e s/or N uclear Power Plants , Rev. I , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co mmission , Wa s hington , D.C., March 2007. For RPF SSCs per current applicable 2012 IBC guidance , Chapters 26 and 27 of ASCE 7-10 i s used for this transformation of tornado wind speed to equiva l ent pressure.

From Table 1.5-1 of ASCE 7-10 and based on use and occupancy of the RPF, a Risk Category IV is assigned to RPF SSCs. Per NUREG-800 , Section 3.3.2, tornado wind speed is assumed not to vary with the height a boveground.

Additional information is provided in Chapter 2.0 , Section 2.3.1.5, and Cha pter 13.0 , Section 13.2.6.1. 3.2.4.2.2 Atmospheric Pressure Change NRC Regulator y Guide 1. 76 provides guidance for det ermining the pressure drop and the rate of pressure drop caused by the passing of a tornado. Depending on the final design of the RPF building and whether it is enclosed (unvented) or partially enclosed (vented structure), the procedures outlined in NUREG-800 Section 3.3.2 will be used to account for atmospheric pressure change effects. At the preliminar y stage of t he design , the RPF building is known not to be open. The va lue for atmospheric pressure drop , correspo ndin g to the design-ba s is tornado is given in Table 3-16. 3.2.4.2.3 High Straight-Line Winds Similar to the tornado , high straight-line winds can also damage the facility structure, which in turn can lead to damage to SSCs relied on for safety. This eva lu at ion demonstrates how the facility design addressed straight-line winds with a return interval of 100 years or more, as required by building codes. T he RPF is de signed as a Risk Catego r y IV structure, a standar d industrial facility with equ i va lent chemica l hazards , in accordance wit h ASCE 7. The return frequency of the basic (design) wind speed for Risk Category IV structures is 5.88 x l0 4/year (MRI= 1 ,7 00 year). The provisions of ASCE 7 , when used with companion standards such as American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 , Building Code R equirements for Structural Concrete, and American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 360, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, are written to achieve the target maximum annual probabilities of established in ASCE 7. The highest maximum probabilit y of failure targeted for Ri sk Category IV structures is 5.0 x 10'6. 3.2.4.2.4 Tornado-Generated Missile Impact Effects The missile is assumed rigid in this analysis for maximum penetration.

Note that in Columbia , Missouri, t h e location of the University of Missouri Re search Reactor (MURR) facility , the expected speed of t o rnado missiles is larger than the expected speed of any hurricane-generated missiles at the same annual frequency of exceedance (NUREG/CR-7005 , T ec hni c al Ba s i s for R egulatory Guidanc e on Design-Basis Hurri c ane Wind Sp ee ds for Nuclear Power Plants). 3-31

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

• NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPE S NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Tornado-generated missile impact effects are based on the standard design missile spectrum from NRC Regulatory Guide 1. 76 and are presented in Table 3-17. In addition, wind velocities in excess of 34 m/sec (75 mi/hr) are capable of generating missiles from objects l yi ng within the path of the tornado wind and from the debris of nearby damaged structures per Regulator y Guide I. 76. These requirements are considered more severe than the characteristics from DOE-STD-1020 , Na tural Ph enomena Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria for Departm ent of Energy Facilities , that are cited in NUREG-1520 , Section 3. The recommended RPF roof and wall system design criteria are also taken from DOE-STD-1020 , Table 3-4. Description Automobile Pipe Steel Sphere Table 3-17. Design-Basis Tornado Missile Spectrum emn* 4 , 000 lb 287 lb 0.147 lb Dimensions 16.4 ft x 6.6 ft x 4.3 ft 6.625 in. diameter x 15 ft long 1.0 in. diam eter Horizontal velocity 92 mi/hr 92 mi/hr 18 mi/hr Vertical velocity 62 mi/hr 62 mi/hr 12 mi/hr Source: NRC Regulato ry Guide 1.76 , Design-Basi s Tornado and Tornado Missiles for N u c l e ar Power Plant s, U.S. Nuclear R egu lato ry Commission , Washington , D.C., March 2007. The impact-type missile , an automobile is limited to a height of no more than 9.1 m (30 ft) above-grade.

Structural wall openings are subjected to the impact of a 0.25 centimeters (cm) (I-inch [in.]) diameter steel sphere. The vertical velocities are taken as 0.67 of the horizontal velocity.

For an automobile and pipe missile , a normal impact is assumed. The tornado load criteria will be updated by using tornado loading in accordance with 10-5 annual probability of exceedance in the Operating License Application and accordingly, the design-basis tornado missile spectrum will also be updated. Note that in Columbia, Missouri , the location of the MURR facility, the expected speed of tornado missiles is larger than the expected speed of any hurricane-generated missiles at the same annual frequency of exceedance (NUREG/CR-7005). 3.2.4.2.5 Combined Tornado Load Effects After tornado-generated wind pressure effects, atmospheric pressure change effects and mis si le impact effects are determined

the combination thereof will be established in accordance with procedures outlined n NUREG-800, Section 3.3.2. The effect of atmospheric pressure drop by itself will be considered, and the total effects of wind pressure and missile impact effects with one-half of the atmospheric pressure drop effects will be considered jointly. 3.2.4.3 Effect of Failure of Structures, Systems, or Components Not Designed for Tornado Loads SSCs, in which failure during a tornado event could affect the safety-related portions of the RPF , are either designed to

*

• Resist the tornado loading or the effect on the safety-related structures from the failure of these SS Cs Be bounded by the tornado missile or aircraft impact evaluations The effects and mitigations of failure of SSCs not designed for tornado loads will be developed during final design and the Operating License Application.

3-32

• i*:h NWMI ...**... * * *

• NORTHWHT MEDtCAL lSOTOPlS 3.2.5 Rain, Snow, and Ice Loading 3.2.5.1 Rain Loads NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components From the National Weather Service (NWS)/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Hydrometeorological Report No. 51, Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates , United States East of the 105th Meridian, the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) is defined as " theoretical greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration that is physically possible over a particular drainage area at a certain time of year." Per NUREG-1537, Section 2.3.1, "General and Local Climate," rain loads will be based on the estimate of the weight of the 48-hour (hr) probable maximum precipitation , as specified by the U.S. Geological Survey. This rain load estimate is compared with the local building code rain load (i.e., ASCE 7-10), and the greater value is used in design of the RPF roof. The roof of the RPF is designed to prevent rainwater from accumulating on the roof. In accordance with 2012 IBC and ASCE 7-10 , the roof structure is designed to safely support the weight of rainwater accumulation with the primar y drainage system blocked and the secondary drainage system at its design flow rate when subjected to a rainfall intensity based on the 48-hr probable maximum precipitation. Rain loads are determined b y the amount of water that can accumulate on the undeflected building roof if the primary drainage system becomes blocked (static head), plus a uniform depth of water above the inlet of the secondary drainage system at its design flow (hydraulic head). The rain load criteria are determined per ASCE 7-10, Chapter 8 , and are provided in Table 3-18. Table 3-18. Rain Load Criteria Element Static h ea d Hydraulic head R a infall inten s ity Value 5 c m (2-in) TBD 3 .14 in./hr" a NOAA At l as 14 , Pr eci pitation-Fr e qu e n cy A tlas of the U nit e d States , Volume 8, Version 2.0: Midwestern States , National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin i strat ion , Silver Spring , Maryland , 20 1 3. TBD = to be determined. The hydraulic head is dependent on the roof drain size, roof area drained, and the rainfall intensit y. The rainfall intensity used to determine the hydraulic head is taken from NOAA Atlas 14 ,

Frequency Atlas of the United States , web tool for the 100-yea r storm , 1-hr duration. The rain load criteria will be updated in the Operating License Application.

3.2.5.2 Snow Load Per the guidance in DC/COL-ISG-007, two types of snow load are considered:

normal snow load and the extreme winter precipitation load. The normal snow load will be included in normal load combinations g iven below. Per the guidance in the DC/COL-ISG-007 , the extreme winter precipitation load is included in the extreme environmental load combinations.

The snow load criteria will be updated in the Operating License Application.

3.2.5.2.1 Normal Snow Load Per NUREG-1537 , Section 2.3.1 and DC/COL-ISG-007 , the normal snow load is the 100-year ground s n ow , modified using the procedures of ASCE 7 to determine the roof snow load, including snow drifting.

The 100-year ground snow load is calculated by factoring the ground snow load stipulated in the City of Columbia Code of Ordinances amendments (City of Columbia, 2014) and IBC 2012 and is equivalent to the mapped ground s now load from Figure 7-1 of ASCE 7. This information is determined using the conversion factor provided in ASCE 7 , Table C7-3. 3-33 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components The exposure factor provided in ASCE 7 , Table 7-2 , for partially exposed roof in terrain category C is similar with the exposure used for determining wind loads. Since the RPF does not fall into any of the special ca s es indicated in ASCE 7 , Table 7-3 , the thermal factor is assumed to be I .0. The importance factor is taken to be unit y from ASCE 7-10 , Table 1.5-2 , for the RPF , which is designated Risk Category IV. Snow load criteria are summarized in Table 3-19. 3.2.5.2.2 Extreme Winter Precipitation Load Table 3-19. Snow Load Criteria Element Mapped ground snow load (50-y e ar) Conversion factor , 100-year to 50-year De s ign ground s now load , p g (100-year)

Exposure factor (C e) Th e rmal factor (C) Importance factor 24.4 lb/ft 2 1.0b I.O b 1.0b

• C i ty of Columbi a, "C i ty o f Co lumbia C od e of Ordinan ces ," www.g ocolumbi a m o.com/Counci I/C od e_ of_ Ordin a n ces _PDF/, ac c esse d S e pt e mber 8, 2 014. b AS CE 7 , Mi n i mum D esign Lo ad s/o r Buil d in gs and Oth er S tru c tur es, American Societ y of C ivil E n gi n ee r s , R es ton , Virginia , 2 013. Per NUREG-153 7 , Section 2.3. I and DC/COL-ISG-007 , the extreme winter precipitation load is the normal snow load as presented in Section 3.2.5.2.1 , plus the liquid weight of the 48-hr probable maximum w inter precipitation (PMWP). The 48-hr PMWP is determined from the NOAA/NWS Hydrometeorological Report (HR) 53 , S e a s onal Variation of Mil e Probabl e Maximum Pr ec ipitation E s timat es , U nit e d Stat es East of th e 105th Meridian , for a 1 O-mi 2 area. HR 5 3 gives month PMP estimates for six 24-and 72-hr durations.

Using the NOAA web tool for Columbia (NOAA , 2017), a two-day (48-hr) average l 00-year rain i s 8. 73 in. precipitation.

To determine the PMWP , the months of December , January , February , and March are considered.

Using HR 53 , Figures 26 through 45 , the PMWP was determined to occur in the month of March. The PMWP criteria are g iven in Table 3-20. Table 3-20. Extreme Winter Precipitation Load Criteria Element 2 4-hr , 10-mi 2 PMWP 72-hr , 1 O-mi 2 PMWP 48-hr , 1 O-mi 2 PMWP (interp o lat e d) Weight of 48-hr PMWP Value 46.7 cm (18.2 in.)* 56.9 cm (22.5 in.)* 2 2.2 cm (8.73 in.) 106 lb/ft 2

• NWS/N O AA HR 53, Seaso n a l V ariati o n of JO-S quar e-M il e Pro babl e Maxi mum Pr ec ipitati o n Es t i mat es , U nit ed S tat es Ea s t of th e 10 5 th Me ridi a n , N a tional Oc ean ic and Atmo s pheric A dministr a tion , S il v er Sprin g , M ary land , 19 8 0. PMWP probable m ax imum wint e r pre c ipitation. Winter weather events s ince 1996 in Boone Count y, Missouri , are provided in Chapter 2.0 , Table 2-36. 3.2.5.3 Atmospheric Ice Load For SSCs to be considered sensitive to ice , the ice thickness and concurrent wind loads are determined using the procedures in ASCE 7, Chapter 10. Consistent with the requirements for snow and wind loads , the mapped values are converted to 100-y ear values using the MRI multipliers given in ASCE 7 , Table Cl0-1. Criteria for ice loading are given in Table 3-21. Table 3-21. Atmospheric Ice Load Criteria Element Ice thickness (50-year)

Concurrent wind speed Ice thickne ss MRI multiplier Wind speed MRI multiplier Importance factor Value* 2.54 cm (1 in.) 64.4 km/hr (40 mi/hr) 1.25 1.00 1.00

• ASC E 7 , M in i mum D esign Loa d s fo r Bu il d i n gs and Oth e r S tru c tur es , Am e rican Society o f Civi l E ngin ee rs , R es t o n , Virgini a, 2 01 3. MRI = m ean r ec urr e n ce i nt e r va l. 3-34 NWM I ...... *

• NOflTHWUT MEDICAl ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components

3.2.6 Operating

Thermal/Self-Straining Loads The operating thermal/self-straining loads will be evaluated in the Operating License Application.

These loads will be consistent with the requirements of ACJ 349 or ANSI/ AISC N690, as applicable to the material of construction.

3.2. 7 Operating Pipe Reaction Loads The operating pipe reaction loads will be evaluated in the Operating License Application.

These loads will be consistent with the requirements of applicable American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B3 l , Standards of Pr e ssure Piping , codes. 3.2.8 External Hazards External hazards include aircraft impact, external explosions , and external fire. The RPF is a production facility, as opposed to a nuclear power reactor , as such JO CFR 50.150(a)(3) is interpreted to mean that the requirement for the aircraft impact assessment is not applicable to this facility.

Sources of accidental external explosions have been considered and were found to not be an accident of concern. The RPF is constructed of robust , noncombustible materials , and adequate setbacks from transportation routes and landscaping consisting of fire fuels are provided such that externals fires are not an accident of concern. 3-35

3.3 WATERDAMAGE

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components This section identifies the requirements and guidance for the water damage design of the RPF SSCs. NUREG-1520 and ASCE 7, Chapter 5 , provide guidance on flood protection of nuclear safety-related SSCs. Updates and development of technical specifications associated with the water damage design of the RPF SSCs will be provided in Chapter 14.0 as part of the Operating License Application. 3.3.1 Flood Protection This subsection discusses the flood protection measures that are applicable to safety-related SSCs for both external flooding and postulated flooding from failures of facility components containing liquid. A compliance review will be conducted of the as-built design against the assumptions and requirements that are the basis of the flood evaluation presented below. Additional information i s presented in Chapter 2.0 , Section 2.4.3 and Chapter 13.0 , Section 13.2.6.4. This as-built evaluation will be documented in a flood analysis report and be part of the Operating License Application.

3.3.1.1 Flood Protection Measures for Structures, Systems, and Components 3.3.1.1.1 Flooding from Precipitation Events Regional flooding from large precipitation events raising the water levels of local streams and rivers to above the 500-year flood level can have an adverse impact on the structure and SSCs within. These impacts include the structural damage from water and the damage to power supplies and instrument control systems for SSCs relied on for safety. The infiltration of flood water into the facility could cause the failure of moderation control requirements and lead to an accidental nuclear criticality.

Direct damage or impairment of SSCs could also be caused by flooding in the facility. The site will be graded to direct the stormwater from localized downpours with a rainfall intensity for the 100-year storm for a 1-hr duration around and away from the RPF. Thus , no flooding from local downpours is expected based on standard industrial design. Rainwater that falls on the waste management truck ramp and accumulates in the trench drain has low to no consequence for radiological , chemical , and criticality hazards. Situated on a ridge , the RPF will be located above the 500-year flood plain according to the flood insurance rate map for Boone County , Missouri, Panel 295 (FEMA, 2011). The site is above the e le vation of the nearest bodies of water (two small ponds and a lake), and no dams are located upstream on the local streams. This data conservatively provides a 2 x 10*3 year return frequency flood , which can be considered an unlikely event according to performance criteria. However , the site is located at an elevation of 248.4 m (815 ft), and the 500-year flood plain starts at an elevation of 231.6 m (760 ft), or 16.8 m (55 ft) below the site. Since the site , located only 6.1 m (20 ft) below the nearest high point on a ridge (relative to the local topography), is well above the beginning of the 500-year flood plain , and is considered a dry site , the probable maximum flood from regional flooding is considered highly unlikel y , without further evaluation. 1 1 Th e recommended standard for determining the probably maximum flood , ANS 2.8 , D e t e rminin g D es ign Basi s Flo o din g at Pow e r R e a c tor Sit es, h a s been withdrawn.

3-36 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Per NUREG-1520 , Section 3.2.3.4(1)(c), and ASCE 7 , Chapter 5 , flood loads will be based on the water level of the I 00-year flood (one percent probability of exceedance per year). The facility has been determined to be above both the I 00-year and the 500-year flood plain. Chapter 2, Section 2.4.3, provides additional detail for flood protection measures.

Postulated flooding from component failures in the building compartments will be prevented from adversely affecting plant safety or posing any hazard to the public. Exterior or access openings and penetrations into the RPF will be above the maximum postulated flooding level. Therefore, flood loads are considered highly unlikel y and are not considered design loads. 3.3.1.1.2 Flooding from Inadvertent Discharge of Fire Protection System Water Design of fire suppression systems using water (e.g., automatic sprinklers , hose stations) includes elements such as the grading and channeling of floors, raising of equipment mounts above floors , shelving and floor drains , and other passive means. These features will ensure sufficient capacity for gravity-driven collection and drainage of the maximum water discharge rate and duration to avoid localized flooding and resulting water damage to equipment within the area. In addition , particularly sensitive systems and components , whether electrical, optical, mechanical and/or chemical , are typically protected within enclosures designed for the anticipated adverse environmental conditions resulting from these types of water discharges.

If critical for safety , these water-sensitive systems and components will be installed within the appropriate severe environment-rated enclosures in accordance with the relevant industry standard(s) (e.g., National E l ectrical Manufacturers Association

[NEMA] enclosure standards).

Selection of specific fire suppression systems for facility locations will be guided by recommendations in relevant industry standards (e.g., NFPA 801, Standard for Fire Protection for Facilities Handling Radioactive Mat e rials) and will depend on the level of fire hazards at those locations , as determined from the final facility and process systems designs. These final detailed designs will include any facility design elements and sensitive equipment protection measures deemed necessary for addressing the maximum inadvertent rate and duration of water discharges from the fire protection systems. The final comprehensive facility design , along with commitments to design codes , standards, and other referenced documents (including any exceptions or exemptions to the identified requirements), will be identified and provided as part of the Operating License App li cation. 3.3.1.2 Flood Protection from External Sources Safety-related components located below-grade will be protected using the hardened protection approach.

The safety-r elated systems and components will be protected from external water damage by being enclosed in a reinforced concrete safety-related structure.

The RPF will have the following characteristics:

• * *

• Exterior safety-re l ated walls below-grade will be 0.61 m (2-ft) thick minimum Water stops will be provided in all construction joints below-grade Waterproof coating will be applied to external surfaces below-grade and as required above-grade Roofs will be designed to prevent pooling of large amounts of water in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.102 , Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants Waterproofing of foundations and walls of safety-related structures below-grade will be accomplished primarily by the use of water stops at expansion and construction joints. In addition to water stops, waterproofing of the RPF will be provided to protect the external surfaces from exposure to water. The level above the RPF first level where waterproofing is to be used will be determined in the Operating License Application.

3-37 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components The flood protection measures that are described above will also guard against flooding from the rupture of the on-site fire protection water storage tank (if future design development determines that a fire protection storage tank is necessary).

Any flash flooding that may result from tank rupture will drain away from the RPF and thereby cause no damage to facility equipment.

3.3.1.3 Compartment Flooding from Fire Protection Discharge The total discharge from the failure of fire protection piping consists of the combined volume from any sprinkler and hose systems. The sprinkler system , if used , is capable of delivering a water density of 20 gallons per minute (gal/min)

(76 liters per minute [L/min]) over a 139 m 2 (1,500 ft 2) design area; therefore, the sprinkler system is calculated to have a flow rate of 1 , 136 L/min (300 gal/min).

The hose stream will be a manually operated fire hose capable of delivering up to 946 L/mi n (250 gal/min).

In accordance with NFPA 801, Section 5 .10, the credible volume of discharge is size d for the suppression system operating for a duration of 30 min. The design of water-sensitive , safety-related equipment will ensure that potential flooding from sprinkler discharge will not adversely affect the safety features.

For example, equipment may be raised from the floor sufficiently such that the potential flooding due to sprinkler discharge will not impact the criticality analyses.

Outside of the radiologically controlled area (RCA), as defined in Chapter 11.0, " Radiation Protection and Waste Management

," there is limited water discharge from fire protection systems. Any sensitive, safety-related equipment will be installed above the floor slab at-grade to ensure that the equipment remains abo ve the flooded floor during s prinkler discharge.

3.3.1.4 Compartment Flooding from Postulated Component Failures Piping , vessels, and tanks with flooding potential in the safety-related portions of the RPF will be se ismicall y qualified. Water-sensitive, safety-related equipment will be raised above the floor. The depth of water on the floor will be minimized by using available floor space to spread the flood water and limiting the water volumes. Anal yses of the worst flooding due to pipe and tank failures and their consequences will be de ve loped in the Operating License Application.

3.3.1.4.1 Potential Failure of Fire Protection Piping The total discharge from the operation of the fire protection system bounds the potential water collection due to the potential failure of the fire protection piping. 3.3.1.5 Permanent Dewatering System There is no permanent dewatering system pro v ided for th e flood de s ign. 3.3.1.6 Structural Design for Flooding Since the design PMP elevation is at the finished plant-grade and the probable maximum flood (PMF) elevation is approximately 6.1 m (20 ft) below-grade , there is no dynamic force due to precipitation or flooding.

The lateral surcharge pressure on the structures due to the design PMP water level is calculated and does not govern the design of the below-grade walls. The load from buildup of water due to discharge of the fire protection system in the RCA is supported by slabs-on-grade, with the exception of the mezzanine floor. Drainage is pro v ided for the second level in the RCA to ensure that the second level slab is not significantly loaded. The second level slab is designed to a live load of 610 kilograms (kg)/m 2 (125 lb/W); therefore , the s lab is capable of withstanding any temporary water collection that ma y occur while water is draining from that floor. 3-38 NWM I ...**...

• e *

• NORTi f WU:T MEDICAL ISOTOPES 3.4 SEISMIC DAMAGE NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Seismic analysis criteria used for the RPF will conform to IAEA-TECDOC-1347, Consideration of External Events in the Design of Nuclear Facilities Other Than Nuclear Power Plants , with Emphasis on Earthquakes.

This report provides requirements and guidance for the seismic design of nuclear facilities other than nuclear power plants. NUREG-0800 and other NRC Regulatory Guides provide additional detailed guidance for the seismic analysis and design of the RPF. Additional information is provided in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.5.4, and Chapter 13.0, Section 13.2.6.5. Updates and development of technical specifications associated with the seismic damage design of the RPF SSCs will be provided in Chapter 14.0 as part of the Operating License Application.

3.4.1 Seismic

Input 3.4.1.1 Design Response Spectra Safe-Shutdown Earthquake The NRC has recommended using Regulator y Guide 1.60 , Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nucle ar Power Plants, for radioisotopes production facilities (e.g., 10 CFR 50). NWMI will use a spectrum anchored to 0.2 0 g peak ground acceleration for the RPF design basis. Regulatory Guide 1.60 is not indexed to any specific soil type, with its frequency content sufficiently broad to cover all soil types. Therefore, soil type for the RPF will not be a parameter used to determine the RPF's design response spectra. The composition of soil in which the RPF is embedded will be included in the interaction analysis as part of the building response analysis.

This information will be provided in the final safety analysis report (FSAR) as part of Operating License Application. This peak ground acceleration matches that of the University of Missouri Research Reactor (Adams , 2016) and the Calloway Nuclear Generating Station, which both are within 80.5 km (5 0 mi) of the RPF , as suggested by the NRC staff during the November 10 , 2016 Public Meeting. The analysis procedure develops ground motion acceleration time histories that match or exceed the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum as input to the building finite element model. Structural damping will follow the recommendations of Regulator y Guide 1.61 , Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Pow e r Plants, which range from about 3 to 7 percent. Response spectra corresponding to the recommended damping values of Regulator y Guide 1.61 will be used to derive seismic loads. Damping varies depending on the type of SSC. Structural damping will follow Regulatory Guide 1.61 guidance (ranging from about 3 to 7 percent). Plotting response spectra at 5 percent damping for purpo ses of illustration i s a convention within the nuclear industry , but for analysis loads , damping will vary depending on the earthquake level (operating basis earthquake or safe-shutdown earthquake) and the type of SSC. Soil-Structure Interaction and Dynamic Soil Pressures The s tructure is supported on a shallow foundation system on stiff competent soils. The Phase 1 Assessment (Terracon, 201 la/b) stated the site is classified as Site Class C. Prescribed in ASCE 7 , Table 20.3-1, the typical shear wave velocities for the soils present at the site are 1 ,2 00 to 2,500 ft/sec. Typical practice is to define competent soil as having a shear wave velocity greater than 1 , 000 ft/sec. The analysis of the RPF building structure to the safe shutdown earthquake will include the effects of a structure interaction. Dynamic soil pressures were determined using ASCE 4 , Sei s mi c Analysis of Relat ed N ucl ear Structures and Commentary , Section 3.5.3.2, and applied to the earth retaining walls in the hot ce ll area. 3-39 NWM I ...... ' *.

• NotmfWUT MEDICAL ISOTOPES Operating Basis Earthquake NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components For preliminary desi gn, the operating basis earthquake was selected to be one-third the safe-shutdown eart hqu ake defined previously (based on Regulatory Guide 1.61 ). Since this option was selected, explicit design and analysis of the facility structure for the operating basis earthquake ground-motion is not required.

3.4.1.2 Method of Analysis The effect of loads other than earthquake-induced (se i smic) loads is determined b y stat ic analysis methods in accordance with ASCE 7 and the fundamental principles of engineering.

Seismic analysis of SSCs wi ll be performed by either equivalent-static methods or dynamic analysis methods in accordance with ASCE 4 and ASCE 43, Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems , and Compon ents in Nuclear Facilities.

The equivalent-static and dynamic se ismic analysis methods are discussed below. 3.4.1.2.1 Equivalent-Static Analysis Equivalent-static seismic ana l ysis of commercia l type structure will be performed in accordance with ASCE 7, Section 12.8. Direction of Seismic Loading Design ofIROFS will consider seismic loads in all three directions using a combination of s the-sum-of-squared or 100/40/40 methodologies per Regulatory Guide 1.92, Combining Modal Response s and Spatial Components in S e ismic R es ponse Analysis.

The 100/40/40 methodolo gy will be used in the development of the final RPF design and included as part of the Operating License Application.

3.4.1.2.2 Dynamic and Static Analysis Dynamic analyses are only used for the evaluation of RPF structural components. A static ana l ysis will be completed during final design b y using a combination of static load computations to ensure the SSCs remain in place and intact, and a combination of existing shake table test data and existing earth quak e ex perience to ensure that the equipment functions following the earthquake.

The analysis of related structures may be either completed by the: *

• Linear-elastic response spectra method performed in accordance with ASCE 4, Section 3.2.3.1, and ASCE 43, Section 3.2.2 Linear-elastic time histor y method performed in accordance wit h ASCE 4, Sect ion 3.2.2, and ASCE 43, Section 3.2.2 Damping -The damping values used for d ynamic analys is for the structural system considered will be taken from Regulatory Guide 1.6 1. Inelastic energy adsorption factors and damping values used for the analysis of nuclear safety-related structures will be selecte d from ASCE 43 , Table 5-1. Modeling -Finite element models will only be used for the RPF building structures.

The mesh for plate elements and memb er nodes will be selected to provide adequate discretization and distribution of the mass. Further , the aspect ratio of plate elements will be limit e d to no greater than 4: 1 to ensure accurate analysis results. 3-40 NWM I ...... ! *

• NOmfWEST MlDtCAl lSOTOPH NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Direction of seismic loading -Three orthogonal directions of seismic loading are used in the RPF design, two horizontal and one vertical.

The modal components of the dynamic analysis and the spatial components of response analysis are combined as described below. *

• 3.4.2 Modal combinations

-The structure of the RPF is designed to be relatively stiff, and components are combined using the complete quadratic combination method. Spatial component combinations

-Spatial components are calculated separately and combined using the square-root-sum-of-the-squares method to determine the combined earthquake effect and resulting demands. Seismic Qualification of Subsystems and Equipment This subsection discusses the methods by which the RPF systems and components are qualified to ensure functional integrity.

Based on the characteristics and complexities of the subsystem or equipment, seismic qualification will be done by a combination of static load computations to ensure that the SSCs remain in place and intact , and a combination of existing shake table test data and existing earthquake experience to ensure that the equipment functions following the earthquake.

3.4.2.1 Qualification by Analysis NWMI will define specific acceptable qualification methods in the procurement packages to demonstrate seismic qualifications. Seismic qualification ofIROFS will include three options of: (1) calculations and verification that the main structural components of the SSC can withstand the seismic loads derived from the in-structure floor response spectra at the damping value derived from Regulatory Guide 1.61, (2) reference to available shake table testing that demonstrates the seismic capacity of the SSC or of multiple similar items , and (3) demonstration of the seismic capacity through the performance of the type of SSC in actual earthquakes.

3.4.2.1.1 Equivalent Static Analysis The equivalent static analysis of nuclear safety-related subsystems and equipment is performed in accordance ASCE 43, Section 8.2.1.1. The equivalent static analysis of subsystems and equipment that are not relied on for nuclear safety but are designated as a component of a seismic system per IBC 2012, Chapter 17 , is performed in accordance with ASCE 7 , Chapter 13. 3.4.2.1.2 Static Analysis The static analysis of non-structural, safety-related subsystems and equipment is performed in accordance ASCE 4 , Section 3 .2.3.1 , and ASCE 43 , Section 8.2.1.2. A portion of the se ismic qualification process will involve simple static analysis of the main structural elements (anchorage and primary framing) of I ROFS components, using seismic loads from in-structure response spectra derived from the RPF b uilding structure dynamic response analysis.

In-structure response spectra are determined using ASCE 4 , Section 3.4.2, and NRC Regulatory Guide 1.122 , Development of Floor D esign Respons e Spectra for Seismic Design of Floor-Supported Equipment or Components.

In-structure floor response spectra will be developed through a finite element model of the RPF building using an artificial time history that matches or envelops the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum at a peak ground acceleration

= 0.20 g. 3-41 NWMI ...... * *

• NOfmfWEST MlDtC.Al ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components 3.4.2.2 Qualification by Testing NWMI will define specific acceptable qualification methods in the procurement packages to demonstrate seismic qualifications.

Seismic qualification ofIROFS will include three options of: (1) calculations and verification that the main structural components of the SSC can withstand the seismic loads derived from the in-structure floor response spectra at the damping value derived from Regulatory Guide 1.61, (2) reference to available shake table testing that demonstrates the seismic capacity of the SSC or of multiple similar items, and (3) demonstration of the seismic capacity through the performance of the type of SSC in actual earthquakes.

Per NRC Regulatory Guide 1.100, Seismic Qualification of Electrical and Active Mechanical Equipment and Functional Qualification of Active Mechanical Equipment for Nuclear Pow e r Plants: *

• Active mechanical equipment relied on for or important to nuclear safety will be required to be seismically qualified in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.100. Active electrical equipment important to or relied on for nuclear safety will be required to be seismically qualified in accordance with IEEE 344, IEEE Standard for Seismic Qualification of Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.

Subsystems and equipment not relied on for nuclear safety but designated as a component of a seismic system per IBC 2012, Chapter 17, will be required.

Existing databases of past shake table tests will be used, such as the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database provided by the state of California. These tests have typically been done based on the ICC-ES AC 156, "Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Certification by Shake-Table Testing of Nonstructural Components," spectrum.

The capacity of the standard support design for overhead fixtures mounted above RPF IROFS will be checked to ensure that the supports can withstand the seismic loads derived from the floor spectra (e.g., remain stable during and after postulated earthquake effects) of the attachment floor slab. This information will be provided in the FSAR as part of the Operating License Application.

The RPF seismic design will also include a check to ensure that pounding or sway impact will not occur between adjacent fixtures (e.g., rattle space). Estimates of the maximum displacement of any fixture can be derived from the appropriate floor response spectrum and an estimate of the fixture's lowest response frequency.

This information will be provided as part of the Operating License Application.

3.4.3 Seismic

Instrumentation Seismic recording instrumentation will be triaxial digital systems that record accelerations versus time accurately for periods between 0 and 10 sec. Recorders will have rechargeable batteries such that if there is a loss of power, recording will still occur. All instrumentation will be housed in appropriate weather and creature-proofed enclosures. As a minimum, one recorder should be located in the free-field mounted on rock or competent ground generally representative of the site. In addition, at sites classified as Seismic Design Category D, E, or Fin accordance with ASCE 7, Chapter 11 , using Occupancy Category IV, recorders will be located and attached to the foundations and roofs of the RPF and in the control room. The systems will have the capability to produce motion time histories.

Response spectra will be computed separately.

The purpose of the instrumentation is to (1) permit a comparison of measured responses of C-I structures and selected components with predetermined results of analyses that predict when damage might occur , (2) permit facility operators to understand the possible extent of damage within the facility immediately following an earthquake , and (3) be able to determine when an safe-shutdown earthquake event has occurred that would require the emptying of the tank(s) for inspection as specified in NFPA 59A , Standard for the Production , Storage , and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas , Section 4.1.3.6( c ). 3-42 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Seismic instrumentation for the RPF site is not an IROFS; it provides no safety function and is therefore not "safety-related." Although the seismic recorders ha ve no safety function, they must be designed to withstand any credible level of shaking to ensure that the ground motion would be recorded in the highly unlikely event of an earthquake.

This capability requires verification of adequate capacity from the manufacturer (e.g., prior shake table tests of their product line), provi sion of adequate anchorage (e.g., manufacturer-provided anchor specifications to ensure accurate recordings), and a check for seismic interaction hazards such as water spray or falling fixtures.

With these design features, the instrumentation would be treated as if it were safety-related QL-2. Additional information on seismic instruction will be provided as part of the Operating License Application.

3.4.3.1 Location and Description Seismic instrumentation is installed for structural monitoring.

The seismic instrumentation consists of solid-state digital , tri-axial strong motion recorders located in the free-field, at the structure base , and at the roof of the RPF. 3.4.3.2 Operability and Characteristics The seismic instrumentation operates during all modes of RPF operations.

The maintenance and repair p rocedures provide for keeping the maximum number of instruments in service durin g RPF operations. The instrumentation installation design includes provision s for in-service testing. The in s truments selecte d are capable of in-place functional testing and periodic channel checks during normal facility operation.

3-43

.; .. ; NWMI *::**:*:*

• e *

• NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components

3.5 SYSTEMS

AND COMPONENTS Certain systems and components of the RPF are considered important to safety because they perform safety functions during normal operations or are required to prevent or mitigate the consequences of abnormal operational transients or accidents.

This section summarizes the design basis for design, construction, and operating characteristics of safety-related SS Cs of the RPF. 3.5.1 General Design Basis Information 3.5.1.1 Classification of Systems and Components Important to Safety The RPF systems and components will be classified according to their importance to safety, quality levels , and seismic class. The guidance used in developing these classifications during preliminary design with the support ofregulatory guidance reviews , hazards and operability analysis , accident analysis , integrated safety analysis, and national consensus code requirements is presented below. The RPF systems identified in Table 3-1 and their associated subsystems and components are discussed in the subsections that follow. 3.5.1.2 Classification Definitions The definitions used in the classification of SSCs include the following. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.2, "Definitions," design basis refers to information that identifies the specific functions to be performed by an SSC of a facility and the specific values or ranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for design. These values may be: *

• Restraints derived from generally accepted state-of-the-art practices for achieving functional goals Requirements derived from analysis (e.g., calculation , experiments) of the effects of a postulated accident for which a SSC must meet its functional goals These reference bounds are to include the bounding conditions under which SSCs must perform design basis functions and may be derived from normal operation or any accident or events for which SSCs are required to function, including anticipated operational occurrences , design basis accidents , external events, natural phenomena, and other events specifically addressed in the regulations. Safety-related is a classification applied to items relied on to remain functional during or following a design basis event (DBE) to ensure the: * *

• Integrity of the facility infrastructure Capability to shut down the facility and maintain it in a safe-shutdown condition Capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result in potential off-site exposures comparable to the applicable guideline exposures set forth in 10 CFR 70.61 , " Performance Requirements," as applicable Design basis accident is a postulated accident that a nuclear facility must be designed and built to withstand, without loss to the SSCs necessary to ensure public health and safety. Design basis event (DBE) is an event that is a condition of normal operation (including anticipated operational occurrences), a design basis accident, an external event , or natural phenomena for which the facility must be designed so that the safety-related functions are achievable. 3-44 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Design basis accidents and transients are those DBEs that are accidents and transients and are postulated in the safety analyses. The design basis accidents and transients are used in the design of the facility to establish acceptable performance requirements for SSCs. Single failure is considered a random failure and can include an initiating event (e.g., component failure, natural phenomenon, external man-made hazard) or consequential failures.

Mechanical, instrumentation, and electrical systems and components required to perform their intended safety function in the event of a single failure are designed to include sufficient redundancy and independence.

This type of design verifies that a single failure of any active component does not result in a loss of the capability of the system to perform its safety functions.

Mechanical, instrumentation, and electrical systems and components are designed to ensure that a single failure , in conjunction with an initiating event , does not result in the loss of the RPF's ability to perform its intended safety function. Design techniques such as physical separation, functional diversity, diversity in component design, and principles of operation, will be used to the extent necessary to protect against a single failure. An initiating event is a single occurrence , including its consequential effects, that places the RPF (or some portion) in an abnormal condition. An initiating event and its resulting consequences are not considered a single failure. Active components are devices characterized by an expected significant change of state or discernible mec hanical motion in response to an imposed demand on the system or operation requirements (e.g., switches, circuit breakers, relays, valves, pressure switches, motors, dampers , pumps , and analog meters). An active component failure is a failure of the component to complete its intended safety function(s) on demand. P assive components are devices characterized by an expected negligible change of state or negligible mechanical motion in response to an imposed design basi s load demand on the system. Defense-in-depth is an approach to designing and operating nuclear facilities that prevents and mitigates accidents that release radiation or hazardous material through the creation of multiple independent and redundant layers of defense to compensate for potential human and mechanical failures so that no single l ayer, no matter how robust, is exclusively relied on. Defense-in-depth includes the use of access controls, physical barriers, redundant and diverse key safety functions , and emergency response measures.

The RPF structure and system designs are based on defense-in

-depth practices. The RPF design incorporates:

• *

• Preference for engineered controls over administrative controls Independence to avoid common mode failures Other features that enhance safety by reducing challenges to safety-related components and systems Safety-related systems and components identified in this section are described in Chapters 4.0; 5.0 , "Coolant Systems;" 6.0; 7.0; 8.0, "Electrical Power Systems;" and 9.0 , "Auxiliary Systems ," as appropriate.

3.5.1.3 Nuclear Safety Classifications for Struct ures , Systems, and Components SSCs in the RPF are classified as safety-related and non-safety-related.

The safety-related SSCs include IROFS to meet the performance requirement of 10 CFR 70.61 and other safety-related SSCs to meet the re q uirements of 10 CFR 20. The purpose of this section is to classify SSCs according to the safety fu n ction being performed. 3-45

......... *. ..... NWMI ........... ' *

• NORTHWEST MEDICAl ISOTDH S NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components In addition, design requirements will be placed on SSCs to ensure the proper performance of their safety function, when required. * * *

• Safety-related is a classification applied to items relied on to remain functional during or following a postulated DBE to ensure the: Integrity of the facility infrastructure Capability to shut down the facility and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition Capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents identified through accident analyses that could result in potential offsite and worker exposures comparable to the applicable guideline exposures set forth in IO CFR 70.6l(b), IO CFR 70.6I(c), and IO CFR 70.61 (d) Operation of the facility without undu e risk to the health and safety of workers, the public , and the environment to meet I 0 CFR 20 normal release or exposure limits for radiation doses and applicable limits for chemical exposures Safety-related IROFS -SSCs identified through accident analyses that are required to meet the performance requirements of 10 CFR 70.6l(b), 10 CFR 70.6l(c), and 10 CFR 70.6l(d) (Table 3-2). Safety-related Non-IROFS

-SSCs that provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of workers, the public, and environment, and includes SSCs to meet I 0 CFR 20 normal release or exposure limits. Non-safety-related

-SSCs related to the production and delivery of products or services that are not in the above safe ty classifications 3.5.1.3.1 Quality Group Classifications for Structures, Systems, and Components The assignment of safety-related classification and use of codes and standards conforms to the requirements NWMI's Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) for the development of a Quality Group classification and the use of codes and standards.

The classification system provides a recognizable means of identifying the extent to which SSCs are related to safety-related and seismic requirements , including ANS nuclear safety classifications, NRC quality groups, ASME Code Section III classifications, seismic categories, and other applicable industr y standards, as s hown in Table 3-7. Quality assurance (QA) requirements are defined in the NWMI QAPP (Chapter 12.0 , "Co nduct of Operations," Appendix C). The definitions of QA Levels I , 2, and 3 are provided below. QA Level 1 will implement the full measure of the QAPP and will be applied to IROFS. IROFS are QA Level I items in which failure or malfunction could directly result in a condition that adversely affects workers, the public, and/or environment, as described in I 0 CFR 70.61. The failure of a single QA Level I item could result in a high or intermediate consequence.

The failure of a QA Level 2 item , in conjunction with the failure of an additional item, could result in a high or intermediate consequence.

All building and structural IROFS associated with credible external events are QA Level I. QA Level I items also include those attributes of items that could interact with IROFS due to a seismic event and result in high or intermediate consequences, as described in 10 CFR 70.61. Examples include: *

• Items to pre ve nt nuclear criticality accidents (e.g., preventive controls and measures to ensure that under normal and credible abnormal conditions , all nuclear processes are subcritical)

Items credited to withstand credible design-bases external events (e.g., seismic, wind) 3-46

• NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Items to prevent degradation of structural integrity (e.g., failure or malfunction of facility)

QA Level 2 will be applied to non-QA Level 1 safety SSCs. The QA program is important to the acceptability and suitability of the item or service to perform as specified.

Acceptance methods shall be specified (including acceptance and other applicable performance criteria), documented, and verified before use of the item or service. Some of the required characteristics may be examined less rigorously than for QA Level 1. Examples of QA Level 2 items include: * * *

• SSCs to meet 10 CFR 20 normal release or exposure limits Fire protection systems Safeguards and security systems Material control and accountability systems QA Level 3 will include non-safety-related quality activities performed by NWMI that are deemed nece ss ary to ensure the manufacture and delivery of highly reliable products and services to meet or exceed customer expectations and requirements.

QA Level 3 items include those items that are not classified as QA Level 1 or QA Level 2. QA Level 3 items are controlled in accordance with standard commercial practices. These quality activities are embodied in NWMI's QAPP and will be further specified in the Operating License Application, and when necessary. 3.5.1.3.2 Seismic Classification for Structures, Systems, and Components SSCs identified as IROFS will be designed to satisfy the general seismic criteria to withstand the effects of natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes , floods) without loss of capability to perform their safety functions. ASCE 7 , Chapter 11, sets forth the criteria to which the plant design bases demonstrate the capability to function during and after vibratory ground-motion associated with the shutdown earthquake conditions.

The seismic classification methodology used for the RPF complies with the preceding criteria, and with the recommendations stated in Regulatory Guide 1.29 , Seismic D esign Classification.

The methodology classifies SSCs into three categories:

seismic Category I (C-1), seismic Category II (C-11), and seismic (NS). Seismic C-1 applies to both functionality and integrity , while C-11 applies only to integrity. SSCs located in the proximit y ofIROFS, the failure of which during a safe-shutdown earthquake could result in loss of function of IROFS , are designated as C-11. Specifically:

• C-1 applies to IROFS. C-1 also applies to those SS Cs required to support shutdown of the RPF and maintain the facility in a safe shutdown condition C-11 applies to SSCs designed to prevent collapse under the safe-shutdown earthquake.

SSCs are classified as C-11 to preclude structural failure during a safe-shutdown earthquake, or where interaction with C-1 items could degrade the functioning of a safety-related SSC to an unacceptable level or could result in an incapacitating injury to occupants of the main control room.

• NS SSCs are those that are not classified seismic C-1 or C-11. 3-47

.; .. ; NWMI .......... ... * * * *

• NOtmfWf.n MEDtCAl ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components

3.5.2 Radioisotope

Production Facility Systems and components wi thin the RPF are presented in Section 3.5.1. The RPF design basis evaluated the general design criteria from 10 CFR 70.64 , "Requirements for New Facilities or New Proce sses at Existing Facilities." This evaluation is presented in Table 3-22. These general design criteria provide a rational basis from which to initiate de sign but are not mandator y. There are some cases where conformance to a particular criterion i s not directly measurable.

For each of the criteria , a specific assessment of the RPF de s ign is made , and a complete list of references is included to identif y where detailed design information pertinent to each criterion is treated. The Chapter 13.0 accident se quences for credible events define the DBE. The safety-related parameter limits ensure that the associated design basis i s met for the events presented in Chapter 13.0. Table 3-22. Design Criteria Requirements (4 pages) Design criteria and description Application and compliance 10 CFR 70.64, "Requirements for New Facilities or New Processes at Existing Facilities"*

Quality standards and records

• Develop and implement design in accordance with management measures to ensure that IROFS are available and reliable to perform their function when needed.

• Maintain appropriate records of these items by or under the control of the licensee throughout the life of the facility. Natural phenomena hazards Provid e for adequa t e prot ection aga in st natur a l ph eno m e n a, with consi d erat ion of t h e m ost seve r e docum ente d hi sto ric a l eve nt s for th e site.

• SSCs important to safety will be designed, fabricated , erected , te s ted , operated , and maintained to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be performed.

Where generally recognized codes and standards are used , they will be id e ntified and evaluated to determine their applicability , adequacy , and sufficiency and will be supp lement ed or modified as necessary to ensure a quality product in keeping with the required safety function.

• NWM l's QAPP wi ll be establ.ished and implem ented to provide adeq uat e ass uranc e that SSCs sat i sfactorily pe rform their safety functions.

• Appropriate records of de s i gn , fab ric a tion , erection , a nd testing of SSCs important to safety wi ll be m a int aine d by or under contro l ofNWMl for the l ife of RPF.

• NWMI will use a graduated QAPP that links quality classification and associated documentation to safety classification and to the manufacturing and delivery of highly reliable products and equipment.

• The NWMI QAPP will provide details of the procedures to be applied, including quality and safety level classifications.

• SSCs import ant to safety wi ll be designed , fabricate d , erected, tested , operated , a nd m a in ta in e d to quality s tand ards co mm e n surate with the import ance of the sa fet y functi o n s to be p erfo rm e d. Wh ere ge n e rall y r ecognize d codes a nd s tandards are u se d , th ey will b e identified a nd evaluated to d ete rmin e th e ir a pplicabilit y, ade qu acy, and s ufficien cy a nd will be s uppl e m ente d or modi fie d as nece ssary to e n s ur e a quality product in keeping wit h the r eq uir e d sa fety fu n ct ion.

• The d es i gn basi s for these SSC s w ill in c lud e: -Appropri a te co n si d era ti o n of the m os t severe n a tural phenom e na that hav e been hi s tori ca ll y re port e d for the RPF s ite a nd surro undin g area , including s uffici ent mar gi n for lim ite d accurac y, quantity , a nd p eriod of tim e for w hi c h hi s toric a l d ata ha s be e n accumulated

-A ppropri ate c ombinations of n at ural ph e n o m ena e ff ec t s durin g normal and acc id e nt o p e rating co ndition s -Imp orta n ce of the safety functions to b e performed

• S p ec ifi c RP F de s ign criteri a and NRC ge neral design criteria a r e discussed in Sect ion s 3.1 and 3.5 , r es p ec ti vely. 3-48 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Table 3-22. Design Criteria Requirements (4 pages) Design criteria and description Application and compliance Fire protection Provide for adequate protection again s t fires and explosions Environmental and d y namic effect s P rov id e fo r a d e q uate prot ec tion from e n v ironm e ntal co nd i ti o ns a nd dyn a mi c effects assoc i a t e d wi th n o rmal o p era ti o n s, m a in te n a n ce, t es tin g, a nd p ost ul a t e d ac cid e n ts th at co uld le a d to l oss of s a fe t y fun ctio n s Chemical protection Provide for adequate protection against chemical risk s produced from licensed material , facility conditions that affect the sa fety of licens e d material , and hazardous chemicals produced from licensed material Emergency capability P rov id e fo r e m e r ge n cy ca p a bilit y to m a in ta in co ntrol of:

• L i ce n sed m a t e r ia l and h aza rd o u s c h e mi ca l s pr od u ce d fr om li ce n se d m a t e ri a l

• Evac u a tion of o n-s it e per s onn e l

• On-s it e emer ge nc y fa cilities and se r v i ces th a t fac ili ta t e th e u se of ava il a ble o ff-s it e serv i ces

• SSCs important to s afety will be de s igned and located throughout the RPF to minimize, consist e nt with other safety requirements , the probability and e ffect of fires and explosion s.

• Noncombustible and heat resistant materials will be used wherever practical throughout the RPF , particularly in locations such as confinement and the control room.

• Fire detection and suppre ss ion systems of appropriate capacity and capability will be provided and designed to minimize the adverse effects of fires on SS Cs important to safety.

• Firefighting systems will be designed to ensure that their rupture or inadvertent operation does not significantly impair the safety capability of these SSCs.

• Where necessary , within zoned areas or where criticality and access are an i s sue , requir e d s ystems will be manually initiated by operation s after review of a detection signal.

• RPF fire protection s y stem will be designed s uch that a failure of any component will not impair the ability of safety-related SSCs to safel y shut down and isolate the RPF or limit the release of radioactivity to provide reasonable assurance that the public will be protected from radiological ri s ks resulting from RPF operations

• RPF fir e protection s y stem will be designed to provide reasonable assurance that the public will be protected from radiological risks resulting from RPF operations (e.g., failur e of any component will not impair the abili ty of safety-related SSC s to safel y shutdown and isolate the RPF or limit the r e lea se of radioactivity

).

• Chapters 6.0 and 9.0 provide additional information.

• SSCs i mp o rt a nt t o safety a r e d es i gned t o acco mmod a t e effec ts o f , and t o be co mp a tibl e wi th , the e n v i ro nm e nt al c o nd i ti o n s associated wi th n o rmal o p era tion , maint e n a n ce, t es tin g, and p os tulat e d acci d e nt s. Du e t o l ow t e mp e r a ture a nd pr ess ur e RP F pr ocesses, d yna mic e ff ects du e t o pipe rup t ure a nd di sc h a r g in g flu i d s are not a ppli cab l e to t h e RP F.

• Chemic a l protection in the RPF will be provid e d by confinement i s olation s ys tems , liquid retention features, and use of appropriat e personal protectiv e equipment.

• Chapter 6.0 , Section 6.2.1 , provide s additional inform a tion.

• E m e r ge n cy pr oce dur es w ill b e d eve l o p e d a nd m a int a in ed fo r th e RP F t o co ntrol S NM a nd h aza rd o us c h e mi ca l s produ ce d fro m t h e SN M.

• A pr e limin ary E m e r ge n cy Pr e p a r e dn ess P l a n i s p rov id ed i n C h a pt e r 1 2.0 , A pp en d ix B. 3-49

• i*;:*:* NWM I ...... ' *. *

• NOmtWEST MEDtCAl. ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Table 3-22. Design Criteria Requirements (4 pages) Design criteria and description Application and compliance Utility services Provide for continued operation of essential utility se rvices Inspection , testing, and maintenance Provide for adeq u ate insp ectio n , testing, a nd maint ena n ce of IR OFS to ens ur e ava il a bili ty and r e li ab ili ty to perfo rm their function when n ee d ed Criticality control Provide for criticality control, including adherence to the double-contingency principle Instrumentation and control The d esign must pro vi d e for in clusi on of l&C systems to monitor a nd co ntrol th e b e ha v i or of items relied on for safety.

• The RPF is designed for pa ss ive , safe s hutdown and to prevent uncontrolled release ofradioactive material ifnormal electric power is interrupted or lost.

• A standby diesel ge nerator will be provided for asset protection o f selected RPF systems.

• Uninterruptable power supplies will a utomaticall y provide power to sys tems that support the safety functions protecting workers and the public.

• A combination ofuninterruptable power supplies and a standby electrical power system will pro v ide emergency electrical power to the RPF. A 1,000 kW (J ,3 41 hp) die se l generator will provide facility electric power.

• Chapter 8.0, Section 8.2 provide s additional information.

• T h e RP F i s de signe d to provide access a nd co nt ro l s fo r testing , maintenance , and in spect i o n of safety-r e l a t e d SSCs, as n ee d e d , throughout th e RP F.

• C hapt e r s 4.0 , 6.0, 7.0 , and 9.0 provide a dditi o n a l information.

• The RPF design will provide adequate protection against criticality haz,ards related to the storage, handling, and proces s ing ofSNM , which will be accomplished b y: -Including equipment, facilities, and procedure s to protect worker and public health and to minimize danger to life or property Ensuring that the design provides for criticality control, includin g adherenc e to the double-contingency principle

-Incorporating a criticality monitoring and alarm sy s tem into th e facility design

• Compliance with the requirements of criticality control , including adherence to the double-contingency principle, are described in detail in Chapter 6.0 , Section 6.3.

• RPF SNM processes wi ll b e enclosed predominatel y b y h ot ce ll s and g l ovebox designs excep t for the ta r ge t fabr i cat i o n a r ea.

• The FPC sys t em w ill provid e monitoring and contro l of safety-re l ate d co mp o n ents an d pr ocess systems w ithin the RPF.

• The BM S (a s ub set of the FPC syste m) w ill m onito r th e RPF ve n ti l at i o n sys t e m a nd m ec h a nic a l utility systems.

• ESF syste m s wi ll o p era t e ind epe nd e n t l y from the F P C syste m or BMS. Eac h ESF safety function wi ll use hard-wired a n a l og co n trols/interlocks to protect wo rk ers, the public , a nd e n v ironm e nt. The ESF parameters and alarm functions wi ll b e integrated int o and monitored by the FPC sys t em o r BM S.

• RPF d es i gns are base d on d efense-in-d e pth pr actices a nd in co rp orate a pr efere n ce for e n gi n ee r e d co ntrols over a dmini stra tive co nt ro l s, ind epe nd ence to avoid co mmon m o d e fai lur es, a nd incorporate o th e r features th at e nh ance safety b y re ducing c hall enges t o safety-re l a t e d co mp o n en t s an d sys t e m s.

• The FPC sys t em w ill provid e the ca p a bility t o monitor and control th e b e h avior of safe t y-r e l ate d SSCs. These syste ms e n s ur e adequate safety o f pr ocess and utili ty se r v i ce o p erat i ons in co nn ec ti on with th eir safety fu n ctio n. Contro l s are pro v id e d to maint a in these va ri a bl es and syste m s within the pr esc rib e d operat in g r a n ges under a ll norm a l co ndition s.

• T h e F P C sys tem i s d es ign e d to fail to a safe-state or to ass ume a sta te demonstrated to be acce pt a bl e if co nditions s u ch as lo ss of signal, l oss of ene r gy or motive pow er, or adverse environments are experie nc e d.

• Cha pt e r 7.0 pro vides additional I&C sys t e m in format ion. Safety-re l a t e d SSCs are described in Sectio n 3.5 and C h ap t ers 4.0 , 5.0 , 6.0, 7.0 , a nd 8.0. 3-50

.; .. ; NWMI *::**:*:* ...... *

• NORTHWf.ST MEDICAL ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Table 3-22. Design Criteria Requirements (4 pages) Design criteria and description Application and compliance Defense-in-depthb Base facility and system design and facility layout on defense-in-depth practices.

The design must incorporate, to the extent practicable:

• Defense-in-depth is a design philosophy that NWMI has applied from the beginning of the project and will continue through completion of a design that is based on providing successive levels of protection such that health and safety are not wholly dependent on any single element of the design, construction, maintenance, or operation of the RPF.

• Preference for the selection of engineered controls over administrative controls to increase overall system reliability

• NWMI's risk insights obtained through performance of the accident analysis will be used to supplement the final design by focusing attention on the prevention and mitigation of the higher risk potential accidents.

• Chapter 6.0 and 13.0 provide additional information.

• Features that enhance safety by reducing challenges to IROFS

• 10 CFR 70.64 , " Requirements for New Facilities or New Processes at Existing Facilities," Code of Federal R egulatio ns , Office of the Federal Register, as amended. b As used in I 0 CFR 70.64 , requirements for new facilities or new processe s at existing facilities , defense-in-depth practices means a design philosophy, applied from the o utset and through completion of the de sign, that is based on providing successive lev e ls of protection such that health and safety will not be wholly depend ent on any s ingle element of the de sign, construction, maintenance, or operation of the facility.

The net effect of incorporatin g d efe nse-in-depth practices is a conservatively de signed facility and syste m that will exhibit greater tolerance to failures an d exte rn a l chal len ges. BMS CFR ESF FPC J&C IROFS building management sys tem. Code of Federal Regulations. engi neered safety feature. facility process control. in st rumentation and control. it ems relied on fo r safety. NRC NWMI QAPP RPF SNM SSC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

N orthwes t Medic al I soto pe s, LLC. quality assurance program plan. R adioisoto p e Production Facility. s pecial nuclear material.

structu r es, systems , and components. The criteria are generic in nature and subject to a variety of interpretations

however , they also establish a proven basis from which to provide for and assess the safety of the RPF and develop principal design criteria.

The general design criteria establish the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing , and performance requirements for SSCs important to safety (i.e., SSCs that provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of workers, the public, and environment).

Safety-related SSCs that are determined to have safety significance for the RPF will b e designed, fabricated, erected, and tested as required by the NWMI QAPP , described in Chapter 12.0, Appendix C. In addition, appropriate records of the design , fabrication , erection, procurement , testing, and operations of SSCs will be maintained throughout the life of the plant. The RPF design addresses the following:

• * * * * * *

• Radiological and chemical protection Natural phenomena hazards Fire protection Environmental and dynamic effects Emergency capability (e.g., licensed material , hazardous chemicals, evacuation of on-site personnel , on-site emergency facilities

/ off-site emergency facilities)

Utility services Inspection, testing, and maintenance Criticality safety 3-51

• Instrumentation and controls Defense-in-depth NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Safety-related systems and components will be qualified using the applicable guidance in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard IEEE 323 , IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1 E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.

The qualification of each safety-related system or component needs to demonstrate the ability perform the associated safety function:

• Under environmental and dynamic service conditions in which they are required to function For the length of time the function is required Additionally, non-safety-related components and systems will be qualified to withstand environmental stress caused by environmental and dynamic service conditions under which their failure could prevent satisfactory accomplishment of the safety-related functions.

The RPF instrumentation and control (I&C) system (also known as the facility process control [FPC] system) will provide monitoring and control of the process systems within the RPF that are significant to safety over anticipated ranges for normal operations and abnormal operations.

The FPC system will perform as the overall production process controller.

This system will monitor and control the process instrumented functions within the RPF , including monitoring of process fluid transfers and controlled inter-equipment pump transfers of process fluids. The FPC system will also ensure that process and utility systems operate in accordance with their safety function.

Controls will be provided to maintain variables and systems within the prescribed operating ranges under all normal conditions.

In addition , the FPC system is designed to fail into a safe state or to assume a state demonstrated to be acceptable if conditions such as loss of signal , loss of energy or motive power , or adverse environments are experienced.

The building management system (BMS) (a subset of the FPC system) will monitor the RPF ventilation system and mechanical utility systems. The BMS primary functions will be to monitor the facility ventilation system and monitor and control (turn on and oft) the mechanical utility systems. ESF systems will operate independently from the FPC system or BMS. Each ESF safety function will use hard-wired analog controls/interlocks to protect workers , the public , and environment.

The ESF parameters and alarm functions will be integrated into and monitored by the FPC system or BMS. The fire protection system will have its own central alarm panel. The fire protection system will report the status of the fire protection equipment to the central alarm station and the RPF control room. This integrated control system will be isolated from safety-related components consistent with IEEE 279 , Criteria for Protection S y st e ms for N uclear Pow e r G e n e rating Stations.

In addition , the RPF is designed to meet IEEE 603, Standard Criteria for Safety S y st e ms for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, for separation and isolation of safety-related systems and components.

Chapter 7.0 provides additional details on the integrated control system. 3-52

..... NWMI *::**:*:* ...... ' * * ! . NORTifWHT MEDfCAL ISOTOPES 3.5.2.1 System Classification The RPF is clas s ified as a non-reactor nuclear production facility per 10 CFR 50. In addition, a portion of the RPF will fabricate LEU targets, similar to fue l fabrication per 10 CFR 70. Due to the nature of the work performed within facility , a hazardous occupancy app li es. Table 3-23 provides the RPF classification for hazards occupancy , construction , risk , and seismic design categories.

3.5.2.2 Classification of Syste ms and Components Important to Safety RPF SSCs, including their foundations and NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Table 3-23. Syste m Classifications Classification description Hazard category Occupancy type Construction type Risk category Seismic design category Classification Intermediate hazard Mixed , A-2, B, F-1 , H-3 and H-4 II-B IV c Source NRC IBC 2012" IBC 20 1 2" ASCE 7b ASC E 7b * !BC 2012 , " Int e rnation a l Build in g Code ," as amended , International Code Council , Inc., Washington , D.C., F e bruary 2 01 2. b ASC E 7 , Minimum D es ign Load s/or Buildin g s and Oth e r Stru c tur e s , American Society of Civ il Engineer s , Reston , Vir g ini a, 2013. NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi s sion. supports, designed to remain functiona l in the event of a DBE are designated as C-1. SSCs designated IROFS are also classified as C-1. SSCs co-located with C-I systems are reviewed and supported in accordance with II over I criteria. This avoids any unacceptable interactions between SSCs. C-1 structures should be designed using dynamic ana l ysis procedures, or when justified , equivalent static procedures using both horizontal and vertical input ground motions. For dynamic analyses, either response spectra or time history analyses approaches may be used. Dynamic analysis should be performed in accordance with the procedures of ASCE 4 , with the exception of the damping limitations presented in Section 3 .4.1. Table 3-24 lists the RPF SSCs and associated safety and seismic c l assifications and quality level group for the top-level systems. Subsystems within these systems may be identified with lower safety classifications.

For example , the day tanks of the chemical supp l y system are IROFS , whi l e the rest of the chemica l supply system is classified as safety-re l ated or not-safety-related.

Table 3-24. Sys tem Safety and Seismic Classification and Associated Quali ty Level Group (2 page s) System name (code) Facility structure (RPF) Target fabricat io n (TF) Target receipt and disassembly (TD) Target dissolution (DS) Mo recovery and purification (MR) Uranium recovery and recycle (UR) Waste handling (WH) Criticality accident alarm (CA) Radiation monitoring (RM) Standby electrical power (SEP) Normal e l ectrical power (NEP) Highest safety classification*

IROFS IROFS IROFS IROFS IROFS IROFS IROFS IROFS IROFS IROFS SR 3-53 Seismic classificationb C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 Quality level group QL-1 QL-1 QL-1 QL-1 QL-1 QL-1 QL-1 QL-1 QL-1 QL-1 QL-1

.... .. NWMI ......

... * * *. *

• NOITHWUT MEDtCAl ISOTOHS NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Table 3-24. System Safety and Seismic Classification and Associated Quality Level Group (2 pages) System name (code) Highest safety classification*

Seismic classificationb Quality level group Process vessel ventilation (PVV) IROFS C-1 QL-1 Facility venti lation (FV)c IROFS C-1/11 QL-1/2 Fire protection (FP) SR C-11 QL-2 Plant and instrument air (PA) NSR C-11 QL-2 E mergency purge gas (PG) IROFS C-1 QL-1 Gas s uppl y (GS) NSR C-11 QL-2 Process chilled water (PCW) IROFS C-1 QL-1 Faci li ty chilled water (FCW) NSR C-11 QL-2 Facility heated water (HW) NSR C-11 QL-2 Process steam IROFS C-1 QL-1 Demineralized water (DW) NSR C-11 QL-2 Chemical supp l y (CS) IROFS C-1 QL-1 Biological shield (BS) IROFS C-1 QL-1 Faci li ty process control (FPC) SR C-11 QL-2 a Safety classification accounts for highest c l ass ifi cation in the system. Systems that are classified as safety-re lat ed may include b oth safety-r elated and non-safety-related components.

Onl y safety-r elated components will be used to sa tisfy the safety functions of the system, whereas non-safety-related components can be used to perform non-safety functions.

For example, there are non-safety-related components, s u ch as fans, w ithin the safety-related ventilation systems that perform safety-r elated functions. b Seismic category ma y be locally re v i se d to account for II over I design criteria and to eliminate potential sys tem degr a dation due to se i smic interactions.

c Ventilation zone classificat ion s vary -Ventilation Zone I and II are considered safety-related , C-1 and QL-1; Ventilation Zone III and IV are considered non-safety-related , C-11 and QL-2. JROFS = items relied on for safety. RPF NSR = n on-safety related. SR = Radioisotope Production Facility.

= safety-re l ated (not JROFS). SSCs that must maintain structura l integrity post-DBE , but are not required to remain functional are C-II. All other SSCs that have no specific NRC-regulated requirements are designed to local jurisdictional requirements for structural integrity and are C-III. All C-1 SSCs are analyzed under the loading conditions of the DBE and consider margins of safety appropriate for that earthquake.

The margin of safety provided for safety-class SSCs for the DBE are sufficient to ensure that their design functions are not put at risk. Table 3-25 presents the likelihood index limit guidelines and assoc iated event frequency and risk index limits. Table 3-25. Likelihood Index Limit Guidelines Likely normal facility process condition Not unlikely (frequent facility process condition)

Unlikely (infreq u ent facility process condition)

Highly unlikely (limiting facility process condition) 4 3 2 3-54 Event frequency limits .. Multiple events per year > or= 0 More than 10 4 per event, per year >-4 <O Between I 0-4 and 10-5 per event , -4 to 5 per year Less than 10-5 per event, per year < -5 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components 3.5.2.3 Design Basis Functions, Values, and Criteria The design basis for systems and components required for safe operation a nd shutdown of the RPF are established in three categories, which are described below. The preliminary design basis functions and values for each major system are provided in the following subsections.

Design Basis Functions

• License conditions, orders, or technical specifications Functions credited in the safety analysis to ensure safe shutdown of the facility i s achieved and maintained , prevent potential accidents , or miti ga te the potential consequences of accidents that could result in consequences great er than applicable NRC exposure guidelines Design Basis Values *

• Values or ranges of values of controlling parameter s established as reference bounds for RPF de s ign to meet design basis function requirement s Values may be established b y an NRC requirement, derived from or confirmed b y the safety analysis , or selected b y the designer from an applicable code, standa rd, or guidance document Design Basis Criteria * * *

• Code-driven requirement s established for the RPF fa ll into seven categories , including fabrication , construction , operation s, testing, insp ec tion , performance , and quality Codes include national consensus codes , national s tandards, and national guidance documents Design of safe ty-related sys tems (including prot ect ion systems) is consistent with IEEE 3 79 , Standard App li cation of the Single-Failure Criterion to Nuclear Power Generating Station Safety Systems , and Regulator y Guide 1.53, App li cation of the Single-Failure Criterion to Nuclear Power Plant Protection Syst ems Protection sys tem i s d es igned to pro vi de two or three channels for eac h prot ective sys tem s and functions and two logic train circuits:

Redundant channels and trains wi ll be e lectricall y isolated an d phy s icall y se parated in a r eas outsid e of the RP F control room Redundant design will not prevent protective ac tion at the syste m level 3.5.2.4 System Functions/Safety Functions T h e NWMI RP F wi ll provide protection against natural ph e nomena ha za rds for the per s onnel , SNM, and syste ms within the facility.

The facility will also provide protection against operational and accident haza rd s to personn e l and the public. Table 3-2 lists the IROFS defined b y the preliminar y hazards a nal ys i s. 3.5.2.5 Systems and Components 3.5.2.5.1 Mechanical RPF C-1 mechanical equipment and components (identified in Table 3-24) will be qualified for operation under the design basis earthquake (DBEQ) seismic conditions by prototype testing , operating experience , o r appropriate anal ys is. The C-1 mechanical equipment is also designed to withstand lo a dings due to th e DBEQ , vibrational loadings transmitted through pipin g, and operational vibratory loadin g, such as floor v i bration due to other operating equipment, without loss of function or fluid boundar y. This analysi s considers the natural frequency of the operatin g equipment, the floor response spectra at the equipment l oca tion , and loadings transmitted to the equipment and the equipment anchorage.

3-55 NWM I ...... *

• NOITHWEO MlDICAl ISOTOPlS NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components The qualification documents and all supporting analysis and test reports will be maintained as part of the permanent plant record in accordance with the requirements of the NWMI QAPP. The safety-r elated equipment and components within the RPF will be required to function during normal operations and during and following DBEs. This equipment will be capable of functioning in the RPF environmental conditions associated with normal operations and design basis accidents.

Certain systems and components used in the ESF systems will be located in a controlled environment.

This controlled environment is considered an integral part of the ESF systems. 3.5.2.5.2 Instrumentation and Electrical C-1 instrumentation and electrical equipment (identified in Table 3-24) is designed to resist and withstand the effects of the postulated DBEQ without functional impairment.

The equipment will remain operable during and after a DBEQ. The magnitude and frequency of the DBEQ loadings that each component experiences will be determined by its location within the RPF. In-structure response curves at various building elevations will be developed to support design. The equipment (e.g., batteries and instrument racks , control consoles) has test data , operating experience , and/or calculations to substantiate the ability of the components and systems to not suffer Joss of function during or after seismic loadings due to the DBEQ. This information will be completed during final design of the RPF and provided in the Operating License Application.

This certification of compliance with the specified seismic requirements, including compliance with the requirements ofIEEE 344 , is maintained as part of the permanent plant record in accordance with the NWMIQAPP.

3.5.2.6 Qualification Methods Environmental qualification of safety-related mechanical , instrumentation, and electrical systems and components is demonstrated by tests, analysis, or reliance on operating experience.

Qualification method testing will be accomplished either by tests on the particular equipment or by type tests performed on similar equipment under environmental conditions at least as severe as the specified conditions.

The equipment will be qualified for normal and accident environments. Qualification data will be maintained as part of the permanent plant record in accordance with the NWMI QAPP. 3.5.2.7 Radioisotope Production Facility Specific System Design Basis Functions and Values The design basis functions and values for each system identified in Table 3-1 are discussed in the following subsections.

Additional details for each s y stem described below will be updated during the development of the Operating License Application. 3.5.2.7.1 Target Fabrication System An overview and detailed description of the target fabrication system are provided in Chapter 4.0 , Sections 4.1.3 .1 and 4.4 , respectively. Design Basis Functions

• * * * *

• Store fresh LEU , LEU target material , and new LEU targets Produce LEU target material from fresh and recycled LEU material Assemble, load , and fabricate LEU targets Reduce or eliminate the buildup of static electricity Minimize uranium losses through target fabrication Safety-r elated functions:

3-56 NWMI ...... *

• NotmfWtST M£DtCAL lSOTOPf.S NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Maintain subcriticality conditions within target fabrication system Prevent flammable gas composition within target fabrication system Limit personnel exposure to hazardous chemicals and offgases Design Basis Values *

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) Maintain primary fission product boundary during and after normal operations , shutdown conditions , and DBEs 3.5.2. 7.2 Target Receipt and Disassembly System An overview and detailed description of the target receipt and disassembly system are provided in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.1.3.2, and Sections 4.3.2/4.3.3 , respectively.

Design Basis Functions

• * * *

• Handle irradiated target shipping cask , including all opening, closing , and lifting operations Retrieve irradiated targets from a shipping cask Disassemble targets and retrieving irradiated target material from targets Reduce or eliminate the buildup of static electricity Safety-related function s: Provide radiological shielding during receipt and disassembly activities Maintain subcriticality conditions within target receipt and disassembly system Prevent radiological materials from being released during target receipt and disassembl y operations to limit the exposure of workers , the public, and environment to radioactive material Maintain positive control of radiological materials (LEU target material and radiological waste) Protect personnel and equipment from indu s trial hazards as s ociated with s y stem equipment (e.g., moving parts) Design Basis Values

• 30-year design life *

• Maintain primary fission product boundary during and after normal operations, s hutdown conditions , and DBEs Crane designed for anticipated load (e.g., hot cell cover block) of approximatel y 68 metric tons (MT) (75 ton) 3.5.2. 7.3 Replace Target Dissolution (DS) An overview and detailed description of the target dissolution system are provided in Chapter 4.0, Sections 4.1.3.3 and 4.3.4, respectively.

Design Basis Functions

• * *

• Fill the dissolver basket with the LEU target material Dissolve the LEU target material within dissolver basket Treat the off gas from the target dissolution system Handle and package solid waste created by normal operational activities 3-57

.; .. ; NWMI ...... .. ... .*.* .. *:. * * !' . NORTHWEST MEDICAi. tsOTOflES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components

• Safety-related functions:

Provide radiological shielding during target dissolution activities Control and prevent flammable gas from reaching lower flammability limit conditions Maintain subcriticality conditions through inherently safe design of target dissolution equipment Maintain positive control of radiological materials (LEU target material and radiological waste) Design Basis Values

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) *

• Maintain primary fission product boundary during and after normal operations , shutdown conditions, and DBEs Prevent radiological materials from being released during target dissolution operations to limit the exposure of workers, the public , and environment to radioactive material per 10 CFR 20 3.5.2. 7.4 Molybdenum Recovery and Purification (MR) An overview and detailed description of the Mo recovery and purification system are provided in Chapter 4.0, Sections 4.1.3.4 and 4.3.5 , respectively.

Design Basis Functions

• Recovery of Mo product from a nitric acid solution created from dissolved irradiated uranium targets *

• Purification of the recovered Mo product to reach specified purity requirements , followed by shipment of the Mo product Safety-related functions:

Maintain subcriticality conditions through inherently safe design of components that could handle high-uranium content fluid Prevent radiological materials from being released by containing fluids in appropriate tubing , valves, and other components Control and prevent flammable gas from reaching lower flammability limit conditions Maintain positive control of radiological materials (9 9 Mo product , intermediate streams, and radiological waste) Provide appropriate containers and handling systems to protect personnel from industrial hazards such as chemical exposure (e.g., nitric acid, caustic, etc.) Design Basis Values * *

• Maintain primary fission product boundary during and after normal operations, shutdown conditions, and DBEs 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) Replace consumables after each batch 3.5.2.7.5 Uranium Recovery and Recycle (UR) An overview and detailed description of the uranium recovery and recycle system are provided in Chapter 4.0, Sections 4.1.3.5 and 4.3.6, respectively.

3-58 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Design Basis Functions

• Receive and decay impure LEU solution

• Recover and purify impure LEU solution

• Decay and recycle LEU solution *

• Transfer process waste Safety-related functions: Provide radiological shielding during uranium recovery and recycle system activities Prevent radiological release during uranium recovery and recycle system activities Maintain subcriticality conditions through inherently safe design of the uranium recovery and recycle equipment Control and preventing flammable gas from reaching lower flammability limit conditions Maintain positive control of radiological materials Protect personnel and equipment from industrial hazards associated with the system equipment, such as moving parts , high temperatures, and electric shock Design Basis Values *

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) Maintain primary fission product boundary during and after normal operations, shutdown conditions, and DBEs 3.5.2.7.6 Waste Handling An overview and detailed description of the waste handling system are provided in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.1.3.6 and Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.2, respectively.

Design Basis Functions

• * * * * *

• Receive liquid waste that is divided into high-dose source terms and low-dose source terms to lag storage Transfer remotely loaded drums with high-activity solid waste via a solid waste drum transit system to a waste encapsulation cell Encapsulate solid waste drums Load drums with solidification agent and low-dose liquid waste Load high-integrity containers with solidification agent and high-dose liquid waste Handle and load a waste shipping cask with radiological waste drums/containers Safety-related functions:

Maintain subcriticality conditions through mass limits Prevent spread of contamination to manned areas of the facility that could result in personnel exposure to radioactive materials or toxic chemicals Provide shielding , distance , or other means to minimize personnel exposure to penetrating radiation Design Basis Values *

• Maintain primary fission product boundary during and after normal operations , shutdown conditions , and DBEs 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) 3-59 "NWMI *::**:*:* ...... *

• NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components 3.5.2. 7. 7 Criticality Accident Alarm System Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.3.1 , and Chapter 7.0, Section 7.3.7, provide descriptions of the criticality accident alarm system. Design Basis Functions

• Provide analysis for criticality accident alarm system coverage in all areas where SNM is handled, processed, or stored * *

• Provide for continuous monitoring, indication, and recording of neutron or gamma radiation levels in areas where personnel may be present and wherever an accidental criticality event could result from operational processes.

Provide both local and remote annunciation of a criticality excursion Remain operational during DBEs Design Basis Values

• 30-year design life

• Capable of detecting a criticality accident that produces an absorbed dose in soft tissue of 20 absorbed radiation dose (rad) of combined neutron or gamma radiation at an unshielded distance of 2 m from reacting material within one minute 3.5.2. 7.8 Continuous Air Monitoring System Chapter 7.0, Section 7.6 , and Chapter 1 I .0, Section 11.1.4 , provide detailed descriptions of the RPF continuous air monitoring system. Design Basis Functions

• * * *

• Provide real-time local and remote annunciation of airborne contamination in excess of preset limits Provide real-time local and remote annunciation ofradiological dose of excess of preset limits Provide environmental monitoring of nuclear radioactive stack releases Provide the capability to collect continuous samples Remain operational during DBEs Design Basis Values * *

• Activate when airborne radioactivity levels exceed predetermined limits Activate when radiological dose levels exceed predetermined limits Adjust volume of air sampled to ensure adequate sensitivity with minimum sampling time 3.5.2.7.9 Standby Electrical Power Chapter 8.0 , Section 8.2 provides a detailed description of the RPF standby electrical power (SEP) system. Design Basis Functions SEP includes two types of components:

uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) and a standby diesel generator: *

• UPS -Provides power when normal power supplies are absent Standby diesel generator

-Provides power when normal power supplies are absent to allow continued RPF processing 3-60

.. ;.;;**NWMI ..... .......... ' *

• NORTHWEST MEI>>CAl ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Design Basis Values * *

• 30-year design life Maintain power availability for a minimum of 120 min post-accident (UPS) Maintain power availability for 12 hr (diesel generator) 3.5.2.7.10 Normal Electrical Power Chapter 8.0, Section 8.1 provides a detailed description of the RPF normal electrical power (NEP) system. Design Basis Functions

• Provide facility power during normal operations Design Basis Values

• 30-year design life 3.5.2.7.11 Process Vessel Ventilation System Chapter 9.0, Section 9.1 provides a detailed description of the process vessel ventilation system. Design Basis Functions

• Provide primary system functions to protect on-site and off-site personnel from radiological and other industrial related hazards *

• Collect air in-leakage sweep from each of the numerous vessels and other components in main RPF processes and maintain hydrogen concentration process tanks and piping below lower flammability limit Minimize reliance on administrative or complex active engineering controls to provide a confinement system as simple and fail-safe as reasonably possible Design Basis Values * *

• Maintain primary fission product boundary during and after normal operations , shutdown conditions, and DBEs 30-year design life Contain and store noble gases generated in the RPF to meet 10 CFR 20 requirements 3.5.2. 7.12 Facility Ventilation System Chapter 9.0, Section 9.1 provides a detailed description of the facility ventilation system. Design Basis Functions

• Provide confinement of hazardous chemical fumes and airborne radiological materials and conditioning of RPF environment for facility personnel and equipment

• * *

• Prevent release and dispersal of airborne radioactive materials (e.g., maintain pressure gradients to ensure proper flow of air from least potentially contaminated areas to most potentially contaminated areas) to protect health and minimize danger to life or property Maintain dose uptake through ingestion to levels as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) Provide makeup air and condition the RPF environment for process and electrical equipment Process exhaust flow from the process vessel ventilation system 3-61

.------------------------

---

---

.. NWMI ...... ..... .. .. .. *.* NMTHWEn MlDICAl. ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components

• Provide confinement of airborne radioactive materials by providing for the rapid , automatic closure of isolation dampers within confinement zones for various accident conditions Pro v ide conditioned air to ensure suitable environmental conditions for personnel and equipment inRPF Design Basis Values * * * *

• Maintain primary fission product boundar y during and after normal operations, shutdown conditions, and DBEs Provide an integrated leak rate for confinement boundaries that meets the requirement s of accident analyses that comp I ies w ith 10 CFR 10.6 1 30-year design life Maintain occupied space at 24 degrees Celsius (0 C) (75 degrees Fahrenheit

[°F]) (summer) and 22°C (72°F) (winter), with active ventilation to support workers and equipment Maintain air quality that complies with 10 CFR 20 dose limits for normal operations and shutdown 3.5.2.7.13 Fire Protection System Chapter 9.0 , Section 9.3 provides a detailed description of the RPF fire protection system. Design Basis Functions

• Provide detection and suppression of fires * * *

• Generate alarm signals indicating presence and location of fire Execute commands appropriate for the particular loc ation of the frre (e.g., provide varying levels o f notification of a fire event and transmitting notification to RPF central alarm station and RPF control room) Provide fire detection in RPF and initiate fire-rated damper closures Remain functional during DBEs Design Basis Values * *

• 30-year design life Provide a constant flow of water to an area experiencing a fire for a minimum of 120 min based on the size of the area per International Fire Code (IFC, 2012) Provide sprinkler systems, when necessar y, per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13 , Standard for the Installation of Sprinkl e r Systems 3.5.2.7.14 Plant and Instrument Air System Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 provides a detailed description of the RPF plant and instrument air system. Design Basis Functions

• Provide small , advective flows of plant air for several RPF activities (e.g., tool operation , pump power, purge gas in tanks , valve actuation , and bubbler tank level measurement)

• Provide plant air receiver buffer capacity to make up difference between peak demand and compressor capacity 3-62 NWM I ...... e

• NomrwEST M£DtCAl ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components

• Provide plant air to instrument air subsystem for bubblers and valve actuation Provide instrument air receiver buffer capacity to make up difference between peak demand and compressor capacity Design Basis Values *

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) Provide instrument air dried in regenerable desiccant beds to a dew point of no greater than -40°C (-40°F) and filtered to a maximum 40 micron(µ)

particle size 3.5.2. 7.15 Emergency Purge Gas System Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.1.7.5 provides a detailed description of the emergency purge gas system. Design Basis Functions

• *

• Provide> 12 hr of nitrogen to the emergency purge gas system Emergency purge gas system to provide nitrogen to the required process tanks Remain functional during DBEs Design Basis Values

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts

• Maintain hydrogen gas (H 2) concentrations Jess than 25% of the lower flammability limit 3.5.2.7.16 Gas Supply System Chapter 9.0 , Section 9.7.1 provides a detailed description of the gas suppl y system. Design Basis Functions

• Provide helium , hydrogen , and oxygen in standard gas bottles *

• Provide nitrogen from a tube truck to the chemical supply room where manifold piping will be used to distribute the gas Provide adequate flow to ensure that the accumulation of combustible gases is below hazardous concentrations and reduces radiological hazards due to accumulation of gaseous fission products Design Basis Values

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps)

• Provide standard gas bottles , with capacity of approximately 8,495 L (300 cubic feet [ft 3]) 3.5.2. 7.17 Process Chilled Water System Chapter 9.0 , Section 9.7.1 provides a detailed description of the RPF chilled water system. Design Basis Functions

• Provide process chilled water loop for three secondary loops heat exchangers One large geometry secondary loop in hot cell One criticality-safe geometry secondary loop in hot cell One criticality-safe geometry secondary loop in target fabrication area Provide monitoring of chilled water loops for Joss of primary containment 3-63

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

• NOflTHWEST MEOtcAl ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components

• Provide cover gas to prevent flammable conditions in secondary loops Design Basis Values

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) *

• Chilled water to various process equipment at no greater than 10°C (50°F) during normal operations Maintain the hydrogen concentration in the coolant system at less than 25 percent of the lower flammability limit of 5 percent H 2 3.5.2.7.18 Facility Chilled Water System Chapter 9.0 , Section 9.7.1.2.2 provides a detailed description of the RPF facility chilled water system. Design Basis Functions

• Provide cooling media to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system Supply HV AC system with cooling water that is circulated through the chilled water coils in handling units Design Basis Values *

• Provide cooling water at a temperature of 9°C ( 48°F) to the HV AC air-handling unit cooling coils 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) 3.5.2.7.19 Facility Heated Water System Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1.2.2 provides a detailed description of the RPF heated water system. Design Basis Functions

• Provide heated media to HV AC system Supply the HV AC system with heated water that is circulated through the heated water coils in the air-handling units Design Basis Values

• Provide heated water at a temperature of 82°C (I 80°F) to HV AC air-handling unit heating coils and reheat coil

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) 3.5.2. 7.20 Process Steam System -Boiler Chapter 9.0 , Section 9.7.1 provides a detailed description of the RPF process steam system for the boiler. Design Basis Functions

• Generate low-and medium-pressure steam using a natural gas-fired package boiler

• Provide a closed loop steam system for the hot cell secondary loops that meets criticality control requirements

• Provide monitoring of steam condensate for loss of primary containment

• Limit sludge or dissolved solids content with automatic and makeup water streams in the boiler 3-64 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Design Basis Values *

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) Provide saturated steam at 1. 7 kg/square centimeters ( cm 2) (25 lb/square inch [in. 2]) and 4.2 k g/c m 2 (60 lb/in.2) gauge to various process equipment 3.5.2. 7.21 Process Steam System -Hot Cell Secondary Loops Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 provides a detailed description of the RPF process steam system for the hot cell secondary loops. Design Basis Functions

• *

• Provide a closed loop steam system for the hot cell secondary loops Generate low-pressure steam using a vertical shell-and-tube heat exchanger Provide monitoring of steam condensate for loss of primary containment Design Basis Values

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) 3.5.2.7.22 Demineralized Water System Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.1 provides a detailed description of the RPF demineralized water system. Design Basis Functions

• Provide demineralized water to RPF except for administration and truck ba y areas * *

• Remove mineral ions from municipal water through an ion exchange (IX) process and accumulate in a storage tank Provide regenerable IX media using a strong acid and a strong base Feed acids and base s from local chemical drums b y toe pumps Design Basis Values *

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) Provide the water at 4.2 kg/cm 2 (60 lb/in.2) gauge 3.5.2. 7.23 Supply Air System Chapter 9.0 , Section 9.1.2 pro v ides a detailed description of the supply air sys tem. The design ba s i s functions and va lues are identified in Section 3.5.2.7.12.

3.5.2. 7.24 Chemical Supply System Chapter 9.0, Section 9.7.4 pro vi des a detailed description of the chemical supply system. Design Basis Functions

• Provide storage capability for nitric acid, sodium hydroxide , reductant , and nitrogen oxide absorber solutions, h y drogen peroxide , and fresh uranium IX resin

• Segregate incompatible chemicals (e.g., acids from bases)

• Provide transfer capability for chemical solutions mixed to required concentrations and used in target fabrication, target dissolution , Mo recovery and purification , and waste management systems 3-65

.. NWM I 0 0 NORTHWtSTMEDtCAl ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Design Basis Values

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., pumps) 3.5.2. 7.25 Biological Shielding System Chapter 4.0, Section 4.2, provides a detailed description of the RPF biological shielding.

Design Basis Functions

• Provide biological shielding from radiation sources in the hot cells for workers in occupied areas of theRPF

• Limit physical access to hot cells

• Remain functional through DBEs without loss of structural integrity Design Basis Values

• 30-year design life

• Provide dose rates consistent with ALARA goals for normally occupied areas 3.5.2. 7.26 Facility Process Control System Chapter 7.0 , Section 7.2.3 provides a description of the FPC system. Design Basis Functions

• * * * * *

• Perform as overall production process controller Monitor and control process instrumented functions within the RPF (e.g., process fluid transfers , controlled inter-equipment pump transfers of process fluids) Provide monitoring of safety-related components while BMS (a subset of the FPC system) monitors ventilation system and mechanical utility systems Ensure ESF systems operate independently from FPC system or BMS Use hard-wired analog controls/interlocks for each ESF safety function to protect workers, public , and environment Integrate into and monitor ESF parameters and alarm functions by FPC system or BMS Initiate actuation of isolation dampers for hot cell area or analytical area on receipt of signals from fire protection system Design Basis Values

• 30-year design life with the exception of common replaceable parts (e.g., controllers) 3-66 NWM I ...... *

• HOmfWEST MEDtCAl ISOTOPU

3.6 REFERENCES

NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components 10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended. 10 CFR 30, " Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, as amended. 10 CFR 50 , "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register , as amended. IO CFR 50.2, "Definitions," Code of Federal R egu lation s, Office of the Federal Register , as amended. JO CFR 50.31 , "Co mbining Applications," Code of Federal R egu lation s, Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 10 CFR 50.32 , "Elimination of Repetition

," Code of Federal Regulations , Office of the Federal Register , as amended. I 0 CFR 70, " Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material," Code of Federal R egu lations , Office of the Federal Register , as amended. I 0 CFR 70.61, " Performance Requirements," Code of Federal R egu lations , Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 10 CFR 70.64, " Requirements for New Facilities or New Processes at Existing Facilities," Code of Federal R egu lation s, Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 10 CFR 71 , "Energy: Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material ," Code of Federal Regulation s, Office of the Federal Register , as amended. I 0 CFR 73 , "Physical Protection of Plants and Materials," Code of Federal R egu lati ons, Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 10 CFR 74 , " Material Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material ," Code of Federal Regulation s, Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 10 CFR 851, "Worke r Safety and Health Program ," Code of Federal R egulatio ns , O ffice of the Federal Register , as amended. 10 CSR 10-6.01 , "Am bient Air Qua lit y Standards," Missouri Code of State R egu lation s, as amended. 20 CSR 2030, "Miss ouri Board for Architects , Professional Engineers, Professional Land Surveyors, and Landscape Architects," Code of State R egu lation s, Jefferson City , Missouri, as amended. 21 CF R 210, "C urrent Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Processing , Packaging , or Holding of Drugs ," Code of Federal R egu lation s, Office of the Federal Regi ster, as amended. 21CFR211, "Curre nt Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals

," Co d e of Federal Regulations , Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 29 CFR 1910 , "Occupational Safety and Health Standards ," Code of Federal R egu lations , Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 4 0 CFR 61 , "National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant s," Code of Federal R egu lation s, Office of the Federal Register, as amended. 40 CFR 63, "NES HAP for Source Categories," Code of Federal Regulations , Office of the Federal Register , as amended. 3-67 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and C o mponents 40 CFR 141, "Nat ional Primary Drinking Water Regulation s," Code of Federal Regulation s, Office of the Federal Register , as amended. ACGIH 2097, Indu st rial Ventilation:

A Manual of R eco mm ended Pra c ti ce for Design, 28 1 h Edition, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio , 2013. ACI 318, Building Code R equi r ements for Structural Concrete Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hill s, Michigan, 2014. ACI 349, Code R equirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures and Commentary, American Concrete Institute , Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2013. Adams, A., 2016, "Re: University of Missouri at Columbia -Staff Assessment of Applicability of Fukushima Lessons Learned to University of Missouri -Columbia Research Reactor ," (Letter to R. Butler, University of Missouri Research Reactor , December 8), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 2016. AISC 360, Specification for Structural Steel Buildin gs, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinoi s , 2010. AMCA Publication 201, Fans and Systems, Air Movement and Control Association International , Inc., Arlington Heights , Illinois , 2002 (R2011). AMCA Publication 203, Field Performan ce Measurement of Fan Systems, Air Movement and Control Association International , Inc., Arlington Heights, Illinois , 1990 (R201 l). AMCA Publication 211 , Certified Ratings Pro gra m -Produ c t Rating Manual for Fan Air Performance, Air Movement and Control Association International , Inc., Arlington Heights, Illinoi s, 2013. AMCA Publication 311, Certified Ratings Program -Product Rating Manual for Fan Sound P erfo rman ce, Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc., Arlington Heights , Illinois , 2006 (R2 010). ANS 2.8, Determining Design Ba sis Flooding at Power R eactor Sites, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park , Illinois , 1992 (W2002). ANSI C84.1, American Natio nal Standard for Electric Pow er Systems and Equipment

-Voltage Rating s (60 Hert z), American National Standards Institute, Inc., Washington , D.C., 2011. ANSI Nl3.1 , Samplin g and Monitoring R e leas es of Airborne Radioactiv e Substances from the Sta cks and Ducts of Nuclear Facilities, American Nuclear Society , La Grange Park , Illinois , 2011. ANSI N42. l 7B , American Na tional Standard P erfor man ce Specifications for Health Ph ysics Instrumentation

-O ccupationa l Airborne Radioa ctivity Monitoring Instrum entation, American National Standards Institute , Inc., Washington , D.C., 1989. ANSI N42.18, Spe cificatio n and P erfo rmanc e of On-Site Instrum entation for Continuously Monitoring Radioactivity in Effluents, American National Standards Institute , Inc., Washington, D.C., 2004. ANSI N323D, American National Standard for In s tall e d Radiation Prot ection In st rum entation, American Nationa l Standards Institute , Inc., Washington , D.C., 2002. ANSI/ AHR1 Standard 365 , P erfo rman ce Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning Condensing Units, Air-Conditioning , Heating , and Refrigeration Institute, Arlington , Virginia , 2009. ANSI/ AHR1 Standard 390, P erfo rman ce Rating of Single Pa ckage Vertical Air-Condit ioners and H eat Pumps, Air-Conditioning , Heating , and Refrigeration Institute, Arlington , Virginia , 2003. 3-68 NWM I ...... * * ! NOklHWHT MlDtCAl. ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components ANSI/ AHRI Standard 410, Forced-Circulation Air-Cooling and Air-Heating Coils, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute , Arlington, Virginia, 2001. ANSI/ AHRI Standard 430 , Performance Rating of Central Station Air-Handling Units, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute , Arlington, Virginia, 2009. ANSl/AHRI Standard 850, Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Air Filter Equipment , Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, Arlington, Virginia, 2013. ANSI/ AIHN ASSE Z9.5, Laboratory Ventilation, American Society of Safety Engineers , Des Plaines, Illinoi s, 2012. ANSl/AISC N690 , Specification for Safety-R e lated Steel Structures for Nuclear Facilities , American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, January 31, 2012. ANSI/ AMCA 204, Balance Quality and Vibration Levels for Fans, Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc., Arlington Heights , Illinois, 2005 (R2012). ANSl/AMCA 210, Laboratory Methods for T e sting Fans for Ratings , Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc., and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers , Inc., Arlington Heights , Illinois, 1999. ANSI/ ANS-2.26 , Categorization of Nuclear Facility Structures , Systems , and Components for Seismic Design, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park , Illinois , 2004 (R2010). ANSl/ANS-2.27 , Criteria for Investigations of Nuclear Facility Sites for Seismic Ha za rd Assessments, American Nuclear Society , La Grange Park , Illinois , 2008. ANSI/ANS-2.29 , Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park , Illinois , 2008. ANSI/ANS-6.4 , N uclear Analysis and Design of Concrete Radiation Shielding/or Nuclear Power Plants , American Nuclear Society , La Grange Park, Illinois , 2006. ANSI/ ANS-6.4.2, Specification for Radiation Shielding Materials, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois , 2006. ANSl/ANS-8.1, N uclear Criticality Safety in Operations with Fissionable Materials Outside Reactors, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinoi s, 1998 (R2007) (W2014). ANSI/ ANS-8.3, Critically Accident Alarm System, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois , 1997 (R2003 , R2012). ANSl/ANS-8.7, Nuclear Criticality Safety in the Storage of Fissile Materials, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinoi s, 1998 (R2007). ANSI/ ANS-8.10, Criteria for Nuclea r Criticality Control in Operations with Shielding and Confinement, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 1983 (RI 988, Rl 999, R2005). ANSI/ ANS-8.19 , Administrative Practices for N uclear Criticality Safety , American National Standards Institute/ American Nuclear Society , La Grange Park , Illinois , 1996 (R20 14). ANSI/ ANS-8.20, Nuclear Criticality Safety Training, American National Standards Institute/ American Nuclear Society , La Grange Park, Illinoi s, 1991 (R2005). ANSI/ ANS-8.21, Use of Fixed Neutron Absorbers in Nuclear Facilities Outside R eactors, American Nuclear Society , La Grange Park, Illinois , 1995 (R2011 ). 3-69

• • ... NWM I .....

• 0 NORTHWEST MEDIW ISOTOHS NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components ANSI/ANS-8.24, Validation of Neutron Transport Methods for Nuclear Criticality Safety Calculations, American National Standards Institute/ American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 2007 (R2012). ANSI/ ANS-10.4, Verification and Validation of Non-Safety-Related Scientific and Engineering Computer Programs for the Nuclear Industry, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 2008. ANSI/ ANS-I 0.5, Accommodating User Needs in Computer Program Development, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 2006 (R2011 ). ANSI/ ANS-15 .1 7, Fire Protection Program Criteria for Research Reactors, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 1981 (R2000) (W2014). ANSI/ ANS-40.37, Mobile Low-Level Radioactive Waste Processing Systems, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 2009. ANSI/ ANS-55.1, Solid Radioactive Waste Processing System for Light Water Cooled Reactor Plants, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 1992 (R2000, R2009). ANSI/ANS-55.4, Gaseous Radioactive Waste Processing Systems for Light Water Reactor Plants, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 1993 (R I 999, R2007). ANSI/ ANS-55.6, Liquid Radioactive Waste Processing System for Light Water Reactor Plants, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois , I 993 (Rl 999, R2007). ANSI/ANS-58.3, Physical Protection for Nuclear Safety-Related Systems and Components, American Nuc lear Society, La Grange Park, Illinoi s, 1992 (Rl 998, R2008). ANSI/ANS-58.8, Time Response Design Criteria for Safety-Related Operator Actions, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 1994 (R2001, R2008). ANSI/ANS-59.3, Nuclear Safety Criteria for Control Air Systems, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinoi s, I 992 (R2002) (W2012). ANSl/ASHRAE 51-07, Laboratory Methods of Testing Fans for Certified Aerodynamic Performance Rating, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, 2007. ANSI/ ASHRAE 110, Method of Testing Performance of Laboratory Fume Hoods, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, 1995. ANSI/ ASHRAE I 11, Measurement, Testing, Adjusting and Balancing of Building Heating, Ventilation , Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Systems, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, 2008. ANSl/ASHRAE Standard I 5, Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, 20I 3. ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 52.2, Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, 2007. ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 55, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, 2013. ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 62. I, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, 20 I 0. 3-70 NWM I ...... *

• NOftTHWEST M£0tCAL ISOTOl'ES NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildin gs Except Low-Rise R esidentia l Building s, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating , and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, 2010. ANSI/HI 3.1-3.5, Rotary Pumps, Hydraulic Institute, Par sippa ny , New Jersey, 2008. ANSI/IEEE C2, 2012 National Electrica l Safety Code (NESC), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscatawa y, New Jersey , 2012. ANSI/IEEE N320, American Nationa l Standard Performance Specifications for Reactor Emergency Radiolo gical Monitoring Instrum entation, Institut e of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscatawa y , New Jersey, 1979. ANSl/IES RP-1-12 , American National Standard Practice for Office Lighting, Illuminating Engineering Society, New York, New York, 2012. ANSI/ISA-5.06.01-2007, Functional R equirements Documentation for Control Software Applications, The International Society of Automation, Re sea rch Triangle Park , North Carolina, 2007. ANSI/ISA-5.1-2009, Instrumentation Symbols and Id entification, The International Society of Automation, Research Triangle Park , North Carolina, 2009. ANSl/ISA-7.0.01-1996, Quality Standard for Instrument Air , The International Society of Automation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1996. ANSl/ISA-12.01.01-2013, Definitions and Information Pertaining to Electrical Equipment in Ha zardous (Classified)

Locations , The International Society of Automation, Research Triang l e Park, North Carolina, 2013. ANSl/ISA-67.04.01-2006, Setpointsfor Nuclear Safety-Related Inst rumentation, The International Society of Automation, Re sea rch Triangle Park, North Carolina , 2006 (R2011). ANSI/ISA-75.05.01-2000, Control Valve Terminology, The International Society of Automation , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 2000 (R2005). ANSI/JSA-82.03-1988, Safety Standard for Electrica l and Electronic Test , Measuring , Contro llin g , and Related Equipment, The International Society of Automation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1988. ANSI/ISA-TR99.00.01-2007, Security T echno lo gies for Industrial Automation and Contro l Systems, The International Society of Automation, Res ea rch Triangle Park , North Carolina, 200 7. ANSI/JTSDF B56. l, Safety Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks, Industrial Truck Standards Development Foundation, Washington, D.C., February 2013. ANSI/NEMA Z535. l, Safety Colors, American National Standards Institute , Inc., Washington, D.C., 2006 (R201 l). ANSI/NEMA Z535.2, Environmental and Facility Safety Signs, American National Standards Institute , Inc., Washington , D.C., 2 011. ANSI/NEMA Z535.3, Criteria for Safety Symbols, American National Standards Institute , Inc., Washington , D.C., 2011. ANSI/NEMA Z535.4, Product Safety Signs and Labels, American National Standards Institute, Inc., Washington , D.C., 2011. 3-71 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components ANSI/N ET A ATS-2013 , Standard for Acceptance T es ting Specifications for Electrical Power Distribution Equipment and S ys tems, InterNational Electrical Testing Association, Portage , Michigan, 2013. ANSI/NETA ETT-2010 , Standard/or Certification of Electrical Testing Techni c ians, InterNational Electrica l Testing Association , Portage, Michigan , 2010. ANSI/NET A MTS-2011 , Maintenance Testing Sp ecifica tions for Electrical Po we r Di s tribution Equipment and S ys t e ms , InterNational Electrical Testing Association, Portage, Michigan , 2011. ANSI/SMACNA 001-2008 , S eis mi c R es traint Manual: Guid eli n es for Mechanical S yste m s, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors

' National Association , Chantilly, Virginia , 2008. ANSl/TIA-568-C.

l , Commercial Building T e l eco mmunication s Cabling Standard, Telecommunications Industry Association , Arlington, Virginia , 2012. ANSl/TIA-568-C.2 , Balanced Twist e d-Pair Tel eco mmuni c ation s Cabling and Components Standards , Telecommunications Industr y Association , Arlington , 2014. ANSI/TIA-568-C.3, Opti ca l Fiber Cabling and Components Standard , Telecommunications Industry Association, Arlington , 2011. ANSI/TIA-569 , Comm ercia l Building Standard for T e l eco mmuni c ations Path w a ys and Spa ces, Telecomm unic ations Industr y Association , Arlington , 2013. ANSI/TIA-606, Administration Standard for Commercial T e le c ommunication s Infrastru ctu re , Telecommunications Industry Association , Arlington , 2012. ANSl/TIA-607 , Comm e r ci al Building Grounding (Ea rthing) and Bonding Requirements for T e lecommuni ca tions , Telecommunications Industry Association , Arlington , 2013. ANSI/TIA-758-A , Customer-Owned Outsid e Plant T e l eco mmuni c ations Inf rastr u c tur e Standard , Telecommunications Industry Association , Arlington , 2004. ASCE 4 , S e ismic A nal ysis of Saf ety-R e lat e d Nuclear Stru c tur es and Comm e ntary , American Society of Civil Engineers , Reston , Virginia , 2000. ASCE 7 , Min imum D esig n Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers , Reston , Virginia , 2005 (R2010/2013). ASCE 43 , Seismic D esig n Criteria for Structur es, S y st e ms , and Components in N ucl e ar Faciliti es, American Society of Civil Engineers , Reston, Virginia , 2005. ASCE Manual of Practice 37, D es ign and Construction of Sanitary and Storm S ewe rs , (Out-of-Print), American Society of Civil Engineers, Re s ton, Virginia , 1969. ASHRAE Standard 70 , M e thod a/T esti ng th e P e rformanc e of Ai r Outlet s and Air Inl e t s , American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers , Atlanta, Georgia , 2011. ASME , 2013 , Boil er and Pressur e Vessel Code, American Society of Mechanical Engineers , New York, New York , 2010/2013. ASME Al 7 .1 , Saf ety Code for El e vators and Escalators, American Society of Mechanical Engineers , New York , New York, 2007. ASME AG-1 , Code on Nu cl ea r Air and Gas Tr e atm e nt, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York, 2012. ASME Bl6.5 , Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fitting s: N PW 12 through 24, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York, 2003. 3-72 NWM I ...**... * * *

• NOKTKWUT ll£DICAl.

tsOTOP(S NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components ASME B20. l, Safety Standard for Conveyors and Related Equipment, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York , New York, 2012. ASME B30. l 7, Overhead and Gantry Cranes (Top Running Bridge , Single Girder , Under hung Hoist), American Society of Mechanical Engineers , New York, New York, 2006. ASME B30.20, Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York , New York, 2013. ASME B3 l, Standards of Pr ess ur e Piping , American Society of Mechanical Engineers , New York, New York, 2014. ASME B31.3 , Process Piping , American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York, 2014. ASME B31.9 , Building Servic es Piping, American Society of Mechanical Engineers , New York, New York, 2014. ASME B3 l .12 , H y drogen Piping and Pip e lines , American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York, 20 14. ASME B40.100 , Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments, American Society of Mechanical Engineers , New York , New York, 2013. ASME B40.200, Thermomet ers, Direct Reading and R emote Reading, American Society of Mechanical Engineers , New York , New York, 2013. ASME HST-I, P er formanc e Standard/or El ec tric Chain Hoists, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York, 2012. ASME N509, Nuclear Pow e r Plant Air-Cl e aning Units and Components, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York, 2002 (R2008). ASME N510, Testing of Nuclear Air-Treatment Systems , American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York , 2007. ASME NQA-1, Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications, American Society of Mechanical Engineers , New York, New York, 2012. ASME QME-1 , Qualification of Active Mechanical Equipment Used in N uclear Facilities, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York, 2012. ASTM Cl055 , Standard Guid e for Heated S ys tem Surface Conditions that Produ ce Contact Burn Injuries , ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania , 2003 (2014). ASTM C 1217 , Standard Guide for Design of Equip m ent for Processing Nu cl e ar and Radioactive Materials , ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania , 2000. ASTM C 1533, Standard Guid e for General Design Consid e rations for Hot Cell Equipment, ASTM International , West Conshohocken , Pennsylvania , 2008 (R2015). ASTM Cl554 , Standard Guid e for Materials Handling Equipment for Hot Cells, ASTM International , West Conshohocken , Pennsylvania, 2011. ASTM Cl572, Standard Guide for Dry Lead Glass and Oil-Filled Lead Glass Radiation Shielding Window Components for Remotely Operated Faciliti es, ASTM International , West Conshohocken , Pennsylvania , 2010. ASTM Cl615, Standard Guid e for Mechanical Drive Sy s t e ms for R emote Op e ration in Hot Cell Facilities , ASTM International, West Conshohocken , Pennsylvania , 2010. 3-73

....------------------------

---

---

*----NWMl-20 13-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components ASTM C1661, Standard Guide for Viewing Systems for R emotely Operated Facilities, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2013. ASTM E493, Standard Practice for Leaks Using the Mass Spectrometer Leak Detector in the Inside-Out Testing Mode, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2011. ASTM Fl471, Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of High-Efficiency Particulate Filter System, ASTM Internationa l , West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2009. A WS B2.1/B2.1M, Specification for Welding Procedure and Performance Qualification, American Welding Society, Miami, Florida, 2009. AWS Dl.1/ Dl.lM, Structural Welding Code-Steel, American Welding Society, Miami, Florida, 2010. A WS DI .3/Dl .3M, Structural Welding Code -Sheet Steel, American Welding Society, Miami, Florida, 2008. A WS D 1.6/D 1.6M , Structural Welding Code -Stainless Steel, American Welding Society, Miami, Flo rida , 2007. AWS D9.1/ D9.1M, Sheet Metal Welding Code, American Welding Society, Miami, Florida, 2006. A WS QCl, Standard for AWS Certification of Welding Inspectors, American Welding Society, Miami, Florida, 2007. City of Colu mbia, "City of Columbia Code of Ordinances," https://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Council/

Code_of_Ordinances_PDF

/, accessed September 8, 2014. CPDG Division 22, "Plum bing ," Consu ltant Procedures and Design Guidelines, University of Missouri, Management Services, Facilities Planning and D eve lopment , Columbia, Missouri, 2009. CPDG Division 23, "Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC)," Consu ltant Procedures and Design Guidelines, University of Missouri, Management Services, Facilities Planning and Development, Co lumbia , Missouri, 2014. CPDG Section 2.4, "Planni ng , Des ign and Contract Document Development Guidelines for Master Constr uction Delivery Method," Consultant Procedures and Design Guidelines, University of Missouri, Management Services, Facilities Planning and Deve l opment, Columbia, Missouri, as ame nded. CRR 70.060, "C onsulting , Design , and Construction," Collected Rul es and Regulations, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, as amended. DC/COL-ISG-007, Interim Staff Guidance on Assessment of Norma l and Extreme Winter Precipitation Loads on the Roofs of Seismic Category I Structures, Federal Regist er Volume 74, Issue 125 , Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors , Washington, D.C., July 1, 2009. DHHS (NIOSH) 2003-136, Guidance for Filtration and Air-Clea ning Systems to Protect Building Environments from Airborne Chemical, Biological , and Radiolo gical Attacks, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Pre ventio n , National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2003. DOE-STD-1020-2002, Natura l Phenomena Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria for Department of Energy Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 2002 (R2012). FEMA, 2011, "National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Boone County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas," Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2011. 3-74 NWM I ...... *

• NotmfWUT llllDICAl.

ISOTOf'lS NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Hydrometeorological Report No. 51, Probabl e Maximum Precipitation Estimates , United States East of the 105th Meridian, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington , D.C., 1978. Hydrometeorological Report No. 52, Application of Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States East of the 105 1 h Meridian, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , Washington , D.C., 1982. Hydrometeorological Report No. 53, Seasonal Variation of 10-Square-Mil e Probabl e Maximum Pr ecipitatio n Estimates, United States East of the 105 1 h Meridian, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., 1980. IAEA-TECDOC-1250 , Seismi c Design Considerations of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities, International Atomic Energy Agenc y, Vienna , Austria, 2001. IAEA-TECDOC-1347 , Consideration of External Events in the Design of Nuclear Facilities Other Than Nuclear Power Plants , With Emphasis on Earthquakes, International Atomic Energy Agenc y, Vienna , 2003. IAEA-TECDOC-1430 , Radioi soto p e Handlin g Facilities and Automation of Radioi sotope Produ ction, International Atomic Energy Agenc y, Vienna, 2004. IBC, 2012, " International Building Code," International Code Council, Inc., Washington , D.C., 2012. ICC A 11 7 .1 , Accessible and Usab le Building s and Facilities Standard, International Code Council , Inc., Washington , D.C., 2009. I CC-ES AC156, "Acce ptance Criteria for Seismic Certification by Shake-Table Testing of Nonstructural Components," International Code Council Evaluation Service, October 2010. IECC, 2012, 2012 Int ernational Ene rgy Conservation Code, International Code Council, Inc., Washington , D.C., May 2011. IEEE 7-4.3.2, Standard Criteria for Digital Computers in Safety Systems of Nuclear Power Generating Stations, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway , New Jersey , 2003. IEEE 141, R eco mmend ed Practice for Electric Pow er Distribution for Industrial Plants (Red Book), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Pi sca taway , New Jersey , 1993 (R1999). IEEE 142 , Recomm e nd ed Pra ctice for Grounding of Indu str ial and Commercial Pow er Systems (Green Book), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscatawa y, New Jerse y, 2007. IEEE 24 1 , R ecommended Pra ctice for Electric Po wer Systems in Commercial Buildin gs (Gray Bo ok), Institute of Electrical and E lectronics Engineers, Piscataway , New Jersey , 1990 (R1997). IEEE 242, R eco mmend e d Pra ctice for Prot ectio n and Coordination of Indu st rial and Co mm e rcial Power Systems (Buff Book), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway , New Jer sey, 2001. IEEE 279, Criteria for Prot ec t ion Systems for N uclear Po wer Generating Stations, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway , New Jersey , 1971. IEEE 308, Standard Criteria/or Class JE Po wer Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway , New Jer sey, 2012. IEEE 315, Graphi c Symbols for Electrical and Electronics Diagrams, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey , 1975 (RI 993). 3-75 NWM I ......

• NOtllllWUT MflHCAL ISOTDPU NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components IEEE 323, Standard for Qua l ifying Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, Institute of E l ectrica l and E l ectronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey, 2003. IEEE 336, Recommended Practice for Installation , Inspection , and Testing/or Class IE Power , Instrumentation , and Control Equipment at Nuclear Facilities , Institute of E l ectrica l an d Electro nic s Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey , 20 10. IEEE 338, Standard for Criteria for the Periodi c Surveillance Testing of Nuclear Power Generating Station Safety Systems, Institute of Electrical and E l ectronics Engineers, Piscataway , New Jersey , 2012. IEEE 344, IEEE Standard for Seismic Qualification of Equipment for Nuclear Pow e r Generating Stations, Institute of E l ectrica l an d E l ectronics E n gineers, Piscataway , New Jersey , 2013. IEEE 379, Standard Application of the Single-Failur e Criterion to Nuclear Power Generating Station Safety Systems , Institute of Electrical and E l ectro nic s Engineers, Piscataway , New Jersey, 20 14. IEEE 384, Standard Criteria for Independence of Class IE Equipment and Circuits, Institute of Electrical and E le ctronics Engineers, Piscataway , New Jersey , 2008. IEEE 399, Recomm ended Practic e for Pow er Systems Analysis (Brown Book), Institute of Electrica l and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jerse y, 1 997. IEEE 446 , Recommend ed Practic e for Emergency and Standby Power Systems for Indu strial and Commercial Applications (Orange Book), Institute of Elec tri ca l and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway , New Jersey, I 995 (R2000). IEEE 493 , Recommended Practic e for the Design of Reliable Industria l and Commercial Power Systems (Gold Book), Insti tute of E l ectr ical and Electro nic s Engineers, Piscataway , New Jersey, 2007. IEEE 497 , Standard Criteria for Accident Monitoring Instrum entatio n for Nuclear Pow er Generating Stations , Institut e of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Pi scataway, New Jerse y, 20 10. IEEE 519, Recommend ed Practic e and Requir ements for Harmonic Control in Electrical Power Systems, Institute of Electrica l and Electro nic s Engineers, Piscataway , New Jersey , 2014. IEEE 535, Standard for Qualification of C l ass IE Lead Storage Batteries for Nuclea r Power Generatin g Stations, Institute of Electrical and E l ectronics E n g ine ers, Pi scataway, New Jersey, 2013. IEEE 577 , Standard R e quir e m e nt s for R eliabil i ty Analysis in the Design and Operation of Safety Syst e ms for Nuclear Facilities, Institute of E le ctrica l an d E l ectronics Engineers , Piscatawa y, New Jersey , 2012. IEEE 603, Standard Crit e ria for Safety Systems for Nuclear Power Generatin g Stations , Institute of Electr ic a l and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway , New Jersey , 2009. IEEE 650 , Standard/or Qualification of Class JE Static Batt ery Chargers and Inv e rters for N uclear Power Generating Stations , Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey, 2 006. IEEE 739 , Recomm e nded Practice for Energy Management in Industrial and Co mm ercial Facilities (Bronze B ook), Institute of Electr ic a l and Electro ni cs Enginee r s, Piscataway , New Jersey, 199 5 (R2000). IEEE 828 , Standard for Configuration Manag e m ent in Systems and Softwar e Engineering, Institute of Electrica l and Electronics Eng ineer s, Piscataway , New Jersey, 2012. IEEE 829, Standard for Software a nd S ys tem Te st Docum e ntation, Institute of E l ectr ic al an d E l ectronics Enginee r s, Piscataway , New Jersey , 2008. 3-76

• • • • NWMI ..... ..

        • • ... * * *

• NORllfWEST MEDtCAL ISOTO'f.S NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components IEEE 902, Guide for Maintenance , Operation , and Safety of Industrial and Commercial Power S y stems (Yellow Book), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers , Piscataway, New Jersey, 1998. IEEE 946, Generating Stations, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey , 2004. IEEE 1012, Standard Criteria for Softwar e V e rification and Validation , Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway , New Jersey , 2012. IEEE 1015 , Recommended Practice Applying Low-Voltage Circuit Break e rs Used in Industrial and Commercial Power Systems (Blue Book), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey, 2006 (C2007). IEEE 1023 , Guide for the Appli c ation of Human Factor s Engineering to Systems , Equipment , and Faciliti e s of Nuclear Pow e r Generating Stations , Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers , Piscataway, New Jersey , 2004 (R2010). IEEE 1028 , Standard for Software Reviews and Audits, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers , Piscataway , New Jersey, 2008. IEEE 1046 , Application Guid e for Distributed Digital Control and Monitoring/or Power Plants , Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jerse y , 1991 (Rl 996). IEEE 1050, Guide for Instrum e ntation and Control Equipment Grounding in Generating Stations , Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers , Piscataway , New Jersey , 2004. IEEE 1100 , Re c ommended Pra c tic e for Powering and Grounding El ec tronic Equipm e nt (Em e rald Book), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers , Piscataway , New Jersey , 2005. IEEE 1289 , Guide for the Appli c ation of Human Factor s Engineering in the Design of Computer-Bas e d Monitoring and Control Displays for Nucl e ar Po we r Gen e rating Stations , Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway , New Jersey , 1998 (R2004). IEEE 1584 , IEEE Guide for P e rforming Ar c-Flash Ha z ard Calculation s, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers , Piscataway , New Jersey, 2002. JES RP-7, Ameri c an National Standard Pra c tice for Lighting Industrial Facilities , Illuminating Engineering Society , N e w York , New York , 1991 (W2001). IES-2011 , Th e Light i ng Handbook, l0 1 h Edition, Illuminating Engineering Society , New York, New York, 2011. IF C , 2012 , Int e rnational Fire Code, International Code Council, Inc., Washington , D.C., 2012. I MC , 2012 , Int e rnational Mechani c al Cod e, International Code Council , Inc., Washington , D.C., 2012. I PC , 2012, 2 01 2 Int e rnational Plumbing Code , International Code Council , Inc., Washington , D.C., April 2011. ISA-5.3-1983 , Graphic Symbol s for Distribut e d Control/Shared Displa y Instrum e ntation , Logic , and Comput er S y stems , The International Society of Automation , Research Triangle Park , North Carolina, 1983. ISA-5.4-1991 , In s trument Loop Diagrams, The International Society of Automation, Research Triangle Park , North Carolina , 1991. ISA-5.5-1985, Graphic Symbol s for Process Displays, The International Society of Automation , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1985. 3-77 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components ISA-18.1-1979 , Annun ci ator S e qu e nc es and Sp e cifi c ations , The International Society of Automation , Re s earch Triangle Park, North Carolina , 1979 (R2004). ISA-67.01.01-2002 , Transdu ce r and Transmitt e r In s tallation for N ucl e ar Saf ety Appli c at i on s, The International Society of Automation , Research Triangle Park , North Carolina, 2002 (R2007). ISA-RP60.

l-l 990 , Control Cent e r Fa c iliti e s , The International Society of Automation , Research Triangle Park , North Carolina , 1990. ISA-RP67.04.02-2010 , M e thodolo g i e s for the Det e rmination of S e tpointsfor N ucl e ar Saf ety-Relat e d Instrum e ntation , The International Society of Automation , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina , 2010. ISA-TR20.00.01-2007 , Sp ec ifi c ation Form s for Pro cess M e asurement and Control Instrum e nts Part I: G e n e ral Consid e rations Updat e d with 2 7 n ew sp ec ification form s in 2004-2006 and updated w i th 11 n e w s pe c ifi c ation forms in 200 7 , The International Society of Automation , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina , 2007. ISA-TR84.00.04-201 l , Part I Guid e lin e/or th e Impl e mentation of AN Sl l lSA-8 4.00.01-2004 (IEC 61511), The International Society of Automation , Research Triangle Park , North Carolina , 2011. ISA-TR84.00.09-2013 , S ec urity Count e rm e asur es R e lated to Saf e ty In s trum e nt e d Syst e m s (SIS), The International Society of Automation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina , 2013. ISA-TR91.00.02-2003 , Criticality Cla s sification Guid e lin e for In s trum e ntation , The International Societ y of Automation , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina , 2003. MU , Fa c iliti e s Manag e m e nt Policy a nd Procedur es Manual , http://www.um s ystem.edu/ums/rules/fpm/, University of Missouri, Columbia , Missouri, as amended. NECA 1 , Standard Pra c ti ce of Good Workman s hip in El ec tri c al Con s tru c tion , National Electrical Contractors Association , Bethesda , Maryland , 2010. NECA 90 , R e comm e nd e d Practic e for Commissionin g Buildin g El e ctrical S ys t e m s (A N SI), National Electrical Contractors Association , Bethe s da , Maryland , 2009. NECA 100 , Symbol s for El e ctri c al Con s truction Drawings (AN SI), National E lectrical Contractors Association , Bethesda , Maryland, 2013. NECA 101 , Standard for Installin g St ee l Conduit s (Rigid , IMC , EMT) (A N SI), National Electrical Contractors Association , Bethesda , Maryland, 2013. NECA 111 , Standard for Installing N onm e talli c Raceways (RNC , E N T, LF N C) (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association , Bethesda, Maryland, 2003. NECA 120 , Standard for In s talling Armor e d Cabl e (T y pe AC) and M e tal-Clad Cable (T y pe MC) (A N SI), National Electrical Contractors Association , Bethesda , Maryland, 2013. NECA 202 , Standard for Installing and Maintaining Industrial H e at Tracin g S ys tem s (AN SI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda , Maryland, 2013. NECA 230 , Standard for Sele c ting , In s talling , and Maintainin g El ec tric Motors and Motor Controll e rs (A NSI), National Electrical Contractors A s sociation, Bethesda , Maryland , 2010. NECA 331 , Standard for Building and Servic e Entrance Grounding and Bonding , National Electrical Contractors Association , Bethesda, Maryland , 2009. NECA 400 , Standard for Installing and Maintaining Swit c hboards (A N SI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland , 2007. 3-78 NWM I *

• NORTHWEST MEDtCAl ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components NECA 402, Standard for Installing and Maintaining Motor Control Centers (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2007. NECA 407, Recommended Practice for Installing and Maintaining Panel boards (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2009. NECA 408, Standard for Installing and Maintaining Busways (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2009. NECA 409, Standard for Installing and Maintaining Dry-Type Transformers (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2009. NECA 410, Standard for Installing and Maintaining Liquid-Filled Transformers (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2013. NECA 411, Standard for Installing and Maintaining Uninterruptible Power Supplies (UPS) (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland , 2006. NECA 420, Standard for Fuse Applications (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2014. NECA 430, Standard for Installing Medium-Voltage Metal-Clad Switchgear (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2006. NECA/AA 104, Standard for Installing Aluminum Building Wire and Cable (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2012. NECA/BICSI 568, Standard for Installing Building Telecommunications Cabling (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2006. NECA/EGSA 404, Standard for Installing Generator Sets (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda , Maryland, 2014. NECA/FOA 301, Standard for Installing and Testing Fiber Optics, National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda , Maryland, 2009. NECA/IESNA 500, Recommended Practice for Installing Indoor Lighting Systems (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2006. NECA/IESNA 501, Recommended Practice for Installing Exterior Lighting Systems (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2006. NECA/IESNA 502, Recommended Practice for Installing Industrial Lighting Systems (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2006. NECA/NCSCB 600 , R ecommended Practice for Installing and Maintaining Medium-Voltage Cable (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2014. NECA/NEMA 105, Standard for Installing Metal Cable Tray Systems (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 2007. NECA/NEMA 605 , In stalling Underground Nonmetallic Utility Duct (ANSI), National Electrical Contractors Association , Bethesda, Maryland, 2005. NEMA MG-1 , Motors and Generators, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rossl yn, Virginia, 2009. NFPA 1 , Fire Code, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2015. 3-79

.; .. ;* NWMI *::**::* ...... ' e * ! NORTHWUT MEDtCAI. lSOTOPU NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components NFPA 2, Hydrogen Technologies Cod e , National Fire Protection Association , Quincy, Massachusetts, 2011. NFPA 4, Standard for Integrated Fir e Protection and Life Safety S y stem Testing, National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Massachusetts , 2015. NFPA IO, Standard for Portable Fir e Extinguishers, National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Massachusetts , 2013. NFPA 13 , Standard for the Installation of Sprinkl e r Sy s tem s, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts , 2013. NFPA 14, Standard for th e Installation of Standpip e and Ho se S ys t e ms , National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Massachusetts, 2013. NFPA 20 , Standard for th e Installation of Stationa ry Pumps for Fir e Prot ec tion , National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Massachusetts, 2013. NFPA 22 , Standard for Wat e r Tanks f or Privat e Fir e Prot ec tion , National Fir e Protection Association , Quinc y, Massachusetts , 201 3. NFPA 24 , Standard f o r th e In s tallati o n of Private F ir e S e rvi ce Main s and Th e ir Appurt e nan ce s , National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Massachusetts , 2013. NFPA 25 , Standard for t h e Insp ec tion , T es tin g , and Maint e nan ce of Wat e r-B as ed Fir e Prot e ction S ys t e m s, National Fire Protection A s sociation , Quincy , Ma s sachusett s, 2014. NFPA 30 , Flammabl e and Combustibl e Liquids Cod e, National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Massachusetts , 2015. NFPA 37 , Standard for th e Installation and U s e of Stationary Combustion En g in e s and G as Turbin e s , National Fire Protection A ss ociation , Quinc y, Massachusetts , 2015. NFPA 45 , Standard on Fir e Prot ec tion for Laboratori e s Usin g Ch e micals , National Fire Protection As s ociation , Quinc y, Massachusetts , 2015. NFPA 55, Compres se d Gas es and C ry ogeni c Fluid s Code , National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Mas s achusetts , 2013. NFPA 59A , Standa r d for th e Produ c tion , Storag e, a nd Handling of Liqu e fi e d N atural Ga s, National Fire Protection A s sociation , Quincy , Massachusetts , 2013. NFPA 68 , Standard on E x plosion Prot e ction b y D e flagration V e nting , National Fire Protection Association, Quinc y, Massachusetts , 2013. NFPA 69 , Standard on E x plosion Pr e vention S y st e m s, National Fire Protection Association , Quinc y, Massachusetts , 2014. NFPA 70 , N ational El ec tri c al Cod e (N EC), National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Massachusett s, 2014. NFPA 70B , R e comm e nd e d Practi ce f or El e ctrical E quipm e nt Maint e nan ce, National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Mas s achusetts, 2013. NFPA 70E , Standard fo r El e ctrical Saf ety in the Workpla ce, National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Massachusetts , 2015. NFPA 72 , N ational Fir e Alarm and Si g naling Cod e, National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Massachusetts , 2013. 3-80 NWM I ...... * * . NOfllTHWEST MEDICAL ISOTOPES NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components NFPA 75, Standard for the Fire Protection of Information Technology Equipment, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2013. NFPA 79, Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2015. NFPA 80, Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2013. NFP A 80A, Recommended Practice for Protection of Buildings from Exterior Fire Exposures, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2012. NFPA 86, Standard for Ovens and Furnaces, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2015. NFP A 86C, Standard for Industrial Furnaces Using a Special Processing Atmosphere, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 1999. NFPA 90A, Standard for the Installation of Air-Conditioning and Ventilating System, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2015. NFPA 90B, Standard for the Installation of Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Systems, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2015. NFPA 91, Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors , Gases , Mists , and Noncombustib l e Particulate Solids, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2015. NFPA 92, Standard for Smoke Contro l Systems, National Fire Protection Association , Quincy, Massachusetts, 2012. NFPA 92A, Standard for Smoke-Control Systems Utilizing Barriers and Pressure Differences, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2009. NFPA 92B, Standard for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria , and Large Spaces, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2009. NFPA 101 , Life Safety Code, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2015. NFPA 101B, Code for Means of Egress for Buildings and Structures, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2002 (W-Next Editio n). NFPA 105, Standard for the Installation of Smoke Door Assemblies and Other Opening Protectives, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2013. NFPA 110, Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2013. NFPA 111, Standard on Stored Electrical Energy Emergency and Standby Power Systems, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2013. NFP A 170, Standard for Fire Safety and Emergency Symbols, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2012. NFPA 204, Standard for Smoke and Heat Venting, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2012. NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2015. 3-81 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components NFPA 221 , Standard for High Challeng e Fire Walls , Fire Walls , and Fire Barrier Walls , National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts , 2015. NFPA 262, Standard Method of T est for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for Use in Handling Space s, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy , Massachusetts , 2015. NFPA 297 , Guide on Principles and Practices for Communications Systems , Nationa l Fire Protection Association, Quincy , Massachusetts, 1995. NFPA 329 , Recommended Practice for Handling R e leases of Flammable and Combustible Liquids and Gases, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2015. NFPA 400, Hazardous Materials Code, National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Massachusetts , 2013. NFPA 496 , Standard/or Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Massachusetts , 2013. NFP A 497 , Recommend e d Practice for the Classifi ca tion of Flammab l e Liquids , Gases , or Vapors and of Hazardous (Classified)

Lo ca tions for Electrica l Installations in Chemical Proc ess A reas , Nationa l Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts , 2012. NFPA 704, Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Respons e, Nationa l Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 2012. NFPA 730 , Guide/or Premis es Security, National Fire Protection Association , Quincy , Massachusetts , 2014. NFPA 731, Standard for the Installation of Electronic Premis es Security Syst e ms, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 20 15. NFPA 780 , Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems , National Fire Protection Assoc iation , Quincy, Massachusetts, 2014. NFP A 791, Recommend ed Practic e and Proc e dur es for Unlabeled Electrical Equipment Evaluation, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts , 2014. NFP A 801 , Standard for Fire Protection for Facilities Handling Radioactive Materials, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts , 20 14. NIOSH 2003-136 , Guidance for Filtration and Air-Cleaning Systems to Prot ec t Building Environments from Airborne Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Attacks, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio , 2003. NOAA , 2017, "NOAA Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Freq uenc y Estimates:

Mo ," https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc

/pfds/pfds _map_ cont.html?bkmrk=mo , National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, accessed 2017. NOAA Atlas 14, Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Volume 8, Version 2.0: Midwestern States, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland , 2013. NRC , 2012, Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-153 7 , " Guid e lines for Preparing and R e viewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors ," Parts 1 and 2, for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors, Docket Number: NRC-2011-0135, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Washington , D.C., October 30 , 2012. NUREG-0700 , Human-System Interface Design Review Guidelin es, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclea r Regulatory Commiss ion , Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C., 2002. 3-82 NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, D.C., 1987. NUREG-1513, Integrated Safety Analysis Guidance Document , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards , Washington , D.C., May 2001. NUREG-1520 , Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility, Rev. 1 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington , D.C., May 2010. NUREG-1537 , Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing a/Non-Power Reactors -Format and Content, Part 1 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., February 1996. NUREG/CR-4604/PNL-5849 , Statistical Methods for Nuclear Material Management, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington , December, 1988. NUREG/CR-6410 , Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Washington , D.C., 1998. NUREG/CR-6463, Review Guidelines on Software Languag e s for Us e in Nuclear Power Plant Saf ety Systems -Final Report , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research , Washington , D.C., 1996. NUREG/CR-6698, Guide for Validation of Nuclear Criticality Safety Calculational Methodology, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards , Washington, D.C., January 2001. NUREG/CR-7005 , Technical Basis for Regulatory Guidance on Design-Basis Hurricane Wind Speeds for Nuclear Power Plants , U.S. Nuclear Regulator y Commission , Washington , D.C., 2011. NWMI-2013-043 , NWMI Radioi sotope Production Facility Structural Design Basis, Re v. B, Northwest Medical Isotopes, Corvallis, Oregon , 2015. NWMI-2015-LIST-003 , NWMI Radioisotop e Production Facility Master Equipment List, Rev. A , Northwest Medical Isotopes, Corvallis , Oregon, 2015. NWMI-2015-SAFETY-Ol l , Evaluation a/Natural Phenomenon and Man-Made Event s on Safety F e atures and Items R elied on for Safety , Rev. A , Northwest Medical Isotopes, Corvallis, Oregon, 2015. NWMI-2015-SDD-001, RPF Facility SDD, Rev. A, Northwest Medical Isotopes, Corvallis, Oregon , 2015. NWMI-DRD-2013-030, NWMI Radioisotope Production Facility Design Requirements Document, Rev. B, Northwest Medical Isotopes , Corvallis, Oregon, 2015. Open-File Report 2008-1128 , Documentation for the 2008 Update of th e United States Nationa l Seismic Hazard Maps, U.S. Geological Survey , Washington , D.C., 2008. Regulatory Guide 1.29, Seismic D es ign Classification, Rev. 3 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington , D.C., September 1978. Regulator y Guide 1.53 , Application of the Single-Failure Criterion to Safety Systems, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington , D.C., November 2003 (R201 l). Regulator y Guide 1.60 , Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants , Rev. 2 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Washington, D.C., July 2014. 3-83 NWM I ...... * * ! NOllTHWUT MEDfCAl ISOTOPlS ------NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures , Systems and Components Regulator y Guide 1.6I, Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, Re v. I, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 2007 (R20I 5). Regulatory Guide 1.76 , Design-Basis Tornado and Tornado Missiles for Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. I, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 2007. Regulator y Guide I .92 , Combining Modal R esponses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulator y Commission, Washington, D.C., Jul y 2006. Regulator y Guide 1.97 , Crite ria for Accident Monitoring In strumentation for Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 4, U.S. Nuclear Regulator y Commission, Washington, D.C., June 2006 (R20I3). Regulator y Guide I. I 00, Seismic Qualification of Electrical and Active Mechanical Equipment and Functional Qualification of Active Mechanical Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., September 2009. Regulatory Guide 1. I 02, Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Standards Development , Washington, D.C., September 1976. Regulatory Guide I. I22, Development of Floor Design R esponse Spectra for Seismic Design of Supported Equipment or Components, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Standards Development, Washington, D.C., February 1978. Regulator y Guide 1.152, Criteria for Use of Computers in Safety Systems of Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., July 2011. Regulatory Guide 1. I 66, Pre-Earthquake Planning and Imm ediate Nuclear Power Plant Operator Post Earthquake Actions, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington , D.C., March I997. Regulator y Guide I. I67, R estart of a Nuclear Power Plant Shut down by a Seismic Event, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 1997. Regulator y Guide 1.208, Performance Bas ed Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 2007. Regulator y Guide 3.3, Quality Assurance Program R equirements for Fuel Reprocessing Plants and for Plutonium Processing and Fuel Fabrication Plants, Re v. I, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 1974 (R2013). Regulatory Guide 3.6, Content of Technical Specification for Fuel Repro cessing Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., April 1973 (R2013). Regulatory Guide 3. I 0, Liquid Waste Treatment System Design Guide for Plutonium Processing and Fuel Fabrication Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulator y Commission, Washington, D.C., June I973 (R2013). Regulatory Guide 3. I 8, Confinement Barriers and Systems for Fuel Repro cessing Plants, U. S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., February I974 (R2013). Regulatory Guide 3.20, Process Offgas Systems for Fuel R eprocessing Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulator y Commission, Washington, D.C., February I 974 (R2013). Regulatory Guide 3.7I, Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Fuels and Materials Facilities, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulator y Commission, Washington, D.C., December 20IO. Regulatory Guide 5.7, Entry/Exit Contro l for Protected Areas , Vital Areas , and Material Access Areas, Rev. 1 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May 1980 (R20IO). 3-84 NWMl-2013-021 , Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components Regulatory Guide 5.12, General Use of Locks in the Protection and Control of Facilities and Special Nuclear Materials, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss ion , Washington , D.C., November 1973 (R2010). Regulatory Guide 5.27, Special Nuclear Material Doorwa y Monitors , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Washington, D.C., June 1974. Regulatory Guide 5.44 , Perim e ter Intrusion Alarm Syst e ms, Rev. 3 , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Washington, D.C., October 1997 (R2010). Regulatory Guide 5.57, Shipping and Rec ei ving Control of Strategic Sp ec ial N ucl ea r Material, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss ion , Washington , D.C., June 1980. Regulatory Guide 5.65, Vital Area Access Control, Prot ect ion of Physical S ec urity Equipment, and K ey and Lo c k Controls, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., September 1986 (R2010). Regulatory Guide 5.71 , C y b e r Security Programs for Nuclear Faciliti es, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 2010. SMACNA 1143, HVAC Air Duct Leakage T es t, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association , Chantilly , Virginia , 1985. SMACNA 1520 , Round Industrial Duct Construction Standard, Sheet Metal and Air Co nditionin g Contractors

' National Association , Chantilly , Virginia , 1999. SMACNA 1922 , R ec tangular Industrial Du ct Construction Standard , Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors

' National Association , Chantilly , Virginia, 2004. SMACNA 1966 , HVA C Du c t Construction Standard -Meta l and Fl exi ble, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association, Chantilly, Virginia , 2006. SMACNA-2006 , HVAC Sy ste ms Duct De s ign, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association, Chantilly , Virginia, 2006. SNT-TC-lA , R eco mmended Practi ce No. S N T-TC-lA: P e rsonn e l Qualification and Certification in Nondestructive T es ting , American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus , Ohio , 2011. Technical Paper No. 40 , Rainfall Frequenc y Atlas of th e United Stat es for Durations from 30 Minut es to 24 Hours and Return P e riods from 1to100 Year s, Weather Bureau , U.S. Department of Commerce , Washington , D.C. 1963. Terra con, 2011 a , Phase I Environmental Sit e Assessment Dis c ov ery Ridg e Lots 2 , 5 , 6 , 7, 8, 9 , l 0 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , and 18 , Terra con Consultants, Inc., prepared for University of Missouri and Trabue, Hansen & Hinshaw, Inc., Terracon Project No. 09117701, March 23 , 2011. T erracon, 2011 b , Pr e liminary Geot e chnical Engineering R e port Discove ry Ridg e-Certified Site Program Lots 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 1 7, and 18, Terracon Consultants , Inc., prepared for University of Missouri and Trabue, Hansen & Hinshaw , Inc., Terracon Project No. 09105094.1 , February 11 , 2011. UL 181 , Standard for Factory-Made Air Duct s and Conn ec tors, Underwriters Laboratories, Washington, D.C., 2013. UL 499, Standard for Electric Heating Applian ces, Underwriters Laboratories , Washington, D.C., 2014. UL 555, Standard for Fire Dampers , Underwriters Laboratories , Washington , D.C., 2006. 3-85

.. NWM I ..... * * *, *

• NORTHWEST MEDICAL ISOtoPfS NWMl-2013-021, Rev. 2 Chapter 3.0 -Design of Structures, Systems and Components UL 586, Standard for High Efficien cy , Particulate , Air Filter Units , Underwriters Laboratories , Washington , D.C., 2009. UL 900 , Standard for Air Filt e r Units , Underwriters Laboratories, Washington , D.C., 2004. UL 1995, Heating and Cooling Equipment, Underwriters Laboratories , Washington , D.C., 2011. USGS , "2008 U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Maps," U.S. Geological Survey, Rolla, Missouri , 2008. 3-86