TY - JOUR T1 - Head-repositioning does not reduce the reproducibility of fMRI activation in a block-design motor task AN - 874190248; 14975094 AB - It is hypothesized that, based upon partial volume effects and spatial non-uniformities of the scanning environment, repositioning a subject's head inside the head coil between separate functional MRI scans will reduce the reproducibility of fMRI activation compared to a series of functional runs where the subject's head remains in the same position. Nine subjects underwent fMRI scanning where they performed a sequential, oppositional finger-tapping task. The first five runs were conducted with the subject's head remaining stable inside the head coil. Following this, four more runs were collected after the subject removed and replaced his/her head inside the head coil before each run. The coefficient of variation was calculated for four metrics: the distance from the anterior commisure to the center of mass of sensorimotor activation, maximum t-statistic, activation volume, and average percent signal change. These values were compared for five head-stabilization runs and five head-repositioning runs. Voxelwise intraclass correlation coefficients were also calculated to assess the spatial distribution of sources of variance. Interestingly, head repositioning was not seen to significantly affect the reproducibility of fMRI activation (p < 0.05). In addition, the threshold level affected the reproducibility of activation volume and percent signal change. JF - NeuroImage AU - Soltysik, David A AU - Thomasson, David AU - Rajan, Sunder AU - Gonzalez-Castillo, Javier AU - DiCamillo, Paul AU - Biassou, Nadia AD - Division of Physics, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA, david.soltysik@fda.hhs.gov Y1 - 2011/06/01/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Jun 01 SP - 1329 EP - 1337 PB - Elsevier Science, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB UK VL - 56 IS - 3 SN - 1053-8119, 1053-8119 KW - CSA Neurosciences Abstracts; Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts KW - fMRI KW - Reproducibility KW - Test-retest KW - Finger-tapping KW - sensorimotor system KW - Neuroimaging KW - Head KW - Scanning KW - Spatial distribution KW - Functional magnetic resonance imaging KW - W 30910:Imaging KW - N3 11006:Neuroanatomy, histology & cytology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/874190248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Abiotechresearch&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=NeuroImage&rft.atitle=Head-repositioning+does+not+reduce+the+reproducibility+of+fMRI+activation+in+a+block-design+motor+task&rft.au=Soltysik%2C+David+A%3BThomasson%2C+David%3BRajan%2C+Sunder%3BGonzalez-Castillo%2C+Javier%3BDiCamillo%2C+Paul%3BBiassou%2C+Nadia&rft.aulast=Soltysik&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1329&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=NeuroImage&rft.issn=10538119&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.neuroimage.2011.03.023 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - sensorimotor system; Neuroimaging; Spatial distribution; Scanning; Head; Functional magnetic resonance imaging DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.03.023 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Calculation of fuel burnup and radionuclide inventory in the Syrian miniature neutron source reactor using the GETERA code AN - 1777143393; 14880343 AB - The code is used to calculate the fuel group constants and the infinite multiplication factor versus the reactor operating time for 10, 20, and 30kW operating power levels. The amounts of uranium burntup and plutonium produced in the reactor core, the concentrations and radionuclides of the most important fission products and actinide radionuclides accumulated in the reactor core, and the total radioactivity of the reactor core were calculated using the GETERA code as well. It is found that the GETERA code is better than the WIMSD4 code for the fuel burnup calculation in the MNSR reactor since it is newer, has a bigger library of isotopes, and is more accurate. JF - Annals of Nuclear Energy AU - Khattab, K AU - Dawahra, S AD - Nuclear Engineering Department, Atomic Energy Commission, Damascus, P.O. Box 6091, Syria Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 SP - 1442 EP - 1446 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 38 IS - 6 SN - 0306-4549, 0306-4549 KW - Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (MT); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); Electronics and Communications Abstracts (EA); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Burnup calculation KW - MNSR KW - Codes KW - GETERA KW - WIMSD4 KW - MCNP4C KW - Reactor cores KW - Nuclear power generation KW - Nuclear reactors KW - Fuels KW - Radioactivity KW - Nuclear reactor components KW - Nuclear engineering KW - Mathematical analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777143393?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Annals+of+Nuclear+Energy&rft.atitle=Calculation+of+fuel+burnup+and+radionuclide+inventory+in+the+Syrian+miniature+neutron+source+reactor+using+the+GETERA+code&rft.au=Khattab%2C+K%3BDawahra%2C+S&rft.aulast=Khattab&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1442&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Annals+of+Nuclear+Energy&rft.issn=03064549&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.anucene.2011.01.030 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2011.01.030 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geochemical alteration of fracture geometry during leakage of CO (sub 2) AN - 1011393392; 2012-042716 AB - A series of three flow-through experiments were performed on artificially fractured caprock samples to investigate fracture evolution during simulated leakage of CO (sub 2) -acidified brine. The core samples are from the Amherstburg limestone, which is the caprock for a CO (sub 2) storage demonstration project in northern Michigan, USA. The evolution of fracture aperture was monitored in real time using X-ray computed tomography (CT). Before and after the experiment, 3-D reconstructions of the fracture structure, aperture and surface roughness were examined at higher resolution via micro X-ray CT. The cores were then sectioned and examined with scanning electron microscopy, X-ray fluorescence and micro X-ray diffraction. Although all three samples were of nearly identical mineralogical composition, the brine flow rates, initial brine compositions, and initial fracture permeabilities differed across the three samples. These differences in flow conditions and fluid composition generated different degrees of fracture deterioration. The first run resulted in substantial erosion of the fracture surface, while the second run had a decrease in fracture permeability that may be attributed to mineral precipitation along the fracture. Spectroscopic analysis of the samples after CO (sub 2) -brine flow demonstrated preferential calcite dissolution. Mineral spatial heterogeneity coupled with the preferential dissolution of calcite led to non-uniform degradation along the fracture and an increase in surface roughness. In areas where calcite is intermixed with dolomite and other silicate minerals the dissolution of calcite leads to the formation of a degraded zone along the fracture boundary, resulting in a smaller increase in fracture aperture. The potential mineral precipitation found in the second run is in stark contrast to the rapid mineral dissolution found in the first and suggests a complex interplay of mineral spatial heterogeneity, brine composition, and flow conditions controlling caprock fracture evolution. Results from this study will be we used to frame a discussion on how flow through caprock fractures may be influenced by geochemical alteration of fracture geometry. JF - Mineralogical Magazine AU - Ellis, B R AU - Peters, C A AU - Fitts, J P AU - Bromhal, G S AU - McIntyre, D L AU - Warzinski, R P AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/06// PY - 2011 DA - June 2011 SP - 806 PB - Mineralogical Society, London VL - 75 IS - 3 SN - 0026-461X, 0026-461X KW - United States KW - limestone KW - fractured materials KW - X-ray diffraction data KW - analog simulation KW - solution KW - seepage KW - cores KW - carbon dioxide KW - laboratory studies KW - fractures KW - sedimentary rocks KW - mineral composition KW - water-rock interaction KW - X-ray fluorescence spectra KW - spectra KW - geochemistry KW - experimental studies KW - carbon sequestration KW - three-dimensional models KW - mineral-water interface KW - geometry KW - calcite KW - brines KW - Michigan KW - computed tomography data KW - carbonate rocks KW - carbonates KW - SEM data KW - permeability KW - 16:Structural geology KW - 02C:Geochemistry of rocks, soils, and sediments UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1011393392?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Mineralogical+Magazine&rft.atitle=Geochemical+alteration+of+fracture+geometry+during+leakage+of+CO+%28sub+2%29&rft.au=Ellis%2C+B+R%3BPeters%2C+C+A%3BFitts%2C+J+P%3BBromhal%2C+G+S%3BMcIntyre%2C+D+L%3BWarzinski%2C+R+P%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Ellis&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2011-06-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=806&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Mineralogical+Magazine&rft.issn=0026461X&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://minmag.geoscienceworld.org/content/75/3/796.full.pdf+html http://www.minersoc.org/pages/e_journals/minmag.html LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Goldschmidt2011 N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, Copyright, Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - analog simulation; brines; calcite; carbon dioxide; carbon sequestration; carbonate rocks; carbonates; computed tomography data; cores; experimental studies; fractured materials; fractures; geochemistry; geometry; laboratory studies; limestone; Michigan; mineral composition; mineral-water interface; permeability; sedimentary rocks; seepage; SEM data; solution; spectra; three-dimensional models; United States; water-rock interaction; X-ray diffraction data; X-ray fluorescence spectra ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AREVA EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY, BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO (U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUREG-1945 ADOPTED AS DOE/EIS-0471). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - AREVA EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY, BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO (U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUREG-1945 ADOPTED AS DOE/EIS-0471). AN - 873131792; 14911-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a loan guarantee to Areva Energy Services, LLC (AES) for the construction of a uranium enrichment facility in Bonneville County, Idaho is proposed. The Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) would be located on a 460-acre section of a 4,200-acre parcel of rural land and would employ a gas centrifuge process to produce commercial nuclear fuel. Prior to the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Programs Office involvement in the project, AES submitted a license application for the construction and operation of the proposed facility to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). A final EIS was issued in February, 2011, but the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has yet to issue its final decision on the license. The license would authorize AES to possess and use byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear material at the proposed EREF site near Idaho Falls for a period of 30 years. AES would produce uranium enriched up to five percent by weight in the isotope uranium-235, with a planned maximum target production of 6.6 million separative work units (SWUs) per year. The enriched uranium would be used to manufacture nuclear fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors. Production at the facility would be equivalent to about 40 percent of the current and projected demand for enrichment services within the United States. Uranium would arrive at the proposed EREF as natural uranium hexafluoride (UF6). Facilities would include: cylinder storage pads, a centrifuge assembly building, four separations building modules (SBMs), a cylinder receipt and shipping building, and various support and administrative buildings. If the license is approved, construction would begin in 2011 with heavy construction of all major buildings and structures continuing for seven years. The EREF would begin initial production in 2014 and reach peak production in 2022. Operations would continue until approximately nine years before the license expires. Decommissioning activities would then begin and be completed by 2041 unless AES applies for license renewal. Decommissioning would involve the sequential shutdown of the four SBMs, each taking approximately 4.5 years. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternative sites for the facility, alternative sources of low-enriched uranium, and alternative technologies for uranium enrichment. NRC staff have concluded that impacts would be generally small, and application of the environmental monitoring program and the proposed mitigation measures would eliminate or substantially lessen any potential adverse impacts. Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, it is recommended that the proposed license be issued to AES. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The EREF would provide an additional economical domestic source of uranium enrichment services, and increased regional employment, income, and tax revenue. Construction would create 1,687 jobs in the peak year, while operations would produce 3,289 jobs and $92.4 million in income in the first year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in some soil erosion, soil compaction, changes in drainage patterns, and disruption to wildlife. The John Leopard Homestead, which has been recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be destroyed. Traffic volume on US 20 would increase. During operations, there would be a potential for small gaseous releases that could contain uranium isotopes, hydrogen fluoride, and uranyl fluoride. A critical accident could result in fatality for workers in close proximity. Six potential accident scenarios predict consequences to the collective offsite public of less than one lifetime cancer fatality. Operation would generate 11,136 pounds of hazardous wastes and 1,222 cylinders of depleted uranium annually. The EREF would be located 1.5 miles from US 20 and the Hell's Half Acre Wilderness Study Area and would create a significant contrast with the surrounding visual environment. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110150, Final EIS--1,051 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0471 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Dosimetry KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Materials Handling KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Public Health KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Idaho KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AREVA+EAGLE+ROCK+ENRICHMENT+FACILITY%2C+BONNEVILLE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO+%28U.S.+NUCLEAR+REGULATORY+COMMISSION+NUREG-1945+ADOPTED+AS+DOE%2FEIS-0471%29.&rft.title=AREVA+EAGLE+ROCK+ENRICHMENT+FACILITY%2C+BONNEVILLE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO+%28U.S.+NUCLEAR+REGULATORY+COMMISSION+NUREG-1945+ADOPTED+AS+DOE%2FEIS-0471%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Loan Programs Office, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PLANT IN PIKETON, PIKE COUNTY, OHIO (U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUREG-1834 ADOPTED AS DOE/EIS-0468). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PLANT IN PIKETON, PIKE COUNTY, OHIO (U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUREG-1834 ADOPTED AS DOE/EIS-0468). AN - 873129974; 14914-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a loan guarantee to USEC Inc. to support funding for the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) in Piketon, Ohio is proposed. Piketon lies between Chillicothe and Portsmouth, approximately 70 miles south of Columbus, Ohio. The ACP would enrich feed material comprised of uranium hexaflouride to produce uranium for use in commercial fuel for power reactors. Enrichment is the process of increasing the concentration of the naturally occurring fissionable uranium-235 isotope. USEC proposes to enrich uranium up to 10 percent by weight of uranium-235. Prior to the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Programs Office involvement in the ACP project, USEC submitted a license application for the construction and operation of the proposed gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In April, 2007, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a 30-year license and USEC started construction of the ACP in May 2007 at the former DOE Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP) located at the existing DOE Portsmouth Reservation in Piketon. USEC has rights to the long-term use of facilities at the GCEP through 2043 and these facilities are being refurbished as part of the ACP project. Activities currently underway include: building the balance of the plant, including installing electric, telecommunications, and cooling water distribution systems; preparing the process building floor for centrifuge machine mounts; preparing the recycle and assembly building for installation of centrifuge machine assembly equipment; constructing a new boiler building; and refurbishing the feed and withdrawal facility. In August 2007, the lead cascade test program began in accordance with USECs demonstration license. Through 2010, USEC implemented an extensive testing program, initiated its technology demonstration activities, refined the centrifuge manufacturing processes and its operation, and is currently focused on technology demonstration activities. In the commercial deployment phase, the ACP would have a capacity of 3.8 million separative work units (SWU) per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ACP would provide much of the uramium-235 necessary to generate a large portion of the 393 gigawatts of new generating capacity required to meet the nation's needs by 2020. This would require an installed nuclear-generating capacity increase from 98 gigawatts in 2001 to 103 gigawatts in 2025, which is the equivalent of five nuclear reactors. In addition to advancing national energy security goals, the ACP plant would help facilitate the deployment of new, cost-effective, advanced enrichment technology. Gas centrifuge technology is less energy intensive than the gaseous diffusion technology currently in use. The ACP would provide for significant local employment opportunities and otherwise contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Slight impacts would result with respect to land use, historic and cultural resources, visual aesthetics, air quality, geologic and soil resources, water resources, ecological resources, socioeconomics, noise levels, transportation-related radiological hazards, occupational health and safety, and waste management. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the NRC final EIS, see 06-0327F, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110153, Final EIS--1,090 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0468 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dosimetry KW - Employment KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Fuels KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Ohio KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=J-H&rft.date=2009-06-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=381&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Scientia+Geographica+Sinica%2FDili+Kexue&rft.issn=10000690&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Loan Programs Office, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, RED WING, GOODHUE COUNTY, MINNESOTA (THIRTY-NINTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, RED WING, GOODHUE COUNTY, MINNESOTA (THIRTY-NINTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). AN - 873129947; 14915-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal of operating licenses for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) Units 1 and 2, located on the west bank of the Mississippi River within the city limits of Red Wing, Goodhue County, Minnesota is proposed to extend the licensed plant life for an additional 20 years. The final EIS of 1996 on promulgation of rules for all license renewals identified 92 environmental issues and reached generic conclusions relating to impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants. Neither the applicant, Northern States Power Company, nor staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified new information for any of the 69 issues. The remaining 23 issues are addressed in this 39th supplement to the final generic EIS of May 1996. If the licenses are renewed, federal and state agencies and the owners of the plant would go on to decide whether the plant should continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power. If the operating licenses are not renewed, PINGP Units 1 and 2 would be shut down on or before expiration of the current licenses, August 9, 2013 and October 29, 2014, respectively. The two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors utilize a hybrid cooling system, which consists of three modes of operation: open cycle, or once-through cooling with no cooling towers in operation; helper cycle, or once-through cooling with mechanical draft cooling towers in operation; and closed cycle using cooling towers to recirculate up to 95 percent of the cooling water. The plant is licensed to operate at 1,650 megawatts-thermal per unit, or 575 megawatts-electrical of gross electrical output per unit. Buildings on the site include the four natural draft cooling towers, the reactor building, auxiliary building, turbine building, intake and plant screenhouses, and the PINGP 1 and 2 substation. Spent fuel is stored in a pool inside the plant until it is cooled, and transferred to dry storage containers in the on-site Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Spent fuel will be stored there until the federal government removes it to be reprocessed or stored at a government facility. As of early 2010, Prairie Island's ISFSI housed 26 dry-storage containers, which hold a store of 1,040 spent fuel assemblies. In addition to the proposed license renewal, other methods of power generation and a No Action Alternative are considered. Replacement power options include: 1) gas-fired combined-cycle plant at the PINGP 1 and 2 site and an undetermined alternate site; 2) a combination including a gas-fired unit, wind power, conservation, and wood-waste biomass; and 3) a combination including continued operation of one of the two PINGP units, wind power, and conservation. NRCs recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for PINGP 1 and 2 are not great enough to deny the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Renewal of the license would allow the applicant to meet the needs of its regional energy purchasers. All alternatives capable of meeting the needs currently served by PINGP 1 and 2 entail potentially equal or greater impacts than the proposed action of license renewal. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Refurbishment and maintenance activities would have some impact on air quality and ground and surface water use and quality. Industrial effluents, including cooling water, would continue to be discharged to the Mississippi River. Aquatic resources could be impacted by impingement, entrainment, and heat shock. Continued operation is likely to affect state-listed mussel species and could cause long-term destabilization to certain mussel populations. The plant is situated in an archaeologically sensitive area, but continued development of a cultural resources management plan would serve to integrate cultural resource considerations with ongoing activities. Slightly higher doses of radiation to members of the public could occur during refurbishment, but the dose to a maximally exposed individual would be a small fraction of standard limits. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on promulgation of rules for license renewals, see 91-0281D, Volume 15, Number 5 and 96-0226F, Volume 20, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0368D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110154, 751 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1437 Supp. 39 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Shellfish KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Mississippi River KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Wetland+Science&rft.issn=16725948&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 873128004; 14918-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined operating license (COL) for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor unit at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) site in Calvert County, Maryland is proposed. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the license to locate the proposed CCNPP Unit 3 on a site near Lusby. The 2,070-acre site on the Calvert Peninsula is situated on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, 40 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. The existing two pressurized water reactors (PWRs), associated facilities, a barge slip, and onsite transmission lines occupy 331 acres. The location for proposed Unit 3 is south of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, in the vicinity of the former Camp Conoy. Unit 3 would have a separate protected area and plant access road. The Unit 3 reactor building would be surrounded by the fuel pool building, four safeguard buildings, two emergency diesel generator buildings, the reactor auxiliary building, the radioactive waste processing building, and the access building. The vent stack for Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at approximately 211 feet above grade or about seven feet above the reactor building. Unlike existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2, which use once-through cooling systems, the Unit 3 design would consist of a closed-cycle cooling system with a single, circular, mechanical draft cooling tower. At an approximate height of 164 feet, this 528-foot diameter tower (at the base) would be the second largest structure on the site and is to be outfitted with plume abatement to minimize visible water vapor plume. Unit 3 buildings would be constructed of concrete. UniStar would utilize the Areva NP Inc. Evolutionary Power Reactor design and the proposed four-loop PWR is rated at 4,590 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,710 MW electrical and a net output of 1,562 MW electrical. During accidents, makeup water for the essential service water system would be supplied from the Chesapeake Bay through a ultimate heat sink intake structure. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers energy source alternatives, building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites, and system design alternatives. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COL be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional large baseload electrical generation capacity within Maryland and avoid rolling blackouts projected to occur as soon as 2011. The employment of a large workforce for up to 86 months would have positive economic impacts on the surrounding region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 460 acres and convert 320 acres to structures, pavement, or intensively maintained ground. Permanent disturbance would include 7.9 acres of forested nontidal wetlands, 1.2 acres of emergent nontidal wetlands, 2.6 acres of nontidal open water, 8,350 feet of streambed, and 5.7 acres of tidal open waters. Several surface water bodies and some of the aquifers underlying the site would be impacted. Land clearing would result in lost or decreased habitat for migratory birds. Dredging and the building of the intake and discharge structures would affect aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0044D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110157, Volume 1--879 pages, Volume 2--563 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1936 KW - Bays KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Maryland KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873127723; 14917-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses (COLs) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) site in Hood and Somervell counties, Texas is proposed. Luminant Generation Company LLC, acting for itself and as agent for Nuclear Project Company LLC (subsequently renamed Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Company LLC), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 19, 2008 for the proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 which would be located adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2. The CPNPP, which is situated 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth and five miles north of Glen Rose, currently consists of two Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor units, a turbine building, a switchyard, water intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. A radioactive waste disposal system and a fuel-handling system are located on the site. Squaw Creek Reservoir serves as the source of cooling water for Units 1 and 2. The proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would utilize Mitsubishi Heavy Industries U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor units, each having a rated and design core power level of 4,451 megawatts (MW) thermal and a rated and design net output of 1,600 MW electrical. The units would use enriched uranium dioxide fuel. Wet mechanical draft cooling towers are proposed for Units 3 and 4. Water would be supplied from a new intake structure on Lake Granbury through two new pipelines. A new blowdown water treatment facility and evaporation pond would be constructed south of Units 1 and 2 and two new pipelines would be built for discharge of treated blowdown water to Lake Granbury. Up to four new transmission lines would be built, including two added to existing towers and two built on new towers in new rights-of-way. A new sanitary waste treatment plant with a 100,000-gallon-per-day capacity would be installed and would be used to dewater sanitary waste sludge from all four units. Commercial electric generation is expected to begin in 2017 for CPNPP Unit 3 and in 2018 for Unit 4. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers alternative reactor sites and mitigation measures for reducing adverse impacts. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COLs be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the service areas of Luminant Generation Company. Significant employment and income benefits would accrue to Somervell and Hood counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the new units would disturb 675 acres of land, permanently convert 161 acres of prime farmland, and result in permanent loss of 445 acres of terrestrial habitat. Installation of a water intake structure could lead to a temporary increase in turbidity in Lake Granbury. Proposed transmission lines and pipelines could sever tracts of public and private property and one corridor could pass on or close to Dinosaur Valley State Park with potential to impact black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler. Withdrawal of water from Lake Granbury would result in lower water levels in the lake with potential impacts to aquatic resources and decreased flows in the Brazos River. Cooling system operation would impact shoreline vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0279D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110156, Volume 1--729 pages, Volume 2--383 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1943 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pipelines KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Granbury KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873127580; 14917-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses (COLs) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) site in Hood and Somervell counties, Texas is proposed. Luminant Generation Company LLC, acting for itself and as agent for Nuclear Project Company LLC (subsequently renamed Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Company LLC), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 19, 2008 for the proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 which would be located adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2. The CPNPP, which is situated 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth and five miles north of Glen Rose, currently consists of two Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor units, a turbine building, a switchyard, water intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. A radioactive waste disposal system and a fuel-handling system are located on the site. Squaw Creek Reservoir serves as the source of cooling water for Units 1 and 2. The proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would utilize Mitsubishi Heavy Industries U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor units, each having a rated and design core power level of 4,451 megawatts (MW) thermal and a rated and design net output of 1,600 MW electrical. The units would use enriched uranium dioxide fuel. Wet mechanical draft cooling towers are proposed for Units 3 and 4. Water would be supplied from a new intake structure on Lake Granbury through two new pipelines. A new blowdown water treatment facility and evaporation pond would be constructed south of Units 1 and 2 and two new pipelines would be built for discharge of treated blowdown water to Lake Granbury. Up to four new transmission lines would be built, including two added to existing towers and two built on new towers in new rights-of-way. A new sanitary waste treatment plant with a 100,000-gallon-per-day capacity would be installed and would be used to dewater sanitary waste sludge from all four units. Commercial electric generation is expected to begin in 2017 for CPNPP Unit 3 and in 2018 for Unit 4. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers alternative reactor sites and mitigation measures for reducing adverse impacts. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COLs be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the service areas of Luminant Generation Company. Significant employment and income benefits would accrue to Somervell and Hood counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the new units would disturb 675 acres of land, permanently convert 161 acres of prime farmland, and result in permanent loss of 445 acres of terrestrial habitat. Installation of a water intake structure could lead to a temporary increase in turbidity in Lake Granbury. Proposed transmission lines and pipelines could sever tracts of public and private property and one corridor could pass on or close to Dinosaur Valley State Park with potential to impact black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler. Withdrawal of water from Lake Granbury would result in lower water levels in the lake with potential impacts to aquatic resources and decreased flows in the Brazos River. Cooling system operation would impact shoreline vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0279D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110156, Volume 1--729 pages, Volume 2--383 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1943 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pipelines KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Granbury KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127580?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 873127556; 14918-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined operating license (COL) for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor unit at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) site in Calvert County, Maryland is proposed. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the license to locate the proposed CCNPP Unit 3 on a site near Lusby. The 2,070-acre site on the Calvert Peninsula is situated on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, 40 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. The existing two pressurized water reactors (PWRs), associated facilities, a barge slip, and onsite transmission lines occupy 331 acres. The location for proposed Unit 3 is south of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, in the vicinity of the former Camp Conoy. Unit 3 would have a separate protected area and plant access road. The Unit 3 reactor building would be surrounded by the fuel pool building, four safeguard buildings, two emergency diesel generator buildings, the reactor auxiliary building, the radioactive waste processing building, and the access building. The vent stack for Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at approximately 211 feet above grade or about seven feet above the reactor building. Unlike existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2, which use once-through cooling systems, the Unit 3 design would consist of a closed-cycle cooling system with a single, circular, mechanical draft cooling tower. At an approximate height of 164 feet, this 528-foot diameter tower (at the base) would be the second largest structure on the site and is to be outfitted with plume abatement to minimize visible water vapor plume. Unit 3 buildings would be constructed of concrete. UniStar would utilize the Areva NP Inc. Evolutionary Power Reactor design and the proposed four-loop PWR is rated at 4,590 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,710 MW electrical and a net output of 1,562 MW electrical. During accidents, makeup water for the essential service water system would be supplied from the Chesapeake Bay through a ultimate heat sink intake structure. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers energy source alternatives, building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites, and system design alternatives. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COL be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional large baseload electrical generation capacity within Maryland and avoid rolling blackouts projected to occur as soon as 2011. The employment of a large workforce for up to 86 months would have positive economic impacts on the surrounding region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 460 acres and convert 320 acres to structures, pavement, or intensively maintained ground. Permanent disturbance would include 7.9 acres of forested nontidal wetlands, 1.2 acres of emergent nontidal wetlands, 2.6 acres of nontidal open water, 8,350 feet of streambed, and 5.7 acres of tidal open waters. Several surface water bodies and some of the aquifers underlying the site would be impacted. Land clearing would result in lost or decreased habitat for migratory birds. Dredging and the building of the intake and discharge structures would affect aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0044D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110157, Volume 1--879 pages, Volume 2--563 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1936 KW - Bays KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Maryland KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2014-08-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+Biology+and+Biochemistry&rft.issn=00380717&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.soilbio.2014.03.019 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 871765709; 14918 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined operating license (COL) for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor unit at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) site in Calvert County, Maryland is proposed. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the license to locate the proposed CCNPP Unit 3 on a site near Lusby. The 2,070-acre site on the Calvert Peninsula is situated on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, 40 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. The existing two pressurized water reactors (PWRs), associated facilities, a barge slip, and onsite transmission lines occupy 331 acres. The location for proposed Unit 3 is south of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, in the vicinity of the former Camp Conoy. Unit 3 would have a separate protected area and plant access road. The Unit 3 reactor building would be surrounded by the fuel pool building, four safeguard buildings, two emergency diesel generator buildings, the reactor auxiliary building, the radioactive waste processing building, and the access building. The vent stack for Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at approximately 211 feet above grade or about seven feet above the reactor building. Unlike existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2, which use once-through cooling systems, the Unit 3 design would consist of a closed-cycle cooling system with a single, circular, mechanical draft cooling tower. At an approximate height of 164 feet, this 528-foot diameter tower (at the base) would be the second largest structure on the site and is to be outfitted with plume abatement to minimize visible water vapor plume. Unit 3 buildings would be constructed of concrete. UniStar would utilize the Areva NP Inc. Evolutionary Power Reactor design and the proposed four-loop PWR is rated at 4,590 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1,710 MW electrical and a net output of 1,562 MW electrical. During accidents, makeup water for the essential service water system would be supplied from the Chesapeake Bay through a ultimate heat sink intake structure. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers energy source alternatives, building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites, and system design alternatives. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COL be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional large baseload electrical generation capacity within Maryland and avoid rolling blackouts projected to occur as soon as 2011. The employment of a large workforce for up to 86 months would have positive economic impacts on the surrounding region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 460 acres and convert 320 acres to structures, pavement, or intensively maintained ground. Permanent disturbance would include 7.9 acres of forested nontidal wetlands, 1.2 acres of emergent nontidal wetlands, 2.6 acres of nontidal open water, 8,350 feet of streambed, and 5.7 acres of tidal open waters. Several surface water bodies and some of the aquifers underlying the site would be impacted. Land clearing would result in lost or decreased habitat for migratory birds. Dredging and the building of the intake and discharge structures would affect aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0044D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110157, Volume 1--879 pages, Volume 2--563 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1936 KW - Bays KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Maryland KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/871765709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, HOOD AND SOMERVELL COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 871765702; 14917 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses (COLs) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) site in Hood and Somervell counties, Texas is proposed. Luminant Generation Company LLC, acting for itself and as agent for Nuclear Project Company LLC (subsequently renamed Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Company LLC), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 19, 2008 for the proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 which would be located adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2. The CPNPP, which is situated 40 miles southwest of Fort Worth and five miles north of Glen Rose, currently consists of two Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor units, a turbine building, a switchyard, water intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. A radioactive waste disposal system and a fuel-handling system are located on the site. Squaw Creek Reservoir serves as the source of cooling water for Units 1 and 2. The proposed CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would utilize Mitsubishi Heavy Industries U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor units, each having a rated and design core power level of 4,451 megawatts (MW) thermal and a rated and design net output of 1,600 MW electrical. The units would use enriched uranium dioxide fuel. Wet mechanical draft cooling towers are proposed for Units 3 and 4. Water would be supplied from a new intake structure on Lake Granbury through two new pipelines. A new blowdown water treatment facility and evaporation pond would be constructed south of Units 1 and 2 and two new pipelines would be built for discharge of treated blowdown water to Lake Granbury. Up to four new transmission lines would be built, including two added to existing towers and two built on new towers in new rights-of-way. A new sanitary waste treatment plant with a 100,000-gallon-per-day capacity would be installed and would be used to dewater sanitary waste sludge from all four units. Commercial electric generation is expected to begin in 2017 for CPNPP Unit 3 and in 2018 for Unit 4. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers alternative reactor sites and mitigation measures for reducing adverse impacts. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COLs be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity within the service areas of Luminant Generation Company. Significant employment and income benefits would accrue to Somervell and Hood counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the new units would disturb 675 acres of land, permanently convert 161 acres of prime farmland, and result in permanent loss of 445 acres of terrestrial habitat. Installation of a water intake structure could lead to a temporary increase in turbidity in Lake Granbury. Proposed transmission lines and pipelines could sever tracts of public and private property and one corridor could pass on or close to Dinosaur Valley State Park with potential to impact black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler. Withdrawal of water from Lake Granbury would result in lower water levels in the lake with potential impacts to aquatic resources and decreased flows in the Brazos River. Cooling system operation would impact shoreline vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0279D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110156, Volume 1--729 pages, Volume 2--383 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1943 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pipelines KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Granbury KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/871765702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMANCHE+PEAK+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+HOOD+AND+SOMERVELL+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, RED WING, GOODHUE COUNTY, MINNESOTA (THIRTY-NINTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). AN - 871765688; 14915 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal of operating licenses for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) Units 1 and 2, located on the west bank of the Mississippi River within the city limits of Red Wing, Goodhue County, Minnesota is proposed to extend the licensed plant life for an additional 20 years. The final EIS of 1996 on promulgation of rules for all license renewals identified 92 environmental issues and reached generic conclusions relating to impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants. Neither the applicant, Northern States Power Company, nor staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified new information for any of the 69 issues. The remaining 23 issues are addressed in this 39th supplement to the final generic EIS of May 1996. If the licenses are renewed, federal and state agencies and the owners of the plant would go on to decide whether the plant should continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power. If the operating licenses are not renewed, PINGP Units 1 and 2 would be shut down on or before expiration of the current licenses, August 9, 2013 and October 29, 2014, respectively. The two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors utilize a hybrid cooling system, which consists of three modes of operation: open cycle, or once-through cooling with no cooling towers in operation; helper cycle, or once-through cooling with mechanical draft cooling towers in operation; and closed cycle using cooling towers to recirculate up to 95 percent of the cooling water. The plant is licensed to operate at 1,650 megawatts-thermal per unit, or 575 megawatts-electrical of gross electrical output per unit. Buildings on the site include the four natural draft cooling towers, the reactor building, auxiliary building, turbine building, intake and plant screenhouses, and the PINGP 1 and 2 substation. Spent fuel is stored in a pool inside the plant until it is cooled, and transferred to dry storage containers in the on-site Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Spent fuel will be stored there until the federal government removes it to be reprocessed or stored at a government facility. As of early 2010, Prairie Island's ISFSI housed 26 dry-storage containers, which hold a store of 1,040 spent fuel assemblies. In addition to the proposed license renewal, other methods of power generation and a No Action Alternative are considered. Replacement power options include: 1) gas-fired combined-cycle plant at the PINGP 1 and 2 site and an undetermined alternate site; 2) a combination including a gas-fired unit, wind power, conservation, and wood-waste biomass; and 3) a combination including continued operation of one of the two PINGP units, wind power, and conservation. NRCs recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for PINGP 1 and 2 are not great enough to deny the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Renewal of the license would allow the applicant to meet the needs of its regional energy purchasers. All alternatives capable of meeting the needs currently served by PINGP 1 and 2 entail potentially equal or greater impacts than the proposed action of license renewal. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Refurbishment and maintenance activities would have some impact on air quality and ground and surface water use and quality. Industrial effluents, including cooling water, would continue to be discharged to the Mississippi River. Aquatic resources could be impacted by impingement, entrainment, and heat shock. Continued operation is likely to affect state-listed mussel species and could cause long-term destabilization to certain mussel populations. The plant is situated in an archaeologically sensitive area, but continued development of a cultural resources management plan would serve to integrate cultural resource considerations with ongoing activities. Slightly higher doses of radiation to members of the public could occur during refurbishment, but the dose to a maximally exposed individual would be a small fraction of standard limits. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on promulgation of rules for license renewals, see 91-0281D, Volume 15, Number 5 and 96-0226F, Volume 20, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0368D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110154, 751 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1437 Supp. 39 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Shellfish KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Mississippi River KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/871765688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+PRAIRIE+ISLAND+NUCLEAR+GENERATING+PLANT%2C+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+RED+WING%2C+GOODHUE+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+%28THIRTY-NINTH+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.title=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+PRAIRIE+ISLAND+NUCLEAR+GENERATING+PLANT%2C+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+RED+WING%2C+GOODHUE+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA+%28THIRTY-NINTH+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PLANT IN PIKETON, PIKE COUNTY, OHIO (U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUREG-1834 ADOPTED AS DOE/EIS-0468). AN - 871765681; 14914 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a loan guarantee to USEC Inc. to support funding for the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) in Piketon, Ohio is proposed. Piketon lies between Chillicothe and Portsmouth, approximately 70 miles south of Columbus, Ohio. The ACP would enrich feed material comprised of uranium hexaflouride to produce uranium for use in commercial fuel for power reactors. Enrichment is the process of increasing the concentration of the naturally occurring fissionable uranium-235 isotope. USEC proposes to enrich uranium up to 10 percent by weight of uranium-235. Prior to the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Programs Office involvement in the ACP project, USEC submitted a license application for the construction and operation of the proposed gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In April, 2007, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a 30-year license and USEC started construction of the ACP in May 2007 at the former DOE Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP) located at the existing DOE Portsmouth Reservation in Piketon. USEC has rights to the long-term use of facilities at the GCEP through 2043 and these facilities are being refurbished as part of the ACP project. Activities currently underway include: building the balance of the plant, including installing electric, telecommunications, and cooling water distribution systems; preparing the process building floor for centrifuge machine mounts; preparing the recycle and assembly building for installation of centrifuge machine assembly equipment; constructing a new boiler building; and refurbishing the feed and withdrawal facility. In August 2007, the lead cascade test program began in accordance with USECs demonstration license. Through 2010, USEC implemented an extensive testing program, initiated its technology demonstration activities, refined the centrifuge manufacturing processes and its operation, and is currently focused on technology demonstration activities. In the commercial deployment phase, the ACP would have a capacity of 3.8 million separative work units (SWU) per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ACP would provide much of the uramium-235 necessary to generate a large portion of the 393 gigawatts of new generating capacity required to meet the nation's needs by 2020. This would require an installed nuclear-generating capacity increase from 98 gigawatts in 2001 to 103 gigawatts in 2025, which is the equivalent of five nuclear reactors. In addition to advancing national energy security goals, the ACP plant would help facilitate the deployment of new, cost-effective, advanced enrichment technology. Gas centrifuge technology is less energy intensive than the gaseous diffusion technology currently in use. The ACP would provide for significant local employment opportunities and otherwise contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Slight impacts would result with respect to land use, historic and cultural resources, visual aesthetics, air quality, geologic and soil resources, water resources, ecological resources, socioeconomics, noise levels, transportation-related radiological hazards, occupational health and safety, and waste management. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the NRC final EIS, see 06-0327F, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110153, Final EIS--1,090 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0468 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dosimetry KW - Employment KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Fuels KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Ohio KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/871765681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=247&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+Biology+and+Biochemistry&rft.issn=00380717&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.soilbio.2007.08.021 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Loan Programs Office, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AREVA EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY, BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO (U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUREG-1945 ADOPTED AS DOE/EIS-0471). AN - 871764939; 14911 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a loan guarantee to Areva Energy Services, LLC (AES) for the construction of a uranium enrichment facility in Bonneville County, Idaho is proposed. The Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) would be located on a 460-acre section of a 4,200-acre parcel of rural land and would employ a gas centrifuge process to produce commercial nuclear fuel. Prior to the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Programs Office involvement in the project, AES submitted a license application for the construction and operation of the proposed facility to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). A final EIS was issued in February, 2011, but the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has yet to issue its final decision on the license. The license would authorize AES to possess and use byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear material at the proposed EREF site near Idaho Falls for a period of 30 years. AES would produce uranium enriched up to five percent by weight in the isotope uranium-235, with a planned maximum target production of 6.6 million separative work units (SWUs) per year. The enriched uranium would be used to manufacture nuclear fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors. Production at the facility would be equivalent to about 40 percent of the current and projected demand for enrichment services within the United States. Uranium would arrive at the proposed EREF as natural uranium hexafluoride (UF6). Facilities would include: cylinder storage pads, a centrifuge assembly building, four separations building modules (SBMs), a cylinder receipt and shipping building, and various support and administrative buildings. If the license is approved, construction would begin in 2011 with heavy construction of all major buildings and structures continuing for seven years. The EREF would begin initial production in 2014 and reach peak production in 2022. Operations would continue until approximately nine years before the license expires. Decommissioning activities would then begin and be completed by 2041 unless AES applies for license renewal. Decommissioning would involve the sequential shutdown of the four SBMs, each taking approximately 4.5 years. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternative sites for the facility, alternative sources of low-enriched uranium, and alternative technologies for uranium enrichment. NRC staff have concluded that impacts would be generally small, and application of the environmental monitoring program and the proposed mitigation measures would eliminate or substantially lessen any potential adverse impacts. Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, it is recommended that the proposed license be issued to AES. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The EREF would provide an additional economical domestic source of uranium enrichment services, and increased regional employment, income, and tax revenue. Construction would create 1,687 jobs in the peak year, while operations would produce 3,289 jobs and $92.4 million in income in the first year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in some soil erosion, soil compaction, changes in drainage patterns, and disruption to wildlife. The John Leopard Homestead, which has been recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be destroyed. Traffic volume on US 20 would increase. During operations, there would be a potential for small gaseous releases that could contain uranium isotopes, hydrogen fluoride, and uranyl fluoride. A critical accident could result in fatality for workers in close proximity. Six potential accident scenarios predict consequences to the collective offsite public of less than one lifetime cancer fatality. Operation would generate 11,136 pounds of hazardous wastes and 1,222 cylinders of depleted uranium annually. The EREF would be located 1.5 miles from US 20 and the Hell's Half Acre Wilderness Study Area and would create a significant contrast with the surrounding visual environment. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110150, Final EIS--1,051 pages, May 20, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0471 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Dosimetry KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Materials Handling KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Public Health KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Idaho KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/871764939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AREVA+EAGLE+ROCK+ENRICHMENT+FACILITY%2C+BONNEVILLE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO+%28U.S.+NUCLEAR+REGULATORY+COMMISSION+NUREG-1945+ADOPTED+AS+DOE%2FEIS-0471%29.&rft.title=AREVA+EAGLE+ROCK+ENRICHMENT+FACILITY%2C+BONNEVILLE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO+%28U.S.+NUCLEAR+REGULATORY+COMMISSION+NUREG-1945+ADOPTED+AS+DOE%2FEIS-0471%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Loan Programs Office, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 20, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Thermal-hydraulic and safety aspects of UO sub(2 fuel for low-power reactors) AN - 918044430; 14917627 AB - The low enriched uranium UO sub(2 (about 19.75% U[super]235) fuel is proposed to be used in low-power research reactors. The thermal-hydraulic and dynamic characteristics are examined in this paper. The fuel behaves similarly to the actual highly enriched uranium fuel in the normal daily operation for both Miniature Neutron Source Reactors and SLOWPOKEs, the cladding temperature reaching about 60 [deg]C. During the simulation of a design basis accident the reactor power peak and temperatures are found to be higher than in the case of the highly enriched uranium fuel for MNSRs, the power peak touching 135 kW, and the cladding temperature reaching over 110 [deg]C in this case. Nevertheless the fuel can be safely used in these reactors.) JF - Progress in Nuclear Energy AU - Albarhoum, M AD - Department of Nuclear Engineering, Atomic Energy Commission, P. O. Box 6091, Damascus, Syria, pscientific@aec.org.sy Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 354 EP - 360 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 53 IS - 4 SN - 0149-1970, 0149-1970 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Low-power research reactors KW - Thermal hydraulics KW - Power KW - Temperature KW - DBA KW - MNSRs KW - Accidents KW - Nuclear reactors KW - safety engineering KW - Safety engineering KW - Fuels KW - Uranium KW - Nuclear fuels KW - Simulation KW - Nuclear energy KW - ENA 03:Energy KW - H 8000:Radiation Safety/Electrical Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918044430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Progress+in+Nuclear+Energy&rft.atitle=Thermal-hydraulic+and+safety+aspects+of+UO+sub%282+fuel+for+low-power+reactors%29&rft.au=Albarhoum%2C+M&rft.aulast=Albarhoum&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=354&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Progress+in+Nuclear+Energy&rft.issn=01491970&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.pnucene.2011.01.004 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-04 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Accidents; safety engineering; Nuclear reactors; Safety engineering; Uranium; Fuels; Nuclear fuels; Temperature; Simulation; Nuclear energy DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2011.01.004 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Fukushima Area Airborne Monitoring AN - 876017717 AB - In order to understand the effects over a wide area due to radioactive .substances, and for the assessment of doses and of the deposition of radioactive substances for future evacuation zones, the Ministry of Education. Culture. Sports, Science and Technology, Japan and the U.S. Department of Energy (hereinafter, "U.S. JF - Nuclear Plant Journal AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011///May/Jun PY - 2011 DA - May/Jun 2011 SP - 38 EP - 39 CY - Glen Ellyn PB - EQES, Inc. VL - 29 IS - 3 SN - 08922055 KW - Energy KW - Nuclear accidents & safety KW - Nuclear power plants KW - Airborne particulates KW - Radioactive materials KW - Emissions testing KW - Fukushima Japan KW - 9179:Asia & the Pacific KW - 8340:Electric, water & gas utilities KW - 1540:Pollution control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876017717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabiglobal&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Nuclear+Plant+Journal&rft.atitle=Fukushima+Area+Airborne+Monitoring&rft.au=Anonymous&rft.aulast=Anonymous&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=38&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Nuclear+Plant+Journal&rft.issn=08922055&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright EQES, Inc. May/Jun 2011 N1 - Document feature - Maps N1 - Last updated - 2015-05-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Fukushima Japan ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effect of palladium dispersion on the capture of toxic components from fuel gas by palladium-alumina sorbents AN - 862784016; 14612045 AB - The dispersion and location of Pd in alumina-supported sorbents prepared by different methods was found to influence the performance of the sorbents in the removal of mercury, arsine, and hydrogen selenide from a simulated fuel gas. When Pd is well dispersed in the pores of the support, contact interaction with the support is maximized, Pd is less susceptible to poisoning by sulfur, and the sorbent has better long-term activity for adsorption of arsine and hydrogen selenide, but poorer adsorption capacity for Hg. As the contact interaction between Pd and the support is lessened the Pd becomes more susceptible to poisoning by sulfur, resulting in higher capacity for Hg, but poorer long-term performance for adsorption of arsenic and selenium. JF - Fuel AU - Baltrus, John P AU - Granite, Evan J AU - Rupp, Erik C AU - Stanko, Dennis C AU - Howard, Bret AU - Pennline, Henry W AD - US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, PO Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940, USA, john.baltrus@netl.doe.gov Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 1992 EP - 1998 PB - Elsevier, Ltd., The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB UK VL - 90 IS - 5 SN - 0016-2361, 0016-2361 KW - Environment Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts KW - Mercury KW - Arsenic KW - Selenium KW - Palladium KW - Fuel gas KW - Sulfur KW - Sorbents KW - Fuels KW - Adsorption KW - Poisoning KW - Hydrogen KW - P 6000:TOXICOLOGY AND HEALTH KW - ENA 07:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/862784016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Fuel&rft.atitle=Effect+of+palladium+dispersion+on+the+capture+of+toxic+components+from+fuel+gas+by+palladium-alumina+sorbents&rft.au=Baltrus%2C+John+P%3BGranite%2C+Evan+J%3BRupp%2C+Erik+C%3BStanko%2C+Dennis+C%3BHoward%2C+Bret%3BPennline%2C+Henry+W&rft.aulast=Baltrus&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1992&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Fuel&rft.issn=00162361&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.fuel.2011.01.001 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Sulfur; Selenium; Sorbents; Fuels; Poisoning; Adsorption; Mercury; Hydrogen; Palladium DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.01.001 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Assessment of heritable genetic effects using new genetic tools and sentinels in an era of personalized medicine. AN - 861204802; 21472782 AB - The challenge of estimating human health effects from damage to the germ line may be met in the genomic era. Understanding the genetic, as opposed to postconception developmental basis of birth defects is critical to their use in monitoring heritable genetic damage. The causes of common birth defects are analyzed here: mendelian genetic, multigenic, developmental, inherited, or combinational. Only a small fraction of these (noninherited, mendelian genetic) are likely to be informative relative to germ cell mutagenesis, and these won't be discernible against the general background of birth defects. Targeted genetic testing as part of personalized medicine could be integrated into a strategy for assessing germ cell alterations in populations. Thus, "sentinel mutations," as originally proposed by Mulvihill and Ceizel, need not be restricted to X-linked or dominant mutations or conditions visible at birth. Several new sentinels related to personalized medicine are proposed, based on health impact (likelihood of monitoring), frequency, and genetic target suitability (responsiveness to diverse mutational mechanisms). Candidates could include CYP genes (related to metabolism of xenobiotics) important in optimizing drug doses and avoiding adverse reactions. High frequency LDLR mutations (related to familial high cholesterol) predict myocardial infarction in approximately50% of individuals. The more common recessive genetic diseases (cystic fibrosis, phenylketonuria, and others) monitored in newborn screening programs could be informative given parental analysis. New opportunities for genetic analyses need to be coupled with epidemiological studies on environmental exposures. These could focus on adverse outcomes related to tobacco, the mostubiquitous and potent environmental mutagen. Published 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc. JF - Environmental and molecular mutagenesis AU - Elespuru, Rosalie K AD - Division of Biology, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. rosalie.elespuru@fda.hhs.gov Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 253 EP - 263 VL - 52 IS - 4 KW - Mutagens KW - 0 KW - Index Medicus KW - Risk KW - Germ Cells KW - Genetic Testing -- methods KW - Genetic Predisposition to Disease -- genetics KW - Humans KW - Genetic Predisposition to Disease -- epidemiology KW - Mutation KW - Male KW - Genetic Testing -- statistics & numerical data KW - Female KW - Precision Medicine KW - Genetic Diseases, Inborn -- genetics KW - Genetic Diseases, Inborn -- epidemiology KW - Congenital Abnormalities -- epidemiology KW - Congenital Abnormalities -- genetics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/861204802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+and+molecular+mutagenesis&rft.atitle=Assessment+of+heritable+genetic+effects+using+new+genetic+tools+and+sentinels+in+an+era+of+personalized+medicine.&rft.au=Elespuru%2C+Rosalie+K&rft.aulast=Elespuru&rft.aufirst=Rosalie&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=253&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+and+molecular+mutagenesis&rft.issn=1098-2280&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fem.20637 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2011-06-22 N1 - Date created - 2011-04-07 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/em.20637 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Monte Carlo simulation of core physics parameters of the Syrian MNSR reactor AN - 1777169531; 14524958 AB - a-[ordm Axial neutron flux distributions in the fourth inner irradiation position. a-[ordm Axial neutron flux distributions in the fourth outer irradiation position. a-[ordm Calculated and measured reactivity worths of the top Be shim plates. a-[ordm Measured and calculated control rod reactivity worths versus the insertion height. A 3-D neutronic model for the Syrian Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR) was developed earlier to conduct the reactor neutronic analysis using the MCNP-4C code. The continuous energy neutron cross sections were evaluated from the ENDF/B-VI library. This model is used in this paper to calculate the following reactor core physics parameters: the clean cold core excess reactivity, calibration of the control rod and calculation its shut down margin, calibration of the top beryllium shim plate reflector, the axial neutron flux distributions in the inner and outer irradiation positions and calculations of the prompt neutron life time ( l p ) and the effective delayed neutron fraction ( beta eff ). Good agreements are noticed between the calculated and the measured results. These agreements indicate that the established model is an accurate representation of Syrian MNSR core and will be used for other calculations in the future. JF - Annals of Nuclear Energy AU - Khattab, K AU - Sulieman, I AD - Nuclear Engineering Department, Atomic Energy Commission, P.O. Box 6091, Damascus, Syria Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 1211 EP - 1213 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 38 IS - 5 SN - 0306-4549, 0306-4549 KW - Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (MT); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); Electronics and Communications Abstracts (EA); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - MNSR KW - MCNP KW - Excess reactivity KW - Control rod KW - Beryllium shim KW - Flux KW - Nuclear power generation KW - Nuclear reactors KW - Mathematical models KW - Computer simulation KW - Irradiation KW - Neutron flux KW - Nuclear reactor components KW - Nuclear engineering UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777169531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Annals+of+Nuclear+Energy&rft.atitle=Monte+Carlo+simulation+of+core+physics+parameters+of+the+Syrian+MNSR+reactor&rft.au=Khattab%2C+K%3BSulieman%2C+I&rft.aulast=Khattab&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1211&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Annals+of+Nuclear+Energy&rft.issn=03064549&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.anucene.2011.01.018 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2011.01.018 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The use of U3Si2 dispersed fuel in Low-Power Research Reactors AN - 1777158256; 14524959 AB - The use of U3Si2 as a Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) dispersed fuel in Low-Power Research Reactors is investigated in this paper. The fuel proves to be usable if some of the original fuel rods (HEU UAl4-Al fuel) are still simultaneously employed (mixed core) without changing the structure of the actual core. About 3.5712mk Initial Excess Reactivity (IER) is procured. Although the worths of both the control rod and the reactivity devices decrease, the safety of these reactors is higher in the case of the new LEU fuel. If the dimensions of the meat and/or the clad are allowed to change these reactors can be run with a meat 2.15mm outer radius, and a clad 0.58mm thickness. The IER will then be 4.1537mk, and both the control rod (CR) worth and the safety margins decrease. JF - Annals of Nuclear Energy AU - Albarhoum, M AD - Department of Nuclear Engineering, Atomic Energy Commission, P.O. Box, 6091, Damascus, Syria pscientific1@aec.org.sy Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 1206 EP - 1210 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 38 IS - 5 SN - 0306-4549, 0306-4549 KW - Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (MT); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); Electronics and Communications Abstracts (EA); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - LEU KW - Low-Power Reactors KW - MNSR KW - Fuel KW - Initial Excess Reactivity KW - Shut-down margin KW - Meat KW - Nuclear power generation KW - Nuclear reactors KW - Fuels KW - Control rods KW - Nuclear reactor components KW - Nuclear research reactors KW - Nuclear engineering UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777158256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Annals+of+Nuclear+Energy&rft.atitle=The+use+of+U3Si2+dispersed+fuel+in+Low-Power+Research+Reactors&rft.au=Albarhoum%2C+M&rft.aulast=Albarhoum&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1206&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Annals+of+Nuclear+Energy&rft.issn=03064549&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.anucene.2010.09.015 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2010.09.015 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Environmental isotope study of groundwater discharge from the large karst springs in West Syria; a case study of Figeh and Al-sin Springs AN - 1020538672; 2012-055774 AB - Environmental isotopes (delta (super 18) O, delta D and (super 3) H) in precipitation and groundwater were integrated for the description of groundwater discharge from the large karst springs of Figeh and Al-sin located in West Syria. The two springs are considered as the most important springs in this Middle East country due to their huge discharge. The delta (super 18) O values are -8.91 and -6.49 ppm for Figeh and Al-sin, respectively. The regression line for both precipitation and groundwater is described by the equation: delta D = 7.9delta (super 18) O + 19.7, which shows no evaporation during precipitation and suggests that the groundwater is mainly from direct infiltration of precipitation. The altitude gradients in the precipitation were estimated to be -0.23 ppm/100 m for delta (super 18) O. The main recharge areas are 2,100 and 750 m.a.s.l., for Figeh and Al-sin Springs, respectively. The tritium concentrations in groundwater are low and very close to the rainfall values of 4.5 and 3.5 TU for Bloudan and Kadmous meteoric stations, respectively. Adopting a model with exponential time distribution, the main residence time of groundwater in Figeh and Al-sin Springs was evaluated to be 50-60 years. A value of around 3.9 and 4.2 billion m (super 3) was obtained for Figeh and Al-sin, respectively, as the maximum groundwater reservoir size. Copyright 2010 Springer-Verlag JF - Environmental Earth Sciences AU - Al-Charideh, A Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 1 EP - 10 PB - Springer, Berlin VL - 63 IS - 1 SN - 1866-6280, 1866-6280 KW - climatic controls KW - oxygen KW - isotopes KW - Syria KW - karst hydrology KW - atmospheric precipitation KW - stable isotopes KW - ground water KW - sedimentary rocks KW - drainage basins KW - springs KW - discharge KW - Asia KW - Middle East KW - hydrology KW - rainfall KW - isotope ratios KW - Figeh Spring KW - O-18/O-16 KW - water table KW - fluctuations KW - recharge KW - Al-Sin Spring KW - D/H KW - hydrogen KW - residence time KW - carbonate rocks KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 02D:Isotope geochemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020538672?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Earth+Sciences&rft.atitle=Environmental+isotope+study+of+groundwater+discharge+from+the+large+karst+springs+in+West+Syria%3B+a+case+study+of+Figeh+and+Al-sin+Springs&rft.au=Al-Charideh%2C+A&rft.aulast=Al-Charideh&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Earth+Sciences&rft.issn=18666280&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs12665-010-0660-x L2 - http://www.springerlink.com/content/1866-6280 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Springer Verlag, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 30 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables, geol. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-10-18 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Al-Sin Spring; Asia; atmospheric precipitation; carbonate rocks; climatic controls; D/H; discharge; drainage basins; Figeh Spring; fluctuations; ground water; hydrogen; hydrology; isotope ratios; isotopes; karst hydrology; Middle East; O-18/O-16; oxygen; rainfall; recharge; residence time; sedimentary rocks; springs; stable isotopes; Syria; water table DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0660-x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A new best-estimate methodology for determining magnetic parameters related to field anomalies produced by buried thin dikes and horizontal cylinder-like structures AN - 1008849612; 598017-8 AB - A new best estimate methodology is proposed and oriented towards the determination of parameters related to a magnetic field anomaly produced by a simple geometric-shaped model or body such as a thin dike and horizontal cylinder. This approach is mainly based on solving a system of algebraic linear equations for estimating the three model parameters, e.g., the depth to the top (center) of the body (z), the index parameter or the effective magnetization angle (theta ) and the amplitude coefficient or the effective magnetization intensity (k). The utility and validity of this method is demonstrated by analyzing two synthetic magnetic anomalies, using simulated data generated from a known model with different random errors components and a known statistical distribution. This approach was also examined and applied to two real field magnetic anomalies from the United States and Brazil. The agreement between the results obtained by the proposed method and those obtained by other interpretation methods is good and comparable. Moreover, the depth obtained by such an approach is found to be in high accordance with that obtained from drilling information. The advantages of such a proposed method over other existing interpretative techniques are clarified, where it can be generalized to be automatically applicable for interpreting other geological structures described by mathematical formulations. Copyright 2011 Springer Basel AG and 2010 Birkhauser/Springer Basel AG JF - Pure and Applied Geophysics AU - Tlas, M AU - Asfahani, J Y1 - 2011/05// PY - 2011 DA - May 2011 SP - 861 EP - 870 PB - Birkhaeuser, Basel VL - 168 IS - 5 SN - 0033-4553, 0033-4553 KW - United States KW - Parnaiba Dike KW - Pima Mine KW - geophysical methods KW - magnetization KW - magnetic methods KW - magnetic anomalies KW - mathematical models KW - new methods KW - depth KW - statistical distribution KW - geometry KW - South America KW - intrusions KW - dikes KW - errors KW - Parnaiba Basin KW - Brazil KW - Arizona KW - interpretation KW - Pima County Arizona KW - accuracy KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1008849612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Pure+and+Applied+Geophysics&rft.atitle=A+new+best-estimate+methodology+for+determining+magnetic+parameters+related+to+field+anomalies+produced+by+buried+thin+dikes+and+horizontal+cylinder-like+structures&rft.au=Tlas%2C+M%3BAsfahani%2C+J&rft.aulast=Tlas&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=168&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=861&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Pure+and+Applied+Geophysics&rft.issn=00334553&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs00024-010-0104-2 L2 - http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00024/index.htm LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. Reference includes data supplied by Springer Verlag, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany N1 - Number of references - 26 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 N1 - CODEN - PAGYAV N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accuracy; Arizona; Brazil; depth; dikes; errors; geometry; geophysical methods; interpretation; intrusions; magnetic anomalies; magnetic methods; magnetization; mathematical models; new methods; Parnaiba Basin; Parnaiba Dike; Pima County Arizona; Pima Mine; South America; statistical distribution; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0104-2 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 6 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873133874; 14886-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-08-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=16&rft.spage=4653&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Shengtai+Xuebao%2FActa+Ecologica+Sinica&rft.issn=10000933&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 5 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873133870; 14886-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133870?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 2 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873133559; 14886-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133559?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 1 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873133554; 14886-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Homeland+Security+Affairs&rft.issn=1558643X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 15 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873130839; 14886-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130839?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 14 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873130651; 14886-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 13 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873130633; 14886-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 12 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873130624; 14886-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 11 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873130615; 14886-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130615?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 10 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873130610; 14886-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130610?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 9 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873130600; 14886-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 8 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873130591; 14886-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 7 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873130575; 14886-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130575?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 4 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873130486; 14886-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). [Part 3 of 15] T2 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 873130479; 14886-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NUCLEAR FACILITY PORTION OF THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH BUILDING REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2003). AN - 16379723; 14886 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the nuclear facility portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (CMR) Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico is proposed. The existing CMR, constructed in the early 1950s, has housed most of the analytical chemistry and materials characterization capabilities at LANL. Other capabilities at the CMR include actinide processing and waste characterization which support a variety of National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear materials management programs. The CMR has operational, safety, and seismic issues that led to the decision to replace it. In 2004, NNSA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) to construct a two-building replacement facility in LANL Technical Area 55 (TA-55), with one building providing administrative space and support functions and the other building providing secure laboratory space for nuclear research and analytical support activities (a nuclear facility). The first building, the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building (RLUOB), has been constructed and is being outfitted with equipment and furniture. Occupancy is currently estimated to begin in 2011, with radiological laboratory operations commencing in 2012. Enhanced safety requirements and updated seismic information have led NNSA to re-evaluate the design concept of the second building, the CMR Building Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the CMRR-NF would be constructed as described in the 2004 ROD as a Hazard Category 2 facility. Under the Modified CMRR-NF Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, a new CMRR-NF would be constructed above and below ground at TA-55, adjacent to RLUOB, with certain design and construction modifications and additional support activities that address seismic safety, infrastructure enhancements, nuclear safety-basis requirements, and sustainable design principles. Two construction options, deep excavation and shallow excavation, would both involve constructing the CMRR-NF to survive a design-basis earthquake without significant damage. The analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations and associated Hazard Category 2 and 3 laboratory capabilities would be relocated over three years from their current locations at the CMR to the Modified CMRR-NF. Under the Continued Use of CMR Building Alternative, a replacement facility to house the capabilities planned for the CMRR-NF would not be constructed, but operations would continue in the CMR at TA-3, with normal maintenance and component replacements at the level needed to sustain programmatic operations for as long as feasible. Certain analytical chemistry and materials characterization operations would be restricted and administrative and radiological laboratory operations would take place in the RLUOB. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the CMRR-NF would provide for safe, up-to-date research facilities within one consolidated location for the next 50 years. Peak construction activities would employ about 790 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Modified CMRR-NF would require up to three concrete batch plants. A total of 125 acres of land would be used under the Deep Excavation Option and a total 105 acres under the Shallow Excavation Option to support the proposed construction effort. Permanent land disturbance would affect 28.1 acres. Construction on undeveloped land and spoils storage areas would cause loss of some wildlife habitat. Construction in these potential areas of concern may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl and the southwestern willow flycatcher. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0472D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0225F, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110130, Summary--66 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--460 pages, April 29, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0350-S1 KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - New Mexico UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.title=NUCLEAR+FACILITY+PORTION+OF+THE+CHEMISTRY+AND+METALLURGY+RESEARCH+BUILDING+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT+AT+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos, New Mexico; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Monitoring botulinum neurotoxin a activity with peptide-functionalized quantum dot resonance energy transfer sensors. AN - 863767028; 21361387 AB - Botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs) are extremely potent bacterial toxins that contaminate food supplies along with having a high potential for exploitation as bioterrorism agents. There is a continuing need to rapidly and sensitively detect exposure to these toxins and to verify their active state, as the latter directly affects diagnosis and helps provide effective treatments. We investigate the use of semiconductor quantum dot (QD)-peptide Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) assemblies to monitor the activity of the BoNT serotype A light chain protease (LcA). A modular LcA peptide substrate was designed and optimized to contain a central LcA recognition/cleavage region, a unique residue to allow labeling with a Cy3 acceptor dye, an extended linker-spacer sequence, and a terminal oligohistidine that allows for final ratiometric peptide-QD-self-assembly. A number of different QD materials displaying charged or PEGylated surface-coatings were evaluated for their ability to self-assemble dye-labeled LcA peptide substrates by monitoring FRET interactions. Proteolytic assays were performed utilizing either a direct peptide-on-QD format or alternatively an indirect pre-exposure of peptide to LcA prior to QD assembly. Variable activities were obtained depending on QD materials and formats used with the most sensitive pre-exposure assay result demonstrating a 350 pM LcA limit of detection. Modeling the various QD-peptide sensor constructs provided insight into how the resulting assembly architecture influenced LcA recognition interactions and subsequent activity. These results also highlight the unique roles that both peptide design and QD features, especially surface-capping agents, contribute to overall sensor activity. JF - ACS nano AU - Sapsford, Kim E AU - Granek, Jessica AU - Deschamps, Jeffrey R AU - Boeneman, Kelly AU - Blanco-Canosa, Juan Bautista AU - Dawson, Philip E AU - Susumu, Kimihiro AU - Stewart, Michael H AU - Medintz, Igor L AD - Division of Biology, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993, USA. Kim.Sapsford@fda.hhs.gov Y1 - 2011/04/26/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Apr 26 SP - 2687 EP - 2699 VL - 5 IS - 4 KW - Botulinum Toxins, Type A KW - EC 3.4.24.69 KW - Index Medicus KW - Models, Molecular KW - Molecular Sequence Data KW - Amino Acid Sequence KW - Sequence Homology, Amino Acid KW - Hydrolysis KW - Protein Conformation KW - Quantum Dots KW - Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer KW - Botulinum Toxins, Type A -- toxicity KW - Botulinum Toxins, Type A -- chemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/863767028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=ACS+nano&rft.atitle=Monitoring+botulinum+neurotoxin+a+activity+with+peptide-functionalized+quantum+dot+resonance+energy+transfer+sensors.&rft.au=Sapsford%2C+Kim+E%3BGranek%2C+Jessica%3BDeschamps%2C+Jeffrey+R%3BBoeneman%2C+Kelly%3BBlanco-Canosa%2C+Juan+Bautista%3BDawson%2C+Philip+E%3BSusumu%2C+Kimihiro%3BStewart%2C+Michael+H%3BMedintz%2C+Igor+L&rft.aulast=Sapsford&rft.aufirst=Kim&rft.date=2011-04-26&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=2687&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=ACS+nano&rft.issn=1936-086X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021%2Fnn102997b LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2011-07-28 N1 - Date created - 2011-04-26 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nn102997b ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131396; 14883-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses (COLs) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, South Carolina is proposed. South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 27, 2008 for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 which would be located one mile south of the existing Unit 1. The VCSNS site currently contains one pressurized light water reactor and associated facilities located on the southern shore of the Monticello Reservoir in a sparsely populated, largely rural area 26 miles southeast of Columbia. The existing nuclear unit and auxiliary facilities occupy 492 acres with another 784 acres extending into the reservoir. The towns of Jenkinsville, Peak, and Pomona are within a six-mile radius. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power of 3400 megawatts (MW) with a design gross-electrical output of 1200 MW. New facilities would include the Unit 2 and Unit 3 power blocks, cooling towers, switchyard, discharge structures and blowdown lines, and the proposed independent spent-fuel storage installation. The addition of the units would require six new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and some existing lines would require upgrading. During the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, makeup water for the circulating-water system would be obtained from the Monticello Reservoir and from withdrawals and exchanges with the Broad River/Parr Reservoir. The intake structure for Units 2 and 3 would be located on the southern shore of Monticello Reservoir. Construction and preconstruction activities would span a total of 123 months, with 30 months dedicated to site clearing and preparation, and 93 months for building Units 2 and 3. Construction would be staggered by two years, for a total construction and preconstruction period of 10.25 years. SCE&G estimates that the onsite workforce would reach a peak of up to 3,600 workers during 2013 and 2015. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers other energy sources and building and operation of new reactors at four alternative sites in South Carolina. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COLs be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity by 2016 and 2019 within the service areas of SCE&G and Santee Cooper. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 0.66 acres of wetlands and 774 linear feet of streams would be filled; vegetation would be cleared and up to 592 acres of wetlands traversed by new transmission lines; terrestrial habitat onsite and in proposed new transmission-line corridors would be permanently lost; increased habitat fragmentation from transmission lines would have potential impacts on important species. The installation of two water-intake structures on the Monticello Reservoir could affect aquatic biota. Dredging activities may temporarily increase turbidity, siltation, and noise. Temporary impacts on local ambient air quality could occur. Temporary highly localized traffic impacts would occur in an environmental justice community. Cultural resources would be permanently altered by the proposed action and from the installation of transmission lines. Transmission lines would alter the visual landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0043D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110127, Volume 1--919 pages, Volume 2--493 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1939 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131350; 14883-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses (COLs) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, South Carolina is proposed. South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 27, 2008 for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 which would be located one mile south of the existing Unit 1. The VCSNS site currently contains one pressurized light water reactor and associated facilities located on the southern shore of the Monticello Reservoir in a sparsely populated, largely rural area 26 miles southeast of Columbia. The existing nuclear unit and auxiliary facilities occupy 492 acres with another 784 acres extending into the reservoir. The towns of Jenkinsville, Peak, and Pomona are within a six-mile radius. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power of 3400 megawatts (MW) with a design gross-electrical output of 1200 MW. New facilities would include the Unit 2 and Unit 3 power blocks, cooling towers, switchyard, discharge structures and blowdown lines, and the proposed independent spent-fuel storage installation. The addition of the units would require six new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and some existing lines would require upgrading. During the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, makeup water for the circulating-water system would be obtained from the Monticello Reservoir and from withdrawals and exchanges with the Broad River/Parr Reservoir. The intake structure for Units 2 and 3 would be located on the southern shore of Monticello Reservoir. Construction and preconstruction activities would span a total of 123 months, with 30 months dedicated to site clearing and preparation, and 93 months for building Units 2 and 3. Construction would be staggered by two years, for a total construction and preconstruction period of 10.25 years. SCE&G estimates that the onsite workforce would reach a peak of up to 3,600 workers during 2013 and 2015. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers other energy sources and building and operation of new reactors at four alternative sites in South Carolina. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COLs be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity by 2016 and 2019 within the service areas of SCE&G and Santee Cooper. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 0.66 acres of wetlands and 774 linear feet of streams would be filled; vegetation would be cleared and up to 592 acres of wetlands traversed by new transmission lines; terrestrial habitat onsite and in proposed new transmission-line corridors would be permanently lost; increased habitat fragmentation from transmission lines would have potential impacts on important species. The installation of two water-intake structures on the Monticello Reservoir could affect aquatic biota. Dredging activities may temporarily increase turbidity, siltation, and noise. Temporary impacts on local ambient air quality could occur. Temporary highly localized traffic impacts would occur in an environmental justice community. Cultural resources would be permanently altered by the proposed action and from the installation of transmission lines. Transmission lines would alter the visual landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0043D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110127, Volume 1--919 pages, Volume 2--493 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1939 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 16372692; 14883 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses (COLs) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, South Carolina is proposed. South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority), submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 27, 2008 for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 which would be located one mile south of the existing Unit 1. The VCSNS site currently contains one pressurized light water reactor and associated facilities located on the southern shore of the Monticello Reservoir in a sparsely populated, largely rural area 26 miles southeast of Columbia. The existing nuclear unit and auxiliary facilities occupy 492 acres with another 784 acres extending into the reservoir. The towns of Jenkinsville, Peak, and Pomona are within a six-mile radius. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power of 3400 megawatts (MW) with a design gross-electrical output of 1200 MW. New facilities would include the Unit 2 and Unit 3 power blocks, cooling towers, switchyard, discharge structures and blowdown lines, and the proposed independent spent-fuel storage installation. The addition of the units would require six new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and some existing lines would require upgrading. During the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, makeup water for the circulating-water system would be obtained from the Monticello Reservoir and from withdrawals and exchanges with the Broad River/Parr Reservoir. The intake structure for Units 2 and 3 would be located on the southern shore of Monticello Reservoir. Construction and preconstruction activities would span a total of 123 months, with 30 months dedicated to site clearing and preparation, and 93 months for building Units 2 and 3. Construction would be staggered by two years, for a total construction and preconstruction period of 10.25 years. SCE&G estimates that the onsite workforce would reach a peak of up to 3,600 workers during 2013 and 2015. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS considers other energy sources and building and operation of new reactors at four alternative sites in South Carolina. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the COLs be issued as requested. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity by 2016 and 2019 within the service areas of SCE&G and Santee Cooper. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 0.66 acres of wetlands and 774 linear feet of streams would be filled; vegetation would be cleared and up to 592 acres of wetlands traversed by new transmission lines; terrestrial habitat onsite and in proposed new transmission-line corridors would be permanently lost; increased habitat fragmentation from transmission lines would have potential impacts on important species. The installation of two water-intake structures on the Monticello Reservoir could affect aquatic biota. Dredging activities may temporarily increase turbidity, siltation, and noise. Temporary impacts on local ambient air quality could occur. Temporary highly localized traffic impacts would occur in an environmental justice community. Cultural resources would be permanently altered by the proposed action and from the installation of transmission lines. Transmission lines would alter the visual landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0043D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110127, Volume 1--919 pages, Volume 2--493 pages, April 22, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1939 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372692?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - US DOE Efforts to Manage the Energy-Water-Climate Nexus T2 - 2011 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2011) AN - 1313016502; 6065918 JF - 2011 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2011) AU - Schnagl, John AU - Zamuda, Craig Y1 - 2011/04/18/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Apr 18 KW - Ecology KW - Geography KW - Earth sciences KW - Water resources KW - Food KW - Nexus UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313016502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2011%29&rft.atitle=US+DOE+Efforts+to+Manage+the+Energy-Water-Climate+Nexus&rft.au=Schnagl%2C+John%3BZamuda%2C+Craig&rft.aulast=Schnagl&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2011-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.awra.org/meetings/Baltimore2011/doc/Baltimore2011FinalProgram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION AND SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (FORTY-FIFTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION AND SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (FORTY-FIFTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). AN - 868224417; 14860-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal of operating licenses for the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem), in Salem County, New Jersey is proposed to extend operations for an additional 20 years in this 45th supplement to the final generic EIS of May 1996 on promulgation of rules for license renewals. Generic conclusions regarding the environmental impacts for 69 issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics are applicable; and 23 additional issues are addressed specifically in this supplement to the final EIS. If the licenses are renewed, federal and state agencies and Public Service Enterprise Group Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) would go on to decide whether the plants should continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power. If the operating licenses are not renewed, HCGS would be shut down on or before August 6, 2026, and Salem Units 1 and 2 would be shut down on or before August 13, 2016 and April 18, 2020, respectively. Salem and HCGS are located at the southern end of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township on the Delaware River. Philadelphia is 35 miles northeast and the city of Salem, New Jersey is eight miles northeast of the site. Artificial Island is a 1,500-acre island characterized by tidal marsh and grassland. PSEG owns 740 acres of which the Salem and HCGS facilities occupy 220 acres and 153 acres, respectively. The remainder of the island is undeveloped and is owned by the U.S. Government and the State of New Jersey. The two Salem units are pressurized water reactors designed by Westinghouse Electric with a licensed power of 3,459-megawatt (MW)-thermal. Salem Units 1 and 2 entered commercial service in June 1977 and October 1981, respectively. At 100 percent reactor power, the net electrical output is 1,169 MW-electric for Unit 1 and 1,181 MW-electric for Unit 2. The Salem units have once-through circulating water systems for condenser cooling that withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary. An air-cooled combustion turbine peaking unit rated at 40 MW-electric is also present. The HCGS unit is a boiling water reactor designed by General Electric with a licensed power output of 3,840 MW-thermal and 1,083 MW-electric. HCGS uses a closed-cycle circulating water system for condenser cooling that consists of a natural draft cooling tower and associated withdrawal, circulation, and discharge facilities. HCGS also withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary. In addition to license renewal, other methods of power generation and a No Action Alternative are considered in this supplemental final EIS. Replacement power options considered include supercritical coal-fired generation, natural gas combined-cycle generation, and, as part of a combination alternative, wind power generation combined with energy conservation and energy efficiency. All other alternatives capable of meeting the needs currently served by Salem and HCGS entail potentially greater impacts than the proposed action and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff recommendation is that license renewal would be reasonable. POSITIVE IMPACTS: License renewal would allow the applicant to continue to meet the needs of its regional energy purchasers. Continued operation would maintain 1,614 jobs and general tax revenue in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operations would continue to withdraw condenser cooling water and service water from the Delaware Estuary resulting in entrainment and impingement of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic species. Various waste flows would continue to be delivered to the Delaware River and discharged cooling water would continue to create a thermal plume. Groundwater production at Salem and HCGS could contribute to a gradual reduction in groundwater availability locally. Radiation doses to the public would continue at current levels which are deemed safe. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on promulgation of rules for license renewals, see 91-0281D, Volume 15, Number 5 and 96-0226F, Volume 20, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 10-0302D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110104, Volume 1--382 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--395 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1437 Supp. 45 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Estuaries KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware River KW - New Jersey KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+HOPE+CREEK+GENERATING+STATION+AND+SALEM+NUCLEAR+GENERATING+STATION%2C+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+SALEM+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+%28FORTY-FIFTH+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.title=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+HOPE+CREEK+GENERATING+STATION+AND+SALEM+NUCLEAR+GENERATING+STATION%2C+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+SALEM+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+%28FORTY-FIFTH+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION AND SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (FORTY-FIFTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION AND SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (FORTY-FIFTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). AN - 868222787; 14860-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal of operating licenses for the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem), in Salem County, New Jersey is proposed to extend operations for an additional 20 years in this 45th supplement to the final generic EIS of May 1996 on promulgation of rules for license renewals. Generic conclusions regarding the environmental impacts for 69 issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics are applicable; and 23 additional issues are addressed specifically in this supplement to the final EIS. If the licenses are renewed, federal and state agencies and Public Service Enterprise Group Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) would go on to decide whether the plants should continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power. If the operating licenses are not renewed, HCGS would be shut down on or before August 6, 2026, and Salem Units 1 and 2 would be shut down on or before August 13, 2016 and April 18, 2020, respectively. Salem and HCGS are located at the southern end of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township on the Delaware River. Philadelphia is 35 miles northeast and the city of Salem, New Jersey is eight miles northeast of the site. Artificial Island is a 1,500-acre island characterized by tidal marsh and grassland. PSEG owns 740 acres of which the Salem and HCGS facilities occupy 220 acres and 153 acres, respectively. The remainder of the island is undeveloped and is owned by the U.S. Government and the State of New Jersey. The two Salem units are pressurized water reactors designed by Westinghouse Electric with a licensed power of 3,459-megawatt (MW)-thermal. Salem Units 1 and 2 entered commercial service in June 1977 and October 1981, respectively. At 100 percent reactor power, the net electrical output is 1,169 MW-electric for Unit 1 and 1,181 MW-electric for Unit 2. The Salem units have once-through circulating water systems for condenser cooling that withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary. An air-cooled combustion turbine peaking unit rated at 40 MW-electric is also present. The HCGS unit is a boiling water reactor designed by General Electric with a licensed power output of 3,840 MW-thermal and 1,083 MW-electric. HCGS uses a closed-cycle circulating water system for condenser cooling that consists of a natural draft cooling tower and associated withdrawal, circulation, and discharge facilities. HCGS also withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary. In addition to license renewal, other methods of power generation and a No Action Alternative are considered in this supplemental final EIS. Replacement power options considered include supercritical coal-fired generation, natural gas combined-cycle generation, and, as part of a combination alternative, wind power generation combined with energy conservation and energy efficiency. All other alternatives capable of meeting the needs currently served by Salem and HCGS entail potentially greater impacts than the proposed action and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff recommendation is that license renewal would be reasonable. POSITIVE IMPACTS: License renewal would allow the applicant to continue to meet the needs of its regional energy purchasers. Continued operation would maintain 1,614 jobs and general tax revenue in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operations would continue to withdraw condenser cooling water and service water from the Delaware Estuary resulting in entrainment and impingement of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic species. Various waste flows would continue to be delivered to the Delaware River and discharged cooling water would continue to create a thermal plume. Groundwater production at Salem and HCGS could contribute to a gradual reduction in groundwater availability locally. Radiation doses to the public would continue at current levels which are deemed safe. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on promulgation of rules for license renewals, see 91-0281D, Volume 15, Number 5 and 96-0226F, Volume 20, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 10-0302D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110104, Volume 1--382 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--395 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1437 Supp. 45 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Estuaries KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware River KW - New Jersey KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+HOPE+CREEK+GENERATING+STATION+AND+SALEM+NUCLEAR+GENERATING+STATION%2C+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+SALEM+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+%28FORTY-FIFTH+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.title=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+HOPE+CREEK+GENERATING+STATION+AND+SALEM+NUCLEAR+GENERATING+STATION%2C+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+SALEM+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY+%28FORTY-FIFTH+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION AND SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (FORTY-FIFTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). AN - 866241644; 14860 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal of operating licenses for the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem), in Salem County, New Jersey is proposed to extend operations for an additional 20 years in this 45th supplement to the final generic EIS of May 1996 on promulgation of rules for license renewals. Generic conclusions regarding the environmental impacts for 69 issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics are applicable; and 23 additional issues are addressed specifically in this supplement to the final EIS. If the licenses are renewed, federal and state agencies and Public Service Enterprise Group Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) would go on to decide whether the plants should continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power. If the operating licenses are not renewed, HCGS would be shut down on or before August 6, 2026, and Salem Units 1 and 2 would be shut down on or before August 13, 2016 and April 18, 2020, respectively. Salem and HCGS are located at the southern end of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township on the Delaware River. Philadelphia is 35 miles northeast and the city of Salem, New Jersey is eight miles northeast of the site. Artificial Island is a 1,500-acre island characterized by tidal marsh and grassland. PSEG owns 740 acres of which the Salem and HCGS facilities occupy 220 acres and 153 acres, respectively. The remainder of the island is undeveloped and is owned by the U.S. Government and the State of New Jersey. The two Salem units are pressurized water reactors designed by Westinghouse Electric with a licensed power of 3,459-megawatt (MW)-thermal. Salem Units 1 and 2 entered commercial service in June 1977 and October 1981, respectively. At 100 percent reactor power, the net electrical output is 1,169 MW-electric for Unit 1 and 1,181 MW-electric for Unit 2. The Salem units have once-through circulating water systems for condenser cooling that withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary. An air-cooled combustion turbine peaking unit rated at 40 MW-electric is also present. The HCGS unit is a boiling water reactor designed by General Electric with a licensed power output of 3,840 MW-thermal and 1,083 MW-electric. HCGS uses a closed-cycle circulating water system for condenser cooling that consists of a natural draft cooling tower and associated withdrawal, circulation, and discharge facilities. HCGS also withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary. In addition to license renewal, other methods of power generation and a No Action Alternative are considered in this supplemental final EIS. Replacement power options considered include supercritical coal-fired generation, natural gas combined-cycle generation, and, as part of a combination alternative, wind power generation combined with energy conservation and energy efficiency. All other alternatives capable of meeting the needs currently served by Salem and HCGS entail potentially greater impacts than the proposed action and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff recommendation is that license renewal would be reasonable. POSITIVE IMPACTS: License renewal would allow the applicant to continue to meet the needs of its regional energy purchasers. Continued operation would maintain 1,614 jobs and general tax revenue in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operations would continue to withdraw condenser cooling water and service water from the Delaware Estuary resulting in entrainment and impingement of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic species. Various waste flows would continue to be delivered to the Delaware River and discharged cooling water would continue to create a thermal plume. Groundwater production at Salem and HCGS could contribute to a gradual reduction in groundwater availability locally. Radiation doses to the public would continue at current levels which are deemed safe. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on promulgation of rules for license renewals, see 91-0281D, Volume 15, Number 5 and 96-0226F, Volume 20, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 10-0302D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110104, Volume 1--382 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--395 pages, April 8, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1437 Supp. 45 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Estuaries KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware River KW - New Jersey KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/866241644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-01&rft.volume=98&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1186&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Bulletin+of+the+Seismological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00371106&rft_id=info:doi/10.1785%2F0120070190 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Overview of the potential of microRNAs and their target gene detection for cassava (Manihot esculenta) improvement AN - 907190280; 16060356 AB - Production and utilization of cassava (Manihot esculenta) is significantly constrained by pests, diseases, poor yields and low nutritional content. Various approaches are currently being applied to mitigate these constraints. However, an aspect of plant developmental genetics little known in cassava is the role that microRNAs (miRNAs) play in gene regulation. miRNAs are 20 - 24 nucleotide long non-protein-coding RNAs that play important roles in post-transcriptional gene silencing in many organisms. Thorough understanding of the mechanisms involved in miRNAs mediated post-transcriptional gene regulation will have implications for crop production improvement. The potential of miRNAs for cassava improvement and also some data obtained on cassava miRNAs using comparative genomics analysis have been briefly discussed. 17 miRNA families and target genes in cassava that are also conserved in other plant species have been revealed. However, the ESTs representing seven of these miRNA families produced foldbacks that show more than 3 nucleotides not involved in canonical base pairing within a loop or bulge in the mature miRNA: RNA* dimer, thus were not considered miRNA secondary structures. Consistent with previous reports, majority of the target genes identified are transcription factors. Other targets appear to play roles in diverse physiological processes. Furthermore, a detailed description and insight into some of the current bioinformatic resources and approaches applicable to cassava have been discussed. Such information will further enhance the rapid discovery and analysis of more novel miRNAs in cassava towards its improvement. JF - African Journal of Biotechnology AU - Amiteye, S AU - Corral, J M AU - Sharbel, T F AD - Biotechnology and Nuclear Agriculture Research Institute, Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, P. O. Box LG 80, Legon-Accra, Ghana, samamiteye@yahoo.com Y1 - 2011/04/04/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Apr 04 SP - 2562 EP - 2573 VL - 10 IS - 14 SN - 1684-5315, 1684-5315 KW - Genetics Abstracts; Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Biochemistry Abstracts 2: Nucleic Acids; Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts KW - Manihot esculenta KW - Data processing KW - miRNA KW - Secondary structure KW - Developmental genetics KW - expressed sequence tags KW - Nucleotides KW - Crop production KW - Protein structure KW - RNA KW - Reviews KW - Transcription factors KW - Gene regulation KW - Genomic analysis KW - Bioinformatics KW - Pests KW - Post-transcription KW - Foldback KW - Gene silencing KW - A 01360:Plant Diseases KW - G 07800:Plants and Algae KW - N 14810:Methods KW - W 30900:Methods UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907190280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Abiotechresearch&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=African+Journal+of+Biotechnology&rft.atitle=Overview+of+the+potential+of+microRNAs+and+their+target+gene+detection+for+cassava+%28Manihot+esculenta%29+improvement&rft.au=Amiteye%2C+S%3BCorral%2C+J+M%3BSharbel%2C+T+F&rft.aulast=Amiteye&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2011-04-04&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=14&rft.spage=2562&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=African+Journal+of+Biotechnology&rft.issn=16845315&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-17 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Data processing; Developmental genetics; Secondary structure; miRNA; expressed sequence tags; Nucleotides; Protein structure; Crop production; RNA; Gene regulation; Transcription factors; Reviews; Genomic analysis; Pests; Bioinformatics; Foldback; Post-transcription; Gene silencing; Manihot esculenta ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Heavy water as upper reflector in MNSRs AN - 918040373; 14416939 AB - The use of heavy water as upper reflector in MNSRs is investigated in this paper. Risks associated with the addition of top beryllium shims is avoided by pouring heavy water in a polyethylene tube which connects a polyethylene container posted in the ST to the top of the reactor. The fuel cycle lifetime is shortened to about 5-6 years, but a constant volumetric reactivity is obtained. A less safe reactor is obtained whenever beryllium or heavy water is used as reflector. The presence of the upper reflector decreases the control rod worth anyway. JF - Progress in Nuclear Energy AU - Albarhoum, M AD - Department of Nuclear Engineering, Atomic Energy Commission, P.O. Box 6091, Damascus, Syria, pscientific@aec.org.sy Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - April 2011 SP - 241 EP - 244 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 53 IS - 3 SN - 0149-1970, 0149-1970 KW - Environment Abstracts KW - MNSRs KW - Upper reflector KW - Fuel KW - Self-shielding factors KW - Volumetric reactivity KW - Filling KW - Containers KW - Nuclear reactors KW - Fuels KW - Beryllium KW - Nuclear fuels KW - Nuclear energy KW - heavy water KW - ENA 03:Energy UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918040373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Progress+in+Nuclear+Energy&rft.atitle=Heavy+water+as+upper+reflector+in+MNSRs&rft.au=Albarhoum%2C+M&rft.aulast=Albarhoum&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=241&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Progress+in+Nuclear+Energy&rft.issn=01491970&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.pnucene.2010.09.014 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-04 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Containers; Nuclear reactors; Fuels; Nuclear fuels; Beryllium; Nuclear energy; heavy water DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2010.09.014 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Annual Energy Outlook 2011 with Projections to 2035 AN - 914787845; 2011-157383 AB - The Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (AEO2011) presents long-term projections of energy supply, demand, and prices through 2035, based on results from the US Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). The report highlights key aspects of the projections, discusses legislation and regulations, includes discussions of selected energy topics, and examines market trends. Tables, Figures, Appendixes. JF - United States Department of Energy, Apr 2011, viii+235 pp. AU - United States Energy Information Administration Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - April 2011 PB - United States Department of Energy KW - Energy resources and policy - Energy policy KW - Economic conditions and policy - Economic theory KW - Business and service sector - Markets, marketing, and merchandising KW - Business and service sector - Business finance KW - Law and ethics - Law and jurisprudence KW - Economic conditions and policy - Economic policy, planning, and development KW - United States KW - Energy policy KW - Prices KW - Regulation KW - Energy consumption KW - Markets KW - Energy sector KW - Legislation KW - Supply and demand KW - book UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/914787845?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=United+States+Energy+Information+Administration&rft.aulast=United+States+Energy+Information+Administration&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Annual+Energy+Outlook+2011+with+Projections+to+2035&rft.title=Annual+Energy+Outlook+2011+with+Projections+to+2035&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf LA - English DB - PAIS Index N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Publication note - United States Department of Energy, 2011 N1 - SuppNotes - DOE/EIA-0383(2011) N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-28 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Performance of RO plant with solar preheated feed water AN - 910640797; 15693297 AB - An RO plant with capacity of 10 m super(3)/d was implemented and a solar preheated feed water system was fitted to the RO. Both devices were mathematically analyzed. The performance of the RO plant with the change of feed water temperature was analyzed and as a result an increase in the permeate for about a 40% for increasing in the feed water temperature of 15 degree C. Also the different applied pressures and different feed water temperatures was analyzed along with effect of feed water temperature on the permeate TDS. Cost analysis of the system was carried out as well in order to show the coupled solar system could save up to 10% on the current cost. JF - Desalination and Water Treatment AU - Suleiman, S AU - Meree, A AU - Al-Shiakh, M AU - Kroma, F AD - Department of Nuclear Engineering, Atomic Energy Commission of Syria P.O. Box 6091, Damascus, SYRIA, pscientific@aec.org.sy Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - April 2011 SP - 345 EP - 352 PB - European Desalination Society, Tosti 28 1-67100 L'Aquila Italy VL - 28 IS - 1-3 SN - 1944-3994, 1944-3994 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Environment Abstracts KW - Water Temperature KW - Desalination KW - Atmospheric circulation-oceanic circulation coupled models KW - Water temperatures KW - Feed composition KW - Costs KW - Water treatment KW - Cost analysis KW - Water Treatment KW - Abiotic factors KW - Temperature effects KW - Water in solar system KW - Temperature KW - Cost Analysis KW - cost analysis KW - Capacity KW - water temperature KW - Feeds KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - SW 3060:Water treatment and distribution KW - Q5 08502:Methods and instruments KW - M2 523.9:Sun (523.9) KW - ENA 16:Renewable Resources-Water UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/910640797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Desalination+and+Water+Treatment&rft.atitle=Performance+of+RO+plant+with+solar+preheated+feed+water&rft.au=Suleiman%2C+S%3BMeree%2C+A%3BAl-Shiakh%2C+M%3BKroma%2C+F&rft.aulast=Suleiman&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=1-3&rft.spage=345&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Desalination+and+Water+Treatment&rft.issn=19443994&rft_id=info:doi/10%2F5004%2Fdwt.2011.2104 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-17 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Temperature effects; Water treatment; Cost analysis; Abiotic factors; Feed composition; Water in solar system; Atmospheric circulation-oceanic circulation coupled models; Water temperatures; cost analysis; Temperature; water temperature; Costs; Water Temperature; Water Treatment; Desalination; Capacity; Cost Analysis; Feeds DO - http://dx.doi.org/10/5004/dwt.2011.2104 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Fault displacement hazard for strike-slip faults AN - 875013231; 2011-056685 AB - In this paper we present a methodology, data, and regression equations for calculating the fault rupture hazard at sites near steeply dipping, strike-slip faults. We collected and digitized on-fault and off-fault displacement data for 9 global strike-slip earthquakes ranging from moment magnitude M 6.5 to M 7.6 and supplemented these with displacements from 13 global earthquakes compiled by Wesnousky (2008), who considers events up to M 7.9. Displacements on the primary fault fall off at the rupture ends and are often measured in meters, while displacements on secondary (off-fault) or distributed faults may measure a few centimeters up to more than a meter and decay with distance from the rupture. Probability of earthquake rupture is less than 15% for cells 200 mX200 m and is less than 2% for 25 mX25 m cells at distances greater than 200 m from the primary-fault rupture. Therefore, the hazard for off-fault ruptures is much lower than the hazard near the fault. Our data indicate that rupture displacements up to 35 cm can be triggered on adjacent faults at distances out to 10 km or more from the primary-fault rupture. An example calculation shows that, for an active fault which has repeated large earthquakes every few hundred years, fault rupture hazard analysis should be an important consideration in the design of structures or lifelines that are located near the principal fault, within about 150 m of well-mapped active faults with a simple trace and within 300 m of faults with poorly defined or complex traces. JF - Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America AU - Petersen, Mark D AU - Dawson, Timothy E AU - Chen, Rui AU - Cao, Tianqing AU - Wills, Christopher J AU - Schwartz, David P AU - Frankel, Arthur D Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - April 2011 SP - 805 EP - 825 PB - Seismological Society of America, Berkeley, CA VL - 101 IS - 2 SN - 0037-1106, 0037-1106 KW - geologic hazards KW - statistical analysis KW - damage KW - strike-slip faults KW - seismic risk KW - natural hazards KW - risk assessment KW - probability KW - tectonics KW - algorithms KW - earthquakes KW - seismotectonics KW - regression analysis KW - faults KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/875013231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Bulletin+of+the+Seismological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Fault+displacement+hazard+for+strike-slip+faults&rft.au=Petersen%2C+Mark+D%3BDawson%2C+Timothy+E%3BChen%2C+Rui%3BCao%2C+Tianqing%3BWills%2C+Christopher+J%3BSchwartz%2C+David+P%3BFrankel%2C+Arthur+D&rft.aulast=Petersen&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=101&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=805&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Bulletin+of+the+Seismological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00371106&rft_id=info:doi/10.1785%2F0120100035 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, Copyright, Seismological Society of America | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 25 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; damage; earthquakes; faults; geologic hazards; natural hazards; probability; regression analysis; risk assessment; seismic risk; seismotectonics; statistical analysis; strike-slip faults; tectonics DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0120100035 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Modeling the impacts of the European green crab on commercial shellfisheries AN - 872135681; 14930848 AB - Coastal resource managers are often tasked with managing coastal ecosystems that are stressed by overexploitation, climate change, contaminants, and habitat loss, as well as biological invasions. Therefore, managers increasingly need better economic data to help them prioritize their management strategies and distribute their increasingly limited resources to those strategies. Despite frequent pronouncements about the substantial ecological and economic impacts of invasive species, there have been few if any rigorous analyses of the economic impacts of invasive species in coastal systems. Here we present a bioeconomic analysis of the impacts of the European green crab, Carcinus maenas, on commercial shellfisheries along the West Coast of the United States. Green crabs are among the most comprehensively studied and widely distributed invasive species in coastal systems, with established populations on every continent except Antarctica. Their impacts on commercial bivalve fisheries have been alleged or substantiated to varying degrees, but no formal analysis of the economic impacts of the green crab has been conducted. We assess economic impacts using a combination of ecological and economic models. The ecological models incorporate green crab dispersal and description of estuarine habitat and the relationship between green crab abundance and predation on prey populations. The economic analysis focuses on the green crab impacts on commercial shellfisheries, including both historical and present impacts of green crabs on several important shellfisheries, including soft-shell clams, blue mussels, scallops, hard-shell clams, and Manila clams. We conclude that the past and present economic impacts on the West Coast shellfisheries are minor, although losses could increase significantly if densities increase or with northward range expansion into Alaska. JF - Ecological Applications AU - Grosholz, E AU - Lovell, S AU - Besedin, E AU - Katz, M AD - National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 USA, tedgrosholz@ucdavis.edu A2 - Vander Zanden, MJ (ed) Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - Apr 2011 SP - 915 EP - 924 PB - Ecological Society of America, 1707 H Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington DC 20006 United States VL - 21 IS - 3 SN - 1051-0761, 1051-0761 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - Food organisms KW - Resource management KW - Abundance KW - Climatic changes KW - Predation KW - Mytilus edulis KW - dispersal KW - Models KW - Carcinus maenas KW - Economics KW - Fisheries KW - invasive species KW - overexploitation KW - Invasions KW - Marine crustaceans KW - coastal resources KW - Prey KW - Coasts KW - Marine KW - Data processing KW - Decapoda KW - Shellfish fisheries KW - Crustacea KW - Invasive Species KW - INE, USA, Alaska KW - Habitat KW - Coastal zone management KW - Bivalvia KW - PS, Antarctica KW - INE, USA, West Coast KW - invasions KW - Marine molluscs KW - Dispersal KW - Contaminants KW - Introduced species KW - Q1 08603:Fishery statistics and sampling KW - P 0000:AIR POLLUTION KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/872135681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aecology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ecological+Applications&rft.atitle=Modeling+the+impacts+of+the+European+green+crab+on+commercial+shellfisheries&rft.au=Grosholz%2C+E%3BLovell%2C+S%3BBesedin%2C+E%3BKatz%2C+M&rft.aulast=Grosholz&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=915&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecological+Applications&rft.issn=10510761&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Food organisms; Resource management; Shellfish fisheries; Invasive Species; Fisheries; Marine molluscs; Introduced species; Marine crustaceans; Coastal zone management; Data processing; Predation; Climatic changes; Abundance; Habitat; Models; Economics; Invasions; Dispersal; Contaminants; Prey; Coasts; Crustacea; invasive species; overexploitation; invasions; dispersal; coastal resources; Bivalvia; Decapoda; Carcinus maenas; Mytilus edulis; PS, Antarctica; INE, USA, West Coast; INE, USA, Alaska; Marine ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Seismological Research Letters AN - 864945964; 2011-042607 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Graizer, Vladimir Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - April 2011 SP - 233 EP - 236 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 82 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - models KW - geologic hazards KW - seismicity KW - seismic risk KW - natural hazards KW - magnitude KW - ground motion KW - prediction KW - risk assessment KW - earthquakes KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/864945964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.au=Graizer%2C+Vladimir&rft.aulast=Graizer&rft.aufirst=Vladimir&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=233&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/10.1785%2Fgssrl.82.2.233 L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, Copyright, Seismological Society of America | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 16 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - SuppNotes - For reference to original see Bommer, Julian J. et al., Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 81, No. 5, p. 783-793, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - earthquakes; geologic hazards; ground motion; magnitude; models; natural hazards; prediction; risk assessment; seismic risk; seismicity DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.2.233 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Assessment of milk ring test and some serological tests in the detection of Brucella melitensis in Syrian female sheep AN - 860397163; 14407777 AB - Brucella melitensis infection prevalence among Syrian female sheep, to evaluate a number of serological tests and to discuss some epidemiological aspects of brucellosis, was studied. A total of 2,580 unvaccinated Syrian female sheep sera samples were tested for B. melitensis antibodies detection using four serological methods: the Rose Bengal test (RBT), the serum agglutination test (SAT), the complement fixation test (CFT) and an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (iELISA). In addition, 2,375 milk samples were collected, then milk ring test (MRT) and bacterial isolation test were employed to evaluate the natural organism shedding. The samples were considered positive in 66%, 64%, and 60% when we employed the RBT, SAT, and iELISA tests, respectively. Whereas, the CFT test revealed the smallest number of positive samples. By using the MRT, the total prevalence of brucellosis was nearly 38% of samples. A large variation was observed concerning the studied areas, ranging from 24% in Tartous to 44% in both Damascus and Damascus rural areas. Brucella was isolated from only 677 samples out of the 2,375 female sheep milk samples. JF - Tropical Animal Health and Production AU - Al-Mariri, Ayman AU - Ramadan, Lila AU - Akel, Rand AD - Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Atomic Energy Commission, 6091, Damascus, Syria, ascientific@aec.org.sy Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - Apr 2011 SP - 865 EP - 870 PB - Springer-Verlag, Tiergartenstrasse 17 Heidelberg 69121 Germany VL - 43 IS - 4 SN - 0049-4747, 0049-4747 KW - Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology KW - Antibodies KW - Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay KW - Agglutination KW - Complement fixation KW - Brucella melitensis KW - Brucellosis KW - Serological tests KW - Milk ring test KW - Infection KW - J 02410:Animal Diseases KW - A 01330:Food Microbiology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/860397163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Amicrobiologyb&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Tropical+Animal+Health+and+Production&rft.atitle=Assessment+of+milk+ring+test+and+some+serological+tests+in+the+detection+of+Brucella+melitensis+in+Syrian+female+sheep&rft.au=Al-Mariri%2C+Ayman%3BRamadan%2C+Lila%3BAkel%2C+Rand&rft.aulast=Al-Mariri&rft.aufirst=Ayman&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=865&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Tropical+Animal+Health+and+Production&rft.issn=00494747&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs11250-010-9774-0 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Agglutination; Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; Antibodies; Complement fixation; Infection; Milk ring test; Serological tests; Brucellosis; Brucella melitensis DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11250-010-9774-0 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Raman spectroscopy measurements of glucose and xylose in hydrolysate: Role of corn stover pretreatment and enzyme composition AN - 1777118202; 14611345 AB - The effect of corn stover pretreatment on glucose quantitation in hydrolysate using Raman spectroscopy is evaluated. Dilute sulfuric-acid pretreatment results in a 20 mg mL[super]-1 glucose limit of detection in hydrolysate. Soaking in aqueous ammonia pretreatment produces a 4 mg mL[super]-1 limit of detection. Water, ethanol or hexane extraction of corn stover reduces the spectral background that limits glucose detection in dilute acid hydrolysate. Additionally, a Raman spectroscopy multi-peak fitting method is presented to simultaneously measure glucose and xylose concentration in hydrolysate. This method yields a 6.1% average relative standard error at total saccharide concentrations above 45 mg mL[super]-1. When only cellulase is present, glucose and xylose yield were measured by Raman spectroscopy to be 32 +/- 4 and 7.0 +/- 0.8 mg mL[super]-1, respectively. When both cellulase and hemicellulase were present, xylose yield increased to 18.0 +/- 0.5 mg mL[super]-1. Enzymatic or colorimetric assays confirmed the validity of the Raman spectroscopy results. JF - Bioresource Technology AU - Shih, Chien-Ju AU - Lupoi, Jason S AU - Smith, Emily A AD - Ames Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Ames, IA 50011-3111, USA Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - April 2011 SP - 5169 EP - 5176 PB - Elsevier Science, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB UK VL - 102 IS - 8 SN - 0960-8524, 0960-8524 KW - Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (MT); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Raman spectroscopy KW - Glucose quantitation KW - Xylose quantitation KW - Enzymatic hydrolysate KW - Biofuels KW - Xylose KW - Pretreatment KW - Ethyl alcohol KW - Corn KW - Glucose KW - Hydrolysates KW - Cellulase KW - Dilution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777118202?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Bioresource+Technology&rft.atitle=Raman+spectroscopy+measurements+of+glucose+and+xylose+in+hydrolysate%3A+Role+of+corn+stover+pretreatment+and+enzyme+composition&rft.au=Shih%2C+Chien-Ju%3BLupoi%2C+Jason+S%3BSmith%2C+Emily+A&rft.aulast=Shih&rft.aufirst=Chien-Ju&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=5169&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Bioresource+Technology&rft.issn=09608524&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.biortech.2011.01.043 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.01.043 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions outside the United States AN - 1761661662; 2011-905466 AB - This report was prepared by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the US Department of Energy. To gain a better understanding of the potential of international shale gas resources, EIA commissioned an external consultant, Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI), to develop an initial set of shale gas resource assessments. This paper briefly describes key results, the report scope and methodology, and discusses the key assumptions that underlie the results. Tables, Figures, References. JF - United States Department of Energy, Apr 2011, 365 pp. AU - United States Energy Information Administration Y1 - 2011/04// PY - 2011 DA - April 2011 PB - United States Department of Energy KW - United States KW - Consultants KW - book UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1761661662?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=United+States+Energy+Information+Administration&rft.aulast=United+States+Energy+Information+Administration&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=World+Shale+Gas+Resources%3A+An+Initial+Assessment+of+14+Regions+outside+the+United+States&rft.title=World+Shale+Gas+Resources%3A+An+Initial+Assessment+of+14+Regions+outside+the+United+States&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/archive/2011/pdf/fullreport_2011.pdf LA - English DB - PAIS Index N1 - Date revised - 2016-02-01 N1 - Publication note - United States Department of Energy, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA. AN - 873125959; 14844-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses (COLs) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site near Waynesboro, Georgia is proposed. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), on behalf of itself and its four co-applicants, submitted an application for two new units to be located west of and adjacent to the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2. The VEGP site is located in Burke County 26 miles southeast of Augusta. After the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an early site permit in August, 2009, Southern supplemented its application with a request for a limited work authorization (LWA) for installation of reinforcing steel, sumps, drain lines, and other embedded items along with placement of concrete for the nuclear island foundation base slab. The Westinghouse AP1000 NRC-certified plant design is proposed for the two additional nuclear generating units. The AP1000 reactor design, based on pressurized water reactor technology, includes a single reactor pressure vessel, two steam generators, and four reactor coolant pumps for converting reactor thermal energy into steam. One high-pressure turbine and three low-pressure turbines drive a single electric generator. Each Westinghouse AP1000 unit is based on a standalone concept and consists of five principal generation structures: the nuclear island, the turbine building, the annex building, the diesel generator building, and the radioactive waste building. Structures that make up the nuclear island include the containment building, the shield building, and the auxiliary building. Each reactor has a power rating of 3,400 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a net output of 1,117 MW electrical. The proposed cooling system would include one concrete natural draft hyperbolic cooling tower for each unit. One new 500-kilovolt transmission line would be required to connect the substation for the proposed Units 3 and 4 to the Thomson substation located west of Augusta. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative, energy source alternatives, and system design alternatives. The NRC staff's recommendation is that the COLs and LWA be issued. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Renewal of the license would allow the applicant to meet the needs of its regional energy purchasers. Construction of the proposed units would provide additional tax revenue for Burke County and funding for additional social services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed units would disturb 873 acres on a short-term basis and 379 acres long-term. Moderate impacts would also occur along the transmission line right-of-way. An estimated 9.2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands would be impacted during construction of the water intake system, access road, and outfall structure. Operation would withdraw process water from the Savannah River and deliver makeup water back to the river resulting in a thermal plume affecting the nearshore aquatic ecosystem. The combined loss of sandhills habitat, hardwood forest and bottomland wetlands, planted pine habitat, and open field habitat would reduce available habitat for wildlife, including the southeastern pocket gopher and sandhills milkvetch. Installation of the river water intake piping would impact a small portion of a historic cemetery. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs for the early site permit, see 07-0334D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0380F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0289D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110088, 571 pages, March 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1947 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cemeteries KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Power Plants KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Georgia KW - Savannah River KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VOGTLE+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+WAYNESBORO%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=VOGTLE+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+WAYNESBORO%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA. AN - 863888960; 14844 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses (COLs) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site near Waynesboro, Georgia is proposed. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), on behalf of itself and its four co-applicants, submitted an application for two new units to be located west of and adjacent to the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2. The VEGP site is located in Burke County 26 miles southeast of Augusta. After the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an early site permit in August, 2009, Southern supplemented its application with a request for a limited work authorization (LWA) for installation of reinforcing steel, sumps, drain lines, and other embedded items along with placement of concrete for the nuclear island foundation base slab. The Westinghouse AP1000 NRC-certified plant design is proposed for the two additional nuclear generating units. The AP1000 reactor design, based on pressurized water reactor technology, includes a single reactor pressure vessel, two steam generators, and four reactor coolant pumps for converting reactor thermal energy into steam. One high-pressure turbine and three low-pressure turbines drive a single electric generator. Each Westinghouse AP1000 unit is based on a standalone concept and consists of five principal generation structures: the nuclear island, the turbine building, the annex building, the diesel generator building, and the radioactive waste building. Structures that make up the nuclear island include the containment building, the shield building, and the auxiliary building. Each reactor has a power rating of 3,400 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a net output of 1,117 MW electrical. The proposed cooling system would include one concrete natural draft hyperbolic cooling tower for each unit. One new 500-kilovolt transmission line would be required to connect the substation for the proposed Units 3 and 4 to the Thomson substation located west of Augusta. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative, energy source alternatives, and system design alternatives. The NRC staff's recommendation is that the COLs and LWA be issued. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Renewal of the license would allow the applicant to meet the needs of its regional energy purchasers. Construction of the proposed units would provide additional tax revenue for Burke County and funding for additional social services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed units would disturb 873 acres on a short-term basis and 379 acres long-term. Moderate impacts would also occur along the transmission line right-of-way. An estimated 9.2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands would be impacted during construction of the water intake system, access road, and outfall structure. Operation would withdraw process water from the Savannah River and deliver makeup water back to the river resulting in a thermal plume affecting the nearshore aquatic ecosystem. The combined loss of sandhills habitat, hardwood forest and bottomland wetlands, planted pine habitat, and open field habitat would reduce available habitat for wildlife, including the southeastern pocket gopher and sandhills milkvetch. Installation of the river water intake piping would impact a small portion of a historic cemetery. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs for the early site permit, see 07-0334D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0380F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0289D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110088, 571 pages, March 25, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1947 KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cemeteries KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Power Plants KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Georgia KW - Savannah River KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/863888960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VOGTLE+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+WAYNESBORO%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=VOGTLE+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+PLANT+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+WAYNESBORO%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - A Regulatory Analysis and Perspective Regarding Leaks from Buried and Underground Piping at Nuclear Power Plants T2 - 66th Annual Meeting of the National Association of Corrosion Engineering (CORROSION 2011) AN - 1312956959; 6044510 JF - 66th Annual Meeting of the National Association of Corrosion Engineering (CORROSION 2011) AU - Alley, David Y1 - 2011/03/13/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Mar 13 KW - Nuclear power plants UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312956959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=66th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+National+Association+of+Corrosion+Engineering+%28CORROSION+2011%29&rft.atitle=A+Regulatory+Analysis+and+Perspective+Regarding+Leaks+from+Buried+and+Underground+Piping+at+Nuclear+Power+Plants&rft.au=Alley%2C+David&rft.aulast=Alley&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-03-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=66th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+National+Association+of+Corrosion+Engineering+%28CORROSION+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://nace.confex.com/nace/2011/webprogram/meeting.html LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - A Regulatory Analysis and Perspective Regarding Degradation of Materials in Light Water Reactors T2 - 66th Annual Meeting of the National Association of Corrosion Engineering (CORROSION 2011) AN - 1312900853; 6044696 JF - 66th Annual Meeting of the National Association of Corrosion Engineering (CORROSION 2011) AU - Alley, David Y1 - 2011/03/13/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Mar 13 KW - Degradation KW - Nuclear reactors UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312900853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=66th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+National+Association+of+Corrosion+Engineering+%28CORROSION+2011%29&rft.atitle=A+Regulatory+Analysis+and+Perspective+Regarding+Degradation+of+Materials+in+Light+Water+Reactors&rft.au=Alley%2C+David&rft.aulast=Alley&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-03-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=66th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+National+Association+of+Corrosion+Engineering+%28CORROSION+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://nace.confex.com/nace/2011/webprogram/meeting.html LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - SULT1A1 Gene Copy Number Variation (CNV) Real-Time Quantitative Pcr (qPCR) Assay: An Opportunity for Population Genetic Copy Number Variation Measurement for Enhancement of Human Health Risk Assessment of Genetically Sensitive Subpopulations T2 - 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology (SOT 2011) AN - 1312957414; 6046804 JF - 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology (SOT 2011) AU - Young, M Y1 - 2011/03/06/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Mar 06 KW - subpopulations KW - population genetics KW - copy number KW - Risk assessment KW - Polymerase chain reaction KW - Subpopulations KW - Population genetics KW - Public health KW - Nucleotide sequence UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312957414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=50th+Anniversary+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Toxicology+%28SOT+2011%29&rft.atitle=SULT1A1+Gene+Copy+Number+Variation+%28CNV%29+Real-Time+Quantitative+Pcr+%28qPCR%29+Assay%3A+An+Opportunity+for+Population+Genetic+Copy+Number+Variation+Measurement+for+Enhancement+of+Human+Health+Risk+Assessment+of+Genetically+Sensitive+Subpopulations&rft.au=Young%2C+M&rft.aulast=Young&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=50th+Anniversary+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Toxicology+%28SOT+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.toxicology.org/AI/PUB/Toxicologist11.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Determination of Bisphenol-a Compounds Leachable from Polycarbonate- and Polysulfone-Based Hemodialyzers T2 - 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology (SOT 2011) AN - 1312905415; 6046751 JF - 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology (SOT 2011) AU - Guo, J AU - Cho, S AU - Luu, H Y1 - 2011/03/06/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Mar 06 KW - Bisphenol A UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312905415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=50th+Anniversary+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Toxicology+%28SOT+2011%29&rft.atitle=Determination+of+Bisphenol-a+Compounds+Leachable+from+Polycarbonate-+and+Polysulfone-Based+Hemodialyzers&rft.au=Guo%2C+J%3BCho%2C+S%3BLuu%2C+H&rft.aulast=Guo&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=50th+Anniversary+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Society+of+Toxicology+%28SOT+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.toxicology.org/AI/PUB/Toxicologist11.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 26 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873130544; 14822-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130544?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+WOLF+CREEK+GENERATING+STATION%2C+COFFEY+COUNTY%2C+KANSAS.+%28THIRTY-SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.title=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+WOLF+CREEK+GENERATING+STATION%2C+COFFEY+COUNTY%2C+KANSAS.+%28THIRTY-SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 25 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873130535; 14822-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 24 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873130529; 14822-6_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 23 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873130522; 14822-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130522?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 16 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873130511; 14822-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 15 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873130496; 14822-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 14 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873130485; 14822-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 10 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873130470; 14822-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 9 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873130454; 14822-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130454?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 8 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873130445; 14822-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 13 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873129145; 14822-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 12 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873129111; 14822-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 11 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873129094; 14822-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129094?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 22 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873128768; 14822-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 21 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873128758; 14822-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 20 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873128753; 14822-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 19 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873128741; 14822-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 18 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873128727; 14822-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 17 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873128719; 14822-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 873128204; 14812-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP) site in Matagorda County, Texas is proposed. STP Nuclear Operating Company submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 20, 2007 for the proposed STP Units 3 and 4 which would be located 2,000 feet northwest of the existing STP Units 1 and 2. The 12,220-acre STP site is 10 miles north of Matagorda Bay, 70 miles south-southwest of Houston, and 12 miles south-southwest of Bay City along the west bank of the Colorado River. Most of the site is within the Texas coastal management zone. The existing main cooling reservoir (MCR) occupies 7,000 acres of the STP site and 1,750 acres are currently occupied by Units 1 and 2 and associated facilities. The remainder of the site is undeveloped land or is used for agriculture and cattle grazing. Four transmission service providers currently serve the site and the existing 345-kilovolt (kV) switchyard currently has nine 345-kV transmission lines that connect it to the utility grid. Under the applicant's proposal, two electricity generating systems would be built using the U.S. advanced boiling water reactor design. These systems are rated at 3,926 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a gross electrical output of 1,356 MW electrical and a net output of 1,300 MW electrical. Reject heat from the unit to the environment, principally the atmosphere, is 2,626 MW thermal. Heat created in the reactor core is transferred to high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, which turn a generator to create electricity. For the units under consideration, cooling water would be withdrawn from the north shore of the MCR through an intake structure, circulate through the main condensers for proposed Units 3 and 4, and then return to the MCR through a shared discharge structure. Water lost from the MCR through ground seepage, evaporation, and release to the Colorado River would be replaced with water withdrawn from the Colorado River at the reservoir makeup pumping facility (RMPF) located to the east of the proposed units. Water would be released from the MCR to the Colorado River through the discharge structure located on the west bank two miles downstream of the RMPF. All of these structures currently exist to support the operation of Units 1 and 2. The proposed new units would have a shared exclusion area boundary and a shared plant access road with the existing units. The vent stack for proposed Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at 249 feet above grade, which is of similar elevation to the highest point of the existing units. Units 3 and 4 would rely on the MCR as the main condenser heat sink just as Units 1 and 2 do currently. In the event of an emergency, the proposed new units would not rely on the 46-acre essential cooling pond as an ultimate heat sink, but would rely on mechanical draft cooling towers. The two Unit 3 and 4 cooling towers would also be available as helper towers to provide for heat rejection to the atmosphere during normal operations. Blowdown from the cooling towers would be returned to the MCR. To support four-unit operation, the RMPF would be refurbished and modified within its existing footprint without any disturbances within the Colorado River. The RMPF would withdraw water through a 406-foot-long intake structure located parallel to the shoreline. The applicant has requested authorization to expand an existing barge slip on the Colorado River and to culvert and fill waters of the United States for the purpose of constructing a heavy haul road on the site. The power transmission system for the proposed Units 3 and 4 would not require new transmission lines or corridors, but a portion of the existing system would be upgraded. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS addresses energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and onsite alternatives to reduce impacts to aquatic resources. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the combined operating licenses be issued as proposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity for use in the owner's current markets within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas region and/or for potential sale on the wholesale market. An additional 2,400 jobs would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would create stormwater runoff, displace wildlife habitat, and have noticeable impacts to traffic. Operational impacts would include increased risks of bird and bat collisions, wildlife avoidance due to noise; increased surface water use from the Colorado River; increased sediment load in stormwater; and increased frequency of discharge of MCR waters to the Colorado River. MCR discharge could cause physical scouring with adverse effects to aquatic species and habitat and the thermal plume could encourage growth of etiological agents. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0027D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110056, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--409 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1937 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado River KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 4 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873127740; 14822-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127740?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 3 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873127737; 14822-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 2 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873127733; 14822-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873127731; 14822-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 7 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873127263; 14822-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 6 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873127260; 14822-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. [Part 5 of 26] T2 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 873127255; 14822-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 860047172; 14812 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP) site in Matagorda County, Texas is proposed. STP Nuclear Operating Company submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 20, 2007 for the proposed STP Units 3 and 4 which would be located 2,000 feet northwest of the existing STP Units 1 and 2. The 12,220-acre STP site is 10 miles north of Matagorda Bay, 70 miles south-southwest of Houston, and 12 miles south-southwest of Bay City along the west bank of the Colorado River. Most of the site is within the Texas coastal management zone. The existing main cooling reservoir (MCR) occupies 7,000 acres of the STP site and 1,750 acres are currently occupied by Units 1 and 2 and associated facilities. The remainder of the site is undeveloped land or is used for agriculture and cattle grazing. Four transmission service providers currently serve the site and the existing 345-kilovolt (kV) switchyard currently has nine 345-kV transmission lines that connect it to the utility grid. Under the applicant's proposal, two electricity generating systems would be built using the U.S. advanced boiling water reactor design. These systems are rated at 3,926 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a gross electrical output of 1,356 MW electrical and a net output of 1,300 MW electrical. Reject heat from the unit to the environment, principally the atmosphere, is 2,626 MW thermal. Heat created in the reactor core is transferred to high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, which turn a generator to create electricity. For the units under consideration, cooling water would be withdrawn from the north shore of the MCR through an intake structure, circulate through the main condensers for proposed Units 3 and 4, and then return to the MCR through a shared discharge structure. Water lost from the MCR through ground seepage, evaporation, and release to the Colorado River would be replaced with water withdrawn from the Colorado River at the reservoir makeup pumping facility (RMPF) located to the east of the proposed units. Water would be released from the MCR to the Colorado River through the discharge structure located on the west bank two miles downstream of the RMPF. All of these structures currently exist to support the operation of Units 1 and 2. The proposed new units would have a shared exclusion area boundary and a shared plant access road with the existing units. The vent stack for proposed Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at 249 feet above grade, which is of similar elevation to the highest point of the existing units. Units 3 and 4 would rely on the MCR as the main condenser heat sink just as Units 1 and 2 do currently. In the event of an emergency, the proposed new units would not rely on the 46-acre essential cooling pond as an ultimate heat sink, but would rely on mechanical draft cooling towers. The two Unit 3 and 4 cooling towers would also be available as helper towers to provide for heat rejection to the atmosphere during normal operations. Blowdown from the cooling towers would be returned to the MCR. To support four-unit operation, the RMPF would be refurbished and modified within its existing footprint without any disturbances within the Colorado River. The RMPF would withdraw water through a 406-foot-long intake structure located parallel to the shoreline. The applicant has requested authorization to expand an existing barge slip on the Colorado River and to culvert and fill waters of the United States for the purpose of constructing a heavy haul road on the site. The power transmission system for the proposed Units 3 and 4 would not require new transmission lines or corridors, but a portion of the existing system would be upgraded. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS addresses energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and onsite alternatives to reduce impacts to aquatic resources. The NRC staffs recommendation is that the combined operating licenses be issued as proposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity for use in the owner's current markets within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas region and/or for potential sale on the wholesale market. An additional 2,400 jobs would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would create stormwater runoff, displace wildlife habitat, and have noticeable impacts to traffic. Operational impacts would include increased risks of bird and bat collisions, wildlife avoidance due to noise; increased surface water use from the Colorado River; increased sediment load in stormwater; and increased frequency of discharge of MCR waters to the Colorado River. MCR discharge could cause physical scouring with adverse effects to aquatic species and habitat and the thermal plume could encourage growth of etiological agents. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0027D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110056, Final EIS--943 pages, Appendices--409 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1937 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado River KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/860047172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE. AN - 860047170; 14822 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the modernization of the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Oak Ridge, Tennessee are proposed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages nuclear weapons programs and facilities, including those at Y-12, one of three primary installations on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Y-12 is the primary site for enriched uranium (EU) processing and storage, and one of the primary manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. weapons stockpile. It is the only source of secondaries, cases, and other nuclear weapons components. Y-12 also dismantles weapons components, safely and securely stores and manages special nuclear material (SNM), supplies SNM for use in naval and research reactors, and dispositions surplus materials. Currently, the Y-12 workforce consists of 6,500 employees and contractors operating 393 facilities within 5.8 million square feet of NNSA-owned space and leased space. Most of the facilities at Y-12 are old, oversized, and inefficient. More than 70 percent of all the floor space at Y-12 was constructed prior to1950 as part of the Manhattan Project and NNSA estimates that the future footprint should be 2.2 million square feet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to continued operation of Y-12, additional alternatives, worker and public health and safety, contamination of the East Fork Poplar Creek, the threat of terrorism, and costs. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final site-wide EIS. The four action alternatives differ in that: Alternative 2 would involve a new, fully-modernized uranium processing facility (UPF) optimized for safety, security, and efficiency; Alternative 3 involves upgrading the existing facilities to attain the highest level of safety, security, and efficiency possible without constructing new facilities; and Alternatives 4 and 5 involve a reduction in the production capacity of Y-12 to support smaller stockpile requirements. A complex command center would be constructed under all the action alternatives and would house equipment and personnel for the plant shift superintendent, fire department, and emergency operations center. Three alternative sizes for the UPF are assessed: a nominal-sized UPF with a capacity of 125 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 2), a capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 50 to 80 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 4), and a no net production/capability-sized UPF that would maintain a manufacturing capability with throughput of 10 secondaries and cases per year (Alternative 5). The capability-sized UPF project (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative. Conventional construction techniques would be used to build the UPF which would require approximately 35 acres of land. The project would also include construction of a haul road extension to link the UPF site construction/excavation activities with supporting infrastructure. Once constructed, the UPF facilities would occupy eight acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of Y-12 would support NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and nuclear nonproliferation programs. Modernization would improve the level of security and safeguards, replace or upgrade facilities and ensure reliable enriched uranium processing capability, improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, reduce the size of the protected area by 90 percent, improve worker protection, and comply with modern building codes. The UPF, capability-sized UPF, and no net production/capability-sized UPF alternatives would decrease the overall Y-12 facility accident risk because operations and materials would be consolidated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Occupational hazards associated with construction activity could result in injuries. Upon completion of the UPF construction, total operational workforce reduction would be approximately 750 workers, but would be achieved through normal attrition and retirements. Under all alternatives, Y-12 would continue to generate and manage wastes, including low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary/industrial waste. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0399D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110066, Summary--83 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--632 pages, Comments and Responses--258 pages, March 4, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Defense Programs KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0387 KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Manufacturing KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Weapon Systems KW - Tennessee UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/860047170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=Y-12+NATIONAL+SECURITY+COMPLEX%2C+OAK+RIDGE%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geophysical evaluation of ground conductivity of a sub-surface irrigation site using GEM-2 electromagnetic surveys, Powder River basin, Wyoming AN - 959098899; 2012-034800 AB - A sub-surface irrigation system (SDI) has been developed and used to provide an effective and beneficial disposal method for coal bed natural gas (CBNG) produced water. The system is being monitored by The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) through the use of geophysical applications. The Headgate Draw study area is located at the confluence of Crazy Woman Creek and the Powder River, approximately 17 km south of Arvada, Wyoming. The site includes six agricultural fields and covers approximately 1.2 square kilometers of area. The SDI system is designed to assist in irrigation and reduce environmental impacts associated with the disposal of produced water. Pre-treated produced water is pumped through perforated tubing at a depth of approximately 1 meter. Geophysical surveys were performed via air, ground, and borehole methods prior to the SDI installation. Since installation, ground geophysical surveys have been conducted approximately 3 times per year beginning in the fall of 2008 using GEM-2, a handheld electromagnetic sensor. The focus of this presentation is field 6 due to its initially low and uniform conductivity values. Ground surveys completed in March and August of 2009 indicate that near surface conductivity values have increased in the SDI area compared to data collected outside the irrigated area. Future surveys will be performed to help improve the understanding of SDI systems that use produced water, and to assess change in near surface conductivity over time. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Frohman, Rachel AU - Sams, James AU - Veloski, Garret AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 168 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Wyoming KW - conductivity KW - geophysical surveys KW - geophysical methods KW - electromagnetic methods KW - surveys KW - GEM-2 KW - Powder River basin KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/959098899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Geophysical+evaluation+of+ground+conductivity+of+a+sub-surface+irrigation+site+using+GEM-2+electromagnetic+surveys%2C+Powder+River+basin%2C+Wyoming&rft.au=Frohman%2C+Rachel%3BSams%2C+James%3BVeloski%2C+Garret%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Frohman&rft.aufirst=Rachel&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=168&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 46th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 45th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - conductivity; electromagnetic methods; GEM-2; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; Powder River basin; surveys; United States; Wyoming ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Preliminary assessment of the microbiology of Marcellus Shale fracture and flowback waters AN - 959098630; 2012-034791 AB - Natural gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale is poised to rapidly expand across the state of Pennsylvania. Thousands of wells are either in production or are planned for drilling. A typical well requires millions of gallons of water for the fracturing process, with varying amounts of flowback water coming back off the formation. Currently, much of the flowback water is stored in surface impoundments where it is treated and eventually re-injected. The rapid pace of the development of the Marcellus Shale necessitates equally rapid and thorough assessment of the environmental impacts of the drilling process. Our research aims to provide fundamental knowledge of the microbiology of these waters while also monitoring remediation efforts. Water samples were collected at various stages, from fracture water, flowback water, and short-term and long-term impoundments. The presence and number of microbes was determined using fluorescent DNA staining and microscopy. The microbial community was assessed using Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH) with a suite of group-specific probes. Molecular microbial ecology techniques are planned to obtain a more detailed assessment of the microbial community. Targeted enrichments were done to isolate microbes potentially mediating important biogeochemical reactions in the impoundment waters. Lab-controlled experiments using these microbial enrichments can assess the impact of proposed biocides on the microbial community under various field-relevant conditions. Preliminary results suggest major differences in microbial communities among flowback waters from distinct wells with unique impoundment and treatment histories. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Hartsock, Angela AU - Edenborn, Harry M AU - Kaur, Palwinder AU - Hammack, Richard W AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 166 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - technology KW - Middle Devonian KW - Devonian KW - sampling KW - Paleozoic KW - Marcellus Shale KW - biochemistry KW - ecosystems KW - ecology KW - Pennsylvania KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/959098630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Preliminary+assessment+of+the+microbiology+of+Marcellus+Shale+fracture+and+flowback+waters&rft.au=Hartsock%2C+Angela%3BEdenborn%2C+Harry+M%3BKaur%2C+Palwinder%3BHammack%2C+Richard+W%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Hartsock&rft.aufirst=Angela&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=166&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 46th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 45th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - biochemistry; Devonian; ecology; ecosystems; Marcellus Shale; Middle Devonian; Paleozoic; Pennsylvania; sampling; technology; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Historical mineral springs and spas of Pennsylvania; past and present AN - 959093771; 2012-032874 AB - The use of therapeutic baths and mineral springs supplemented general medical practices in Europe for over 2000 years, and this tradition was carried on by settlers in North America. At various times during the past 200 years, Pennsylvania has had at least 30 spas that catered to the health and entertainment needs of both invalids and healthy people, and the waters of over 50 additional mineral springs were bottled and sold for their alleged health benefits as well. Spring waters in Pennsylvania vary in their temperature and chemical composition, which consists of varying concentrations of iron, magnesium, sulfur, hydrogen sulfide, radioactivity and salts. Specific springs became well-known for the treatment of specific diseases, while others were more renowned for their recreational activities. In this paper, the historical development of mineral springs in Pennsylvania is presented. We present information on the current status of these springs, from those that maintain viable commercial enterprises (e.g. Bedford Springs and Cambridge Springs), to those that are preserved as historical landmarks (e.g. Reading Mineral Springs and Frankfort Springs), and we relate our attempts at finding the remains of some long-lost and well-hidden sites, such as Parker Mineral Springs in McKean County. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Edenborn, Harry M AU - Vesper, Dorothy J AU - Edenborn, Sherie L AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 156 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - World Heritage sites KW - geologic sites KW - Cambridge Springs KW - Bedford Springs KW - Reading Mineral Springs KW - history KW - McKean County Pennsylvania KW - conservation KW - springs KW - Pennsylvania KW - Parker Mineral Springs KW - mineral waters KW - public health KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/959093771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Historical+mineral+springs+and+spas+of+Pennsylvania%3B+past+and+present&rft.au=Edenborn%2C+Harry+M%3BVesper%2C+Dorothy+J%3BEdenborn%2C+Sherie+L%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Edenborn&rft.aufirst=Harry&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=156&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 46th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 45th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Bedford Springs; Cambridge Springs; conservation; geologic sites; history; McKean County Pennsylvania; mineral waters; Parker Mineral Springs; Pennsylvania; public health; Reading Mineral Springs; springs; United States; World Heritage sites ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geochemical and isotopic studies of groundwater conditions in the Densu River basin of Ghana AN - 959089775; 2012-033365 AB - The Densu River basin (DRB) is an important agricultural area in Ghana and has a high population density. Water shortages have occurred in the basin due to drying out of surface water, heavy pollution and low yield in most of the production wells, which are crucial factors restricting sustainable socioeconomic development. This study was carried out to investigate the geochemical characteristics and evolution, as well as recharge processes in the DRB system with regard to the tectonics, geomorphology, lithology and flow system. It mainly used hydrochemistry, environmental isotopes and a series of comprehensive data interpretation, e.g., statistics, ionic ratios and Piper diagram to obtain a better understanding of the functioning of the system. The following hydrochemical processes were identified as the main factors controlling the water quality of the groundwater system: weathering of silicate minerals, dissolution, ion exchange and, to a lesser extent, evaporation, which seems to be more pronounced downgradient of the flow system. As groundwater flows from the recharge to discharge areas, chemical patterns evolve in the order of Ca (super 2+) -HCO (sub 3) (super -) , Ca (super 2+) /Mg (super 2+) -HCO (sub 3) (super -) to Ca (super 2+) /Na (super +) -Cl (super -) , Ca (super 2+) -Na (super +) -HCO (sub 3) (super -) and Na (super +) -Cl (super -) according to lithology. The environmental isotope (delta (super 18) O, delta (super 2) H, (super 3) H) measurements further revealed that groundwater in the DRB was a relatively well-mixed system as evidenced by the encoded narrow range of values. However, deviation from the rainwater signature indicates combined local processes such as direct percolation through preferential channels, evaporation, and probable surface water and anthropogenic contribution to the system. Copyright 2010 Springer-Verlag JF - Environmental Earth Sciences AU - Adomako, D AU - Osae, S AU - Akiti, T T AU - Faye, S AU - Maloszewski, P Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 1071 EP - 1084 PB - Springer, Berlin VL - 62 IS - 5 SN - 1866-6280, 1866-6280 KW - water quality KW - oxygen KW - isotopes KW - ions KW - stable isotopes KW - ground water KW - cluster analysis KW - substrates KW - chemical properties KW - discharge KW - chemical composition KW - Ghana KW - concentration KW - bivariate analysis KW - patterns KW - cation exchange capacity KW - isotope ratios KW - statistical analysis KW - O-18/O-16 KW - West Africa KW - Densu River basin KW - recharge KW - dissolved materials KW - dendrograms KW - Africa KW - 02B:Hydrochemistry KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/959089775?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Earth+Sciences&rft.atitle=Geochemical+and+isotopic+studies+of+groundwater+conditions+in+the+Densu+River+basin+of+Ghana&rft.au=Adomako%2C+D%3BOsae%2C+S%3BAkiti%2C+T+T%3BFaye%2C+S%3BMaloszewski%2C+P&rft.aulast=Adomako&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1071&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Earth+Sciences&rft.issn=18666280&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs12665-010-0595-2 L2 - http://www.springerlink.com/content/1866-6280 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Springer Verlag, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 40 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Africa; bivariate analysis; cation exchange capacity; chemical composition; chemical properties; cluster analysis; concentration; dendrograms; Densu River basin; discharge; dissolved materials; Ghana; ground water; ions; isotope ratios; isotopes; O-18/O-16; oxygen; patterns; recharge; stable isotopes; statistical analysis; substrates; water quality; West Africa DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0595-2 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Water quality assessment of groundwater in some rock types in parts of the eastern region of Ghana AN - 959089741; 2012-033364 AB - A baseline study involving analyses of subsurface water samples from the Cape Coast granitoid complex, lower Birimian, Togo Formation and the Voltaian Group, was carried out to assess their suitability for drinking, domestic and agricultural purposes. Study results show that pH within the range (3. < or = pH < or = 6.5) constitutes 74% of the boreholes analyzed, and 51% have hardness values ranging from 7.89 to 73.24 mg/l as CaCO (sub 3) and are described as soft. Total dissolved solids are less than 1,000 mg/l and generally characterized by low conductivity values, of which 95% are within the range (55 < or = EC < or = 1,500 mu S/cm). The mean values of the major cations (Ca (super 2+) , Mg (super 2+) , Na (super +) , K (super +) ) and anions (SO (sub 4) (super 2-) , Cl (super -) , HCO (super -) (sub 3) ) are all within the World Health Organisation (WHO) standards. Five (5) of the boreholes sampled have nitrate (NO (sub 3) (super -) ) contamination. Even though NO (sub 3) (super -) contamination and acidic waters exist in some of the boreholes, the majority of the boreholes are excellent for drinking and domestic purposes. Assessment of the groundwaters for agricultural irrigation revealed three main categories. These are low salinity-low sodicity (C1-S1), medium salinity-low sodicity (C2-S1) and high salinity-low sodicity (C3-S1), using the US Salinity Laboratory (USSL) classification scheme. As much as 95% of the samples plotted in the "excellent to good" and "good to permissible" categories on the Wilcox diagram. The groundwater in the study area may therefore be regarded as good for irrigation activities. The major identifiable geochemical processes responsible for the evolution of the various ions are mineral weathering and chemical reactions. Copyright 2010 Springer-Verlag JF - Environmental Earth Sciences AU - Ganyaglo, Samuel Y AU - Banoeng-Yakubo, Bruce AU - Osae, Shiloh AU - Dampare, Samuel B AU - Fianko, Joseph R Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 1055 EP - 1069 PB - Springer, Berlin VL - 62 IS - 5 SN - 1866-6280, 1866-6280 KW - aquifer vulnerability KW - water quality KW - magnesium KW - water hardness KW - upper Precambrian KW - Paleoproterozoic KW - igneous rocks KW - granites KW - ions KW - drinking water KW - ground water KW - substrates KW - plutonic rocks KW - eastern Ghana KW - conductivity KW - weathered materials KW - metamorphic rocks KW - nitrate ion KW - water use KW - Togo Formation KW - gneisses KW - Birimian KW - Ghana KW - alkaline earth metals KW - Precambrian KW - cation exchange capacity KW - alkali metals KW - agriculture KW - pollution KW - Proterozoic KW - bicarbonate ion KW - aquifers KW - West Africa KW - dissolved materials KW - metals KW - potassium KW - Africa KW - acidification KW - risk assessment KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/959089741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Earth+Sciences&rft.atitle=Water+quality+assessment+of+groundwater+in+some+rock+types+in+parts+of+the+eastern+region+of+Ghana&rft.au=Ganyaglo%2C+Samuel+Y%3BBanoeng-Yakubo%2C+Bruce%3BOsae%2C+Shiloh%3BDampare%2C+Samuel+B%3BFianko%2C+Joseph+R&rft.aulast=Ganyaglo&rft.aufirst=Samuel&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1055&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Earth+Sciences&rft.issn=18666280&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs12665-010-0594-3 L2 - http://www.springerlink.com/content/1866-6280 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Springer Verlag, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 50 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables, geol. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acidification; Africa; agriculture; alkali metals; alkaline earth metals; aquifer vulnerability; aquifers; bicarbonate ion; Birimian; cation exchange capacity; conductivity; dissolved materials; drinking water; eastern Ghana; Ghana; gneisses; granites; ground water; igneous rocks; ions; magnesium; metals; metamorphic rocks; nitrate ion; Paleoproterozoic; plutonic rocks; pollution; potassium; Precambrian; Proterozoic; risk assessment; substrates; Togo Formation; upper Precambrian; water hardness; water quality; water use; weathered materials; West Africa DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0594-3 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Monitoring of MNSR operation by measuring subcritical photoneutron flux AN - 954619277; 14260819 AB - Passive nondestructive assay methods are used to monitor the reactor's operation. It is required for nuclear regulatory, calculation validation and safeguards purposes. So, it plays a vital role in the safety and security of the nuclear plants. The possibility of MNSR operation monitoring by measuring the subcritical state photoneutron flux were investigated in this work. The photoneutron flux is induced by the fuels hard gamma radiation in the beryllium reflector. Theoretical formulation and experimental tests were performed. The results show that within a specified cooling time range, the photoneutron flux is induced by a single dominant hard gamma emitter such as super(117)Cd (activation product) and super(140)Ba ( super(140)La fission product). This phenomenon was utilized to monitor the cooling time and the operation neutron flux during the last campaign. Thus a passive nondestructive assay method is proposed with regard to the reactor operation's monitoring. JF - Applied Radiation and Isotopes AU - Haddad, Kh AU - Alsomel, N AD - Atomic Energy Commission, P.O. Box 6091, Damascus, Syria, pscientific1@aec.org.sy Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 623 EP - 628 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 69 IS - 3 SN - 0969-8043, 0969-8043 KW - Environment Abstracts KW - MNSR KW - Photoneutron KW - Hard gamma KW - Subcritical KW - Control rod KW - Cooling time KW - fission products KW - Isotopes KW - Nuclear reactors KW - Fuels KW - Nuclear fuels KW - Beryllium KW - Gamma radiation KW - security KW - ENA 03:Energy UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/954619277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Applied+Radiation+and+Isotopes&rft.atitle=Monitoring+of+MNSR+operation+by+measuring+subcritical+photoneutron+flux&rft.au=Haddad%2C+Kh%3BAlsomel%2C+N&rft.aulast=Haddad&rft.aufirst=Kh&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=623&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Applied+Radiation+and+Isotopes&rft.issn=09698043&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.apradiso.2010.11.028 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-06-22 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Isotopes; fission products; Nuclear reactors; Fuels; Beryllium; Nuclear fuels; security; Gamma radiation DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2010.11.028 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - NETL's environmental research pertaining to the development of Marcellus Shale gas AN - 928894186; 2012-031440 AB - The Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is conducting research to identify and mitigate environmental impacts associated with the development of the Marcellus Shale gas. The work falls into four categories: 1) chemical and microbiological characterization of flowback and produced waters; 2) development of more effective technologies to treat or manage produced and flowback waters; 3) monitoring of air emissions from Marcellus Shale gas wells to determine impact on regional air quality; and 4) determining the impact of Marcellus development on sensitive indicator species. Marcellus Shale gas flowback and produced waters are being characterized to achieve a holistic understanding of the chemistry of these waters and the microbial consortia that live in them. This information will be used to design effective treatment for the produced/flowback waters and to determine the chemical and isotopic signature for such waters so that they can be identified when commingled with surface water or shallow groundwater. NETL is monitoring air emissions from oil and gas operations using a mobile laboratory that is equipped to measure 52 VOC's, ozone, SO (sub 2) , NO (sub x) , PM (sub 2.5) and PM (sub 10) , particle and gas phase ions (sulfate, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, bromide, and fluoride), ammonia, organic and elemental carbon in aerosols, visibility impairment (haze), methane, and radon. NETL also has been examining the impact of access road and drill pad construction on sensitive species. Specifically, NETL has funded West Virginia University to examine the impact of Marcellus Shale gas development on two migratory songbirds whose populations have been in decline since 1960. Further, NETL in conjunction with Penn State's Dirt and Gravel Roads Group, Clarion University and the U.S. Geological Survey have been looking at the impact of different methods of access road construction on sedimentation in nearby streams and the resulting impact on macroinvertebrate populations. The current status of these studies including significant outcomes will be presented. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Hammack, Richard W AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 76 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - water quality KW - monitoring KW - Paleozoic KW - natural gas KW - water management KW - pollution KW - petroleum KW - Eastern U.S. KW - Middle Devonian KW - Devonian KW - Marcellus Shale KW - water resources KW - water pollution KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928894186?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=NETL%27s+environmental+research+pertaining+to+the+development+of+Marcellus+Shale+gas&rft.au=Hammack%2C+Richard+W%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Hammack&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=76&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 46th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 45th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Devonian; Eastern U.S.; Marcellus Shale; Middle Devonian; monitoring; natural gas; Paleozoic; petroleum; pollution; United States; water management; water pollution; water quality; water resources ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Strontium isotopic composition of flowback waters associated with Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction, Bradford County, Pennsylvania AN - 928894184; 2012-031439 AB - The hydrofracturing technique used in natural gas extraction from the Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale produces large volumes of highly saline waters. It is not clear to what extent the dissolved load in flowback waters originates from connate Marcellus Formation waters, dissolution of salt by the fracturing fluids, or brines from adjacent formations. In part to address this issue, flowback waters from five hydraulically fractured Marcellus Shale gas wells in Bradford County, PA were analyzed for strontium isotope composition. TDS ranged from 110,000-211,000 mg/L, and elemental concentrations follow Cl > Na > Ca > Ba > Sr > Mg > Br. Two of the samples represent initial flowback fluids, and three represent waters that had been recycled multiple times as fracturing fluids. Isotopic analysis of the filtered flowback waters yielded a relatively restricted (super 87) Sr/ (super 86) Sr range of 0.71026-0.71076, corresponding to a Sr concentration range of 2.0-5.2 X 10 (super 3) mg/L. The highest isotopic ratios are found in recycled fluids, suggesting that they most closely approach local Marcellus isotopic signatures. While samples of the initial freshwater fracturing fluids are not available, we speculate that the isotope ratios of the high-TDS flowback fluids are dominated by interaction with Marcellus (+ or - adjacent units) solids and brines. These and other preliminary strontium isotope results also suggest that Marcellus shale flowback water, brine from the Upper Devonian Venango Group sands, and mine drainage from Pennsylvanian Allegheny and Monongahela Group coal seams fall into isotopically distinct clusters. Ongoing sequential leaching studies of solid samples from the Marcellus Shale and surrounding units will provide tighter constraints on the isotopic endmembers of produced waters, and may provide insight into the source of the TDS in flowback fluids and the water-rock interaction processes involved in their geochemical evolution. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Chapman, Elizabeth C AU - Capo, Rosemary C AU - Stewart, Brian W AU - Kirby, Carl S AU - Engle, Mark A AU - Rowan, Elisabeth L AU - Edenborn, Harry M AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 76 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - water quality KW - alkaline earth metals KW - isotopes KW - Paleozoic KW - natural gas KW - isotope ratios KW - water management KW - petroleum KW - stable isotopes KW - Bradford County Pennsylvania KW - Sr-87/Sr-86 KW - Middle Devonian KW - Devonian KW - metals KW - Marcellus Shale KW - Pennsylvania KW - water resources KW - geochemistry KW - strontium KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928894184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Strontium+isotopic+composition+of+flowback+waters+associated+with+Marcellus+Shale+natural+gas+extraction%2C+Bradford+County%2C+Pennsylvania&rft.au=Chapman%2C+Elizabeth+C%3BCapo%2C+Rosemary+C%3BStewart%2C+Brian+W%3BKirby%2C+Carl+S%3BEngle%2C+Mark+A%3BRowan%2C+Elisabeth+L%3BEdenborn%2C+Harry+M%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Chapman&rft.aufirst=Elizabeth&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=76&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 46th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 45th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - alkaline earth metals; Bradford County Pennsylvania; Devonian; geochemistry; isotope ratios; isotopes; Marcellus Shale; metals; Middle Devonian; natural gas; Paleozoic; Pennsylvania; petroleum; Sr-87/Sr-86; stable isotopes; strontium; United States; water management; water quality; water resources ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Impacts of sediment runoff from oil and gas production activity on the water quality of streams in adjacent watersheds, Allegheny National Forest, Pennsylvania AN - 928893753; 2012-031654 AB - Marcellus gas production activities result in the construction and use of unpaved access roads. This study examined the current impacts of unpaved roads built to service the oil industry in the Allegheny National Forest on sedimentation and stream ecology. Two adjacent watersheds, similar in size and topography but having low and very high road density, were identified for study. The Grunder Run study area has a contributing drainage of 12.4 square km, with a road density of 6.9 km per square km of drainage, and represented a watershed developed for oil and gas extraction. The Hedgehog Run study area served as a forested control site with a contributing drainage of 11.1 square km and road density of 1.2 km per square km. Both streams were instrumented with stream flow and water quality monitors with data transmitted via satellite telemetry. A rainfall simulation device was used to create repeatable rainfall events (1.5 cm per 30 min) and to collect sediment load data from selected 30.5 m sections of road. Of 14 sites measured, average sediment runoff equaled 11.2 kg per study, or 370 kg per kilometer for each 30 min simulated rainfall event. As a practical tool for the preliminary evaluation of sediment runoff potential, an index was developed using a GIS model based on high resolution elevation data derived from LIDAR to evaluate topographic parameters that significantly affect rainfall/runoff relationships for road segments. The model is being used to prioritize unpaved road-segments prior to the implementation of restoration and sedimentation management plans. Macroinvertebrates were collected during the early summer, late summer and fall from two sites each in study area. Surprisingly, macroinvertebrate fauna in both watersheds were similar in terms of overall taxa richness, EPT (mayfly/stonefly/caddisfly) richness values, and diversity indices. Preliminary analyses indicate that the presence/absence of selected macroinvertebrate indicator species may provide more specific indication of road-generated sediment impact than do total population indices. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Sams, James AU - Edenborn, Harry M AU - Harris, Steven C AU - Bloser, Stephen AU - Scheetz, Barry AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 109 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - water quality KW - Paleozoic KW - natural gas KW - drainage KW - pollution KW - petroleum KW - satellite methods KW - production KW - Middle Devonian KW - Devonian KW - Marcellus Shale KW - runoff KW - Allegheny National Forest KW - streams KW - Pennsylvania KW - remote sensing KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928893753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Impacts+of+sediment+runoff+from+oil+and+gas+production+activity+on+the+water+quality+of+streams+in+adjacent+watersheds%2C+Allegheny+National+Forest%2C+Pennsylvania&rft.au=Sams%2C+James%3BEdenborn%2C+Harry+M%3BHarris%2C+Steven+C%3BBloser%2C+Stephen%3BScheetz%2C+Barry%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Sams&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=109&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 46th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 45th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Allegheny National Forest; Devonian; drainage; Marcellus Shale; Middle Devonian; natural gas; Paleozoic; Pennsylvania; petroleum; pollution; production; remote sensing; runoff; satellite methods; streams; United States; water quality ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Tufa deposits in western Pennsylvania AN - 928893748; 2012-031653 AB - Active calcium carbonate precipitation and accretion around springs and other groundwater seepages, related to the degassing of carbon dioxide, results in formations variably referred to as tufa or travertine. Such deposits in eastern North America are especially well-known in the karst region of western Virginia, often associated with the discharge of thermal spring waters, but reports of tufa formations outside of this region are scanty. Here we report on our preliminary observations on the occurrence of tufa in western Pennsylvania associated with springs and seeps adjacent to limestone units. The Upper Pennsylvanian Monongahela Group Benwood Limestone and the Middle Pennsylvanian Allegheny Group Vanport Limestone provide the likely source of calcium for the carbonate minerals that make up the deposits. Most tufa occurrences in the study area can be classified as perched springline tufas that are lobate, convex to flat-surfaced deposits, thickening away from a spring mouth. Many of the discovered sites are associated with human disturbances of natural terrain during the past 150 years that resulted in steep elevational drops in discharged water and enhanced carbon dioxide release - these include such activities as highway and railroad construction and the strip mining of bituminous coal. Preliminary data illustrating the general chemical, geological and biological characteristics of these tufa sites and their corresponding waters are presented. Future multidisciplinary scientific studies of these sites will incorporate geology, geochemistry, microbiology, isotopic analysis, hydrology and ecology. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Leitkam, Stephen AU - Edenborn, Harry M AU - Capo, Rosemary C AU - Edenborn, Sherie L AU - Sharma, Shikha AU - Hartsock, Angela AU - Shaulis, James R AU - Woods, Peter AU - Vesper, Dorothy J AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 109 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - chemically precipitated rocks KW - accretion KW - hydrochemistry KW - seepage KW - ground water KW - sedimentary rocks KW - springs KW - tufa KW - Pennsylvania KW - geochemistry KW - western Pennsylvania KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928893748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Tufa+deposits+in+western+Pennsylvania&rft.au=Leitkam%2C+Stephen%3BEdenborn%2C+Harry+M%3BCapo%2C+Rosemary+C%3BEdenborn%2C+Sherie+L%3BSharma%2C+Shikha%3BHartsock%2C+Angela%3BShaulis%2C+James+R%3BWoods%2C+Peter%3BVesper%2C+Dorothy+J%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Leitkam&rft.aufirst=Stephen&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=109&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 46th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 45th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accretion; chemically precipitated rocks; geochemistry; ground water; hydrochemistry; hydrology; Pennsylvania; sedimentary rocks; seepage; springs; tufa; United States; western Pennsylvania ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Preliminary analysis of the weathering potential of Marcellus Shale drill cuttings AN - 928892623; 2012-031282 AB - Black shale is a natural material, and is common in outcrops, where it has been oxidized, weathered and leached over geological time. Black shale cuttings from deep horizontal boreholes are different. When cuttings are brought to the surface, the reduced minerals in them are exposed to air and fresh water for the first time. Oxides of many elements are more water-soluble and mobile than the metallic or reduced forms. The concerns are magnified by the large quantities of drill cuttings. The mass of black shale removed from a lateral borehole that is 30 cm across and up to 2 km long may exceed several hundred tons. Samples of drill cuttings, core, and outcrops of the lower, middle and upper parts of the Marcellus Shale were chemically analyzed. Carbon, sulfur and hydrogen were assayed by Controlled Atmosphere Programmed Temperature Oxidation (CAPTO). Scanning electron microscopy and elemental analyses were run on select samples. A leaching procedure followed by Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) analyses was used to detect "toxic" metals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium. An ICP analysis of a composite sample was performed to determine bulk rock elemental composition. Radioactivity was measured using a low background radiation analyzer. The CAPTO analyses showed organic and inorganic carbon in the samples, hydrogen as free moisture, hydrocarbons and bound water on clays, and sulfur in both sulfides and sulfates. The ICP analysis of the composite sample showed the major components of the rock to be Al, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Na, S, Si, and Ti, which is not unexpected for pyritic, clay-rich, black shale. Minor elements detected by the ICP at levels above the minimum reporting limit included As, B, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Li, Mn, Mo, Ni, P, Pb, Sn, Sr, V, Zn, and Zr. The alpha radiation counts on the bulk rock samples ranged from background levels to about 8 times above background. Analysis on the leachate prepared for the ICP tests showed alpha counts at background levels. The preliminary results suggest that black shales do contain small but detectable amounts of heavy metals and other elements that can be detrimental to the environment if mobilized and concentrated. Additional analyses are needed to better define the fate and transport of leachate from black shale cuttings, and identify potential environmental hazards. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Soeder, Daniel AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 50 EP - 51 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 43 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - pollutants KW - Paleozoic KW - pollution KW - weathering KW - black shale KW - sedimentary rocks KW - Middle Devonian KW - Devonian KW - sampling KW - Marcellus Shale KW - drilling KW - geochemistry KW - clastic rocks KW - heavy metals KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928892623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+LOS+ALAMOS+NATIONAL+LABORATORY%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 46th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 45th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - black shale; clastic rocks; Devonian; drilling; geochemistry; heavy metals; Marcellus Shale; Middle Devonian; Paleozoic; pollutants; pollution; sampling; sedimentary rocks; United States; weathering ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Predicting the yield of super(177)Lu radionuclide produced by the cyclic irradiation technique AN - 918041139; 14260813 AB - The feasibility study on the production of super(177)Lu radioisotope using a low power research reactor has been conducted. A reliable method for predicting the yield of super(177)Lu produced using the cyclic activation technique based on the Westcott formalism has been established. A specific activity of 243.24 mCi/g was obtained when a super(176)Lu sub(2)O sub(3) of natural abundance was irradiated for 4 h and decayed for 20 h for four cycles at GHARR-1 with a neutron flux of 5.0x10 super(11) ncm super(-2) s super(-1). JF - Applied Radiation and Isotopes AU - Duodu, Godfred Odame AU - Akaho, Edward HK AU - Serfor-Armah, Yaw AU - Nyarko, Benjamin JB AU - Achoribo, Elom Afi AD - Radiological and Medical Sciences Research Institute, Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, P.O. Box LG80, Legon Accra, Ghana, jogd14@yahoo.com Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 588 EP - 593 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 69 IS - 3 SN - 0969-8043, 0969-8043 KW - Toxicology Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Cyclic irradiation KW - 177Lu KW - Yield KW - Radioisotope production KW - Westcott convention KW - Low power research reactor KW - Feasibility studies KW - Neutrons KW - Isotopes KW - Irradiation KW - Abundance KW - Radioisotopes KW - abundance KW - X 24390:Radioactive Materials KW - ENA 14:Radiological Contamination UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918041139?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxicologyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Applied+Radiation+and+Isotopes&rft.atitle=Predicting+the+yield+of+super%28177%29Lu+radionuclide+produced+by+the+cyclic+irradiation+technique&rft.au=Duodu%2C+Godfred+Odame%3BAkaho%2C+Edward+HK%3BSerfor-Armah%2C+Yaw%3BNyarko%2C+Benjamin+JB%3BAchoribo%2C+Elom+Afi&rft.aulast=Duodu&rft.aufirst=Godfred&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=588&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Applied+Radiation+and+Isotopes&rft.issn=09698043&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.apradiso.2010.12.002 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-06-22 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Neutrons; Isotopes; Abundance; Radioisotopes; Feasibility studies; Irradiation; abundance DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2010.12.002 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States -- 2009 AN - 914787848; 2011-157384 AB - This report -- the seventeenth annual report -- presents the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) latest estimates of emissions for carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases. Total US anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas emissions in 2009 were 5.8% below the 2008 total. The decline in total emissions -- from 6,983 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2008 to 6,576 MMTCO2e in 2009 -- was the largest since emissions have been tracked over the 1990-2009 time frame. Tables. JF - United States Department of Energy, Mar 2011, vii+77 pp. AU - Conti, John Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 PB - United States Department of Energy KW - Environment and environmental policy - Ecology and environmental policy KW - Environment and environmental policy - Weather, climate, and natural disasters KW - Manufacturing and heavy industry - Chemical industries KW - United States KW - Gases KW - Emissions trading KW - Global warming KW - book UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/914787848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Conti%2C+John&rft.aulast=Conti&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Emissions+of+Greenhouse+Gases+in+the+United+States+--+2009&rft.title=Emissions+of+Greenhouse+Gases+in+the+United+States+--+2009&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/pdf/0573%282009%29.pdf LA - English DB - PAIS Index N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Publication note - United States Department of Energy, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-28 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Developing and implementing a real-time earthquake notification system for nuclear power plant sites using ShakeCast AN - 911678823; 2012-006793 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Lin, K AU - Wald, D J AU - Altinyollar, A AU - Codoy, A R AU - Ake, J AU - Kammerer, A AU - Magnani, M Beatrice AU - Langston, Chuck Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 351 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 82 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - nuclear energy KW - warning systems KW - seismicity KW - ShakeCast KW - earthquake prediction KW - ground motion KW - data processing KW - data bases KW - damage KW - power plants KW - earthquakes KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911678823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Developing+and+implementing+a+real-time+earthquake+notification+system+for+nuclear+power+plant+sites+using+ShakeCast&rft.au=Lin%2C+K%3BWald%2C+D+J%3BAltinyollar%2C+A%3BCodoy%2C+A+R%3BAke%2C+J%3BKammerer%2C+A%3BMagnani%2C+M+Beatrice%3BLangston%2C+Chuck&rft.aulast=Lin&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=351&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Seismological Society of America 2011 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - damage; data bases; data processing; earthquake prediction; earthquakes; ground motion; nuclear energy; power plants; seismicity; ShakeCast; warning systems ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Co-seismic groundwater table changes and the requirement of nuclear power plant design AN - 907924046; 2012-002908 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Li, Yong AU - Zhegal, M AU - Ahn, Hosung AU - Bauer, Laurel AU - Schweig, Eugene AU - Williams, Robert Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 336 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 82 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - United States KW - soil mechanics KW - geologic hazards KW - power plants KW - Eastern U.S. KW - ground water KW - coseismic processes KW - nuclear energy KW - seismic risk KW - natural hazards KW - risk assessment KW - aseismic design KW - earthquakes KW - Midwest KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907924046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Co-seismic+groundwater+table+changes+and+the+requirement+of+nuclear+power+plant+design&rft.au=Li%2C+Yong%3BZhegal%2C+M%3BAhn%2C+Hosung%3BBauer%2C+Laurel%3BSchweig%2C+Eugene%3BWilliams%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Li&rft.aufirst=Yong&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=336&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - SSA 2011 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aseismic design; coseismic processes; earthquakes; Eastern U.S.; geologic hazards; ground water; Midwest; natural hazards; nuclear energy; power plants; risk assessment; seismic risk; soil mechanics; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A probabilistic approach to analyze seismic-induced dam breach floods for safety analysis at new nuclear power plants AN - 907924039; 2012-002907 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Ahn, Hosung AU - Giancinto, Joseph F AU - Raione, P Richard AU - Schweig, Eugene AU - Williams, Robert Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 336 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 82 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - geologic hazards KW - statistical analysis KW - power plants KW - safety KW - nuclear energy KW - seismic risk KW - dams KW - natural hazards KW - floods KW - risk assessment KW - probability KW - earthquakes KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907924039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=A+probabilistic+approach+to+analyze+seismic-induced+dam+breach+floods+for+safety+analysis+at+new+nuclear+power+plants&rft.au=Ahn%2C+Hosung%3BGiancinto%2C+Joseph+F%3BRaione%2C+P+Richard%3BSchweig%2C+Eugene%3BWilliams%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Ahn&rft.aufirst=Hosung&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=336&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - SSA 2011 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - dams; earthquakes; floods; geologic hazards; natural hazards; nuclear energy; power plants; probability; risk assessment; safety; seismic risk; statistical analysis ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of CAV as a screening criterion for probablistic seismic hazard analysis AN - 907924024; 2012-002905 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Munson, C G AU - Ake, J AU - Schweig, Eugene AU - Williams, Robert Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 336 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 82 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - attenuation KW - nuclear energy KW - geologic hazards KW - seismic risk KW - natural hazards KW - ground motion KW - damage KW - risk assessment KW - power plants KW - cumulative absolute velocity KW - earthquakes KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907924024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Evaluation+of+CAV+as+a+screening+criterion+for+probablistic+seismic+hazard+analysis&rft.au=Munson%2C+C+G%3BAke%2C+J%3BSchweig%2C+Eugene%3BWilliams%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Munson&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=336&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - SSA 2011 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - attenuation; cumulative absolute velocity; damage; earthquakes; geologic hazards; ground motion; natural hazards; nuclear energy; power plants; risk assessment; seismic risk ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Results of the Workshop on Applications of Precarious Rocks and Related Fragile Geological Features to US National Hazard Maps AN - 907922591; 2012-000458 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Anderson, J G AU - Brune, J N AU - Biasi, G AU - Purvance, M AU - Anooshehpoor, A AU - Schweig, Eugene AU - Williams, Robert Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 313 EP - 314 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 82 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - models KW - geologic hazards KW - precariously balanced rocks KW - seismic risk KW - natural hazards KW - risk assessment KW - mapping KW - earthquakes KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907922591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Results+of+the+Workshop+on+Applications+of+Precarious+Rocks+and+Related+Fragile+Geological+Features+to+US+National+Hazard+Maps&rft.au=Anderson%2C+J+G%3BBrune%2C+J+N%3BBiasi%2C+G%3BPurvance%2C+M%3BAnooshehpoor%2C+A%3BSchweig%2C+Eugene%3BWilliams%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Anderson&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=129&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=473&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Radiation+Protection+Dosimetry&rft.issn=01448420&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - SSA 2011 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - earthquakes; geologic hazards; mapping; models; natural hazards; precariously balanced rocks; risk assessment; seismic risk ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geologic and tectonic aspects of the new seismic source characterization for nuclear facilities in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) AN - 907921893; 2012-000448 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Fuller, C W AU - Coppersmith, K J AU - Glaser, L AU - Hartleb, R AU - Lettis, W R AU - McDuffie, S M AU - McGuire, R AU - Stirewalt, G L AU - Toro, G AU - Youngs, R AU - Schweig, Eugene AU - Williams, Robert Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 311 EP - 312 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 82 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - United States KW - geologic hazards KW - seismic risk KW - natural hazards KW - magnitude KW - risk assessment KW - nuclear facilities KW - Eastern U.S. KW - earthquakes KW - Midwest KW - 19:Seismology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907921893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Geologic+and+tectonic+aspects+of+the+new+seismic+source+characterization+for+nuclear+facilities+in+the+Central+and+Eastern+United+States+%28CEUS%29&rft.au=Fuller%2C+C+W%3BCoppersmith%2C+K+J%3BGlaser%2C+L%3BHartleb%2C+R%3BLettis%2C+W+R%3BMcDuffie%2C+S+M%3BMcGuire%2C+R%3BStirewalt%2C+G+L%3BToro%2C+G%3BYoungs%2C+R%3BSchweig%2C+Eugene%3BWilliams%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Fuller&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=311&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - SSA 2011 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - earthquakes; Eastern U.S.; geologic hazards; magnitude; Midwest; natural hazards; nuclear facilities; risk assessment; seismic risk; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Modular filter-based approach to ground motion attenuation modeling AN - 907919521; 2012-000322 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Graizer, Vladimir AU - Kalkan, E AU - Schweig, Eugene AU - Williams, Robert Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 286 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 82 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - models KW - attenuation KW - seismicity KW - magnitude KW - ground motion KW - prediction KW - earthquakes KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907919521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Modular+filter-based+approach+to+ground+motion+attenuation+modeling&rft.au=Graizer%2C+Vladimir%3BKalkan%2C+E%3BSchweig%2C+Eugene%3BWilliams%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Graizer&rft.aufirst=Vladimir&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=286&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - SSA 2011 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - attenuation; earthquakes; ground motion; magnitude; models; prediction; seismicity ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The critical role of monitoring, verification, and accounting for geologic carbon dioxide storage projects AN - 864947562; 2011-038810 AB - A growing concern that increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global climate change has led to a search for economical and environmentally sound ways to reduce carbon dioxide (CO (sub 2) ) emissions. One promising approach is CO (sub 2) capture and permanent storage in deep geologic formations, such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, unminable coal seams, and deep brine-containing (saline) formations. However, successful implementation of geologic storage projects will require robust monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) tools. This article deals with all aspects of MVA activities associated with such geologic CO (sub 2) storage projects, including site characterization, CO (sub 2) plume tracking, CO (sub 2) flow rate and injection pressure monitoring, leak detection, cap-rock integrity analysis, and long-term postinjection monitoring. Improved detailed decision tree diagrams are presented covering the five stages of a geologic storage project. These diagrams provide guidance from the point of site selection through construction and operations to closure and postclosure monitoring. Monitoring, verification, and accounting techniques (both well-established and promising new developments) appropriate for various project stages are discussed. Accomplishments of the Department of Energy (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships field projects serve as examples of the development and application to geologic storage of MVA tools, such as two-dimensional and three-dimensional seismic and microseismic, as well as the testing of new cost-effective monitoring technologies. Although it is important that MVA and computer simulation efforts be carefully integrated to ensure long-term success of geologic storage projects, this article is limited to a discussion of MVA activities. This article is an extension of a report published in 2009 by the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory titled, "Best Practices for Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting of CO (sub 2) Stored in Deep Geologic Formations," to which interested readers are referred for more details on MVA tools. Ultimately, a robust MVA program will be critical for establishing carbon capture and storage as a viable greenhouse gas mitigation strategy. JF - Environmental Geosciences AU - Plasynski, Sean I AU - Litynski, John T AU - McIlvried, Howard G AU - Vikara, Derek M AU - Srivastava, Rameshwar D Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 19 EP - 34 PB - American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), Division of Environmental Geosciences, Tulsa, OK VL - 18 IS - 1 SN - 1075-9565, 1075-9565 KW - deep aquifers KW - monitoring KW - carbon sequestration KW - underground storage KW - three-dimensional models KW - injection KW - characterization KW - unsaturated zone KW - storage coefficient KW - climate change KW - two-dimensional models KW - reservoir rocks KW - carbon dioxide KW - aquifers KW - models KW - mitigation KW - wellhead protection KW - underground installations KW - greenhouse gases KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/864947562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Geosciences&rft.atitle=The+critical+role+of+monitoring%2C+verification%2C+and+accounting+for+geologic+carbon+dioxide+storage+projects&rft.au=Plasynski%2C+Sean+I%3BLitynski%2C+John+T%3BMcIlvried%2C+Howard+G%3BVikara%2C+Derek+M%3BSrivastava%2C+Rameshwar+D&rft.aulast=Plasynski&rft.aufirst=Sean&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=19&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Geosciences&rft.issn=10759565&rft_id=info:doi/10.1306%2Feg.06231010008 L2 - http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/ege LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States | Reference includes data supplied by American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, United States N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 21 N1 - PubXState - OK N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquifers; carbon dioxide; carbon sequestration; characterization; climate change; deep aquifers; greenhouse gases; injection; mitigation; models; monitoring; reservoir rocks; storage coefficient; three-dimensional models; two-dimensional models; underground installations; underground storage; unsaturated zone; wellhead protection DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/eg.06231010008 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The OECD validation program of the H295R steroidogenesis assay: Phase 3. Final inter-laboratory validation study AN - 860387920; 14379184 AB - Background, goals, and scope: In response to increasing concerns regarding the potential of chemicals to interact with the endocrine system of humans and wildlife, various national and international programs have been initiated with the aim to develop new guidelines for the screening and testing of these chemicals in vertebrates. Here, we report on the validation of an in vitro assay, the H295R steroidogenesis assay, to detect chemicals with the potential to inhibit or induce the production of the sex steroid hormones testosterone (T) and 17 beta -estradiol (E2) in preparation for the development of an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) test guideline. Methods: A previously optimized and pre-validated protocol was used to assess the potential of 28 chemicals of diverse structures and properties to validate the H295R steroidogenesis assay. These chemicals are comprised of known endocrine-active chemicals and "negative" chemicals that were not expected to have effects on the targeted endpoints, as well as a number of test chemicals with unknown modes of action at the level of the steroidogenic pathway. A total of seven laboratories from seven countries participated in this effort. In addition to effects on hormone production, confounding factors, such as cell viability and possible direct interference of test substances with antibody-based hormone detection assays, were assessed. Prior to and during the conduct of exposure experiments, each laboratory had to demonstrate that they were able to conduct the assay within the margin of predefined performance criteria. Results: With a few exceptions, all laboratories met the key quality performance parameters, and only 2% and 7% of all experiments for T and E2, respectively, were excluded due to exceedance of these parameters. Of the 28 chemicals analyzed, 13 and 14 tested affected production of T and E2, respectively, while 11 and 8 did not result in significant effects on T and E2 production, respectively. Four and six chemicals produced ambiguous results for effects on T and E2 production, respectively. However, four of these cases each for T and E2 were associated with only one laboratory after a personnel change occurred. Significant interference of test chemicals with some of the antibody-based hormone detection systems occurred for four chemicals. Only one of these chemicals, however, significantly affected the ability of the detection system to categorize the chemical as affecting E2 or T production. Discussion and conclusions: With one exception, the H295R steroidogenesis assay protocol successfully identified the majority of chemicals with known and unknown modes of interaction as inducers or inhibitors of T and E2 production. Thus it can be considered a reliable screen for chemicals that can alter the production of sex steroid hormones. One of the remaining limitations associated with the H295R steroidogenesis assay protocol is the relatively small basal production of E2 and its effect on quantifying the decreased production of this hormone with regard to the identification of weak inhibitors. An initial comparison of the data produced in this study with those from in vivo studies from the literature demonstrated the potential of the H295R steroidogenesis assay to identify chemicals affecting hormone homeostasis in whole organisms. Particularly promising was the lack of any false negatives during the validation and the very low number of false positives (1 out of 28 chemicals for each T and E2). Perspectives: Based on the results obtained during this validation study and the accordingly revised test protocols, an OECD draft test guideline was developed and submitted to the OECD working group of the national coordinators of the test guidelines program (WNT) for comments in December 2009. JF - Environmental Science and Pollution Research International AU - Hecker, Markus AU - Hollert, Henner AU - Cooper, Ralph AU - Vinggaard, Anne Marie AU - Akahori, Yumi AU - Murphy, Margaret AU - Nellemann, Christine AU - Higley, Eric AU - Newsted, John AU - Laskey, John AU - Buckalew, Angela AU - Grund, Stefanie AU - Maletz, Sibylle AU - Giesy, John AU - Timm, Gary AD - Office of Science Coordination and Policy, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, mhecker@entrix.com mhecker@entrix.com mhecker@entrix.com mhecker@entrix.com mhecker@entrix.com mhecker@entrix.com Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - Mar 2011 SP - 503 EP - 515 PB - Ecomed Verlagsgesellschaft AG & Co. KG, Justus-von-Liebig-Strasse 1 Landsberg D-86899 Germany VL - 18 IS - 3 SN - 0944-1344, 0944-1344 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Assays KW - Chemicals KW - P 6000:TOXICOLOGY AND HEALTH KW - ENA 07:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/860387920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Science+and+Pollution+Research+International&rft.atitle=The+OECD+validation+program+of+the+H295R+steroidogenesis+assay%3A+Phase+3.+Final+inter-laboratory+validation+study&rft.au=Saraiva+dos+Santos%2C+Ticiano+J%3BFetter%2C+A+H%3BHackspacher%2C+P+C%3BVan+Schmus%2C+W+R%3BNogueira+Neto%2C+J+A&rft.aulast=Saraiva+dos+Santos&rft.aufirst=Ticiano&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=271&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+South+American+Earth+Sciences&rft.issn=08959811&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jsames.2007.05.006 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Chemicals DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-010-0396-x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Review on the addition of boron compounds to radiation shielding concrete AN - 855712569; 14258052 AB - The effects of the addition of three commercially available boric compounds (boric acid, boric frit, and borax) on the shielding properties of two radiation shielding concrete, made of carbonate and hematite aggregates, have been investigated. The results show that boric acid (H sub(3)BO sub(3)) and its frit have deleterious effect on the setting of ordinary cement in ratios 0.5-1% of the total weight of the concrete. Adding Borax (Na sub(2)B sub(4)O sub(7)) has no significant effect on strength of concrete in the range up to 1% by wt, but it has significant effects on shielding efficiency in thick concrete shields (100 cm) as it reduces the capture gamma rays up to 80% better than unborated concretes. JF - Progress in Nuclear Energy AU - Kharita, M H AU - Yousef, S AU - AlNassar, M AD - Atomic Energy Commission of Syria, Protection and Safety Department, Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic, prscientific@aec.org.sy Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 207 EP - 211 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 53 IS - 2 SN - 0149-1970, 0149-1970 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Boron KW - Radiation KW - Shielding KW - Concrete KW - Cement KW - Nuclear energy KW - Gamma radiation KW - Boron compounds KW - ENA 03:Energy KW - H 8000:Radiation Safety/Electrical Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/855712569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Progress+in+Nuclear+Energy&rft.atitle=Review+on+the+addition+of+boron+compounds+to+radiation+shielding+concrete&rft.au=Kharita%2C+M+H%3BYousef%2C+S%3BAlNassar%2C+M&rft.aulast=Kharita&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=207&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Progress+in+Nuclear+Energy&rft.issn=01491970&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.pnucene.2010.09.012 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-04 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Cement; Nuclear energy; Gamma radiation; Boron compounds; Concrete DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2010.09.012 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Measurement of neutron flux distribution in the irradiation channel in the Ghana Research Reactor-1 using Monte Carlo method AN - 1709783702; 14258048 AB - The Monte Carlo method was used to determine the neutron fluxes in the irradiation channels of the Ghana Research Reactor-1. The MCNP5 code was used for this purpose to simulate the radial and axial distribution of the neutron fluxes within all the 10 irradiation channels. After the MCNP simulation, it was observed that axially, the fluxes rise to a peak before falling and then finally leveling out. It was also observed that the fluxes were higher in the center of the irradiation channels; the fluxes got higher as it moved toward the center of the core. The multiplication factor (k sub(eff)) was observed as 1.000397 +/- 0.0007. Radially, the thermal, epithermal and fast neutron flux in the inner irradiation channel range from 1.15 x 10 super(12) n/cm super(2).s +/- 0.1018 x 10 super(11) - 1.19 x 10 super(12) n/cm super(2).s +/- 0.1172 x 10 super(11), 1.21 x 10 super(12) n/cm super(2).s +/- 0.1014 x 10 super(11) - 1.36 x 10 super(12) n/cm super(2).s +/- 0.1038 x 10 super(11) and 2.47 x 10 super(11) n/cm super(2).s +/- 0.1120 x 10 super(10) - 2.97 x 10 super(11) n/cm super(2).s +/- 0.1255 x 10 super(10) respectively. For the outer channel, the flux range from 7.14 x 10 super(11) n/cm super(2).s +/- 0.1381 x 10 super(10) - 7.38 x 10 super(11) n/cm super(2).s +/- 0.208 x 10 super(10) for thermal, 1.94 x 10 super(11) n/cm super(2).s +/- 0.1014 x 10 super(10) - 2.51 x 10 super(11) n/cm super(2).s +/- 0.1281 x 10 super(10) for epithermal and 3.69 x 10 super(10) n/cm super(2).s +/- 0.8912 x 10 super(8) - 5.14 x 10 super(10) n/cm super(2).s +/- 0.1009 x 10 super(9) for fast. The results have shown that there are flux variations within the irradiation channels both axially and radially. JF - Progress in Nuclear Energy AU - Abrefah, R G AU - Anim-Sampong, S AU - Nyarko, BJB AU - Akaho, EHK AU - Sogbadji, RBM AD - Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, National Nuclear Research Institute, P.O. Box LG80, Legon, Ghana Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - March 2011 SP - 189 EP - 194 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 53 IS - 2 SN - 0149-1970, 0149-1970 KW - Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (MT); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Loss to fission KW - Fission q-value KW - Normalization KW - Channels KW - Fast neutrons KW - Computer simulation KW - Monte Carlo methods KW - Irradiation KW - Neutron flux KW - Falling KW - Fluxes KW - Nuclear engineering UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1709783702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Progress+in+Nuclear+Energy&rft.atitle=Measurement+of+neutron+flux+distribution+in+the+irradiation+channel+in+the+Ghana+Research+Reactor-1+using+Monte+Carlo+method&rft.au=Abrefah%2C+R+G%3BAnim-Sampong%2C+S%3BNyarko%2C+BJB%3BAkaho%2C+EHK%3BSogbadji%2C+RBM&rft.aulast=Abrefah&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=189&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Progress+in+Nuclear+Energy&rft.issn=01491970&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.pnucene.2010.07.002 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2010.07.002 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Measurement of gas kinetic temperatures for polyatomic ions in inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry: Validation and refinements AN - 1221138870; 15161791 AB - The general method of comparing measured ion ratios to calculated ion ratios to determine a gas kinetic temperature (Tgas) is reviewed. Various mathematical refinements to the calculated partition functions are examined for their effect on the determined Tgas. It is found that (a) excited electronic states should be included for ArO+, neutral NO, and O2; (b) a 10% error in solvent load, sample gas flow rate, vibrational constant ( omega ), rotational constant (B) or measured ion ratio produces only a 1 to 3% error in Tgas; (c) a 10% error in dissociation energy (D0) creates nearly a 10% error in Tgas; and (d) high temperature corrections to the partition functions produce minimal change and can generally be neglected. JF - Spectrochimica Acta Part B Atomic Spectroscopy AU - McIntyre, Sally M AU - Ferguson, Jill Wisnewski AU - Witte, Travis M AU - Houk, R S AD - Ames Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy, Department of Chemistry, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA, rshouk@iastate.edu Y1 - 2011/03// PY - 2011 DA - Mar 2011 SP - 248 EP - 254 PB - Elsevier B.V., P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 66 IS - 3-4 SN - 0584-8547, 0584-8547 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry KW - ICP-MS KW - Inductively coupled plasma KW - Ion extraction ICP-MS KW - Ions KW - Temperature KW - Solvents KW - Errors KW - Spectroscopy KW - Flow Rates KW - Kinetics KW - Dissociation KW - Load Distribution KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - AQ 00008:Effects of Pollution KW - Q2 09182:Methods and instruments KW - Q5 08502:Methods and instruments UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1221138870?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Spectrochimica+Acta+Part+B+Atomic+Spectroscopy&rft.atitle=Measurement+of+gas+kinetic+temperatures+for+polyatomic+ions+in+inductively+coupled+plasma-mass+spectrometry%3A+Validation+and+refinements&rft.au=McIntyre%2C+Sally+M%3BFerguson%2C+Jill+Wisnewski%3BWitte%2C+Travis+M%3BHouk%2C+R+S&rft.aulast=McIntyre&rft.aufirst=Sally&rft.date=2011-03-01&rft.volume=66&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=248&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Spectrochimica+Acta+Part+B+Atomic+Spectroscopy&rft.issn=05848547&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.sab.2011.02.003 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-09 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Ions; Dissociation; Solvents; Flow Rates; Kinetics; Load Distribution; Temperature; Spectroscopy; Errors DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sab.2011.02.003 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY, BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY, BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873133574; 14801-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a license to construct, operate, and decommission a uranium enrichment facility in Bonneville County, Idaho is proposed. The Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) would be located on a 460-acre section of a 4,200-acre parcel of land that AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC (AES) intends to purchase from a single private landowner. The license would authorize AES to possess and use byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear material at the proposed EREF site near Idaho Falls for a period of 30 years. AES would employ a gas centrifuge process to produce uranium enriched up to five percent by weight in the isotope uranium-235, with a planned maximum target production of 6.6 million separative work units (SWUs) per year. The enriched uranium would be used to manufacture nuclear fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors. Production at the facility would be equivalent to about 40 percent of the current and projected demand (15 to 16 million SWUs) for enrichment services within the United States. Uranium would arrive at the proposed EREF as natural uranium hexafluoride (UF6) in solid form. Major facilities within the proposed EREF would include: cylinder storage pads, a centrifuge assembly building, four separations building modules (SBMs), a cylinder receipt and shipping building, and various support and administrative buildings. If the license is approved, facility construction would begin in 2011 with heavy construction of all major buildings and structures continuing for seven years into 2018. The proposed EREF would begin initial production in 2014 and reach peak production in 2022. Operations would continue at peak production until approximately nine years before the license expires. Decommissioning activities would then begin and be completed by 2041 unless AES applies for license renewal. Decommissioning would involve the sequential shutdown of the four SBMs resulting in a gradual decrease in production. Each SBM would take approximately 4.5 years to decommission. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternative sites for the facility, alternative sources of low-enriched uranium, and alternative technologies for uranium enrichment. Radiological measurement and monitoring would include monitoring of air emissions, ambient air quality, wastewater discharge, stormwater and basin sediment, groundwater, and soil and vegetation, along with direct gamma radiation monitoring. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has concluded that impacts would be generally small, and application of the environmental monitoring program and the proposed AES mitigation measures would eliminate or substantially lessen any potential adverse environmental impacts. Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, it is recommended that the proposed license be issued to AES. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The EREF would provide an additional economical domestic source of uranium enrichment services, and increased regional employment, income, and tax revenue. Construction would create 1,687 jobs in the peak year, while operations would produce 3,289 jobs and $92.4 million in income in the first year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in some soil erosion, soil compaction, changes in drainage patterns, and disruption to wildlife. The John Leopard Homestead, which has been recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be destroyed. Traffic volume on US 20 would increase. During operations, there would be a potential for small gaseous releases that could contain uranium isotopes, hydrogen fluoride, and uranyl fluoride. A critical accident could result in fatality for workers in close proximity. Six potential accident scenarios predict consequences to the collective offsite public of less than one lifetime cancer fatality. Operation would generate 11,136 pounds of hazardous wastes and 1,222 cylinders of depleted uranium annually. The EREF would be located 1.5 miles from US 20 and the Hell's Half Acre Wilderness Study Area and would create a significant contrast with the surrounding visual environment. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0266D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110045, Final EIS--532 pages, Appendices--516 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1945 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Dosimetry KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Materials Handling KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Public Health KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Idaho KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133574?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+ROCK+ENRICHMENT+FACILITY%2C+BONNEVILLE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=EAGLE+ROCK+ENRICHMENT+FACILITY%2C+BONNEVILLE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Programs, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY, BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY, BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 873132588; 14801-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a license to construct, operate, and decommission a uranium enrichment facility in Bonneville County, Idaho is proposed. The Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) would be located on a 460-acre section of a 4,200-acre parcel of land that AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC (AES) intends to purchase from a single private landowner. The license would authorize AES to possess and use byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear material at the proposed EREF site near Idaho Falls for a period of 30 years. AES would employ a gas centrifuge process to produce uranium enriched up to five percent by weight in the isotope uranium-235, with a planned maximum target production of 6.6 million separative work units (SWUs) per year. The enriched uranium would be used to manufacture nuclear fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors. Production at the facility would be equivalent to about 40 percent of the current and projected demand (15 to 16 million SWUs) for enrichment services within the United States. Uranium would arrive at the proposed EREF as natural uranium hexafluoride (UF6) in solid form. Major facilities within the proposed EREF would include: cylinder storage pads, a centrifuge assembly building, four separations building modules (SBMs), a cylinder receipt and shipping building, and various support and administrative buildings. If the license is approved, facility construction would begin in 2011 with heavy construction of all major buildings and structures continuing for seven years into 2018. The proposed EREF would begin initial production in 2014 and reach peak production in 2022. Operations would continue at peak production until approximately nine years before the license expires. Decommissioning activities would then begin and be completed by 2041 unless AES applies for license renewal. Decommissioning would involve the sequential shutdown of the four SBMs resulting in a gradual decrease in production. Each SBM would take approximately 4.5 years to decommission. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternative sites for the facility, alternative sources of low-enriched uranium, and alternative technologies for uranium enrichment. Radiological measurement and monitoring would include monitoring of air emissions, ambient air quality, wastewater discharge, stormwater and basin sediment, groundwater, and soil and vegetation, along with direct gamma radiation monitoring. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has concluded that impacts would be generally small, and application of the environmental monitoring program and the proposed AES mitigation measures would eliminate or substantially lessen any potential adverse environmental impacts. Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, it is recommended that the proposed license be issued to AES. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The EREF would provide an additional economical domestic source of uranium enrichment services, and increased regional employment, income, and tax revenue. Construction would create 1,687 jobs in the peak year, while operations would produce 3,289 jobs and $92.4 million in income in the first year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in some soil erosion, soil compaction, changes in drainage patterns, and disruption to wildlife. The John Leopard Homestead, which has been recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be destroyed. Traffic volume on US 20 would increase. During operations, there would be a potential for small gaseous releases that could contain uranium isotopes, hydrogen fluoride, and uranyl fluoride. A critical accident could result in fatality for workers in close proximity. Six potential accident scenarios predict consequences to the collective offsite public of less than one lifetime cancer fatality. Operation would generate 11,136 pounds of hazardous wastes and 1,222 cylinders of depleted uranium annually. The EREF would be located 1.5 miles from US 20 and the Hell's Half Acre Wilderness Study Area and would create a significant contrast with the surrounding visual environment. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0266D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110045, Final EIS--532 pages, Appendices--516 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1945 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Dosimetry KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Materials Handling KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Public Health KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Idaho KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+ROCK+ENRICHMENT+FACILITY%2C+BONNEVILLE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=EAGLE+ROCK+ENRICHMENT+FACILITY%2C+BONNEVILLE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Programs, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE ROCK ENRICHMENT FACILITY, BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 16385450; 14801 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a license to construct, operate, and decommission a uranium enrichment facility in Bonneville County, Idaho is proposed. The Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF) would be located on a 460-acre section of a 4,200-acre parcel of land that AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC (AES) intends to purchase from a single private landowner. The license would authorize AES to possess and use byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear material at the proposed EREF site near Idaho Falls for a period of 30 years. AES would employ a gas centrifuge process to produce uranium enriched up to five percent by weight in the isotope uranium-235, with a planned maximum target production of 6.6 million separative work units (SWUs) per year. The enriched uranium would be used to manufacture nuclear fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors. Production at the facility would be equivalent to about 40 percent of the current and projected demand (15 to 16 million SWUs) for enrichment services within the United States. Uranium would arrive at the proposed EREF as natural uranium hexafluoride (UF6) in solid form. Major facilities within the proposed EREF would include: cylinder storage pads, a centrifuge assembly building, four separations building modules (SBMs), a cylinder receipt and shipping building, and various support and administrative buildings. If the license is approved, facility construction would begin in 2011 with heavy construction of all major buildings and structures continuing for seven years into 2018. The proposed EREF would begin initial production in 2014 and reach peak production in 2022. Operations would continue at peak production until approximately nine years before the license expires. Decommissioning activities would then begin and be completed by 2041 unless AES applies for license renewal. Decommissioning would involve the sequential shutdown of the four SBMs resulting in a gradual decrease in production. Each SBM would take approximately 4.5 years to decommission. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternative sites for the facility, alternative sources of low-enriched uranium, and alternative technologies for uranium enrichment. Radiological measurement and monitoring would include monitoring of air emissions, ambient air quality, wastewater discharge, stormwater and basin sediment, groundwater, and soil and vegetation, along with direct gamma radiation monitoring. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has concluded that impacts would be generally small, and application of the environmental monitoring program and the proposed AES mitigation measures would eliminate or substantially lessen any potential adverse environmental impacts. Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, it is recommended that the proposed license be issued to AES. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The EREF would provide an additional economical domestic source of uranium enrichment services, and increased regional employment, income, and tax revenue. Construction would create 1,687 jobs in the peak year, while operations would produce 3,289 jobs and $92.4 million in income in the first year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in some soil erosion, soil compaction, changes in drainage patterns, and disruption to wildlife. The John Leopard Homestead, which has been recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be destroyed. Traffic volume on US 20 would increase. During operations, there would be a potential for small gaseous releases that could contain uranium isotopes, hydrogen fluoride, and uranyl fluoride. A critical accident could result in fatality for workers in close proximity. Six potential accident scenarios predict consequences to the collective offsite public of less than one lifetime cancer fatality. Operation would generate 11,136 pounds of hazardous wastes and 1,222 cylinders of depleted uranium annually. The EREF would be located 1.5 miles from US 20 and the Hell's Half Acre Wilderness Study Area and would create a significant contrast with the surrounding visual environment. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0266D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110045, Final EIS--532 pages, Appendices--516 pages, February 25, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1945 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Dosimetry KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Materials Handling KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Public Health KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Visual Resources KW - Idaho KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+ROCK+ENRICHMENT+FACILITY%2C+BONNEVILLE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=EAGLE+ROCK+ENRICHMENT+FACILITY%2C+BONNEVILLE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Programs, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - New Approaches to International Development Through the USG T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 2011) AN - 1313009861; 6045313 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 2011) AU - Sturm, Robynn Y1 - 2011/02/17/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Feb 17 KW - Development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313009861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science+%28AAAS+2011%29&rft.atitle=New+Approaches+to+International+Development+Through+the+USG&rft.au=Sturm%2C+Robynn&rft.aulast=Sturm&rft.aufirst=Robynn&rft.date=2011-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science+%28AAAS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2011/webprogram/start.html#srch=method|and|pge|1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Perspectives from the Obama Administration T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 2011) AN - 1313009668; 6044854 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 2011) AU - Koizumi, Kei Y1 - 2011/02/17/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Feb 17 KW - Education KW - Technology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1313009668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science+%28AAAS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Perspectives+from+the+Obama+Administration&rft.au=Koizumi%2C+Kei&rft.aulast=Koizumi&rft.aufirst=Kei&rft.date=2011-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science+%28AAAS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2011/webprogram/start.html#srch=method|and|pge|1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Energy Storage for a Greener and More Reliable Grid T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 2011) AN - 1312961431; 6045370 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 2011) AU - Gyuk, Imre Y1 - 2011/02/17/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Feb 17 KW - Storage KW - Energy storage UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312961431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science+%28AAAS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Energy+Storage+for+a+Greener+and+More+Reliable+Grid&rft.au=Gyuk%2C+Imre&rft.aulast=Gyuk&rft.aufirst=Imre&rft.date=2011-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science+%28AAAS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2011/webprogram/start.html#srch=method|and|pge|1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Role of DOE-NIFA Collaborations in Achieving Renewable Bioenergy Goals T2 - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 2011) AN - 1312904736; 6045211 JF - 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 2011) AU - Koonin, Steve Y1 - 2011/02/17/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Feb 17 KW - biofuels UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312904736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science+%28AAAS+2011%29&rft.atitle=Role+of+DOE-NIFA+Collaborations+in+Achieving+Renewable+Bioenergy+Goals&rft.au=Koonin%2C+Steve&rft.aulast=Koonin&rft.aufirst=Steve&rft.date=2011-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2011+Annual+Meeting+of+the+American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science+%28AAAS+2011%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2011/webprogram/start.html#srch=method|and|pge|1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-26 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-28 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A conceptual framework of groundwater flow in some crystalline aquifers in southeastern Ghana AN - 959101642; 2012-034559 AB - A conceptual groundwater flow model was developed for the crystalline aquifers in southeastern part of the Eastern region, Ghana. The objective was to determine approximate levels of groundwater recharge, estimate aquifer hydraulic parameters, and then test various scenarios of groundwater extraction under the current conditions of recharge. A steady state groundwater flow model has been calibrated against measured water levels of 19 wells in the area. The resulting recharge is estimated to range from 8.97X10 (super -5) m/d to 7.14X10 (super -4) m/d resulting in a basin wide average recharge of about 9.6% of total annual precipitation, which results in a basin wide quantitative recharge of about 2.4 million m (super 3) /d in the area. This compares to recharge estimated from the chloride mass balance of 7.6% of precipitation determined in this study. The general groundwater flow in the area has also been determined to conform to the general northeast-southwest structural grain of the country. The implication is that the general hydrogeology is controlled by post genetic structural entities imposed on the rocks to create ingresses for sufficient groundwater storage and transport. Calibrated aquifer hydraulic conductivities range between 0.99 m/d and over 19.4 m/d. There is a significant contribution of groundwater discharge to stream flow in the study area. Increasing groundwater extraction will have an effect on stream flow. This study finds that the current groundwater extraction levels represent only 0.17% of the annual recharge from precipitation, and that groundwater can sustain future increased groundwater demands from population growth and industrialization. Abstract Copyright (2011) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Journal of African Earth Sciences AU - Yidana, Sandow Mark AU - Ganyaglo, Samuel AU - Banoeng-Yakubo, Bruce AU - Akabzaa, Thomas Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 185 EP - 194 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 59 IS - 2-3 SN - 1464-343X, 1464-343X KW - water quality KW - Ghana KW - water supply KW - drainage KW - water management KW - MODFLOW KW - ground water KW - exploration KW - aquifers KW - West Africa KW - recharge KW - precipitation KW - crystalline rocks KW - Africa KW - southeastern Ghana KW - hydraulic conductivity KW - water resources KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/959101642?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+African+Earth+Sciences&rft.atitle=A+conceptual+framework+of+groundwater+flow+in+some+crystalline+aquifers+in+southeastern+Ghana&rft.au=Yidana%2C+Sandow+Mark%3BGanyaglo%2C+Samuel%3BBanoeng-Yakubo%2C+Bruce%3BAkabzaa%2C+Thomas&rft.aulast=Yidana&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+SUSQUEHANNA+STEAM+ELECTRIC+STATION%2C+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+LUZERNE+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28THIRTY-FIFTH+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.title=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+SUSQUEHANNA+STEAM+ELECTRIC+STATION%2C+UNITS+1+AND+2%2C+LUZERNE+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28THIRTY-FIFTH+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/1464343X LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 81 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables, geol. sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Based on Publisher-supplied data N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Africa; aquifers; crystalline rocks; drainage; exploration; Ghana; ground water; hydraulic conductivity; MODFLOW; precipitation; recharge; southeastern Ghana; water management; water quality; water resources; water supply; West Africa DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2010.10.005 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Predicting microstructure development during casting of drug-eluting coatings AN - 918070788; 16182273 AB - We have devised a novel diffuse interface formulation to model the development of chemical and physical inhomogeneities, i.e. microstructure, during the process of casting drug-eluting coatings. These inhomogeneities, which depend on the coating constituents and manufacturing conditions, can have a profound affect on the rate and extent of drug release, and therefore the ability of coated medical devices to function successfully. By deriving the model equations in a time-dependent reference frame, we find that it is computationally viable to probe a wide, physically relevant range of material and process quantities. To illustrate the application of the model, we have evaluated the impact of manufacturing solvent, coating thickness and evaporation rate on microstructure development. Our results suggest that modifying these process conditions can have a strong and nearly discontinuous effect on coating microstructure, and therefore on drug release. Further, we demonstrate that the model can be applied to processes that involve the incremental application of the coating in layers or passes. This new model formulation, which can also be used to predict the kinetics of drug release, provides a tool to elucidate and quantify the relationships between process variables, microstructure and performance. Establishing these relationships can reduce empiricism in materials selection and process design, providing a facile and efficient means to tailor the underlying microstructure and achieve a desired drug-release behavior. JF - Acta Biomaterialia AU - Saylor, David M AU - Guyer, Jonathan E AU - Wheeler, Daniel AU - Warren, James A AD - Division of Chemistry and Materials Science, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA, david.saylor@fda.hhs.gov Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - Feb 2011 SP - 604 EP - 613 PB - Elsevier B.V., The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB United Kingdom VL - 7 IS - 2 SN - 1742-7061, 1742-7061 KW - Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts KW - Microstructure KW - Coating KW - Modeling KW - Simulation KW - Diffusion KW - Drug delivery KW - Mathematical models KW - Evaporation KW - Kinetics KW - Solvents KW - Probes KW - Drugs KW - Coatings KW - Models KW - W 30920:Tissue Engineering UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918070788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Abiotechresearch&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Acta+Biomaterialia&rft.atitle=Predicting+microstructure+development+during+casting+of+drug-eluting+coatings&rft.au=Saylor%2C+David+M%3BGuyer%2C+Jonathan+E%3BWheeler%2C+Daniel%3BWarren%2C+James+A&rft.aulast=Saylor&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=604&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Acta+Biomaterialia&rft.issn=17427061&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.actbio.2010.09.019 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Drug delivery; Mathematical models; Evaporation; Kinetics; Probes; Solvents; Drugs; Models; Coatings DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2010.09.019 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Using polyvinyl chloride dyed with bromocresol purple in radiation dosimetry AN - 918047906; 14181425 AB - Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) dyed with bromocresol purple was investigated as a high-dose radiation dosimeter. The absorbance at 417 nm depends linearly on the dose below 50 kGy. The response depends neither on dose rate nor on the irradiation temperature. The effects of post-irradiation storage in the dark and in indirect sunlight are also discussed. JF - Applied Radiation and Isotopes AU - Kattan, Munzer AU - Kassiri, Haroun al AU - Daher, Yarob AD - Atomic Energy Commission of Syria, Department of Radiation Technology, Accuracy of Measurements Division, P.O. Box 6091, Damascus, Syria, ascientific@aec.org.sy Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 377 EP - 380 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 69 IS - 2 SN - 0969-8043, 0969-8043 KW - Toxicology Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Polyvinyl chloride KW - Gamma radiation KW - Bromocresol purple KW - Dosimetry KW - Spectrophotometry KW - Radiochromic films KW - Temperature effects KW - Isotopes KW - Chlorides KW - Temperature KW - polyvinyl chloride KW - Radiation dosimetry KW - sunlight KW - Post-irradiation KW - Storage KW - Radiation KW - Irradiation KW - Sunlight KW - Absorbance KW - X 24390:Radioactive Materials KW - ENA 07:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918047906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxicologyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Applied+Radiation+and+Isotopes&rft.atitle=Using+polyvinyl+chloride+dyed+with+bromocresol+purple+in+radiation+dosimetry&rft.au=Kattan%2C+Munzer%3BKassiri%2C+Haroun+al%3BDaher%2C+Yarob&rft.aulast=Kattan&rft.aufirst=Munzer&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=377&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Applied+Radiation+and+Isotopes&rft.issn=09698043&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.apradiso.2010.11.006 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-06-22 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Temperature effects; Isotopes; Radiation; Dosimetry; polyvinyl chloride; Sunlight; Absorbance; Post-irradiation; Storage; Irradiation; Temperature; Chlorides; Radiation dosimetry; sunlight DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2010.11.006 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Migration of strontium, cesium, and europium from poly(butyl acrylate)/phosphate/composites prepared using gamma radiation AN - 918044946; 14181439 AB - Composites based on natural phosphate powder and the monomer N-butyl acrylate have been prepared by means of gamma irradiation. The conversion of polymerization was followed up with respect to the irradiation dose using thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA). A total polymerization conversion was achieved by exposure of the samples to a dose of 10 kGy. A thermomechanical analyzer (TMA) was used to locate the region of the glass transition temperatures (T sub(g)) using the mode with alternative variable force; the mode with constant force was used to determine the T sub(g) of the pure polymer and the composite prepared at the same irradiation dose. The T sub(g) of the pure poly(butyl acrylate) is -51.41 degree C, and the T sub(g) of poly(butyl acrylate)/phosphate/composites is -46.54 degree C. The distribution of super(137)Cs, super(152)Eu, and super(85)Sr in a solid-aqueous system, a composite of phosphate-polybutyl acrylate in contact with groundwater, was investigated using gamma -spectrometry. The effect of contact time, pH, and the concentration of concurrent elements (Na, Ca, and La) were studied. The results were compared with earlier results with phosphate alone in the solid phase. The ability of the produced composites to keep the studied radioisotopes in the solid phase is much higher than mineral phosphate. This improvement is more remarkable by strontium and cesium than europium, due to its high element ratio in the solid phase in phosphate experiments. JF - Applied Radiation and Isotopes AU - Alhassanieh, O AU - Ajji, Z AU - Alkourdi, H AU - Haloum, D AD - Nuclear and Radiochemistry Division, Chemistry Department, Atomic Energy Commission of Syria, Damascus, P.O. Box 6091, Syria, cscientific@aec.org.sy Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 448 EP - 454 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 69 IS - 2 SN - 0969-8043, 0969-8043 KW - Toxicology Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Poly (butyl acrylate) KW - Natural phosphate KW - Radiation KW - Composites KW - Distribution KW - Radionuclide KW - Powder KW - Isotopes KW - Cesium KW - Polymerization KW - Migration KW - gamma Radiation KW - Ground water KW - pH effects KW - Temperature effects KW - composite materials KW - Europium KW - Gamma radiation KW - Monomers KW - Phosphates KW - Phosphate KW - Irradiation KW - Radioisotopes KW - Strontium KW - Groundwater KW - Polymers KW - Minerals KW - X 24390:Radioactive Materials KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918044946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxicologyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Applied+Radiation+and+Isotopes&rft.atitle=Migration+of+strontium%2C+cesium%2C+and+europium+from+poly%28butyl+acrylate%29%2Fphosphate%2Fcomposites+prepared+using+gamma+radiation&rft.au=Alhassanieh%2C+O%3BAjji%2C+Z%3BAlkourdi%2C+H%3BHaloum%2C+D&rft.aulast=Alhassanieh&rft.aufirst=O&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=448&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Applied+Radiation+and+Isotopes&rft.issn=09698043&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.apradiso.2010.09.006 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-06-22 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Temperature effects; Powder; Isotopes; Polymerization; Cesium; Migration; Monomers; Phosphate; Radiation; Ground water; Radioisotopes; gamma Radiation; Strontium; pH effects; Minerals; composite materials; Phosphates; Irradiation; Europium; Gamma radiation; Polymers; Groundwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2010.09.006 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Performance Profiles of Major Energy Producers 2009 AN - 914786794; 2011-157399 AB - Financial Reporting System (FRS) companies' net income declined to the lowest level since 2002. Net income fell 66% (in constant 2009 dollars) to 30 billion dollars in 2009 from 88 billion dollars in 2008. Substantial reductions in oil and natural gas prices in 2009 slowed revenue growth. FRS companies cut operating costs but by less than the decline in revenue, resulting in a 69% drop in operating income. Tables, Figures. JF - United States Department of Energy, Feb 2011, 58 pp. AU - United States Energy Information Administration Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 PB - United States Department of Energy KW - Energy resources and policy - Renewable energy sources KW - Energy resources and policy - Energy policy KW - Energy resources and policy - Electric power KW - Business and service sector - Accounting KW - Banking and public and private finance - Public finance KW - Energy resources and policy - Petroleum and natural gas industries and products KW - Business and service sector - Business finance KW - Economic conditions and policy - Economic theory KW - Cost KW - Petroleum industry KW - Electric power KW - Prices KW - Revenue KW - Energy consumption KW - Natural gas KW - Income KW - Renewable energy sources KW - book UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/914786794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=United+States+Energy+Information+Administration&rft.aulast=United+States+Energy+Information+Administration&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Performance+Profiles+of+Major+Energy+Producers+2009&rft.title=Performance+Profiles+of+Major+Energy+Producers+2009&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.eia.gov/finance/performanceprofiles/pdf/020609.pdf LA - English DB - PAIS Index N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Publication note - United States Department of Energy, 2011 N1 - SuppNotes - DOE/EIA-0206(09) Distribution Category UC-950 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-28 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geologic controls on gas hydrate occurrence in the Mount Elbert Prospect, Alaska North Slope AN - 890660039; 2011-078782 JF - Marine and Petroleum Geology AU - Boswell, Ray AU - Rose, K AU - Collett, T S AU - Lee, M AU - Winters, William AU - Lewis, K A AU - Agena, Warren A2 - Boswell, Ray A2 - Collett, Tim A2 - Anderson, Brian A2 - Hunter, Robert Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 589 EP - 607 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 28 IS - 2 SN - 0264-8172, 0264-8172 KW - United States KW - petroleum exploration KW - geophysical surveys KW - gas hydrates KW - natural gas KW - well-logging KW - Mount Elbert test well KW - stratigraphic traps KW - petroleum KW - reservoir rocks KW - Cenozoic KW - oil wells KW - sediments KW - Mount Elbert Prospect KW - sand KW - North Slope KW - Milne Point KW - Eocene KW - clastic sediments KW - geophysical methods KW - Paleogene KW - seismic methods KW - Tertiary KW - structural traps KW - saturation KW - traps KW - surveys KW - reservoir properties KW - Alaska KW - Sagavanirktok Formation KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/890660039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.atitle=Geologic+controls+on+gas+hydrate+occurrence+in+the+Mount+Elbert+Prospect%2C+Alaska+North+Slope&rft.au=Boswell%2C+Ray%3BRose%2C+K%3BCollett%2C+T+S%3BLee%2C+M%3BWinters%2C+William%3BLewis%2C+K+A%3BAgena%2C+Warren&rft.aulast=Boswell&rft.aufirst=Ray&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=589&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.issn=02648172&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.marpetgeo.2009.12.004 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648172 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 50 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sect. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Cenozoic; clastic sediments; Eocene; gas hydrates; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; Milne Point; Mount Elbert Prospect; Mount Elbert test well; natural gas; North Slope; oil wells; Paleogene; petroleum; petroleum exploration; reservoir properties; reservoir rocks; Sagavanirktok Formation; sand; saturation; sediments; seismic methods; stratigraphic traps; structural traps; surveys; Tertiary; traps; United States; well-logging DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2009.12.004 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Downhole well log and core montages from the Mount Elbert gas hydrate stratigraphic test well, Alaska North Slope AN - 890660036; 2011-078780 JF - Marine and Petroleum Geology AU - Collett, T S AU - Lewis, R E AU - Winters, W J AU - Lee, M W AU - Rose, K K AU - Boswell, R M A2 - Boswell, Ray A2 - Collett, Tim A2 - Anderson, Brian A2 - Hunter, Robert Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 561 EP - 577 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 28 IS - 2 SN - 0264-8172, 0264-8172 KW - neutron methods KW - gas hydrates KW - X-ray diffraction data KW - data processing KW - elastic waves KW - elastic constants KW - reservoir rocks KW - stratigraphic units KW - body waves KW - alkanes KW - porosity KW - depth KW - seismic methods KW - physical properties KW - organic compounds KW - hydrocarbons KW - surveys KW - seismic waves KW - shear modulus KW - Young's modulus KW - United States KW - petroleum exploration KW - P-waves KW - lithostratigraphy KW - Poisson's ratio KW - geophysical surveys KW - density KW - natural gas KW - well-logging KW - Mount Elbert test well KW - aliphatic hydrocarbons KW - petroleum KW - cores KW - rock mechanics KW - oil wells KW - sediments KW - electromagnetic methods KW - velocity KW - drilling KW - methane KW - gamma-ray methods KW - North Slope KW - geophysical methods KW - resistivity KW - reservoir properties KW - Alaska KW - S-waves KW - arrays KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/890660036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.atitle=Downhole+well+log+and+core+montages+from+the+Mount+Elbert+gas+hydrate+stratigraphic+test+well%2C+Alaska+North+Slope&rft.au=Collett%2C+T+S%3BLewis%2C+R+E%3BWinters%2C+W+J%3BLee%2C+M+W%3BRose%2C+K+K%3BBoswell%2C+R+M&rft.aulast=Collett&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=561&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.issn=02648172&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.marpetgeo.2010.03.016 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648172 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 39 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; aliphatic hydrocarbons; alkanes; arrays; body waves; cores; data processing; density; depth; drilling; elastic constants; elastic waves; electromagnetic methods; gamma-ray methods; gas hydrates; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; hydrocarbons; lithostratigraphy; methane; Mount Elbert test well; natural gas; neutron methods; North Slope; oil wells; organic compounds; P-waves; petroleum; petroleum exploration; physical properties; Poisson's ratio; porosity; reservoir properties; reservoir rocks; resistivity; rock mechanics; S-waves; sediments; seismic methods; seismic waves; shear modulus; stratigraphic units; surveys; United States; velocity; well-logging; X-ray diffraction data; Young's modulus DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2010.03.016 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Regional long-term production modeling from a single well test, Mount Elbert gas hydrate stratigraphic test well, Alaska North Slope AN - 890659848; 2011-078775 JF - Marine and Petroleum Geology AU - Anderson, B J AU - Kurihara, Masanori AU - White, M D AU - Moridis, G J AU - Wilson, Scott J AU - Pooladi-Darvish, M AU - Gaddipati, Manohar AU - Masuda, Y AU - Collett, T S AU - Hunter, Robert B AU - Narita, H AU - Rose, K AU - Boswell, Ray A2 - Boswell, Ray A2 - Collett, Tim A2 - Anderson, Brian A2 - Hunter, Robert Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 493 EP - 501 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 28 IS - 2 SN - 0264-8172, 0264-8172 KW - United States KW - petroleum exploration KW - gas hydrates KW - natural gas KW - well-logging KW - Mount Elbert test well KW - aliphatic hydrocarbons KW - petroleum KW - simulation KW - production KW - oil and gas fields KW - reservoir rocks KW - oil wells KW - P-T conditions KW - methane KW - North Slope KW - statistical analysis KW - Prudhoe Bay Field KW - porous materials KW - alkanes KW - models KW - organic compounds KW - heterogeneous materials KW - saturation KW - formation evaluation KW - regional KW - hydrocarbons KW - reservoir properties KW - Alaska KW - permeability KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/890659848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.atitle=Regional+long-term+production+modeling+from+a+single+well+test%2C+Mount+Elbert+gas+hydrate+stratigraphic+test+well%2C+Alaska+North+Slope&rft.au=Anderson%2C+B+J%3BKurihara%2C+Masanori%3BWhite%2C+M+D%3BMoridis%2C+G+J%3BWilson%2C+Scott+J%3BPooladi-Darvish%2C+M%3BGaddipati%2C+Manohar%3BMasuda%2C+Y%3BCollett%2C+T+S%3BHunter%2C+Robert+B%3BNarita%2C+H%3BRose%2C+K%3BBoswell%2C+Ray&rft.aulast=Anderson&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=493&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.issn=02648172&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.marpetgeo.2010.01.015 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648172 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 16 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; aliphatic hydrocarbons; alkanes; formation evaluation; gas hydrates; heterogeneous materials; hydrocarbons; methane; models; Mount Elbert test well; natural gas; North Slope; oil and gas fields; oil wells; organic compounds; P-T conditions; permeability; petroleum; petroleum exploration; porous materials; production; Prudhoe Bay Field; regional; reservoir properties; reservoir rocks; saturation; simulation; statistical analysis; United States; well-logging DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2010.01.015 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Formation pressure testing at the Mount Elbert gas hydrate stratigraphic test well, Alaska North Slope; operational summary, history matching, and interpretations AN - 890659844; 2011-078774 JF - Marine and Petroleum Geology AU - Anderson, Brian AU - Hancock, Steve AU - Wilson, Scott AU - Enger, Christopher AU - Collett, T AU - Boswell, Ray AU - Hunter, Robert A2 - Boswell, Ray A2 - Collett, Tim A2 - Anderson, Brian A2 - Hunter, Robert Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 478 EP - 492 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 28 IS - 2 SN - 0264-8172, 0264-8172 KW - United States KW - petroleum exploration KW - experimental studies KW - pressure KW - North Slope KW - gas hydrates KW - well-logging KW - Mount Elbert test well KW - porous materials KW - petroleum KW - simulation KW - production KW - NMR spectra KW - reservoir rocks KW - models KW - oil wells KW - formation evaluation KW - testing KW - reservoir properties KW - Alaska KW - spectra KW - design KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/890659844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.atitle=Formation+pressure+testing+at+the+Mount+Elbert+gas+hydrate+stratigraphic+test+well%2C+Alaska+North+Slope%3B+operational+summary%2C+history+matching%2C+and+interpretations&rft.au=Anderson%2C+Brian%3BHancock%2C+Steve%3BWilson%2C+Scott%3BEnger%2C+Christopher%3BCollett%2C+T%3BBoswell%2C+Ray%3BHunter%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Anderson&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=478&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.issn=02648172&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.marpetgeo.2010.02.012 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648172 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 21 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; design; experimental studies; formation evaluation; gas hydrates; models; Mount Elbert test well; NMR spectra; North Slope; oil wells; petroleum; petroleum exploration; porous materials; pressure; production; reservoir properties; reservoir rocks; simulation; spectra; testing; United States; well-logging DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2010.02.012 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Examination of core samples from the Mount Elbert gas hydrate stratigraphic test well, Alaska North Slope; effects of retrieval and preservation AN - 890659772; 2011-078765 JF - Marine and Petroleum Geology AU - Kneafsey, T J AU - Lu, Hailong AU - Winters, William AU - Boswell, Ray AU - Hunter, Robert AU - Collett, T S A2 - Boswell, Ray A2 - Collett, Tim A2 - Anderson, Brian A2 - Hunter, Robert Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 381 EP - 393 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 28 IS - 2 SN - 0264-8172, 0264-8172 KW - United States KW - clay KW - petroleum exploration KW - gas hydrates KW - Mount Elbert test well KW - aliphatic hydrocarbons KW - petroleum KW - cores KW - reservoir rocks KW - oil wells KW - sediments KW - P-T conditions KW - sand KW - methane KW - North Slope KW - clastic sediments KW - properties KW - alkanes KW - samples KW - sample preparation KW - organic compounds KW - hydrocarbons KW - Alaska KW - computed tomography data KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/890659772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.atitle=Examination+of+core+samples+from+the+Mount+Elbert+gas+hydrate+stratigraphic+test+well%2C+Alaska+North+Slope%3B+effects+of+retrieval+and+preservation&rft.au=Kneafsey%2C+T+J%3BLu%2C+Hailong%3BWinters%2C+William%3BBoswell%2C+Ray%3BHunter%2C+Robert%3BCollett%2C+T+S&rft.aulast=Kneafsey&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=381&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.issn=02648172&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.marpetgeo.2009.10.009 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648172 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 19 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; aliphatic hydrocarbons; alkanes; clastic sediments; clay; computed tomography data; cores; gas hydrates; hydrocarbons; methane; Mount Elbert test well; North Slope; oil wells; organic compounds; P-T conditions; petroleum; petroleum exploration; properties; reservoir rocks; sample preparation; samples; sand; sediments; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2009.10.009 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Physical properties of sediment from the Mount Elbert gas hydrate stratigraphic test well, Alaska North Slope AN - 890659769; 2011-078764 AB - This study characterizes cored and logged sedimentary strata from the February 2007 BP Exploration Alaska, Department of Energy, U.S. Geological Survey (BPXA-DOE-USGS) Mount Elbert Gas Hydrate Stratigraphic Test Well on the Alaska North Slope (ANS). The physical-properties program analyzed core samples recovered from the well, and in conjunction with downhole geophysical logs, produced an extensive dataset including grain size, water content, porosity, grain density, bulk density, permeability, X-ray diffraction (XRD) mineralogy, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and petrography. This study documents the physical property interrelationships in the well and demonstrates their correlation with the occurrence of gas hydrate. Gas hydrate (GH) occurs in three unconsolidated, coarse silt to fine sand intervals within the Paleocene and Eocene beds of the Sagavanirktok Formation: Unit D-GH (614.4 m-627.9 m); unit C-GH1 (649.8 m-660.8 m); and unit C-GH2 (663.2 m-666.3 m). These intervals are overlain by fine to coarse silt intervals with greater clay content. A deeper interval (unit B) is similar lithologically to the gas-hydrate-bearing strata; however, it is water-saturated and contains no hydrate. In this system it appears that high sediment permeability (k) is critical to the formation of concentrated hydrate deposits. Intervals D-GH and C-GH1 have average "plug" intrinsic permeability to nitrogen values of 1700 mD and 675 mD, respectively. These values are in strong contrast with those of the overlying, gas-hydrate-free sediments, which have k values of 5.7 mD and 49 mD, respectively, and thus would have provided effective seals to trap free gas. The relation between permeability and porosity critically influences the occurrence of GH. For example, an average increase of 4% in porosity increases permeability by an order of magnitude, but the presence of a second fluid (e.g., methane from dissociating gas hydrate) in the reservoir reduces permeability by more than an order of magnitude. JF - Marine and Petroleum Geology AU - Winters, William AU - Walker, M AU - Hunter, Robert AU - Collett, T AU - Boswell, Ray AU - Rose, K AU - Waite, W AU - Torres, M AU - Patil, Shirish AU - Dandekar, Abhijit A2 - Boswell, Ray A2 - Collett, Tim A2 - Anderson, Brian A2 - Hunter, Robert Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 361 EP - 380 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 28 IS - 2 SN - 0264-8172, 0264-8172 KW - United States KW - petroleum exploration KW - gas hydrates KW - density KW - X-ray diffraction data KW - Mount Elbert test well KW - petroleum KW - salinity KW - NMR spectra KW - Cenozoic KW - oil wells KW - mineral composition KW - sediments KW - water content KW - spectra KW - North Slope KW - Milne Point KW - clastic sediments KW - grain size KW - Paleogene KW - porosity KW - Tertiary KW - physical properties KW - reservoir properties KW - Alaska KW - Sagavanirktok Formation KW - pore water KW - permeability KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/890659769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.atitle=Physical+properties+of+sediment+from+the+Mount+Elbert+gas+hydrate+stratigraphic+test+well%2C+Alaska+North+Slope&rft.au=Winters%2C+William%3BWalker%2C+M%3BHunter%2C+Robert%3BCollett%2C+T%3BBoswell%2C+Ray%3BRose%2C+K%3BWaite%2C+W%3BTorres%2C+M%3BPatil%2C+Shirish%3BDandekar%2C+Abhijit&rft.aulast=Winters&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=361&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.issn=02648172&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.marpetgeo.2010.01.008 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648172 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 73 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 7 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Cenozoic; clastic sediments; density; gas hydrates; grain size; Milne Point; mineral composition; Mount Elbert test well; NMR spectra; North Slope; oil wells; Paleogene; permeability; petroleum; petroleum exploration; physical properties; pore water; porosity; reservoir properties; Sagavanirktok Formation; salinity; sediments; spectra; Tertiary; United States; water content; X-ray diffraction data DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2010.01.008 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Pore fluid geochemistry from the Mount Elbert gas hydrate stratigraphic test well, Alaska North Slope AN - 890659762; 2011-078762 AB - The BPXA-DOE-USGS Mount Elbert Gas Hydrate Stratigraphic Test Well was drilled and cored from 606.5 to 760.1 m on the North Slope of Alaska, to evaluate the occurrence, distribution and formation of gas hydrate in sediments below the base of the ice-bearing permafrost. Both the dissolved chloride and the isotopic composition of the water co-vary in the gas hydrate-bearing zones, consistent with gas hydrate dissociation during core recovery, and they provide independent indicators to constrain the zone of gas hydrate occurrence. Analyses of chloride and water isotope data indicate that an observed increase in salinity towards the top of the cored section reflects the presence of residual fluids from ion exclusion during ice formation at the base of the permafrost layer. These salinity changes are the main factor controlling major and minor ion distributions in the Mount Elbert Well. The resulting background chloride can be simulated with a one-dimensional diffusion model, and the results suggest that the ion exclusion at the top of the cored section reflects deepening of the permafrost layer following the last glaciation ( nearly equal 100 kyr), consistent with published thermal models. Gas hydrate saturation values estimated from dissolved chloride agree with estimates based on logging data when the gas hydrate occupies more than 20% of the pore space; the correlation is less robust at lower saturation values. The highest gas hydrate concentrations at the Mount Elbert Well are clearly associated with coarse-grained sedimentary sections, as expected from theoretical calculations and field observations in marine and other arctic sediment cores. Abstract Copyright (2011) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Marine and Petroleum Geology AU - Torres, M E AU - Collett, T S AU - Rose, K K AU - Sample, J C AU - Agena, W F AU - Rosenbaum, E J Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 332 EP - 342 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 28 IS - 2 SN - 0264-8172, 0264-8172 KW - United States KW - petroleum exploration KW - oxygen KW - gas hydrates KW - isotopes KW - Mount Elbert test well KW - halogens KW - mass spectra KW - petroleum KW - fluid phase KW - Prudhoe Bay KW - salinity KW - stable isotopes KW - Kuparuk River KW - ground water KW - Cenozoic KW - oil wells KW - chloride ion KW - spectra KW - geochemistry KW - chlorine KW - North Slope KW - isotope ratios KW - connate waters KW - solutes KW - O-18/O-16 KW - hydrochemistry KW - Tertiary KW - Alaska KW - Sagavanirktok Formation KW - pore water KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources KW - 02D:Isotope geochemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/890659762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.atitle=Pore+fluid+geochemistry+from+the+Mount+Elbert+gas+hydrate+stratigraphic+test+well%2C+Alaska+North+Slope&rft.au=Torres%2C+M+E%3BCollett%2C+T+S%3BRose%2C+K+K%3BSample%2C+J+C%3BAgena%2C+W+F%3BRosenbaum%2C+E+J&rft.aulast=Torres&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=332&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.issn=02648172&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.marpetgeo.2009.10.001 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648172 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 66 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2014-03-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Cenozoic; chloride ion; chlorine; connate waters; fluid phase; gas hydrates; geochemistry; ground water; halogens; hydrochemistry; isotope ratios; isotopes; Kuparuk River; mass spectra; Mount Elbert test well; North Slope; O-18/O-16; oil wells; oxygen; petroleum; petroleum exploration; pore water; Prudhoe Bay; Sagavanirktok Formation; salinity; solutes; spectra; stable isotopes; Tertiary; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2009.10.001 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Mount Elbert gas hydrate stratigraphic test well, Alaska North Slope; coring operations, core sedimentology, and lithostratigraphy AN - 890659759; 2011-078761 AB - In February 2007, BP Exploration (Alaska), the U. S. Department of Energy, and the U. S. Geological Survey completed the BPXA-DOE-USGS Mount Elbert Gas Hydrate Stratigraphic Test Well (Mount Elbert well) in the Milne Point Unit on the Alaska North Slope. The program achieved its primary goals of validating the pre-drill estimates of gas hydrate occurrence and thickness based on 3-D seismic interpretations and wireline log correlations and collecting a comprehensive suite of logging, coring, and pressure testing data. The upper section of the Mount Elbert well was drilled through the base of ice-bearing permafrost to a casing point of 594 m (1950 ft), approximately 15 m (50 ft) above the top of the targeted reservoir interval. The lower portion of the well was continuously cored from 606 m (1987 ft) to 760 m (2494 ft) and drilled to a total depth of 914 m. Ice-bearing permafrost extends to a depth of roughly 536 m and the base of gas hydrate stability is interpreted to extend to a depth of 870 m. Coring through the targeted gas hydrate bearing reservoirs was completed using a wireline-retrievable system. The coring program achieved 85% recovery of 7.6 cm (3 in) diameter core through 154 m (504 ft) of the hole. An onsite team processed the cores, collecting and preserving approximately 250 sub-samples for analyses of pore water geochemistry, microbiology, gas chemistry, petrophysical analysis, and thermal and physical properties. Eleven samples were immediately transferred to either methane-charged pressure vessels or liquid nitrogen for future study of the preserved gas hydrate. Additional offsite sampling, analyses, and detailed description of the cores were also conducted. Based on this work, one lithostratigraphic unit with eight subunits was identified across the cored interval. Subunits II and Va comprise the majority of the reservoir facies and are dominantly very fine to fine, moderately sorted, quartz, feldspar, and lithic fragment-bearing to -rich sands. Lithostratigraphic and palynologic data indicate that this section is most likely early Eocene to late Paleocene in age. The examined units contain evidence for both marine and non-marine lithofacies, and indications that the depositional environment for the reservoir facies may have been shallower marine than originally interpreted based on pre-drill wireline log interpretations. There is also evidence of reduced salinity marine conditions during deposition that may be related to the paleo-climate and depositional conditions during the early Eocene. JF - Marine and Petroleum Geology AU - Rose, K AU - Boswell, Ray AU - Collett, T A2 - Boswell, Ray A2 - Collett, Tim A2 - Anderson, Brian A2 - Hunter, Robert Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 311 EP - 331 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 28 IS - 2 SN - 0264-8172, 0264-8172 KW - United States KW - silicates KW - petroleum exploration KW - lithostratigraphy KW - permafrost KW - gas hydrates KW - X-ray diffraction data KW - well-logging KW - Mount Elbert test well KW - petroleum KW - paleoclimatology KW - cores KW - reservoir rocks KW - Cenozoic KW - oil wells KW - sedimentary rocks KW - mineral composition KW - sediments KW - X-ray fluorescence spectra KW - spectra KW - Mount Elbert Prospect KW - depositional environment KW - geochemistry KW - North Slope KW - Milne Point KW - Eocene KW - clastic sediments KW - textures KW - grain size KW - properties KW - Paleogene KW - hydrochemistry KW - clay minerals KW - lithofacies KW - Tertiary KW - paleoenvironment KW - sheet silicates KW - Alaska KW - Sagavanirktok Formation KW - pore water KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources KW - 12:Stratigraphy UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/890659759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.atitle=Mount+Elbert+gas+hydrate+stratigraphic+test+well%2C+Alaska+North+Slope%3B+coring+operations%2C+core+sedimentology%2C+and+lithostratigraphy&rft.au=Rose%2C+K%3BBoswell%2C+Ray%3BCollett%2C+T&rft.aulast=Rose&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=311&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.issn=02648172&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.marpetgeo.2010.02.001 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648172 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 69 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendices N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Cenozoic; clastic sediments; clay minerals; cores; depositional environment; Eocene; gas hydrates; geochemistry; grain size; hydrochemistry; lithofacies; lithostratigraphy; Milne Point; mineral composition; Mount Elbert Prospect; Mount Elbert test well; North Slope; oil wells; paleoclimatology; paleoenvironment; Paleogene; permafrost; petroleum; petroleum exploration; pore water; properties; reservoir rocks; Sagavanirktok Formation; sedimentary rocks; sediments; sheet silicates; silicates; spectra; Tertiary; textures; United States; well-logging; X-ray diffraction data; X-ray fluorescence spectra DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2010.02.001 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Permafrost-associated natural gas hydrate occurrences on the Alaska North Slope AN - 890659753; 2011-078759 AB - In the 1960s Russian scientists made what was then a bold assertion that gas hydrates should occur in abundance in nature. Since this early start, the scientific foundation has been built for the realization that gas hydrates are a global phenomenon, occurring in permafrost regions of the arctic and in deep water portions of most continental margins worldwide. In 1995, the U. S. Geological Survey made the first systematic assessment of the in-place natural gas hydrate resources of the United States. That study suggested that the amount of gas in the gas hydrate accumulations of northern Alaska probably exceeds the volume of known conventional gas resources on the North Slope. Researchers have long speculated that gas hydrates could eventually become a producible energy resource, yet technical and economic hurdles have historically made gas hydrate development a distant goal. This view began to change in recent years with the realization that this unconventional resource could be developed with existing conventional oil and gas production technology. One of the most significant developments was the completion of the BPXA-DOE-USGS Mount Elbert Gas Hydrate Stratigraphic Test Well on the Alaska North Slope, which along with the Mallik project in Canada, have for the first time allowed the rational assessment of gas hydrate production technology and concepts. Almost 40 years of gas hydrate research in northern Alaska has confirmed the occurrence of at least two large gas hydrate accumulations on the North Slope. We have also seen in Alaska the first ever assessment of how much gas could be technically recovered from gas hydrates. However, significant technical concerns need to be further resolved in order to assess the ultimate impact of gas hydrate energy resource development in northern Alaska. JF - Marine and Petroleum Geology AU - Collett, T S AU - Lee, M W AU - Agena, W F AU - Miller, J J AU - Lewis, K A AU - Zyrianova, Margarita V AU - Boswell, Ray AU - Inks, Tanya L A2 - Boswell, Ray A2 - Collett, Tim A2 - Anderson, Brian A2 - Hunter, Robert Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 279 EP - 294 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 28 IS - 2 SN - 0264-8172, 0264-8172 KW - United States KW - petroleum exploration KW - permafrost KW - geophysical surveys KW - gas hydrates KW - offshore KW - natural gas KW - well-logging KW - Mount Elbert test well KW - petroleum KW - onshore KW - oil and gas fields KW - West Pacific KW - reservoir rocks KW - Okhotsk Sea KW - Eileen Field KW - oil wells KW - Arctic Ocean KW - Mount Elbert Prospect KW - Northwest Pacific KW - Beaufort Sea KW - migration KW - North Slope KW - Milne Point KW - Arctic region KW - geophysical methods KW - petroleum accumulation KW - seismic methods KW - Tarn Field KW - North Pacific KW - Pacific Ocean KW - surveys KW - Alaska KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/890659753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.atitle=Permafrost-associated+natural+gas+hydrate+occurrences+on+the+Alaska+North+Slope&rft.au=Collett%2C+T+S%3BLee%2C+M+W%3BAgena%2C+W+F%3BMiller%2C+J+J%3BLewis%2C+K+A%3BZyrianova%2C+Margarita+V%3BBoswell%2C+Ray%3BInks%2C+Tanya+L&rft.aulast=Collett&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=279&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+and+Petroleum+Geology&rft.issn=02648172&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.marpetgeo.2009.12.001 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648172 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 65 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Arctic Ocean; Arctic region; Beaufort Sea; Eileen Field; gas hydrates; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; migration; Milne Point; Mount Elbert Prospect; Mount Elbert test well; natural gas; North Pacific; North Slope; Northwest Pacific; offshore; oil and gas fields; oil wells; Okhotsk Sea; onshore; Pacific Ocean; permafrost; petroleum; petroleum accumulation; petroleum exploration; reservoir rocks; seismic methods; surveys; Tarn Field; United States; well-logging; West Pacific DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2009.12.001 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Integrating desulfurization with CO sub(2)-capture in chemical-looping combustion AN - 889402676; 14916995 AB - Chemical looping combustion (CLC) is an emerging technology for clean combustion. We have previously demonstrated that the embedding of metal nanoparticles into a nanostructured ceramic matrix can result in unusually active and sinter-resistant nanocomposite oxygen carrier materials for CLC which maintain high reactivity and high-temperature stability even when sulfur contaminated fuels are used in CLC. Here, we propose a novel process scheme for in situ desulfurization of syngas with simultaneous CO sub(2)-capture in chemical looping combustion by using these robust nanocomposite oxygen carriers simultaneously as sulfur-capture materials. We found that a nanocomposite Cu-BHA carrier can indeed strongly reduce the H sub(2)S concentration in the fuel reactor effluent. However, during the process the support matrix is also sulfidized and takes part in the redox process of CLC. This results in SO sub(2) production during the reduction of the oxygen carrier and thus limits the degree of desulfurization attainable with this kind of carrier. Nevertheless, the results suggest that simultaneous desulfurization and CO sub(2) capture in CLC is feasible with Cu as oxygen carrier as long as appropriate carrier support materials are chosen, and could result in a novel, strongly intensified process for low-emission, high efficiency combustion of sulfur contaminated fuel streams. JF - Fuel AU - Solunke, Rahul D AU - Veser, Goetz AD - National Energy Technology Laboratory, United States Department of Energy, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, United States, gveser@pitt.edu Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - Feb 2011 SP - 608 EP - 617 PB - Elsevier, Ltd., The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB UK VL - 90 IS - 2 SN - 0016-2361, 0016-2361 KW - Environment Abstracts KW - Chemical looping combustion KW - CO sub(2) capture KW - Desulfurization KW - Process intensification KW - Sulfur KW - Ceramics KW - Oxygen KW - Metals KW - Fuels KW - Carbon dioxide KW - Effluents KW - Combustion KW - ENA 03:Energy UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/889402676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Fuel&rft.atitle=Integrating+desulfurization+with+CO+sub%282%29-capture+in+chemical-looping+combustion&rft.au=Solunke%2C+Rahul+D%3BVeser%2C+Goetz&rft.aulast=Solunke&rft.aufirst=Rahul&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=608&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Fuel&rft.issn=00162361&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.fuel.2010.09.039 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Ceramics; Sulfur; Metals; Oxygen; Fuels; Effluents; Carbon dioxide; Desulfurization; Combustion DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.09.039 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - THE DAWN OF MATERIALS DESIGN AND PROCESSING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WORLD AN - 880675360; 14868959 AB - A significant amount of reflection and the adoption of a bold outlook will allow us to conclude that, as professionals who work with materials, we are better positioned to address these challenges than most others. It is within the scope of working with materials to enlighten the nature of commerce, to improve interactions with the environment and climate, and to soften the blow of global resource consumption. To realize this potential, the materials community must increasingly act and develop capability in three key areas: (1) sustainable processing and manufacturing, (2) sustainability evaluation, and (3) sustainability education. This will shrink the environmental footprint of production, help identify comprehensive long-run solutions, and create and educate many future practitioners of those skills. To date, most materials innovations have been created to solve problems in production efficiency or product performance. However, this new paradigm of creating sustainable solutions requires understanding the consequences of materials utilization throughout the product life cycle. Meeting materials challenges has always required an interdisciplinary approach, but meeting sustainable materials challenges presents an exciting opportunity to push this further, while still maintaining the bottom line of profitability. super(2) We must also seek input from those who have frequently been left out of the design process: the extractive processor (from mineral resources or recycled scrap), the environmental scientist (to minimize impacts), and even the resource economist (for extended cost analyses). JF - International Journal of Powder Metallurgy AU - Anderson, I E AU - Meskers, C AU - Jenks, C J AD - Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering, Ames Laboratory (USDOE), and Material Science and Engineering Department, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - Feb 2011 SP - 17 EP - 22 PB - A P M I International VL - 47 IS - 1 SN - 0888-7462, 0888-7462 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts KW - Education KW - life cycle KW - cost analysis KW - Sustainable development KW - sustainability KW - innovations KW - mineral resources KW - resource consumption KW - Design KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/880675360?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Assamodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Powder+Metallurgy&rft.atitle=THE+DAWN+OF+MATERIALS+DESIGN+AND+PROCESSING+FOR+A+SUSTAINABLE+WORLD&rft.au=Anderson%2C+I+E%3BMeskers%2C+C%3BJenks%2C+C+J&rft.aulast=Anderson&rft.aufirst=I&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=17&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Powder+Metallurgy&rft.issn=08887462&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Education; life cycle; cost analysis; Sustainable development; sustainability; innovations; resource consumption; mineral resources; Design ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of Two Platelet Activation Markers Using Flow Cytometry After In Vitro Shear Stress Exposure of Whole Human Blood AN - 879477018; 14397917 AB - Platelet activation is the initiating step to thromboembolic complications in blood-contacting medical devices. Currently, there are no widely accepted testing protocols or relevant metrics to assess platelet activation during the in vitro evaluation of new medical devices. In this article, two commonly used platelet activation marker antibodies, CD62P (platelet surface P-selectin) and PAC1 (activated GP IIb/IIIa), were evaluated using flow cytometry. Anticoagulant citrate dextrose solution A (ACDA) and heparin anticoagulated human blood from healthy donors were separately exposed to shear stresses of 0, 10, 15, and 20Pa for 120s using a cone-plate rheometer model, and immediately mixed with the platelet marker antibodies for analysis. To monitor for changes in platelet reactivity between donors and over time, blood samples were also evaluated after exposure to 0, 2, and 20 mu M of adenosine diphosphate (ADP). Following ADP stimulation, the percentage of both CD62P and PAC1 positive platelets increased in a dose dependent fashion, even 8h after the blood was collected. After shear stress stimulation, both CD62P and PAC1 positive platelets increased significantly at shear stress levels of 15 and 20Pa when ACDA was used as the anticoagulant. However, for heparinized blood, the PAC1 positive platelets decreased with increasing shear stress, while the CD62P positive platelets increased. Besides the anticoagulant effect, the platelet staining buffer also impacted PAC1 response, but had little effect on CD62P positive platelets. These data suggest that CD62P is a more reliable marker compared with PAC1 for measuring shear-dependent platelet activation and it has the potential for use during in vitro medical device testing. JF - Artificial Organs AU - Lu, Qijin AU - Malinauskas, Richard A AD - Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - Feb 2011 SP - 137 EP - 144 PB - Wiley-Blackwell, 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030-5774 USA VL - 35 IS - 2 SN - 0160-564X, 0160-564X KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts; Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts KW - ADP KW - medical equipment KW - Platelets KW - H 6000:Natural Disasters/Civil Defense/Emergency Management KW - W 30920:Tissue Engineering UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/879477018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Abiotechresearch&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Artificial+Organs&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+Two+Platelet+Activation+Markers+Using+Flow+Cytometry+After+In+Vitro+Shear+Stress+Exposure+of+Whole+Human+Blood&rft.au=Lu%2C+Qijin%3BMalinauskas%2C+Richard+A&rft.aulast=Lu&rft.aufirst=Qijin&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=137&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Artificial+Organs&rft.issn=0160564X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1525-1594.2010.01051.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-07-01 N1 - Document feature - figure 3 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Platelets; medical equipment DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1594.2010.01051.x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Endemic goitre in the Sudan despite long-standing programmes for the control of iodine deficiency disorders AN - 875714207; 2011-98525 AB - Objective: To describe the status of iodine deficiency disorders (IDDs) in the Sudan more than 25 years after the Initiation of IDD control programmes and to explore the causes of endemic goitre in the country. Methods: Testing for IDDs was carried out in 6083 schoolchildren 6 to 12 years of age from the capital cities of nine states in different areas of the country using the three indicators recommended by the World Health Organization: the prevalence of goitre, laboratory measurements of urinary iodine concentration in casual urine samples and serum thyroglobulin (Tg) levels. Serum levels of thyroxine (T4), triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), as well as urinary secretion of thiocyanate, which can affect the transport of iodine into thyrocytes, were also measured. Findings: The prevalence of goitre in the different samples ranged from 12.2% to 77.7% and was 38.8% overall. The overall median urinary iodine concentration was 6.55 [micro]g/dl, with the lowest median value having been found in Kosti city (2.7 [micro]g/dl), situated in the centre of the country, and the highest (46.4 [micro]g/dl) in Port Sudan, on the Red Sea coast. The highest mean serum Tg level (66.98 [micro]g/ml) was found in Kosti city, which also had the highest prevalence of goitre. Conclusion: IDDs still constitute a public health problem throughout urban areas in the Sudan and iodine deficiency appears to be the main etiological factor involved. Adapted from the source document. JF - Bulletin of the World Health Organization AU - Medani, Abdel Monim MH. AU - Elnour, Abdelsalam A AU - Saeed, Amal M AD - Sudan Atomic Energy Commission, Algamaa Street, PO Box 3001, Khartoum, Sudan E-mail: abdelmonimh@hotmail.com Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 121 EP - 126 PB - World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland VL - 89 IS - 2 SN - 0042-9686, 0042-9686 KW - International relations - International organizations KW - Health conditions and policy - Health and health policy KW - Health conditions and policy - Diseases and disorders KW - Social conditions and policy - Urban conditions KW - Urban conditions KW - Health policy KW - Diseases KW - World health organization KW - Sudan KW - Red sea KW - Public health KW - article UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/875714207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apais&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Bulletin+of+the+World+Health+Organization&rft.atitle=Endemic+goitre+in+the+Sudan+despite+long-standing+programmes+for+the+control+of+iodine+deficiency+disorders&rft.au=Medani%2C+Abdel+Monim+MH.%3BElnour%2C+Abdelsalam+A%3BSaeed%2C+Amal+M&rft.aulast=Medani&rft.aufirst=Abdel+Monim&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=89&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=121&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Bulletin+of+the+World+Health+Organization&rft.issn=00429686&rft_id=info:doi/10.2471%2FBLT.09.075002 LA - English DB - PAIS Index N1 - Date revised - 2011-08-04 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-28 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - World health organization; Health policy; Diseases; Sudan; Public health; Red sea; Urban conditions DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.09.075002 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Measurement of thermal neutron capture cross section and resonance integral of the 138Ba(n, I[sup3)139Ba reaction using 55Mn(n, I[sup3)56Mn as a monitor AN - 1686440684; 14361843 AB - The thermal neutron capture cross section (Iefo ) and the resonance integral cross section (Io ) of the 138Ba(n, I[sup3)139Ba reaction have been measured by the activation method using the Ghana Research Reactor-1 (GHARR-1). The barium and manganese targets were irradiated within and without a cadmium capsule. The result of the thermal neutron capture cross section for the 138Ba(n, I[sup3)139Ba reaction is 0.53A plus or minus 0.01barns. The result was obtained relative to the reference value 13.2 barns of the 55Mn(n, I[sup3)56Mn reaction. The resonance integral cross section for the 138Ba(n, I[sup3)139Ba reaction was also measured relative to the reference value of 13.9 barns for the 55Mn(n, I[sup3)56Mn reaction. The present resonance integral cross section for the 138Ba(n, I[sup3)139Ba reaction is 0.380A plus or minus 0.005 barns. The previous measurements of the Iefo and Io of the reaction 138Ba(n, I[sup3)139Ba were reviewed and the difference between the present values and the previous results were discussed. The present work was undertaken with the aim to contribute to the experimental basis of Iefo and Io evaluations. JF - Annals of Nuclear Energy AU - Agbemava, SE AU - Sogbadji, RBM AU - Nyarko, BJB AU - Della, R AD - Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, National Nuclear Research Institute, P.O. Box LG80, Legon, Ghana Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 379 EP - 382 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 38 IS - 2-3 SN - 0306-4549, 0306-4549 KW - Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (MT); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); Electronics and Communications Abstracts (EA); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Thermal neutrons KW - Resonance integral KW - Cross section KW - Barium KW - Activation method KW - Neutron capture KW - Barns KW - Integrals KW - Capture cross sections KW - Cadmium KW - Monitors KW - Cross sections KW - Nuclear engineering UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686440684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Annals+of+Nuclear+Energy&rft.atitle=Measurement+of+thermal+neutron+capture+cross+section+and+resonance+integral+of+the+138Ba%28n%2C+I%5Bsup3%29139Ba+reaction+using+55Mn%28n%2C+I%5Bsup3%2956Mn+as+a+monitor&rft.au=Agbemava%2C+SE%3BSogbadji%2C+RBM%3BNyarko%2C+BJB%3BDella%2C+R&rft.aulast=Agbemava&rft.aufirst=SE&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=379&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Annals+of+Nuclear+Energy&rft.issn=03064549&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.anucene.2010.10.005 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2010.10.005 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Systems for electrical power from co-produced and low temperature geothermal resources AN - 1676579133; 2015-036738 JF - Quarterly Bulletin - Oregon Institute of Technology. Geo-Heat Center AU - Reinhardt, Timothy AU - Johnson, Lyle A AU - Popovich, Neil Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 9 EP - 12 PB - Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, OR VL - 29 IS - 4 SN - 0276-1084, 0276-1084 KW - United States KW - Teapot Dome KW - survey organizations KW - Madison Formation KW - government agencies KW - power plants KW - Natrona County Wyoming KW - research KW - production KW - temperature KW - National Renewable Energy Lab KW - history KW - geothermal energy KW - Wyoming KW - progress report KW - Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center KW - report KW - low temperature KW - Geothermal Technologies Program KW - Casper Wyoming KW - Tensleep Sandstone KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1676579133?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Quarterly+Bulletin+-+Oregon+Institute+of+Technology.+Geo-Heat+Center&rft.atitle=Systems+for+electrical+power+from+co-produced+and+low+temperature+geothermal+resources&rft.au=Reinhardt%2C+Timothy%3BJohnson%2C+Lyle+A%3BPopovich%2C+Neil&rft.aulast=Reinhardt&rft.aufirst=Timothy&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=9&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Quarterly+Bulletin+-+Oregon+Institute+of+Technology.+Geo-Heat+Center&rft.issn=02761084&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull29-4/bull29-4-link.htm http://www.oit.edu/orec/geo-heat-center/quarterly-bulletin LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - PubXState - OR N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - CODEN - GUCBDK N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Casper Wyoming; geothermal energy; Geothermal Technologies Program; government agencies; history; low temperature; Madison Formation; National Renewable Energy Lab; Natrona County Wyoming; power plants; production; progress report; report; research; Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center; survey organizations; Teapot Dome; temperature; Tensleep Sandstone; United States; Wyoming ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Design of a large irradiation channel at MNSR facility in Ghana AN - 1671380358; 14361837 AB - In the design of new slant tube for large sample irradiation in the Ghana Research Reactor-1 facility, Monte Carlo N-Particle Code version 5 (MCNP-5) was employed to simulate the neutron flux profile of the new design. The results show that the neutron flux peaks at different points, at an average thermal neutron flux of (1.1406A plus or minus 0.0046)A-1011, (1.1849A plus or minus 0.0047)A-1011 and (1.0580A plus or minus 0.0044)A-1011 ncma degree 2 sa degree 1 around the reactor vessel. The first two peaks happened to coincide with pneumatic transfer pipes in the pool, but the third peak happened to be in line with the slant tube position. It was observed that as the diameter of the tube varies from 3.90cm to 23.40cm, the average thermal neutron flux decreased exponentially from (1.1849A plus or minus 0.0047)1011 ncma degree 2 sa degree 1 to (3.3241A plus or minus 0.0100)A-1010 ncma degree 2 sa degree 1. The average thermal neutron flux decreases exponentially along the diameter of the designed slant tube from (1.0366A plus or minus 0.0042)A-1011 ncma degree 2 sa degree 1 to (9.7396A plus or minus 0.0136)A-109 ncma degree 2 sa degree 1. From the results, it is evident that a slant tube of diameter 15.00cm can be installed at the original slant tube position for large sample irradiation. JF - Annals of Nuclear Energy AU - Nyarko, BJB AU - Asamoah, M AU - Gyampo, O AU - Akaho, EHK AU - Yamoah, S AU - Mensimah, E AU - Abrefah, R G AD - Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, National Nuclear Research Institute, P.O. Box LG80, Legon, Accra, Ghana Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 431 EP - 437 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 38 IS - 2-3 SN - 0306-4549, 0306-4549 KW - Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (MT); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); Electronics and Communications Abstracts (EA); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - MCNP-5 KW - MNSR KW - LSNAA KW - Neutron flux KW - Large sample KW - GHARR-1 KW - Channels KW - Computer simulation KW - Monte Carlo methods KW - Irradiation KW - Thermal neutrons KW - Tubes KW - Nuclear engineering UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1671380358?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Annals+of+Nuclear+Energy&rft.atitle=Design+of+a+large+irradiation+channel+at+MNSR+facility+in+Ghana&rft.au=Nyarko%2C+BJB%3BAsamoah%2C+M%3BGyampo%2C+O%3BAkaho%2C+EHK%3BYamoah%2C+S%3BMensimah%2C+E%3BAbrefah%2C+R+G&rft.aulast=Nyarko&rft.aufirst=BJB&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=431&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Annals+of+Nuclear+Energy&rft.issn=03064549&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.anucene.2010.09.023 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2010.09.023 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 8 of 8] T2 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129708; 14779-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a new source material license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an in-situ leach uranium recovery facility, also known as an in-situ recovery (ISR) facility, in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium Mining District of the Powder River Basin in Campbell and Johnson counties, Wyoming is proposed. Uranerz Energy Corporation submitted an application for the Nichols Ranch Project in November 2007. The facility would be located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, one of four geographic regions of the western United States for which the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of ISR facilities were assessed in a final generic EIS of June 2009. The total land area of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 3,371 acres and the project would be divided into two noncontiguous units, the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit. Facilities would include a central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit and a satellite facility, well fields, and deep disposal wells at the Hank Unit. The total land surface area for the license in question consists of 3,091 acres of private ownership and 280 acres of federal land. During the ISR process, an oxidant-charged solution, called a lixiviant, is injected into the production zone aquifer (uranium ore body) through injection wells using native ground water from the production zone aquifer, carbon dioxide, and sodium carbonate/bicarbonate, with an oxygen or hydrogen peroxide oxidant. The lixiviant oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium, which is present in a reduced chemical state and the resulting uranium-rich solution is drawn to recovery wells by pumping, and then transferred to a processing facility via a network of pipes. At the processing facility, the uranium is leached from the solution and the resulting barren solution is then recharged with the oxidant and re-injected to recover more uranium from the well field. Uranium recovery solution continually moves through the aquifer from outlying injection wells to internal recovery wells. Monitoring wells in the production zone aquifer and the overlying and underlying aquifers would detect lixiviant in case of migration out of the production zone. The uranium that is recovered from the solution would be processed, dried into yellowcake and packaged into approved 55-gallon steel drums, and trucked offsite to a licensed conversion facility. This final EIS evaluates the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and a modified action alternative whereby Uranerz would construct and operate facilities at only the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit. The staff recommendation is that the source material license be issued unless safety issues mandate otherwise. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would authorize commercial-scale ISR of uranium on private lands with adequate mitigation measures to ensure public safety and protection of environmental resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb 300 acres of land resulting in displacement of soils, vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Operations could impact shallow aquifers, the aquifer containing the ore body and surrounding aquifers, overlying and underlying aquifers to the ore zone, and deep aquifers below the ore production zone used for disposal of liquid effluent. Groundwater contamination would be minimized due to the hydraulic isolation of the production zone aquifers. Visual impacts would affect five traditional cultural properties. Facility workers would be exposed to radiation, but only at levels comparable to background level. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and final EISs on promulgation of rules for new source material licenses, see 08-0275D, Volume 32, Number 3 and 09-0237F, Volume 33, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0371D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110023, 742 pages, January 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NUREG-1910 Supp. 2 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Geologic Sites KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mining KW - Nuclear Fuels KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 7 of 8] T2 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129700; 14779-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a new source material license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an in-situ leach uranium recovery facility, also known as an in-situ recovery (ISR) facility, in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium Mining District of the Powder River Basin in Campbell and Johnson counties, Wyoming is proposed. Uranerz Energy Corporation submitted an application for the Nichols Ranch Project in November 2007. The facility would be located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, one of four geographic regions of the western United States for which the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of ISR facilities were assessed in a final generic EIS of June 2009. The total land area of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 3,371 acres and the project would be divided into two noncontiguous units, the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit. Facilities would include a central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit and a satellite facility, well fields, and deep disposal wells at the Hank Unit. The total land surface area for the license in question consists of 3,091 acres of private ownership and 280 acres of federal land. During the ISR process, an oxidant-charged solution, called a lixiviant, is injected into the production zone aquifer (uranium ore body) through injection wells using native ground water from the production zone aquifer, carbon dioxide, and sodium carbonate/bicarbonate, with an oxygen or hydrogen peroxide oxidant. The lixiviant oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium, which is present in a reduced chemical state and the resulting uranium-rich solution is drawn to recovery wells by pumping, and then transferred to a processing facility via a network of pipes. At the processing facility, the uranium is leached from the solution and the resulting barren solution is then recharged with the oxidant and re-injected to recover more uranium from the well field. Uranium recovery solution continually moves through the aquifer from outlying injection wells to internal recovery wells. Monitoring wells in the production zone aquifer and the overlying and underlying aquifers would detect lixiviant in case of migration out of the production zone. The uranium that is recovered from the solution would be processed, dried into yellowcake and packaged into approved 55-gallon steel drums, and trucked offsite to a licensed conversion facility. This final EIS evaluates the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and a modified action alternative whereby Uranerz would construct and operate facilities at only the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit. The staff recommendation is that the source material license be issued unless safety issues mandate otherwise. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would authorize commercial-scale ISR of uranium on private lands with adequate mitigation measures to ensure public safety and protection of environmental resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb 300 acres of land resulting in displacement of soils, vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Operations could impact shallow aquifers, the aquifer containing the ore body and surrounding aquifers, overlying and underlying aquifers to the ore zone, and deep aquifers below the ore production zone used for disposal of liquid effluent. Groundwater contamination would be minimized due to the hydraulic isolation of the production zone aquifers. Visual impacts would affect five traditional cultural properties. Facility workers would be exposed to radiation, but only at levels comparable to background level. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and final EISs on promulgation of rules for new source material licenses, see 08-0275D, Volume 32, Number 3 and 09-0237F, Volume 33, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0371D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110023, 742 pages, January 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NUREG-1910 Supp. 2 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Geologic Sites KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mining KW - Nuclear Fuels KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=21st+Annual+Symposium+on+the+Application+of+Geophysics+to+Engineering+and+Environmental+Problems+%28SAGEEP+2008%29&rft.atitle=Using+Ground+Based+Geophysics+to+Evaluate+Hydrogeologic+Effects+of+Subsurface+Drip+Irrigation+Systems+used+to+Manage+Produced+Water+in+the+Powder+River+Basin%2C+Wyoming&rft.au=Sams%2C+James%3BLipinski%2C+Brian%3BVeloski%2C+Garret&rft.aulast=Sams&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2008-04-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=21st+Annual+Symposium+on+the+Application+of+Geophysics+to+Engineering+and+Environmental+Problems+%28SAGEEP+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 6 of 8] T2 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129688; 14779-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a new source material license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an in-situ leach uranium recovery facility, also known as an in-situ recovery (ISR) facility, in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium Mining District of the Powder River Basin in Campbell and Johnson counties, Wyoming is proposed. Uranerz Energy Corporation submitted an application for the Nichols Ranch Project in November 2007. The facility would be located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, one of four geographic regions of the western United States for which the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of ISR facilities were assessed in a final generic EIS of June 2009. The total land area of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 3,371 acres and the project would be divided into two noncontiguous units, the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit. Facilities would include a central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit and a satellite facility, well fields, and deep disposal wells at the Hank Unit. The total land surface area for the license in question consists of 3,091 acres of private ownership and 280 acres of federal land. During the ISR process, an oxidant-charged solution, called a lixiviant, is injected into the production zone aquifer (uranium ore body) through injection wells using native ground water from the production zone aquifer, carbon dioxide, and sodium carbonate/bicarbonate, with an oxygen or hydrogen peroxide oxidant. The lixiviant oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium, which is present in a reduced chemical state and the resulting uranium-rich solution is drawn to recovery wells by pumping, and then transferred to a processing facility via a network of pipes. At the processing facility, the uranium is leached from the solution and the resulting barren solution is then recharged with the oxidant and re-injected to recover more uranium from the well field. Uranium recovery solution continually moves through the aquifer from outlying injection wells to internal recovery wells. Monitoring wells in the production zone aquifer and the overlying and underlying aquifers would detect lixiviant in case of migration out of the production zone. The uranium that is recovered from the solution would be processed, dried into yellowcake and packaged into approved 55-gallon steel drums, and trucked offsite to a licensed conversion facility. This final EIS evaluates the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and a modified action alternative whereby Uranerz would construct and operate facilities at only the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit. The staff recommendation is that the source material license be issued unless safety issues mandate otherwise. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would authorize commercial-scale ISR of uranium on private lands with adequate mitigation measures to ensure public safety and protection of environmental resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb 300 acres of land resulting in displacement of soils, vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Operations could impact shallow aquifers, the aquifer containing the ore body and surrounding aquifers, overlying and underlying aquifers to the ore zone, and deep aquifers below the ore production zone used for disposal of liquid effluent. Groundwater contamination would be minimized due to the hydraulic isolation of the production zone aquifers. Visual impacts would affect five traditional cultural properties. Facility workers would be exposed to radiation, but only at levels comparable to background level. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and final EISs on promulgation of rules for new source material licenses, see 08-0275D, Volume 32, Number 3 and 09-0237F, Volume 33, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0371D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110023, 742 pages, January 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NUREG-1910 Supp. 2 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Geologic Sites KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mining KW - Nuclear Fuels KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 5 of 8] T2 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129671; 14779-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a new source material license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an in-situ leach uranium recovery facility, also known as an in-situ recovery (ISR) facility, in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium Mining District of the Powder River Basin in Campbell and Johnson counties, Wyoming is proposed. Uranerz Energy Corporation submitted an application for the Nichols Ranch Project in November 2007. The facility would be located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, one of four geographic regions of the western United States for which the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of ISR facilities were assessed in a final generic EIS of June 2009. The total land area of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 3,371 acres and the project would be divided into two noncontiguous units, the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit. Facilities would include a central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit and a satellite facility, well fields, and deep disposal wells at the Hank Unit. The total land surface area for the license in question consists of 3,091 acres of private ownership and 280 acres of federal land. During the ISR process, an oxidant-charged solution, called a lixiviant, is injected into the production zone aquifer (uranium ore body) through injection wells using native ground water from the production zone aquifer, carbon dioxide, and sodium carbonate/bicarbonate, with an oxygen or hydrogen peroxide oxidant. The lixiviant oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium, which is present in a reduced chemical state and the resulting uranium-rich solution is drawn to recovery wells by pumping, and then transferred to a processing facility via a network of pipes. At the processing facility, the uranium is leached from the solution and the resulting barren solution is then recharged with the oxidant and re-injected to recover more uranium from the well field. Uranium recovery solution continually moves through the aquifer from outlying injection wells to internal recovery wells. Monitoring wells in the production zone aquifer and the overlying and underlying aquifers would detect lixiviant in case of migration out of the production zone. The uranium that is recovered from the solution would be processed, dried into yellowcake and packaged into approved 55-gallon steel drums, and trucked offsite to a licensed conversion facility. This final EIS evaluates the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and a modified action alternative whereby Uranerz would construct and operate facilities at only the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit. The staff recommendation is that the source material license be issued unless safety issues mandate otherwise. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would authorize commercial-scale ISR of uranium on private lands with adequate mitigation measures to ensure public safety and protection of environmental resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb 300 acres of land resulting in displacement of soils, vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Operations could impact shallow aquifers, the aquifer containing the ore body and surrounding aquifers, overlying and underlying aquifers to the ore zone, and deep aquifers below the ore production zone used for disposal of liquid effluent. Groundwater contamination would be minimized due to the hydraulic isolation of the production zone aquifers. Visual impacts would affect five traditional cultural properties. Facility workers would be exposed to radiation, but only at levels comparable to background level. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and final EISs on promulgation of rules for new source material licenses, see 08-0275D, Volume 32, Number 3 and 09-0237F, Volume 33, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0371D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110023, 742 pages, January 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NUREG-1910 Supp. 2 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Geologic Sites KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mining KW - Nuclear Fuels KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129671?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 4 of 8] T2 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129660; 14779-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a new source material license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an in-situ leach uranium recovery facility, also known as an in-situ recovery (ISR) facility, in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium Mining District of the Powder River Basin in Campbell and Johnson counties, Wyoming is proposed. Uranerz Energy Corporation submitted an application for the Nichols Ranch Project in November 2007. The facility would be located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, one of four geographic regions of the western United States for which the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of ISR facilities were assessed in a final generic EIS of June 2009. The total land area of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 3,371 acres and the project would be divided into two noncontiguous units, the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit. Facilities would include a central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit and a satellite facility, well fields, and deep disposal wells at the Hank Unit. The total land surface area for the license in question consists of 3,091 acres of private ownership and 280 acres of federal land. During the ISR process, an oxidant-charged solution, called a lixiviant, is injected into the production zone aquifer (uranium ore body) through injection wells using native ground water from the production zone aquifer, carbon dioxide, and sodium carbonate/bicarbonate, with an oxygen or hydrogen peroxide oxidant. The lixiviant oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium, which is present in a reduced chemical state and the resulting uranium-rich solution is drawn to recovery wells by pumping, and then transferred to a processing facility via a network of pipes. At the processing facility, the uranium is leached from the solution and the resulting barren solution is then recharged with the oxidant and re-injected to recover more uranium from the well field. Uranium recovery solution continually moves through the aquifer from outlying injection wells to internal recovery wells. Monitoring wells in the production zone aquifer and the overlying and underlying aquifers would detect lixiviant in case of migration out of the production zone. The uranium that is recovered from the solution would be processed, dried into yellowcake and packaged into approved 55-gallon steel drums, and trucked offsite to a licensed conversion facility. This final EIS evaluates the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and a modified action alternative whereby Uranerz would construct and operate facilities at only the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit. The staff recommendation is that the source material license be issued unless safety issues mandate otherwise. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would authorize commercial-scale ISR of uranium on private lands with adequate mitigation measures to ensure public safety and protection of environmental resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb 300 acres of land resulting in displacement of soils, vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Operations could impact shallow aquifers, the aquifer containing the ore body and surrounding aquifers, overlying and underlying aquifers to the ore zone, and deep aquifers below the ore production zone used for disposal of liquid effluent. Groundwater contamination would be minimized due to the hydraulic isolation of the production zone aquifers. Visual impacts would affect five traditional cultural properties. Facility workers would be exposed to radiation, but only at levels comparable to background level. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and final EISs on promulgation of rules for new source material licenses, see 08-0275D, Volume 32, Number 3 and 09-0237F, Volume 33, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0371D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110023, 742 pages, January 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NUREG-1910 Supp. 2 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Geologic Sites KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mining KW - Nuclear Fuels KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 3 of 8] T2 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129266; 14779-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a new source material license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an in-situ leach uranium recovery facility, also known as an in-situ recovery (ISR) facility, in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium Mining District of the Powder River Basin in Campbell and Johnson counties, Wyoming is proposed. Uranerz Energy Corporation submitted an application for the Nichols Ranch Project in November 2007. The facility would be located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, one of four geographic regions of the western United States for which the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of ISR facilities were assessed in a final generic EIS of June 2009. The total land area of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 3,371 acres and the project would be divided into two noncontiguous units, the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit. Facilities would include a central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit and a satellite facility, well fields, and deep disposal wells at the Hank Unit. The total land surface area for the license in question consists of 3,091 acres of private ownership and 280 acres of federal land. During the ISR process, an oxidant-charged solution, called a lixiviant, is injected into the production zone aquifer (uranium ore body) through injection wells using native ground water from the production zone aquifer, carbon dioxide, and sodium carbonate/bicarbonate, with an oxygen or hydrogen peroxide oxidant. The lixiviant oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium, which is present in a reduced chemical state and the resulting uranium-rich solution is drawn to recovery wells by pumping, and then transferred to a processing facility via a network of pipes. At the processing facility, the uranium is leached from the solution and the resulting barren solution is then recharged with the oxidant and re-injected to recover more uranium from the well field. Uranium recovery solution continually moves through the aquifer from outlying injection wells to internal recovery wells. Monitoring wells in the production zone aquifer and the overlying and underlying aquifers would detect lixiviant in case of migration out of the production zone. The uranium that is recovered from the solution would be processed, dried into yellowcake and packaged into approved 55-gallon steel drums, and trucked offsite to a licensed conversion facility. This final EIS evaluates the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and a modified action alternative whereby Uranerz would construct and operate facilities at only the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit. The staff recommendation is that the source material license be issued unless safety issues mandate otherwise. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would authorize commercial-scale ISR of uranium on private lands with adequate mitigation measures to ensure public safety and protection of environmental resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb 300 acres of land resulting in displacement of soils, vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Operations could impact shallow aquifers, the aquifer containing the ore body and surrounding aquifers, overlying and underlying aquifers to the ore zone, and deep aquifers below the ore production zone used for disposal of liquid effluent. Groundwater contamination would be minimized due to the hydraulic isolation of the production zone aquifers. Visual impacts would affect five traditional cultural properties. Facility workers would be exposed to radiation, but only at levels comparable to background level. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and final EISs on promulgation of rules for new source material licenses, see 08-0275D, Volume 32, Number 3 and 09-0237F, Volume 33, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0371D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110023, 742 pages, January 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NUREG-1910 Supp. 2 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Geologic Sites KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mining KW - Nuclear Fuels KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 2 of 8] T2 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129248; 14779-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a new source material license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an in-situ leach uranium recovery facility, also known as an in-situ recovery (ISR) facility, in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium Mining District of the Powder River Basin in Campbell and Johnson counties, Wyoming is proposed. Uranerz Energy Corporation submitted an application for the Nichols Ranch Project in November 2007. The facility would be located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, one of four geographic regions of the western United States for which the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of ISR facilities were assessed in a final generic EIS of June 2009. The total land area of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 3,371 acres and the project would be divided into two noncontiguous units, the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit. Facilities would include a central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit and a satellite facility, well fields, and deep disposal wells at the Hank Unit. The total land surface area for the license in question consists of 3,091 acres of private ownership and 280 acres of federal land. During the ISR process, an oxidant-charged solution, called a lixiviant, is injected into the production zone aquifer (uranium ore body) through injection wells using native ground water from the production zone aquifer, carbon dioxide, and sodium carbonate/bicarbonate, with an oxygen or hydrogen peroxide oxidant. The lixiviant oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium, which is present in a reduced chemical state and the resulting uranium-rich solution is drawn to recovery wells by pumping, and then transferred to a processing facility via a network of pipes. At the processing facility, the uranium is leached from the solution and the resulting barren solution is then recharged with the oxidant and re-injected to recover more uranium from the well field. Uranium recovery solution continually moves through the aquifer from outlying injection wells to internal recovery wells. Monitoring wells in the production zone aquifer and the overlying and underlying aquifers would detect lixiviant in case of migration out of the production zone. The uranium that is recovered from the solution would be processed, dried into yellowcake and packaged into approved 55-gallon steel drums, and trucked offsite to a licensed conversion facility. This final EIS evaluates the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and a modified action alternative whereby Uranerz would construct and operate facilities at only the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit. The staff recommendation is that the source material license be issued unless safety issues mandate otherwise. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would authorize commercial-scale ISR of uranium on private lands with adequate mitigation measures to ensure public safety and protection of environmental resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb 300 acres of land resulting in displacement of soils, vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Operations could impact shallow aquifers, the aquifer containing the ore body and surrounding aquifers, overlying and underlying aquifers to the ore zone, and deep aquifers below the ore production zone used for disposal of liquid effluent. Groundwater contamination would be minimized due to the hydraulic isolation of the production zone aquifers. Visual impacts would affect five traditional cultural properties. Facility workers would be exposed to radiation, but only at levels comparable to background level. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and final EISs on promulgation of rules for new source material licenses, see 08-0275D, Volume 32, Number 3 and 09-0237F, Volume 33, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0371D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110023, 742 pages, January 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NUREG-1910 Supp. 2 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Geologic Sites KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mining KW - Nuclear Fuels KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 1 of 8] T2 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128333; 14779-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a new source material license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an in-situ leach uranium recovery facility, also known as an in-situ recovery (ISR) facility, in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium Mining District of the Powder River Basin in Campbell and Johnson counties, Wyoming is proposed. Uranerz Energy Corporation submitted an application for the Nichols Ranch Project in November 2007. The facility would be located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, one of four geographic regions of the western United States for which the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of ISR facilities were assessed in a final generic EIS of June 2009. The total land area of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 3,371 acres and the project would be divided into two noncontiguous units, the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit. Facilities would include a central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit and a satellite facility, well fields, and deep disposal wells at the Hank Unit. The total land surface area for the license in question consists of 3,091 acres of private ownership and 280 acres of federal land. During the ISR process, an oxidant-charged solution, called a lixiviant, is injected into the production zone aquifer (uranium ore body) through injection wells using native ground water from the production zone aquifer, carbon dioxide, and sodium carbonate/bicarbonate, with an oxygen or hydrogen peroxide oxidant. The lixiviant oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium, which is present in a reduced chemical state and the resulting uranium-rich solution is drawn to recovery wells by pumping, and then transferred to a processing facility via a network of pipes. At the processing facility, the uranium is leached from the solution and the resulting barren solution is then recharged with the oxidant and re-injected to recover more uranium from the well field. Uranium recovery solution continually moves through the aquifer from outlying injection wells to internal recovery wells. Monitoring wells in the production zone aquifer and the overlying and underlying aquifers would detect lixiviant in case of migration out of the production zone. The uranium that is recovered from the solution would be processed, dried into yellowcake and packaged into approved 55-gallon steel drums, and trucked offsite to a licensed conversion facility. This final EIS evaluates the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and a modified action alternative whereby Uranerz would construct and operate facilities at only the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit. The staff recommendation is that the source material license be issued unless safety issues mandate otherwise. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would authorize commercial-scale ISR of uranium on private lands with adequate mitigation measures to ensure public safety and protection of environmental resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb 300 acres of land resulting in displacement of soils, vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Operations could impact shallow aquifers, the aquifer containing the ore body and surrounding aquifers, overlying and underlying aquifers to the ore zone, and deep aquifers below the ore production zone used for disposal of liquid effluent. Groundwater contamination would be minimized due to the hydraulic isolation of the production zone aquifers. Visual impacts would affect five traditional cultural properties. Facility workers would be exposed to radiation, but only at levels comparable to background level. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and final EISs on promulgation of rules for new source material licenses, see 08-0275D, Volume 32, Number 3 and 09-0237F, Volume 33, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0371D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110023, 742 pages, January 21, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NUREG-1910 Supp. 2 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Geologic Sites KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mining KW - Nuclear Fuels KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NICHOLS RANCH IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CAMPBELL AND JOHNSON COUNTIES, WYOMING (SECOND FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 855180484; 14779 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a new source material license for the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an in-situ leach uranium recovery facility, also known as an in-situ recovery (ISR) facility, in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium Mining District of the Powder River Basin in Campbell and Johnson counties, Wyoming is proposed. Uranerz Energy Corporation submitted an application for the Nichols Ranch Project in November 2007. The facility would be located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, one of four geographic regions of the western United States for which the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of ISR facilities were assessed in a final generic EIS of June 2009. The total land area of the proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project is 3,371 acres and the project would be divided into two noncontiguous units, the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit. Facilities would include a central processing plant at the Nichols Ranch Unit and a satellite facility, well fields, and deep disposal wells at the Hank Unit. The total land surface area for the license in question consists of 3,091 acres of private ownership and 280 acres of federal land. During the ISR process, an oxidant-charged solution, called a lixiviant, is injected into the production zone aquifer (uranium ore body) through injection wells using native ground water from the production zone aquifer, carbon dioxide, and sodium carbonate/bicarbonate, with an oxygen or hydrogen peroxide oxidant. The lixiviant oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium, which is present in a reduced chemical state and the resulting uranium-rich solution is drawn to recovery wells by pumping, and then transferred to a processing facility via a network of pipes. At the processing facility, the uranium is leached from the solution and the resulting barren solution is then recharged with the oxidant and re-injected to recover more uranium from the well field. Uranium recovery solution continually moves through the aquifer from outlying injection wells to internal recovery wells. Monitoring wells in the production zone aquifer and the overlying and underlying aquifers would detect lixiviant in case of migration out of the production zone. The uranium that is recovered from the solution would be processed, dried into yellowcake and packaged into approved 55-gallon steel drums, and trucked offsite to a licensed conversion facility. This final EIS evaluates the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and a modified action alternative whereby Uranerz would construct and operate facilities at only the proposed Nichols Ranch Unit. The staff recommendation is that the source material license be issued unless safety issues mandate otherwise. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would authorize commercial-scale ISR of uranium on private lands with adequate mitigation measures to ensure public safety and protection of environmental resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb 300 acres of land resulting in displacement of soils, vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Operations could impact shallow aquifers, the aquifer containing the ore body and surrounding aquifers, overlying and underlying aquifers to the ore zone, and deep aquifers below the ore production zone used for disposal of liquid effluent. Groundwater contamination would be minimized due to the hydraulic isolation of the production zone aquifers. Visual impacts would affect five traditional cultural properties. Facility workers would be exposed to radiation, but only at levels comparable to background level. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and final EISs on promulgation of rules for new source material licenses, see 08-0275D, Volume 32, Number 3 and 09-0237F, Volume 33, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0371D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110023, 742 pages, January 21, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NUREG-1910 Supp. 2 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Geologic Sites KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mining KW - Nuclear Fuels KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/855180484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=NICHOLS+RANCH+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CAMPBELL+AND+JOHNSON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+%28SECOND+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. (FORTY-THIRD FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). AN - 854551167; 14768 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal of operating licenses for the three-unit Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) located in Maricopa County, Arizona is proposed to extend the licensed plant life for an additional 20 years in this 43rd supplement to the final generic EIS of May 1996 on promulgation of rules for all license renewals. The final EIS of 1996 identified 92 issues and reached conclusions relating to environmental impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants. Neither the applicant, Arizona Public Service Company, nor staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified new information for any of the 69 generic issues. Additional plant-specific review is required for the remaining 23 issues, and these are addressed with respect to the three units in this supplement to the final EIS. If the license is renewed, federal and state agencies and the owners of the plant would go on to decide whether the plant should continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power. If the operating licenses are not renewed, the facilities would be shut down on or before expiration of the current licenses, June 1, 2025 for Unit 1, April 24, 2026 for Unit 2, and November 25, 2027 for Unit 3. PVNGS is located within a 4,280-acre site 45 miles west of central Phoenix. The site buildings and adjacent, developed areas comprise 720 acres and there are 605 surface acres of water on site in various large ponds. Each Combustion Engineering System 80 pressurized water nuclear reactor uses low-enriched uranium dioxide fuel to produce a core power of 3,990 megawatts (MW) thermal and a nominal net electrical capacity of 1,346 MW electric. Each containment building is a pre-stressed, reinforced concrete cylinder with a slab base and a hemispherical dome. A welded steel liner is attached to the inside face of the concrete shell to insure a high degree of leak tightness. In addition, the four-foot thick concrete walls serve as a radiation shield. PVNGS does not use public water supplies for plant operations, but instead relies on wastewater effluents from several area municipalities and groundwater from three onsite production wells. Cooling water effluents are discharged to man-made lined evaporation ponds with no outlet and no hydraulic connection to any natural surface water body. The facility uses liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems to collect and process wastes that are byproducts of operations. Nonradioactive wastes are collected and disposed of or recycled based on waste type. Seven 525-kilovolt transmission lines connect PVNGS to the regional power grid. In addition to the proposed license renewal, this final supplemental EIS considers alternative methods of power generation and a No Action Alternative. Replacement power options considered are supercritical coal-fired generation, natural gas combined-cycle generation, new nuclear generation, and a combination alternative that includes a portion of the combined-cycle gas-fired capacity, a conservation component, and a solar power component. Renewal of the licenses is recommended as a reasonable option. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Renewal of the license would allow Arizona Public Service Company to meet the needs of its regional energy purchasers without the need to construct new facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operational use of groundwater would continue, but is considered inconsequential. On-site sources would continue to emit criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants, but impacts are not expected to destabilize air quality. Continued operations would contribute to cumulative small radiological impacts; continued compliance with regulatory requirements is expected. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on promulgation of rules for license renewals, see 91-0281D, Volume 15, Number 5 and 96-0226F, Volume 20, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 10-0280D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110012, 377 pages, January 11, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1437 Supp. 43 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wastewater KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/854551167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+PALO+VERDE+NUCLEAR+GENERATING+STATION%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.+%28FORTY-THIRD+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.title=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+PALO+VERDE+NUCLEAR+GENERATING+STATION%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.+%28FORTY-THIRD+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The potential of four mite species (Acari: Phytoseiidae) as predators of sucking pests on protected cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) crop AN - 954642586; 16426283 AB - Protected crop experiments were conducted to study the suitability and efficacy of Phytoseiid mite species as predators of western flower thrips Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande), carmine spider mite Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval) and greenhouse whitefly Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood) in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) under greenhouse conditions. In this study, predatory mites Neoseiulus pseudolongispinosus Euseius castaneae Euseius utilis and Euseius finlandicus (Oudemans) (Phytosiidae) were investigated for their potential as biological control agents in treated along with untreated check. The current findings to judge the biocontrol potential of predators showed that laboratory bred adults and nymph instars of all predators efficiently preyed upon sucking arthropods and pests populations were drastically reduced in treated plants than in untreated control where their intensities were numerous. Among all predators, N. pseudolongispinosus was the most proficient and steadfast predator in controlling thrips and whitefly populations, contrary to E. finlandicus that proved better in reducing spider mite density in treated crop. The current findings indicated the potential of Phytoseiid predators for their augmentative releases to give best control of sucking pests in protected cucumber plants. JF - African Journal of Agricultural Research AU - Sarwar, M AU - Xu, X AU - Wang, E AU - Wu, K AD - Nuclear Institute of Agriculture, Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, Tandojam-70060, Sindh, Pakistan, drmsarwar64@yahoo.com Y1 - 2011/01/04/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Jan 04 SP - 73 EP - 78 VL - 6 IS - 1 SN - 1991-637X, 1991-637X KW - Entomology Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts KW - Biological control KW - Flowers KW - Tetranychus cinnabarinus KW - Euseius finlandicus KW - Frankliniella occidentalis KW - Plant protection KW - Predators KW - Pest control KW - Crops KW - Greenhouses KW - Arthropoda KW - Cucumis sativus KW - Phytoseiidae KW - Trialeurodes vaporariorum KW - Araneae KW - Pests KW - Acari KW - Z 05350:Medical, Veterinary, and Agricultural Entomology KW - D 04060:Management and Conservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/954642586?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aecology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=African+Journal+of+Agricultural+Research&rft.atitle=The+potential+of+four+mite+species+%28Acari%3A+Phytoseiidae%29+as+predators+of+sucking+pests+on+protected+cucumber+%28Cucumis+sativus+L.%29+crop&rft.au=Sarwar%2C+M%3BXu%2C+X%3BWang%2C+E%3BWu%2C+K&rft.aulast=Sarwar&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-01-04&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=73&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=African+Journal+of+Agricultural+Research&rft.issn=1991637X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-28 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Biological control; Flowers; Plant protection; Pest control; Predators; Pests; Crops; Greenhouses; Tetranychus cinnabarinus; Phytoseiidae; Cucumis sativus; Arthropoda; Frankliniella occidentalis; Euseius finlandicus; Trialeurodes vaporariorum; Araneae; Acari ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Occupational radiation doses to the extremities and the eyes in interventional radiology and cardiology procedures AN - 954609911; 14154081 AB - OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine occupational dose levels in interventional radiology and cardiology procedures. METHODS: The study covered a sample of 25 procedures and monitored occupational dose for all laboratory personnel. Each individual wore eight thermoluminescent dosemeters next to the eyes, wrists, fingers and legs during each procedure. Radiation protection shields used in each procedure were recorded. RESULTS: The highest doses per procedure were recorded for interventionists at the left wrist (average 485 mu Sv, maximum 5239 mu Sv) and left finger (average 324 mu Sv, maximum 2877 mu Sv), whereas lower doses were recorded for the legs (average 124 mu Sv, maximum 1959 mu Sv) and the eyes (average 64 mu Sv, maximum 1129 mu Sv). Doses to the assisting nurses during the intervention were considerably lower; the highest doses were recorded at the wrists (average 26 mu Sv, maximum 41 mu Sv) and legs (average 18 mu Sv, maximum 22 mu Sv), whereas doses to the eyes were minimal (average 4 mu Sv, maximum 16 mu Sv). Occupational doses normalised to kerma area product (KAP) ranged from 11.9 to 117.3 mu Sv/1000 cGy cm2 and KAP was poorly correlated to the interventionists' extremity doses. CONCLUSION: Calculation of the dose burden for interventionists considering the actual number of procedures performed annually revealed that dose limits for the extremities and the lenses of the eyes were not exceeded. However, there are cases in which high doses have been recorded and this can lead to exceeding the dose limits when bad practices are followed and the radiation protection tools are not properly used. JF - British Journal of Radiology AU - Efstathopoulos, E P AU - Pantos, I AU - Andreou, M AU - Gkatzis, A AU - Carinou, E AU - Koukorava, C AU - Kelekis, N L AU - Brountzos, E AD - Second Department of Radiology, Medical School, University of Athens, Athens, Greece, Greek Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC), Agia Paraskevi, Greece Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 70 EP - 77 PB - British Institute of Radiology, 36 Portland Place London W1B 1AT UK VL - 84 IS - 997 SN - 0007-1285, 0007-1285 KW - Toxicology Abstracts KW - Leg KW - Radiation KW - Personnel KW - Wrist KW - Eye lens KW - Radiology KW - Finger KW - X 24390:Radioactive Materials UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/954609911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxicologyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=British+Journal+of+Radiology&rft.atitle=Occupational+radiation+doses+to+the+extremities+and+the+eyes+in+interventional+radiology+and+cardiology+procedures&rft.au=Efstathopoulos%2C+E+P%3BPantos%2C+I%3BAndreou%2C+M%3BGkatzis%2C+A%3BCarinou%2C+E%3BKoukorava%2C+C%3BKelekis%2C+N+L%3BBrountzos%2C+E&rft.aulast=Efstathopoulos&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=997&rft.spage=70&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=British+Journal+of+Radiology&rft.issn=00071285&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-06 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Leg; Radiation; Personnel; Wrist; Eye lens; Radiology; Finger ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Regulatory oversight of licensee use of contractors AN - 925721156; 2011-172485 AB - Contractors have long formed an integral part of the resources available to licensees, particularly in relation to the design, construction, maintenance and modification of nuclear power plants. Changes in the nuclear industry sector have created challenges for licensees and regulators related to the retention of nuclear expertise, the effective management of the interfaces between the licensees and contractors, and the oversight of contractor manufacturing quality in the context if greater multinational diversity. Adapted from the source document. JF - NEA News AU - Tracy, G AU - Jackson, D AD - Works for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and chaired the NEA senior- level expert group on this subject glenn.tracy@nrc.gov Y1 - 2011///0, PY - 2011 DA - 0, 2011 SP - 11 EP - 13 PB - OECD, Paris, France VL - 29 IS - 1 SN - 1605-9581, 1605-9581 KW - Energy resources and policy - Nuclear power KW - Energy resources and policy - Energy policy KW - Economic conditions and policy - Economic policy, planning, and development KW - Law and ethics - Law and jurisprudence KW - Manufacturing and heavy industry - Building and construction KW - Law and ethics - Criminal law KW - Government - Internal security KW - Business and service sector - Business management KW - Manufacturing and heavy industry - Manufacturing and manufactured goods KW - Manufacturing and heavy industry - Industry and industrial policy KW - Atomic power KW - Management KW - Energy policy KW - Manufacturing KW - Contractors KW - Regulation KW - Surveillance KW - Industry KW - article UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/925721156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apais&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=NEA+News&rft.atitle=Regulatory+oversight+of+licensee+use+of+contractors&rft.au=Tracy%2C+G%3BJackson%2C+D&rft.aulast=Tracy&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=11&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=NEA+News&rft.issn=16059581&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - PAIS Index N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-28 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atomic power; Energy policy; Regulation; Contractors; Surveillance; Management; Manufacturing; Industry ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Measurement of super(60)Co high gamma dose using gamma activation of super(115)In and super(111)Cd foils AN - 918044709; 13872420 AB - Cobalt-60 gamma irradiation facilities are used in many industrial and medical applications. Gamma activation technique of super(115)In and super(111)Cd foils was used in this work to assess the performance of ethanol-chlorobenzene gamma dosimeter at high dose range of super(60)Co irradiation facility. Dose mapping was also performed using super(115)In foils. These measurements are required to control the irradiation quality and to validate dose calculations. JF - Applied Radiation and Isotopes AU - Haddad, Kh AU - Kattan, M AU - Altaleb, A AD - Atomic Energy Commission, P.O. Box 6091, Damascus, Syria, pscientific1@aec.org.sy Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - January 2011 SP - 180 EP - 183 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 69 IS - 1 SN - 0969-8043, 0969-8043 KW - Environment Abstracts KW - High gamma dose KW - (g,g') KW - Gamma activation KW - Ethanol-chlorobenzene KW - 60Co KW - Isotopes KW - Irradiation KW - Dose-response effects KW - Cobalt KW - Gamma radiation KW - ENA 07:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918044709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Applied+Radiation+and+Isotopes&rft.atitle=Measurement+of+super%2860%29Co+high+gamma+dose+using+gamma+activation+of+super%28115%29In+and+super%28111%29Cd+foils&rft.au=Haddad%2C+Kh%3BKattan%2C+M%3BAltaleb%2C+A&rft.aulast=Haddad&rft.aufirst=Kh&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=180&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Applied+Radiation+and+Isotopes&rft.issn=09698043&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.apradiso.2010.07.017 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-06-22 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Isotopes; Cobalt; Dose-response effects; Irradiation; Gamma radiation DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2010.07.017 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Education and training issues in individual monitoring of ionising radiation AN - 918044684; 14625094 AB - The present article deals with the education and training (E&T) issues of individual monitoring (IM) of ionising radiation, based on the requirements provided by the Basic Safety Standards Euratom Directive and the European Commission Technical Recommendations for IM of external radiation. The structure and the objectives of E&T programmes addressed to the staff of dosimetry services, in order to allow the recognition and ensure the continuity of expertise are discussed. The necessity for the establishment of a national strategy for building competence in IM through information, education, training and retraining programmes, addressed to the individually monitored personnel is underlined. The train the trainers' concept is recognised as being an important tool for optimising resources and transferring the skills necessary for building competence. The conditions under which an efficient train the trainers' approach can be established are discussed. Examples of curricula concerning the key persons involved in the provision of E&T in occupational radiation protection are also given. JF - Radiation Protection Dosimetry AU - Dimitriou, P AU - Kamenopoulou, V AD - Department of Medical Physics, and Greek Atomic Energy Commission, Medical School, University of Athens, Athens, Greece Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 588 EP - 591 PB - Oxford University Press, Oxford Journals, Great Clarendon Street Oxford OX2 6DP UK VL - 144 SN - 0144-8420, 0144-8420 KW - Toxicology Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Dosimetry KW - Education KW - Ionizing radiation KW - Personnel KW - Radiation KW - Training KW - X 24500:Reviews, Legislation, Book & Conference Notices KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918044684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxicologyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Radiation+Protection+Dosimetry&rft.atitle=Education+and+training+issues+in+individual+monitoring+of+ionising+radiation&rft.au=Dimitriou%2C+P%3BKamenopoulou%2C+V&rft.aulast=Dimitriou&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=144&rft.issue=&rft.spage=588&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Radiation+Protection+Dosimetry&rft.issn=01448420&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-18 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Radiation; Personnel; Dosimetry; Education; Training; Ionizing radiation ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Pre- and post-irradiation fading effect for LiF:Mg,Ti and LiF:Mg,Cu,P materials used in routine monitoring AN - 918040251; 14625155 AB - LiF is a well-known thermoluminescent (TL) material used in individual monitoring, and its fading characteristics have been studied for years. In the present study, the fading characteristics (for a period of 150 d) of various commercial LiF materials with different dopants have been evaluated. The materials used in the study are those used in routine procedures by the Personal Dosimetry Department of Greek Atomic Energy Commission and in particular, LiF:Mg,Ti (MTS-N, TL Poland), LiF:Mg,Cu,P (MCP-N, TL Poland), LiF:Mg,Cu,P (MCP-Ns, thin active layer detector, TL Poland) and LiF:Mg,Cu,P (TLD100H, Harshaw). The study showed that there is a sensitivity loss in signal of up to 20 % for the MTS-N material for a 150-d period in the pre-irradiation fading phase. The MCP-N has a stable behaviour in the pre-irradiation fading phase, but this also depends on the readout system. As far as the post-irradiation fading effect is concerned, a decrease of up to 20 % for the MTS-N material is observed for the same time period. On the other hand, the LiF:Mg,Cu,P material presents a stable behaviour within plus or minus 5 %. These results show that the fading effect is different for each material and should be taken into account when estimating doses from dosemeters that are in use for >2 months. JF - Radiation Protection Dosimetry AU - Carinou, E AU - Askounis, P AU - Dimitropoulou, F AU - Kiranos, G AU - Kyrgiakou, H AU - Nirgianaki, E AU - Papadomarkaki, E AU - Kamenopoulou, V AD - Greek Atomic Energy Commission, Ag Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 207 EP - 210 PB - Oxford University Press, Oxford Journals, Great Clarendon Street Oxford OX2 6DP UK VL - 144 SN - 0144-8420, 0144-8420 KW - Environment Abstracts KW - Dosimetry KW - Sensitivity KW - commissions KW - Poland KW - ENA 14:Radiological Contamination UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918040251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Radiation+Protection+Dosimetry&rft.atitle=Pre-+and+post-irradiation+fading+effect+for+LiF%3AMg%2CTi+and+LiF%3AMg%2CCu%2CP+materials+used+in+routine+monitoring&rft.au=Carinou%2C+E%3BAskounis%2C+P%3BDimitropoulou%2C+F%3BKiranos%2C+G%3BKyrgiakou%2C+H%3BNirgianaki%2C+E%3BPapadomarkaki%2C+E%3BKamenopoulou%2C+V&rft.aulast=Carinou&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=144&rft.issue=&rft.spage=207&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Radiation+Protection+Dosimetry&rft.issn=01448420&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-18 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - commissions; Sensitivity; Dosimetry; Poland ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The use of active personal dosemeters as a personal monitoring device: comparison with TL dosimetry AN - 918040076; 14625146 AB - The use of active personal dosemeters (APDs) not only as a warning device but also, in some cases, as an official and hence stand-alone dosemeter is rapidly increasing. A comparison in terms of dose, energy and angle dependence, among different types of APD and a routinely used whole-body thermoluminescence dosemeter (TLD) has been performed. Significant differences were found between the TLD readings and mainly some not commonly used APDs. The importance of choosing the best adapted APD according to the radiation field characteristics is pointed out. JF - Radiation Protection Dosimetry AU - Boziari, A AU - Koukorava, C AU - Carinou, E AU - Hourdakis, C J AU - Kamenopoulou, V AD - Greek Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC), P Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 173 EP - 176 PB - Oxford University Press, Oxford Journals, Great Clarendon Street Oxford OX2 6DP UK VL - 144 SN - 0144-8420, 0144-8420 KW - Environment Abstracts KW - Dosimetry KW - Thermoluminescence UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918040076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Radiation+Protection+Dosimetry&rft.atitle=The+use+of+active+personal+dosemeters+as+a+personal+monitoring+device%3A+comparison+with+TL+dosimetry&rft.au=Boziari%2C+A%3BKoukorava%2C+C%3BCarinou%2C+E%3BHourdakis%2C+C+J%3BKamenopoulou%2C+V&rft.aulast=Boziari&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=144&rft.issue=&rft.spage=173&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Radiation+Protection+Dosimetry&rft.issn=01448420&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-09-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Dosimetry; Thermoluminescence ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Doses to operators during interventional radiology procedures: focus on eye lens and extremity dosimetry AN - 918040070; 14625123 AB - The present study is focused on the personnel doses during several types of interventional radiology procedures. Apart from the use of the official whole body dosemeters (thermoluminescence dosemeter type), measurements were performed to the extremities and the eyes using thermoluminescent loose pellets. The mean doses per kerma area product were calculated for the monitored anatomic regions and for the most frequent types of procedures. Higher dose values were measured during therapeutic procedures, especially embolisations. The maximum recorded doses during a single procedure were 1.8 mSv to the finger (nephrostomy), 2.1 mSv to the wrist (liver chemoembolisation), 0.6 mSv to the leg (brain embolisation) and 2.4 mSv to the eye (brain embolisation). The annual doses estimated for the operator with the highest workload according to the measurements and the system's log book were 90.4 mSv to the finger, 107.9 mSv to the wrist, 21.6 mSv to the leg and 49.3 mSv to the eye. Finally, the effect of the beam angulation (i.e. projection) and shielding equipment on the personnel doses was evaluated. The measurements were performed within the framework of the ORAMED (Optimization of RAdiation Protection for MEDical staff) project. JF - Radiation Protection Dosimetry AU - Koukorava, C AU - Carinou, E AU - Simantirakis, G AU - Vrachliotis, T G AU - Archontakis, E AU - Tierris, C AU - Dimitriou, P AD - Greek Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC), P Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 482 EP - 486 PB - Oxford University Press, Oxford Journals, Great Clarendon Street Oxford OX2 6DP UK VL - 144 SN - 0144-8420, 0144-8420 KW - Environment Abstracts KW - Books KW - Brain KW - Dosimetry KW - Eye KW - Liver KW - Radiology KW - Thermoluminescence KW - extremities KW - working conditions UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918040070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Radiation+Protection+Dosimetry&rft.atitle=Doses+to+operators+during+interventional+radiology+procedures%3A+focus+on+eye+lens+and+extremity+dosimetry&rft.au=Koukorava%2C+C%3BCarinou%2C+E%3BSimantirakis%2C+G%3BVrachliotis%2C+T+G%3BArchontakis%2C+E%3BTierris%2C+C%3BDimitriou%2C+P&rft.aulast=Koukorava&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=144&rft.issue=&rft.spage=482&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Radiation+Protection+Dosimetry&rft.issn=01448420&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-09-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Eye; Books; Dosimetry; Liver; Brain; Radiology; extremities; Thermoluminescence; working conditions ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Monte Carlo calculations on extremity and eye lens dosimetry for medical staff at interventional radiology procedures AN - 918040054; 14625116 AB - There are many factors that can influence the extremity and eye lens doses of the medical staff during interventional radiology and cardiology procedures. Numerical simulations can play an important role in evaluating extremity and eye lens doses in correlation with many different parameters. In the present study, the first results of the ORAMED (Optimisation of Radiation protection of MEDical staff) simulation campaign are presented. The parameters investigated for their influence on eye lens, hand, wrist and leg doses are: tube voltage, filtration, beam projection, field size and irradiated part of the patient's body. The tube voltage ranged from 60 to 110 kVp, filtration from 3 to 6 mm Al and from 0 to 0.9 mm Cu. For all projections, the results showed that doses received by the operator decreased with increasing tube voltage and filtration. The magnitude of the influence of the tube voltage and the filtration on the doses depends on the beam projection and the irradiated part of the patient's body. Finally, the influence of the field size is significant in decreasing the doses. JF - Radiation Protection Dosimetry AU - Carinou, E AU - Ferrari, P AU - Koukorava, C AU - Krim, S AU - Struelens, L AD - Greek Atomic Energy Commission, GAEC, Athens, Greece Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 492 EP - 496 PB - Oxford University Press, Oxford Journals, Great Clarendon Street Oxford OX2 6DP UK VL - 144 SN - 0144-8420, 0144-8420 KW - Environment Abstracts KW - Dosimetry KW - Eye KW - Filtration KW - Monte Carlo simulation KW - Radiology KW - Simulation KW - extremities UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918040054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Radiation+Protection+Dosimetry&rft.atitle=Monte+Carlo+calculations+on+extremity+and+eye+lens+dosimetry+for+medical+staff+at+interventional+radiology+procedures&rft.au=Carinou%2C+E%3BFerrari%2C+P%3BKoukorava%2C+C%3BKrim%2C+S%3BStruelens%2C+L&rft.aulast=Carinou&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=144&rft.issue=&rft.spage=492&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Radiation+Protection+Dosimetry&rft.issn=01448420&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-09-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Monte Carlo simulation; Filtration; Eye; Dosimetry; Simulation; Radiology; extremities ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Wireless Medical Systems Risks, Challenges, And Opportunities AN - 907175650; 16061687 AB - Envision a wireless patient monitoring system at a large busy hospital suddenly loses connection with several patients. The staff scrambles to reconnect the patients to wired monitors while the clinical engineering department tries to figure out the problem. The cause is traced to the new digital television broadcast which has completely overwhelmed the medical system. super(1) Consider drug infusion pumps, active implant-able medical devices, wireless nurse call units, or blood collection systems where the wireless link is slowed, intermittent, disrupted, or cannot be reliably established. Visualize a patient just home from a procedure where a new pacemaker generator was implanted because the old device battery was at the end of its life. He is awakened by an alarm that indicates battery end of life only to find that the alarm was from the old pacemaker that the patient had placed near his bed. super(2) These are real events. JF - Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology AU - Witters, D AD - Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, CDRH at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, USA, donald.witters@fda.hhs.gov Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 49 EP - 52 PB - Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation SN - 0899-8205, 0899-8205 KW - Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts KW - Blood KW - Vocalization behavior KW - Pacemakers KW - Drugs KW - Hospitals KW - W 30965:Miscellaneous, Reviews UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907175650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Abiotechresearch&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Biomedical+Instrumentation+%26+Technology&rft.atitle=Wireless+Medical+Systems+Risks%2C+Challenges%2C+And+Opportunities&rft.au=Witters%2C+D&rft.aulast=Witters&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=49&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Biomedical+Instrumentation+%26+Technology&rft.issn=08998205&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Blood; Vocalization behavior; Pacemakers; Drugs; Hospitals ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) and harmonisation of nuclear liability law within the European Union AN - 899153410; 15772921 AB - Recent events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants have demonstrated the importance of having strong and effective nuclear liability regimes in effect at the national and global levels to assure the availability of prompt and equitable compensation for nuclear damage in the event of a nuclear incident. In the aftermath of Chernobyl, the international community came together under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA) to review the nuclear liability principles in the 1963 Vienna Convention super(1) and the 1960 Paris Convention, super(2) consider enhancements to improve the effectiveness of those principles and develop the basis for establishing a worldwide liability regime to supplement and enhance those principles with a view to increasing the amount of compensation available for nuclear damage. super(3) After an extensive and thorough review of the then existing liability regimes and numerous proposals for improvements, the international community adopted the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) super(4) to be the basis for a worldwide liability regime. With the recent ratification of the CSC by the United States, the CSC is poised to come into effect. Now is the time for the international community, and especially those countries that use and promote the use of nuclear power, to act to bring the CSC into effect. Such action will establish a global regime that assures prompt and equitable compensation for nuclear damage by requiring strong and effective national regimes based on the enhanced nuclear liability principles and by providing for an international fund to supplement the amount of compensation available. JF - Nuclear Law Bulletin AU - McRae, B AD - United States Department of Energy (DOE), USA Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 73 EP - 86 VL - 87 IS - 1 SN - 0304-341X, 0304-341X KW - Risk Abstracts; Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Ukraine, Chernobyl KW - France, Paris KW - Liability KW - Nuclear power plants KW - USA KW - European Union KW - funds KW - Reviews KW - Nuclear energy KW - R2 23020:Technological risks KW - H 8000:Radiation Safety/Electrical Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/899153410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ariskabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Nuclear+Law+Bulletin&rft.atitle=Convention+on+Supplementary+Compensation+for+Nuclear+Damage+%28CSC%29+and+harmonisation+of+nuclear+liability+law+within+the+European+Union&rft.au=McRae%2C+B&rft.aulast=McRae&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=73&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Nuclear+Law+Bulletin&rft.issn=0304341X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Nuclear power plants; funds; Reviews; Nuclear energy; Liability; Ukraine, Chernobyl; USA; European Union; France, Paris ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The hydrogen permeability of Pd sub(4)S AN - 869574933; 14603479 AB - Hydrogen permeates rapidly through pure Pd membranes, but H sub(2)S, a common minor component in hydrogen-containing streams, produces a Pd sub(4)S film on the Pd surface that severely retards hydrogen permeation. Hydrogen still permeates through the bi-layered Pd sub(4)S/Pd structure, indicating that the Pd sub(4)S surface is active for H sub(2) dissociation; the low hydrogen permeability of the Pd sub(4)S film is responsible for the decreased rate of hydrogen transport. In this work, the hydrogen permeability of Pd sub(4)S was determined experimentally in the 623-773 K temperature range. Bi-layered Pd sub(4)S/Pd foils were produced by exposing pure Pd foils to H sub(2)S. H sub(2) fluxes through the bi-layered Pd sub(4)S/Pd foils were measured during exposure to both pure H sub(2) and a 1000 ppm H sub(2)S in H sub(2) gas mixture. Our results show that H sub(2)S slows hydrogen permeation through Pd mainly by producing a Pd sub(4)S film on the Pd surface that is roughly an order-of-magnitude less permeable to hydrogen (k sub(Pd4S) = 10 super(-7.5) exp(-0.22 eV/k sub(BT)) molH sub(2)/m/s/Pa super(1/2)) than pure Pd. The presence of H sub(2)S in the gas stream results in greater inhibition of hydrogen transport than can be explained by the very low permeability of Pd sub(4)S. H sub(2)S may block H sub(2) dissociation sites at the Pd sub(4)S surface. Research highlights: Direct measurements of the hydrogen permeability of Pd sub(4)S show that H sub(2)S degrades the performance of Pd membranes primarily by producing a Pd sub(4)S film with low intrinsic H atom permeability - about an order-of-magnitude lower than that of Pd. The Pd sub(4)S films allow H atom transport; they do not completely block the H sub(2) flux across the membrane. In addition to causing formation of low-permeability Pd sub(4)S, H sub(2)S in the feed gas also lowers H sub(2) flux directly, possibly by blocking H sub(2) dissociation sites. JF - Journal of Membrane Science AU - O'Brien, Casey P AU - Gellman, Andrew J AU - Morreale, Bryan D AU - Miller, James B AD - National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, United States, jbmiller@andrew.cmu.edu Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 263 EP - 267 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 371 IS - 1-2 SN - 0376-7388, 0376-7388 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Membranes KW - Hydrogen KW - Streams KW - Hydrogen Sulfide KW - Permeability KW - Dissociation KW - Fluctuations KW - Films KW - Feeds KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - Q2 09405:Oil and gas KW - AQ 00008:Effects of Pollution KW - Q5 08502:Methods and instruments UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/869574933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Membrane+Science&rft.atitle=The+hydrogen+permeability+of+Pd+sub%284%29S&rft.au=O%27Brien%2C+Casey+P%3BGellman%2C+Andrew+J%3BMorreale%2C+Bryan+D%3BMiller%2C+James+B&rft.aulast=O%27Brien&rft.aufirst=Casey&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=371&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=263&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Membrane+Science&rft.issn=03767388&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.memsci.2011.01.044 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Permeability; Dissociation; Hydrogen; Streams; Membranes; Fluctuations; Feeds; Films; Hydrogen Sulfide DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.01.044 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Fuel rod-to-support contact pressure and stress measurement for CHASNUPP-1(PWR) fuel AN - 855708872; 14183452 AB - This analysis has been made in an attempt to measure the contact pressure of the PWR fuel assembly spacer grid spring and to verify its structural integrity at room temperature in air. A detailed finite element (FE) model of spacer grid cell with fuel rod-to-support has been developed to determine the contact pressure between the supports of the grid and fuel rod cladding. The FE model of a fuel rod-to-support system is produced with shell and contact elements. The spring hold-down force is calculated using the contact pressure obtained from the FE model. Experiment has also been conducted in the same environment for the measurement of this force. The spring hold-down force values obtained from both studies are compared, which show good agreement, and in turn confirm the validation of this analysis. The Stress obtained through this analysis is less than the yield strength of spacer grid material (Inconel-718), thus fulfils the structural integrity criteria of grid. JF - Nuclear Engineering and Design AU - Waseem, Waseem AU - Elahi, N AU - Siddiqui, A AU - Murtaza, G AD - Directorate General Nuclear Power Fuel, Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, P.O. Box No. 1847, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - Jan 2011 SP - 32 EP - 38 PB - Elsevier Science, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB UK VL - 241 IS - 1 SN - 0029-5493, 0029-5493 KW - Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (MT); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); Electronics and Communications Abstracts (EA); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Cladding KW - Contact pressure KW - Finite element method KW - Fuels KW - Mathematical models KW - Nuclear reactor components KW - Spacers KW - Springs KW - Structural integrity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/855708872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Nuclear+Engineering+and+Design&rft.atitle=Fuel+rod-to-support+contact+pressure+and+stress+measurement+for+CHASNUPP-1%28PWR%29+fuel&rft.au=Waseem%2C+Waseem%3BElahi%2C+N%3BSiddiqui%2C+A%3BMurtaza%2C+G&rft.aulast=Waseem&rft.aufirst=Waseem&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=241&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=32&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Nuclear+Engineering+and+Design&rft.issn=00295493&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.nucengdes.2010.11.004 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-10-04 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.11.004 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Determination of levels of polychlorinated biphenyl in transformers oil from some selected transformers in parts of the Greater Accra Region of Ghana AN - 1777125373; 14042820 AB - Although polychlorinated biphenyls have never been manufactured in Ghana, it has been used extensively as dielectric fluid in electric transformers and capacitors. However, very little is known of its health and environmental impacts by both managers of these transformers and capacitors and also the general public. This work therefore seeks to explore INAA as a possible alternative to screening transformer oils for PCBs by determining the total chlorine content. The total chlorine content of transformer oil samples from Ghana that tested positive and some randomly selected samples that tested negative from screening using CLOR-N-OIL test kits, have had their total chlorine estimated. INAA using the Research Reactor located at the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission was used to estimate the total chlorine content of the oil samples. Neutron Activation and gamma ray spectroscopy using HPGe detector coupled to MAESTRO 32 software was used to determine the total chlorine content by integrating the peak area of the spectrum into a simplified program that was developed from the activation equation. Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis was able to validate the result obtained from the test kits screening with accuracy 7.5%. The minimum total chlorine content of the positive samples determined by NAA was 71.34 mu gg super(-1). JF - Chemosphere AU - Buah-Kwofie, Archibold AU - Yeboah, Philip O AU - Pwamang, John AD - Chemistry Department, Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, Box LG 80, Legon, Accra, Ghana Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - January 2011 SP - 103 EP - 106 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 82 IS - 1 SN - 0045-6535, 0045-6535 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Persistent Organic Pollutants KW - PCBs analysis Ghana KW - Transformer oil KW - Neutron Activation Analysis KW - Dielectric fluid KW - Screening KW - Activation KW - Transformers KW - Polychlorinated biphenyls KW - Kits KW - Detectors KW - Chlorine KW - Capacitors KW - Mathematical analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777125373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Chemosphere&rft.atitle=Determination+of+levels+of+polychlorinated+biphenyl+in+transformers+oil+from+some+selected+transformers+in+parts+of+the+Greater+Accra+Region+of+Ghana&rft.au=Buah-Kwofie%2C+Archibold%3BYeboah%2C+Philip+O%3BPwamang%2C+John&rft.aulast=Buah-Kwofie&rft.aufirst=Archibold&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=103&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Chemosphere&rft.issn=00456535&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.chemosphere.2010.09.063 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.09.063 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Performance of UO sub(2) ceramic fuel in low-power research reactors AN - 1762115182; 13998347 AB - The Low Enriched Uranium UO sub(2) fuel performance in low-power research reactors is assessed in this paper. The usability of this fuel has been demonstrated in some research reactors in the world (SLOWPOKE-2). The fuel proved to be usable in the miniature neutron source low-power research reactors when about 50 fuel rods were substituted by as many dummy rods, while in SLOWPOKE reactors the number of fuel pins reduced by 98. About 3.8531 mk reactivity was rendered available at reactor start-up in MNSRs. The power of MNSRs needed to be increased by about 19%. Shut-down margin, effective shut-down margin, and control rod worth all decreased. JF - Progress in Nuclear Energy AU - Albarhoum, M AD - Department of Nuclear Engineering, Atomic Energy Commission, P. O. Box, 6091, Damascus, Syria pscientific@aec.org.sy Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - January 2011 SP - 73 EP - 75 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 53 IS - 1 SN - 0149-1970, 0149-1970 KW - Ceramic Abstracts/World Ceramics Abstracts (WC); Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (MT); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Low-power reactors KW - MNSR KW - Fuel KW - Initial excess reactivity KW - Flux KW - Power KW - Miniature KW - Ceramics KW - Nuclear power generation KW - Enriched fuel reactors KW - Nuclear reactors KW - Fuels KW - Nuclear reactor components KW - Nuclear research reactors KW - Nuclear engineering UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1762115182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Progress+in+Nuclear+Energy&rft.atitle=Performance+of+UO+sub%282%29+ceramic+fuel+in+low-power+research+reactors&rft.au=Albarhoum%2C+M&rft.aulast=Albarhoum&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=73&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Progress+in+Nuclear+Energy&rft.issn=01491970&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.pnucene.2010.08.007 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2010.08.007 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Strontium isotopic signatures of flowback and co-produced waters associated with Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction, Pennsylvania AN - 1703692894; 2015-074408 JF - Abstracts - AAPG, Eastern Section Meeting AU - Stewart, Brian W AU - Chapman, Elizabeth C AU - Capo, Rosemary C AU - Hammack, Richard W AU - Schroeder, Karl T AU - Edenborn, Harry AU - Allison, Edith AU - Eppink, Jeffrey Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 51 PB - American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Eastern Section, [varies] VL - 2011 KW - United States KW - water quality KW - petroleum exploration KW - alkaline earth metals KW - isotopes KW - Paleozoic KW - isotope ratios KW - solutes KW - petroleum KW - oil-water interface KW - stable isotopes KW - environmental management KW - Sr-87/Sr-86 KW - Middle Devonian KW - Devonian KW - metals KW - Marcellus Shale KW - geochemical methods KW - Pennsylvania KW - strontium KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources KW - 02D:Isotope geochemistry KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1703692894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+-+AAPG%2C+Eastern+Section+Meeting&rft.atitle=Strontium+isotopic+signatures+of+flowback+and+co-produced+waters+associated+with+Marcellus+Shale+natural+gas+extraction%2C+Pennsylvania&rft.au=Stewart%2C+Brian+W%3BChapman%2C+Elizabeth+C%3BCapo%2C+Rosemary+C%3BHammack%2C+Richard+W%3BSchroeder%2C+Karl+T%3BEdenborn%2C+Harry%3BAllison%2C+Edith%3BEppink%2C+Jeffrey&rft.aulast=Stewart&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=2011&rft.issue=&rft.spage=51&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+-+AAPG%2C+Eastern+Section+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 40th Eastern Section meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - CODEN - #06714 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - alkaline earth metals; Devonian; environmental management; geochemical methods; isotope ratios; isotopes; Marcellus Shale; metals; Middle Devonian; oil-water interface; Paleozoic; Pennsylvania; petroleum; petroleum exploration; solutes; Sr-87/Sr-86; stable isotopes; strontium; United States; water quality ER - TY - JOUR T1 - NEMS-CTS; a model and framework for comprehensive assessment of CCS and infrastructure AN - 1703692694; 2015-074355 JF - Abstracts - AAPG, Eastern Section Meeting AU - Geisbrecht, Rodney AU - Zelek, Charles AU - Grant, Tim AU - Allison, Edith AU - Eppink, Jeffrey Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 33 PB - American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Eastern Section, [varies] VL - 2011 KW - environmental management KW - petroleum engineering KW - monitoring KW - geographic information systems KW - carbon sequestration KW - formation evaluation KW - risk assessment KW - information systems KW - cost KW - underground disposal KW - pipelines KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1703692694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+-+AAPG%2C+Eastern+Section+Meeting&rft.atitle=NEMS-CTS%3B+a+model+and+framework+for+comprehensive+assessment+of+CCS+and+infrastructure&rft.au=Geisbrecht%2C+Rodney%3BZelek%2C+Charles%3BGrant%2C+Tim%3BAllison%2C+Edith%3BEppink%2C+Jeffrey&rft.aulast=Geisbrecht&rft.aufirst=Rodney&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=2011&rft.issue=&rft.spage=33&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+-+AAPG%2C+Eastern+Section+Meeting&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 40th Eastern Section meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-11-17 N1 - CODEN - #06714 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - carbon sequestration; cost; environmental management; formation evaluation; geographic information systems; information systems; monitoring; petroleum engineering; pipelines; risk assessment; underground disposal ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Two-phase flow in porous media; predicting its dependence on capillary number and viscosity ratio AN - 1676578155; 2015-036674 AB - Motivated by the need to determine the dependencies of two-phase flow in a wide range of applications from carbon dioxide sequestration to enhanced oil recovery, we have developed a standard two-dimensional, pore-level model of immiscible drainage, incorporating viscous and capillary effects. This model has been validated through comparison with several experiments. For a range of stable viscosity ratios (M-mu (sub injected,nwf) /mu (sub defending,wf) > or =1), we had increased the capillary number, N (sub c) and studied the way in which the flows deviate from fractal capillary fingering at a characteristic time and become compact for realistic capillary numbers. This crossover has enabled predictions for the dependence of the flow behavior upon capillary number and viscosity ratio. Our results for the crossover agreed with earlier theoretical predictions, including the universality of the leading power-law indicating its independence of details of the porous medium structure. In this article, we have observed a similar crossover from initial fractal viscous fingering (FVF) to compact flow, for large capillary numbers and unstable viscosity ratios M<1. In this case, we increased the viscosity ratio from infinitesimal values, and studied the way in which the flows deviate from FVF at a characteristic time and become compact for non-zero viscosity ratios. This crossover has been studied using both our pore-level model and micro-fluidic flow-cell experiments. The same characteristic time, tau =1/M (super 0.7) , satisfactorily describes both the pore-level results for a range of large capillary numbers and the micro-fluidic flow cell results. This crossover should lead to predictions similar to those mentioned above. Copyright 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. and 2010 US Government JF - Transport in Porous Media AU - Ferer, M AU - Anna, Shelley L AU - Tortora, Paul AU - Kadambi, J R AU - Oliver, M AU - Bromhal, Grant S AU - Smith, Duane H Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - January 2011 SP - 243 EP - 259 PB - Springer, Dordrecht VL - 86 IS - 1 SN - 0169-3913, 0169-3913 KW - carbon sequestration KW - capillary pressure KW - Darcy's law KW - drainage KW - prediction KW - pollution KW - porous materials KW - mathematical models KW - enhanced recovery KW - fluid dynamics KW - air pollution KW - environmental management KW - fluid injection KW - viscosity KW - transport KW - immiscibility KW - movement KW - multiphase flow KW - reservoir properties KW - fractals KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1676578155?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transport+in+Porous+Media&rft.atitle=Two-phase+flow+in+porous+media%3B+predicting+its+dependence+on+capillary+number+and+viscosity+ratio&rft.au=Ferer%2C+M%3BAnna%2C+Shelley+L%3BTortora%2C+Paul%3BKadambi%2C+J+R%3BOliver%2C+M%3BBromhal%2C+Grant+S%3BSmith%2C+Duane+H&rft.aulast=Ferer&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=86&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=243&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transport+in+Porous+Media&rft.issn=01693913&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs11242-010-9619-3 L2 - http://springerlink.metapress.com/(l4tqdq55jga2hgb0achos1qm)/app/home/journal.asp?referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:100342,1 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Springer Verlag, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 27 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - air pollution; capillary pressure; carbon sequestration; Darcy's law; drainage; enhanced recovery; environmental management; fluid dynamics; fluid injection; fractals; immiscibility; mathematical models; movement; multiphase flow; pollution; porous materials; prediction; reservoir properties; transport; viscosity DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11242-010-9619-3 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Graphite reflecting characteristics and shielding factors for Miniature Neutron Source Reactors AN - 1671340290; 13890396 AB - The usability of graphite as a reflector for MNSRs is investigated in this paper. Its use is optimized and shielding factors are calculated. Graphite seems to be compatible with liquid water. As a reflector, graphite proves to be usable as well, but it decreases the fuel cycle lifetime by about 7%. To optimize its use the average worth reactivity of the unit volume was assessed for the different modes of filling the shim tray of the reactor with graphite which were: RIOS, RIOC, ROIS, and ROIC modes for the radial direction, and ASM, and ACM modes for the axial one. This quantity was found to be maximum for the ROIC mode reaching more than 0.01mk/cm3. The shielding factors for the radial and axial filling modes were found to be 0.7101 and 0.6266, respectively. JF - Annals of Nuclear Energy AU - Albarhoum, M AD - Department of Nuclear Engineering, Atomic Energy Commission, P.O. Box 6091, Damascus, Syria pscientific1@aec.org.sy Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - January 2011 SP - 14 EP - 20 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 38 IS - 1 SN - 0306-4549, 0306-4549 KW - Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (MT); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); Electronics and Communications Abstracts (EA); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Graphite KW - Fill mode KW - MNSR KW - Reflector KW - Initial excess reactivity KW - Shielding factors KW - Nuclear power generation KW - Nuclear reactors KW - Reflectors KW - Nuclear reactor components KW - Shielding KW - Liquids KW - Nuclear engineering UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1671340290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Annals+of+Nuclear+Energy&rft.atitle=Graphite+reflecting+characteristics+and+shielding+factors+for+Miniature+Neutron+Source+Reactors&rft.au=Albarhoum%2C+M&rft.aulast=Albarhoum&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=14&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Annals+of+Nuclear+Energy&rft.issn=03064549&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.anucene.2010.08.021 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2010.08.021 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - 3D seismic curvature and curvature gradient for fractured reservoir characterization at Teapot Dome (Wyoming) AN - 1473586458; 2013-004270 JF - Papers presented at the Gulf Coast Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Foundation Annual Bob F. Perkins Research Conference AU - Gao, Dengliang AU - Wilson, Tom AU - Zhu, Lierong AU - Marfurt, Kurt J AU - Hart, Bruce AU - James, Huw AU - Pacht, Jory AU - Dorn, Geoffrey A AU - Chopra, Satinder AU - Paddock, Dave AU - Barnes, Arthur E AU - Schuelke, James AU - Weimer, Paul AU - Corrao, Antonio Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 750 EP - 775 PB - Society of Economic Paleontologists, Gulf Coast Section (GCSSEPM) Foundation, Houston, TX VL - 31 SN - 1544-2462, 1544-2462 KW - United States KW - petroleum exploration KW - Pennsylvanian KW - data processing KW - petroleum KW - strike-slip faults KW - seismic migration KW - reservoir rocks KW - fractures KW - folds KW - transfer faults KW - anticlines KW - Powder River basin KW - faults KW - prestack migration KW - seismic attributes KW - Teapot Dome KW - three-dimensional models KW - Paleozoic KW - geophysical methods KW - Carboniferous KW - Natrona County Wyoming KW - Laramide Orogeny KW - seismic methods KW - Wyoming KW - shear KW - reservoir properties KW - Tensleep Sandstone KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1473586458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Papers+presented+at+the+Gulf+Coast+Section%2C+Society+of+Economic+Paleontologists+and+Mineralogists+Foundation+Annual+Bob+F.+Perkins+Research+Conference&rft.atitle=3D+seismic+curvature+and+curvature+gradient+for+fractured+reservoir+characterization+at+Teapot+Dome+%28Wyoming%29&rft.au=Gao%2C+Dengliang%3BWilson%2C+Tom%3BZhu%2C+Lierong%3BMarfurt%2C+Kurt+J%3BHart%2C+Bruce%3BJames%2C+Huw%3BPacht%2C+Jory%3BDorn%2C+Geoffrey+A%3BChopra%2C+Satinder%3BPaddock%2C+Dave%3BBarnes%2C+Arthur+E%3BSchuelke%2C+James%3BWeimer%2C+Paul%3BCorrao%2C+Antonio&rft.aulast=Gao&rft.aufirst=Dengliang&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=&rft.spage=750&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Nuclear+Materials&rft.issn=00223115&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jnucmat.2007.07.005 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 31st annual GCSSEPM Foundation Bob F. Perkins research conference on Attributes; new views on seismic imaging; their use in exploration and production N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 33 N1 - PubXState - TX N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sects., geol. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - anticlines; Carboniferous; data processing; faults; folds; fractures; geophysical methods; Laramide Orogeny; Natrona County Wyoming; Paleozoic; Pennsylvanian; petroleum; petroleum exploration; Powder River basin; prestack migration; reservoir properties; reservoir rocks; seismic attributes; seismic methods; seismic migration; shear; strike-slip faults; Teapot Dome; Tensleep Sandstone; three-dimensional models; transfer faults; United States; Wyoming ER - TY - JOUR T1 - An integrated approach to mitigating sediment transport in the Los Alamos/Pueblo Canyon watershed AN - 1244682904; 2013-008197 JF - Open File Report (Socorro, N.M.) AU - Katzman, Danny AU - Veenis, Steve J AU - Reneau, Steven L AU - Kuyumjian, Greg AU - Werdel, Nancy AU - Rodriguez, Cheryl Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - January 2011 SP - 12 PB - New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, NM SN - 0731-5066, 0731-5066 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - chlorinated hydrocarbons KW - water quality KW - Pueblo Canyon KW - sediment transport KW - pollutants KW - surface water KW - PCBs KW - watersheds KW - pollution KW - New Mexico KW - canyons KW - urban environment KW - organic compounds KW - mitigation KW - transport KW - runoff KW - drainage basins KW - halogenated hydrocarbons KW - Los Alamos Basin KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1244682904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Open+File+Report+%28Socorro%2C+N.M.%29&rft.atitle=An+integrated+approach+to+mitigating+sediment+transport+in+the+Los+Alamos%2FPueblo+Canyon+watershed&rft.au=Katzman%2C+Danny%3BVeenis%2C+Steve+J%3BReneau%2C+Steven+L%3BKuyumjian%2C+Greg%3BWerdel%2C+Nancy%3BRodriguez%2C+Cheryl&rft.aulast=Katzman&rft.aufirst=Danny&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=12&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Open+File+Report+%28Socorro%2C+N.M.%29&rft.issn=07315066&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/openfile/details.cfml?Volume=536 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 9th annual Espanola Basin workshop; Watersheds and surface water of the Espanola Basin N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - PubXState - NM N1 - SuppNotes - Accessed on Sept. 12, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-12-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - canyons; chlorinated hydrocarbons; drainage basins; halogenated hydrocarbons; hydrology; Los Alamos Basin; mitigation; New Mexico; organic compounds; PCBs; pollutants; pollution; Pueblo Canyon; runoff; sediment transport; surface water; transport; United States; urban environment; water quality; watersheds ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Transport of carbon dioxide and radioactive waste AN - 1208398084; 655812-16 JF - Advances in Global Change Research AU - Gomez, Dario R AU - Tyacke, Michael Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 141 EP - 183 PB - Springer, Dordrecht VL - 44 SN - 1574-0919, 1574-0919 KW - landfills KW - damage KW - radioactive waste KW - evaluation KW - carbon dioxide KW - transport KW - transport route KW - risk assessment KW - policy KW - waste disposal KW - underground channels KW - sanitary landfills KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1208398084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Advances+in+Global+Change+Research&rft.atitle=Transport+of+carbon+dioxide+and+radioactive+waste&rft.au=Gomez%2C+Dario+R%3BTyacke%2C+Michael&rft.aulast=Gomez&rft.aufirst=Dario&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=&rft.spage=141&rft.isbn=9789048187119&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Global+Change+Research&rft.issn=15740919&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2F978-90-481-8712-6_6 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. Reference includes data from Geoline, Bundesanstalt fur Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hanover, Germany N1 - Number of references - 94 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - carbon dioxide; damage; evaluation; landfills; policy; radioactive waste; risk assessment; sanitary landfills; transport; transport route; underground channels; waste disposal DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8712-6_6 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Infrasonic detection of a near-Earth object impact over Indonesia on 8 October 2009 AN - 1026859116; 2012-062391 AB - We present analysis of infrasonic signals produced by a large Earth-impacting fireball, believed to be among the most energetic instrumentally recorded during the last century that occurred on 8 October, 2009 over Indonesia. This extraordinary event, detected by 17 infrasonic stations of the global International Monitoring Network, generated stratospherically ducted infrasound returns at distances up to 17 500 km, the greatest range at which infrasound from a fireball has been detected since the 1908 Tunguska explosion. From these infrasonic records, we find the total source energy for this bolide as 8-67 kilotons of TNT equivalent explosive yield, with the favored best estimate near approximately 50 kt. Global impact events of such energy are expected only once per decade and study of their impact effects can provide insight into the impactor threshold levels for ground damage and climate perturbations. JF - Geophysical Research Letters AU - Silber, Elizabeth A AU - Le Pichon, Alexis AU - Brown, Peter G Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 EP - Citation L12201 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 38 IS - 12 SN - 0094-8276, 0094-8276 KW - Tunguska event KW - near-Earth objects KW - Far East KW - geologic hazards KW - Indonesia KW - geophysical methods KW - bolides KW - meteors KW - acoustical methods KW - natural hazards KW - fireballs KW - Asia KW - climate KW - acoustical waves KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1026859116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Infrasonic+detection+of+a+near-Earth+object+impact+over+Indonesia+on+8+October+2009&rft.au=Silber%2C+Elizabeth+A%3BLe+Pichon%2C+Alexis%3BBrown%2C+Peter+G&rft.aulast=Silber&rft.aufirst=Elizabeth&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Research+Letters&rft.issn=00948276&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029%2F2011GL047633 L2 - http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 40 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - SuppNotes - Supplemental information/data is available in the online version of this article N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-19 N1 - CODEN - GPRLAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acoustical methods; acoustical waves; Asia; bolides; climate; Far East; fireballs; geologic hazards; geophysical methods; Indonesia; meteors; natural hazards; near-Earth objects; Tunguska event DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047633 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Systems for electrical power from coproduced and low temperature geothermal resources AN - 1008820018; 2012-039629 JF - Proceedings - Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering AU - Reinhardt, Timothy AU - Johnson, Lyle A AU - Popovich, Neil AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 PB - Stanford University, Stanford Geothermal Program, Stanford, CA VL - 191 SN - 1058-2525, 1058-2525 KW - geothermal energy KW - programs KW - geothermal reservoirs KW - geothermal exploration KW - energy sources KW - low temperature KW - power plants KW - production KW - design KW - temperature KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1008820018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+-+Workshop+on+Geothermal+Reservoir+Engineering&rft.atitle=Systems+for+electrical+power+from+coproduced+and+low+temperature+geothermal+resources&rft.au=Reinhardt%2C+Timothy%3BJohnson%2C+Lyle+A%3BPopovich%2C+Neil%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Reinhardt&rft.aufirst=Timothy&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=191&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+-+Workshop+on+Geothermal+Reservoir+Engineering&rft.issn=10582525&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2011/reinhardt.pdf LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 36th workshop on Geothermal reservoir engineering N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - SuppNotes - Stanford Geothermal Program workshop report SGP-TR-191 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - design; energy sources; geothermal energy; geothermal exploration; geothermal reservoirs; low temperature; power plants; production; programs; temperature ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Updating the classification of geothermal resources AN - 1008820002; 2012-039626 JF - Proceedings - Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering AU - Williams, Colin F AU - Reed, Marshall J AU - Anderson, Arlene AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 PB - Stanford University, Stanford Geothermal Program, Stanford, CA VL - 191 SN - 1058-2525, 1058-2525 KW - history KW - geothermal energy KW - geothermal reservoirs KW - energy sources KW - public policy KW - classification KW - economics KW - production value KW - production KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1008820002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+-+Workshop+on+Geothermal+Reservoir+Engineering&rft.atitle=Updating+the+classification+of+geothermal+resources&rft.au=Williams%2C+Colin+F%3BReed%2C+Marshall+J%3BAnderson%2C+Arlene%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Williams&rft.aufirst=Colin&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=191&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Health+Physics&rft.issn=00179078&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2011/williams.pdf LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 36th workshop on Geothermal reservoir engineering N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 30 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - SuppNotes - Stanford Geothermal Program workshop report SGP-TR-191 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - classification; economics; energy sources; geothermal energy; geothermal reservoirs; history; production; production value; public policy ER - TY - JOUR T1 - DOE real-time seismic monitoring at enhanced geothermal system sites AN - 1008819762; 2012-039671 JF - Proceedings - Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering AU - Nathwani, Jay AU - Majer, Ernest AU - Boyle, Katie AU - Rock, Don AU - Peterson, John AU - Jarpe, Stephen AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 PB - Stanford University, Stanford Geothermal Program, Stanford, CA VL - 191 SN - 1058-2525, 1058-2525 KW - monitoring KW - Monte Carlo analysis KW - geothermal wells KW - statistical analysis KW - geophysical methods KW - structural controls KW - enhanced recovery KW - pipelines KW - seismic methods KW - models KW - geothermal energy KW - fractures KW - geothermal reservoirs KW - energy sources KW - design KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1008819762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+-+Workshop+on+Geothermal+Reservoir+Engineering&rft.atitle=DOE+real-time+seismic+monitoring+at+enhanced+geothermal+system+sites&rft.au=Nathwani%2C+Jay%3BMajer%2C+Ernest%3BBoyle%2C+Katie%3BRock%2C+Don%3BPeterson%2C+John%3BJarpe%2C+Stephen%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Nathwani&rft.aufirst=Jay&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=191&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+-+Workshop+on+Geothermal+Reservoir+Engineering&rft.issn=10582525&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2011/nathwani.pdf LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 36th workshop on Geothermal reservoir engineering N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 1 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - SuppNotes - Stanford Geothermal Program workshop report SGP-TR-191 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - design; energy sources; enhanced recovery; fractures; geophysical methods; geothermal energy; geothermal reservoirs; geothermal wells; models; monitoring; Monte Carlo analysis; pipelines; seismic methods; statistical analysis; structural controls ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNITS NOS. 2 AND 3, UPPER WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK (THIRTY-EIGHTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNITS NOS. 2 AND 3, UPPER WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK (THIRTY-EIGHTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). AN - 873127435; 14735-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal of the operating licenses for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, located in the village of Buchanan in upper Westchester County, New York is proposed to extend the licensed plant life for an additional 20 years in this 38th supplement to the final generic EIS of May 1996 on promulgation of rules for all license renewals. The final EIS of 1996 identified 92 issues and reached generic conclusions relating to impacts for 69 of them that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. Neither the applicant, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., nor staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified new information for any of the 69 issues. This final supplement to the final EIS contains plant-specific review for 17 remaining issues relevant to the Indian Point units. If the license is renewed, federal and state agencies and the owners of the plant would decide whether the plant should continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power. If the operating license is not renewed, the units would be shut down on or before expiration dates for the current licenses, which are September 28, 2013, and December 12, 2015, for Units 2 and 3, respectively. The power station is located within a 239-acre site on the east bank of the Hudson River at river mile 43 about 24 miles north of New York City. Both units employ pressurized water reactors and four-loop nuclear steam supply systems. Each loop contains a reactor coolant pump and a steam generator. The reactor coolant system transfers the heat generated in the reactor core to the steam generators, which produce steam to drive turbine generators. Unit 2 is currently licensed to operate at a core power of 3,216 megawatts (MW) thermal which results in a turbine generator output of 1,078 MW electric. Unit 3 is currently licensed to operate at 3,216 MW thermal which results in a turbine generator output of 1,080 MW electric. Primary and secondary cooling is provided by a once-through cooling water intake system that withdraws water from the Hudson River via two shoreline intake structures. After moving through the condensers, cooling water is discharged to the river through a canal via six 96-inch-diameter pipes. The facility uses liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems to collect and process wastes that are byproducts of operations. Nonradioactive wastes are collected and disposed of or recycled based on waste type. Two 345-kV transmission lines, extending a total of 4,000 feet, connect the units to the regional power grid. Planned refurbishment at Indian Point includes replacement of reactor vessel heads and control rod drive mechanisms. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffs recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewals for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Renewal of the license would allow the applicant to meet the needs of its regional energy purchasers. The plant site would continue to provide a number of diverse wildlife habitat types. Decommissioning of the plant could have greater impacts than continuation of plant operation due to potential radiological impacts from releases during plant closure and transportation and disposal of the associated nuclear fuel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the units would continue to withdraw process water from the Hudson River and deliver makeup water back to the river with adverse effect on aquatic ecosystems. Available evidence suggests that the operation of the cooling systems directly affects representative important species (RIS) by impingement and entrainment, and indirectly affects these resources through the impingement and entrainment of their prey. Thermal discharges may also be influencing RIS, but the extent of this influence cannot be determined without further studies. Three federally listed terrestrial species (bog turtle, New England cottontail, and Indiana bat) and one aquatic species (shortnose sturgeon) could be affected. Issues of consistency with New York State water quality standards and coastal zone management plans remain unresolved. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on promulgation of rules for license renewals, see 91-0281D, Volume 15, Number 5 and 96-0226F, Volume 20, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 09-0030D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100465, 623 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1437 Supp. 38 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-01&rft.volume=137&rft.issue=1-3&rft.spage=15&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Monitoring+and+Assessment&rft.issn=01676369&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10661-007-9701-7 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 51 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127426; 14736-6_0051 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 47 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127417; 14736-6_0047 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 46 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127407; 14736-6_0046 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMPLEX+TRANSFORMATION+%28FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=COMPLEX+TRANSFORMATION+%28FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 45 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127399; 14736-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMPLEX+TRANSFORMATION+%28FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=COMPLEX+TRANSFORMATION+%28FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 27 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127354; 14736-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 22 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127345; 14736-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMPLEX+TRANSFORMATION+%28FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=COMPLEX+TRANSFORMATION+%28FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 20 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127339; 14736-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 19 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127334; 14736-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=COMPLEX+TRANSFORMATION+%28FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 17 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127325; 14736-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMPLEX+TRANSFORMATION+%28FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=COMPLEX+TRANSFORMATION+%28FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 11 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127317; 14736-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 10 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127300; 14736-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 1 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127293; 14736-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNITS NOS. 2 AND 3, UPPER WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK (THIRTY-EIGHTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNITS NOS. 2 AND 3, UPPER WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK (THIRTY-EIGHTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). AN - 873127094; 14735-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal of the operating licenses for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, located in the village of Buchanan in upper Westchester County, New York is proposed to extend the licensed plant life for an additional 20 years in this 38th supplement to the final generic EIS of May 1996 on promulgation of rules for all license renewals. The final EIS of 1996 identified 92 issues and reached generic conclusions relating to impacts for 69 of them that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. Neither the applicant, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., nor staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified new information for any of the 69 issues. This final supplement to the final EIS contains plant-specific review for 17 remaining issues relevant to the Indian Point units. If the license is renewed, federal and state agencies and the owners of the plant would decide whether the plant should continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power. If the operating license is not renewed, the units would be shut down on or before expiration dates for the current licenses, which are September 28, 2013, and December 12, 2015, for Units 2 and 3, respectively. The power station is located within a 239-acre site on the east bank of the Hudson River at river mile 43 about 24 miles north of New York City. Both units employ pressurized water reactors and four-loop nuclear steam supply systems. Each loop contains a reactor coolant pump and a steam generator. The reactor coolant system transfers the heat generated in the reactor core to the steam generators, which produce steam to drive turbine generators. Unit 2 is currently licensed to operate at a core power of 3,216 megawatts (MW) thermal which results in a turbine generator output of 1,078 MW electric. Unit 3 is currently licensed to operate at 3,216 MW thermal which results in a turbine generator output of 1,080 MW electric. Primary and secondary cooling is provided by a once-through cooling water intake system that withdraws water from the Hudson River via two shoreline intake structures. After moving through the condensers, cooling water is discharged to the river through a canal via six 96-inch-diameter pipes. The facility uses liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems to collect and process wastes that are byproducts of operations. Nonradioactive wastes are collected and disposed of or recycled based on waste type. Two 345-kV transmission lines, extending a total of 4,000 feet, connect the units to the regional power grid. Planned refurbishment at Indian Point includes replacement of reactor vessel heads and control rod drive mechanisms. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffs recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewals for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Renewal of the license would allow the applicant to meet the needs of its regional energy purchasers. The plant site would continue to provide a number of diverse wildlife habitat types. Decommissioning of the plant could have greater impacts than continuation of plant operation due to potential radiological impacts from releases during plant closure and transportation and disposal of the associated nuclear fuel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the units would continue to withdraw process water from the Hudson River and deliver makeup water back to the river with adverse effect on aquatic ecosystems. Available evidence suggests that the operation of the cooling systems directly affects representative important species (RIS) by impingement and entrainment, and indirectly affects these resources through the impingement and entrainment of their prey. Thermal discharges may also be influencing RIS, but the extent of this influence cannot be determined without further studies. Three federally listed terrestrial species (bog turtle, New England cottontail, and Indiana bat) and one aquatic species (shortnose sturgeon) could be affected. Issues of consistency with New York State water quality standards and coastal zone management plans remain unresolved. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on promulgation of rules for license renewals, see 91-0281D, Volume 15, Number 5 and 96-0226F, Volume 20, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 09-0030D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100465, 623 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1437 Supp. 38 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127094?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMPLEX+TRANSFORMATION+%28PROGRAMMATIC+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2007%29.&rft.title=COMPLEX+TRANSFORMATION+%28PROGRAMMATIC+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNITS NOS. 2 AND 3, UPPER WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK (THIRTY-EIGHTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS: INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNITS NOS. 2 AND 3, UPPER WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK (THIRTY-EIGHTH FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1996). AN - 873127082; 14735-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal of the operating licenses for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, located in the village of Buchanan in upper Westchester County, New York is proposed to extend the licensed plant life for an additional 20 years in this 38th supplement to the final generic EIS of May 1996 on promulgation of rules for all license renewals. The final EIS of 1996 identified 92 issues and reached generic conclusions relating to impacts for 69 of them that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. Neither the applicant, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., nor staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified new information for any of the 69 issues. This final supplement to the final EIS contains plant-specific review for 17 remaining issues relevant to the Indian Point units. If the license is renewed, federal and state agencies and the owners of the plant would decide whether the plant should continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power. If the operating license is not renewed, the units would be shut down on or before expiration dates for the current licenses, which are September 28, 2013, and December 12, 2015, for Units 2 and 3, respectively. The power station is located within a 239-acre site on the east bank of the Hudson River at river mile 43 about 24 miles north of New York City. Both units employ pressurized water reactors and four-loop nuclear steam supply systems. Each loop contains a reactor coolant pump and a steam generator. The reactor coolant system transfers the heat generated in the reactor core to the steam generators, which produce steam to drive turbine generators. Unit 2 is currently licensed to operate at a core power of 3,216 megawatts (MW) thermal which results in a turbine generator output of 1,078 MW electric. Unit 3 is currently licensed to operate at 3,216 MW thermal which results in a turbine generator output of 1,080 MW electric. Primary and secondary cooling is provided by a once-through cooling water intake system that withdraws water from the Hudson River via two shoreline intake structures. After moving through the condensers, cooling water is discharged to the river through a canal via six 96-inch-diameter pipes. The facility uses liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems to collect and process wastes that are byproducts of operations. Nonradioactive wastes are collected and disposed of or recycled based on waste type. Two 345-kV transmission lines, extending a total of 4,000 feet, connect the units to the regional power grid. Planned refurbishment at Indian Point includes replacement of reactor vessel heads and control rod drive mechanisms. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffs recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewals for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Renewal of the license would allow the applicant to meet the needs of its regional energy purchasers. The plant site would continue to provide a number of diverse wildlife habitat types. Decommissioning of the plant could have greater impacts than continuation of plant operation due to potential radiological impacts from releases during plant closure and transportation and disposal of the associated nuclear fuel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the units would continue to withdraw process water from the Hudson River and deliver makeup water back to the river with adverse effect on aquatic ecosystems. Available evidence suggests that the operation of the cooling systems directly affects representative important species (RIS) by impingement and entrainment, and indirectly affects these resources through the impingement and entrainment of their prey. Thermal discharges may also be influencing RIS, but the extent of this influence cannot be determined without further studies. Three federally listed terrestrial species (bog turtle, New England cottontail, and Indiana bat) and one aquatic species (shortnose sturgeon) could be affected. Issues of consistency with New York State water quality standards and coastal zone management plans remain unresolved. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on promulgation of rules for license renewals, see 91-0281D, Volume 15, Number 5 and 96-0226F, Volume 20, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 09-0030D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100465, 623 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1437 Supp. 38 KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Pressurized Water Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Hudson River KW - New York KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+INDIAN+POINT+NUCLEAR+GENERATING+UNITS+NOS.+2+AND+3%2C+UPPER+WESTCHESTER+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28THIRTY-EIGHTH+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.title=GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+LICENSE+RENEWAL+OF+NUCLEAR+PLANTS%3A+INDIAN+POINT+NUCLEAR+GENERATING+UNITS+NOS.+2+AND+3%2C+UPPER+WESTCHESTER+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28THIRTY-EIGHTH+FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 56 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127066; 14736-6_0056 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 43 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127048; 14736-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 37 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127035; 14736-6_0037 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 36 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127010; 14736-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 18 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126979; 14736-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 54 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126950; 14736-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 53 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126944; 14736-6_0053 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 52 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126933; 14736-6_0052 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 50 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126925; 14736-6_0050 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 48 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126909; 14736-6_0048 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 29 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126901; 14736-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 28 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126898; 14736-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 23 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126890; 14736-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 21 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126876; 14736-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 5 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126868; 14736-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 4 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126863; 14736-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 3 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126858; 14736-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (