Powered by Deep Web Technologies
Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "non-annualized 2016-20p 2008p" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


1

Auger Finance Board Meeting 16 November 2008 P. Mantsch  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Funding #12;Auger Finance Board Meeting 16 November 2008 P. Mantsch Project Baseline WBS costs from representatives. These are only the costs contained in the Project Baseline Work Breakdown Structure (WBSAuger Finance Board Meeting 16 November 2008 P. Mantsch Auger Finance Board Project Management

2

Seagate Crystal Reports - Rad94  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Annual Projections for Shipping and Receiving (RAD-9) Annual Projections for Shipping and Receiving (RAD-9) RECEIVING SITE: Hanford WASTE TYPE: Low Level Waste STATE: California Hanford - Low Level Waste - Offsite Cat 1 LLW from LEHR Non-Annualized 2016-20(P) 2008(P) 2009(P) 2010(P) 2061-65(P) 2066-70(P) 2056-60(P) 2007 (P) 2041-45(P) 2004 (P) 2005 (P) 2021-25(P) 2026-30(P) 2031-35(P) 2036-40(P) 2006 (P) 2011-15(P) 2003 (P) Shipped (m 3 ) Year 1998 (A) 1999 (A) 2000 (A) 2001 (P) 2002 (P) 2051-55(P) Year Shipped (m 3 ) Year 2046-50(P) Shipped (m 3 ) Shipped (m 3 ) Shipped (m 3 ) Year Year EnerHlthLb 0.640 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hanford - Low Level Waste - Offsite Cat 1 LLW from ETEC Non-Annualized 2016-20(P) 2008(P) 2009(P) 2010(P) 2061-65(P) 2066-70(P)

3

Northeastern Geology & Environmental Sciences, v. 30, no. 2, 2008, p. 130-139. STABLE ISOTOPIC COMPOSITION OF THE FRESHWATER GASTROPOD VIVIPARUS  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Northeastern Geology & Environmental Sciences, v. 30, no. 2, 2008, p. 130-139. STABLE ISOTOPIC FOR SUMMER CLIMATE Jason Kaplan and Bruce Selleck Department of Geology, 13 Oak Drive, Colgate University isotopic composition of surface water in Woodman Pond, a 92-acre hardwater kettle lake in central New York

Soja, Constance M.

4

Northeastern Geology & Environmental Sciences, v. 30, no. 4, 2008, p. 330-343. STABLE ISOTOPE SIGNATURE OF MIDDLE DEVONIAN SEAWATER FROM HAMILTON  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Northeastern Geology & Environmental Sciences, v. 30, no. 4, 2008, p. 330-343. STABLE ISOTOPE and Drew Koff Department of Geology, 13 Oak Drive, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY 13346; bselleck@mail.colgate.edu ABSTRACT: Stable isotope ratios of oxygen in articulate brachiopod shell low-magnesium calcity have been

Soja, Constance M.

5

Seagate Crystal Reports - Snf78  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Projections for Shipping and Receiving (SNF-7) Projections for Shipping and Receiving (SNF-7) RECEIVING SITE: Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory (INEEL) STATE: California Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory (INEEL) - Office of Environmental Management - Spent Nuclear Fuel - General Atomics (GA) Non-Annualized 2016-20(P) 2008(P) 2009(P) 2010(P) 2061-65(P) 2066-70(P) 2056-60(P) 2007 (P) 2041-45(P) 2004 (P) 2005 (P) 2021-25(P) 2026-30(P) 2031-35(P) 2036-40(P) 2006 (P) 2011-15(P) 2003 (P) Quantity Shipped (MTHM) Year 1998 (A) 1999 (A) 2000 (A) 2001 (P) 2002 (P) 2051-55(P) Year Quantity Shipped (MTHM) Year 2046-50(P) Quantity Shipped (MTHM) Quantity Shipped (MTHM) Quantity Shipped (MTHM) Year Year GenAtomics 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0100 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6

Seagate Crystal Reports - RADCM  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Annual Projections for Shipping and Receiving (RAD/CM-9) Annual Projections for Shipping and Receiving (RAD/CM-9) Data Category: Combined Radioactive Waste and Ex-Situ Contaminated Media RECEIVING SITE: Hanford WASTE TYPE: Low Level Waste STATE: California Hanford - Low Level Waste - Offsite Cat 1 LLW from LEHR 2051-55(P) Year Shipped (m 3 ) Year 2046-50(P) Shipped (m 3 ) Shipped (m 3 ) Shipped (m 3 ) Year Year Shipped (m 3 ) Year 1998 (A) 1999 (A) 2000 (A) 2001 (P) 2002 (P) 2041-45(P) 2004 (P) 2005 (P) 2021-25(P) 2026-30(P) 2031-35(P) 2036-40(P) 2006 (P) 2011-15(P) 2003 (P) Non-Annualized 2016-20(P) 2008(P) 2009(P) 2010(P) 2061-65(P) 2066-70(P) 2056-60(P) 2007 (P) EnerHlthLb 0.640 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hanford - Low Level Waste - Offsite Cat 1 LLW from ETEC

7

Seagate Crystal Reports - Cm946  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Annual Projections for Shipping and Receiving (CM-9) Annual Projections for Shipping and Receiving (CM-9) RECEIVING SITE: Commercial and Other DOE Sites WASTE TYPE: 11e(2) Byproduct Waste STATE: Colorado Commercial and Other DOE Sites - 11e(2) Byproduct Waste - RRM Contaminated Soil 2051-55(P) Year Shipped (m 3 ) Year 2046-50(P) Shipped (m 3 ) Shipped (m 3 ) Shipped (m 3 ) Year Year Shipped (m 3 ) Year 1998 (A) 1999 (A) 2000 (A) 2001 (P) 2002 (P) 2041-45(P) 2004 (P) 2005 (P) 2021-25(P) 2026-30(P) 2031-35(P) 2036-40(P) 2006 (P) 2011-15(P) 2003 (P) Non-Annualized 2016-20(P) 2008(P) 2009(P) 2010(P) 2061-65(P) 2066-70(P) 2056-60(P) 2007 (P) GrJuncOff 0.000 10.000 0.000 30.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Commercial and Other DOE Sites - 11e(2) Byproduct Waste - RRM Contaminated Rubble/Debris

8

Auger Finance Board Meeting 16 November 2008 P. Mantsch  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

. Mantsch Observatory Maintenance Responsibilities Operations Readiness Reviews The project management Maintenance Responsibilities ï The overall responsibility for the operation of a detector or support system remains with the Task Group. ï The routine maintenance of a system is assumed by the Observatory staff

9

JIMAR ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY 2008 P.I./SPONSOR NAME: Jay R. Rooker, David Itano, John Sibert  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Lanai 0 0 0 0 1 Kauai 1 1 1 1 6 Maui 3 4 4 6 11 Oahu 3 4 3 4 12 Statewide 1 0 0 1 16 #12;18 Table 4 4 3 4 3 5 4 Kauai 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 Lanai

Hawai'i at Manoa, University of

10

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, Apr. 2008, p. 24242432 Vol. 74, No. 8 0099-2240/08/$08.00 0 doi:10.1128/AEM.02341-07  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

. In addition, CO2 can be used as a flush gas to extract coal-bed methane, while at the same time trapping Mercury (Hg) Content (ppm, whole coal basis) of Indiana Coal Beds 3-4 3.1.4. Indiana Coal Characteristics-7 3.2.3. Indiana's Coal Resources by Coal Bed (Billion short tons) 3-8 3.2.4. Coal Reserves, by County

Macalady, Jenn

11

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, May 2008, p. 29242927 Vol. 74, No. 9 0099-2240/08/$08.00 0 doi:10.1128/AEM.02871-07  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

weight [DCW]) is three times higher than levels re- cently reported for other engineered E. coli strainsMT and the arsenite transporter GlpF Metala Final concn ( M) Arsenic content ( mol/g DCW ) SDb in: Control cellsc with growing cell cultures unless otherwise indicated. b Based on DCW and three independent experiments. c E

Chen, Wilfred

12

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, June 2008, p. 34713480 Vol. 74, No. 11 0099-2240/08/$08.00 0 doi:10.1128/AEM.02694-07  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

relationships derived from either microenvironment- or macroenvironment-level scales must be relevant

Brown, James W.

13

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOLOGY, May 2008, p. 32583272 Vol. 28, No. 10 0270-7306/08/$08.00 0 doi:10.1128/MCB.02032-07  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

are significantly small, insulin resistant, and hyperinsulinemic. Activation of PKB is markedly reduced in knock of the PDK1 PH Domain Inhibits Protein Kinase B/Akt, Leading to Small Size and Insulin Resistance Jose R 2008/Accepted 26 February 2008 PDK1 activates a group of kinases, including protein kinase B (PKB

van Aalten, Daan

14

Seagate Crystal Reports - SNF53  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Shipping and Receiving Quantities (SNF-5) Shipping and Receiving Quantities (SNF-5) 201 1 -70(P)* & Non Annualized Quantity (MTHM) by Year 1999(A)* 2000(A)* 2001(P)* 2002(P)* 2003(P)* 2009(P)* 2010(P)* Shipping Site 1998(A)* 2008(P)* 2004(P)* 2005(P)* 2006(P)* 2007(P)* RECEIVING SITE: Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory (INEL) PROGRAM: Office of Defense Programs NavRctrFac 0.0000 0.9000 0.7400 0.6200 0.6200 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Sandia-NM 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total: 0.0000 0.9000 0.7400 0.6200 0.6200 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0400 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 201 1 -70(P)* & Non Annualized Quantity (MTHM) by Year 1999(A)* 2000(A)* 2001(P)* 2002(P)* 2003(P)* 2009(P)* 2010(P)* Shipping Site 1998(A)* 2008(P)* 2004(P)* 2005(P)*

15

Seagate Crystal Reports - CM142  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Shipping and Receiving Summary by Shipping Site (CM-14) Shipping and Receiving Summary by Shipping Site (CM-14) 201 1 -70(P)* & Non Annualized Quantity (m 3 ) by Waste Type 1999(A)* 2000(A)* 2001(P)* 2002(P)* 2003(P)* 2009(P)* 2010(P)* Receiving Site 1998(A)* 2008(P)* 2004(P)* 2005(P)* 2006(P)* 2007(P)* SHIPPING SITE: Energy Technology Engineering Center WASTE TYPE: Low Level Waste STATE: California 0.000 425.000 1,530.000 1,770.000 1,870.000 1,570.000 1,900.000 2,880.000 3,145.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Commercial/Other Total: 0.000 425.000 1,530.000 1,770.000 1,870.000 1,570.000 1,900.000 2,880.000 3,145.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 201 1 -70(P)* & Non Annualized Quantity (m 3 ) by Waste Type 1999(A)* 2000(A)* 2001(P)* 2002(P)* 2003(P)* 2009(P)* 2010(P)* Receiving Site 1998(A)* 2008(P)* 2004(P)* 2005(P)* 2006(P)* 2007(P)* SHIPPING SITE: Energy Technology Engineering Center

16

Seagate Crystal Reports - RAD14  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Shipping and Receiving Summary by Shipping Site (RAD-14) Shipping and Receiving Summary by Shipping Site (RAD-14) 201 1 -70(P)* & Non Annualized Quantity (m 3 ) by Waste Type 1999(A)* 2000(A)* 2001(P)* 2002(P)* 2003(P)* 2009(P)* 2010(P)* Receiving Site 1998(A)* 2008(P)* 2004(P)* 2005(P)* 2006(P)* 2007(P)* SHIPPING SITE: Energy Technology Engineering Center WASTE TYPE: Low Level Waste STATE: California 868.020 136.130 41.780 293.500 293.500 149.850 199.800 282.800 292.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hanford 869.250 680.510 199.000 50.000 50.000 50.000 40.000 31.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Nevada Test Site Total: 1,737.270 816.640 240.780 343.500 343.500 199.850 239.800 313.800 292.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 201 1 -70(P)* & Non Annualized Quantity (m 3 ) by Waste Type 1999(A)* 2000(A)* 2001(P)* 2002(P)* 2003(P)* 2009(P)* 2010(P)* Receiving Site 1998(A)*

17

Seagate Crystal Reports - RADCM  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

and Contaminated Media Shipping and Receiving Summary by Shipping Site (RAD/CM-14) and Contaminated Media Shipping and Receiving Summary by Shipping Site (RAD/CM-14) 201 1 -70(P)* & Non Annualized Quantity (m 3 ) by Waste Type 1999(A)* 2000(A)* 2001(P)* 2002(P)* 2003(P)* 2009(P)* 2010(P)* Receiving Site 1998(A)* 2008(P)* 2004(P)* 2005(P)* 2006(P)* 2007(P)* SHIPPING SITE: Energy Technology Engineering Center WASTE TYPE: Low Level Waste STATE: California 868.020 136.130 41.780 293.500 293.500 149.850 199.800 282.800 292.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hanford 869.250 680.510 199.000 50.000 50.000 50.000 40.000 31.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Nevada Test Site 0.000 425.000 1,530.000 1,770.000 1,870.000 1,570.000 1,900.000 2,880.000 3,145.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Commercial/Other Total: 1,737.270 1,241.640 1,770.780 2,113.500 2,213.500 1,769.850 2,139.800 3,193.800 3,437.900

18

npp_pacr_summaries0508.dvi  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Actions Following Brookhaven National Laboratory Nuclear and Particle Physics Program Advisory Committee Meetings September 1996-May 2008 8-9 May 2008 P971 (Y. Semertzidis, et...

19

China Energy Primer  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Industry and Gas to Power Generation, IEEJ. Ni, Chun Chun (Chun (2008), Chinas Wind-Power Generation Policy and Market2008, p47. Solar power generation has been a long term focus

Ni, Chun Chun

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

20

Buildings Energy Data Book: 5.7 Appliances  

Buildings Energy Data Book (EERE)

is no longer reported in Appliance Magazine. Appliance Magazine, A Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry, Sept. 2008, p. 41. Total Ink Jet Units Shipped: 6,392,177 Total...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "non-annualized 2016-20p 2008p" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


21

Expected norms of 0-1 polynomials - CECM - Simon Fraser University  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Jul 4, 2008 ... P. Erd?os, Some unsolved problems. Michigan Math. J. 4(1957), 291?300. [4]. A. P. Godbole, S. Janson, N. W. Locantore, Jr., and R. Rapoport,...

22

Building Technologies Program: Tax Incentives for Residential...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343). Energy Efficiency Tax Credits for Existing Homes Homeowners are eligible for a tax credit of 30% of the cost for improvements to windows,...

23

Silicon and Germanium Nanowires  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Y.Y. Wu, R. Fan, and P. Yang, Nano Lett., 2 (2002), p. 83. 30. T.E. Clark et al., Nano Lett., 8 (2008), p. 1246. 31. S.A. Dayeh, P. Manandhar, and S.T. Picraux,...

24

Need for an Integrated Risk Model  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Need for An Integrated Risk Need for An Integrated Risk Model Michael Salmon, LANL Voice: 505-665-7244 Fax: 505-665-2897 salmon@lanl.gov 10/22/2008 p. 2, LA-UR 11-06023 Purpose * To highlight some observations on safety strategy when concerned with NPH * To encourage discussion and collaboration on the use of an integrated risk model at sites * To propose a test case for use of a sample case 10/22/2008 p. 3, LA-UR 11-06023 Observations * SAFER Comments of Peer Reviewers - There is a need to consider operator interaction - What about fire following earthquake? - What about flood following earthquake? - lessons from kashiwazake * Sites do not consider common cause initiating events * Investment decisions are not based on quantitative estimates of risk reduction 10/22/2008 p. 4, LA-UR 11-06023

25

Seismic Analysis of Existing Facilties and Evaluation of Risk (SAFER)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Seismic Analysis of Facilities Seismic Analysis of Facilities and Evaluation of Risk Michael Salmon, LANL Larry, Goen, LANL Voice: 505-665-7244 Fax: 505-665-2897 salmon@lanl.gov 10/22/2008 p. 2, LA-UR 11-06024 Purpose * To discuss LANLs implementation of SAFER and lessons learned * Background * Results * Lessons learned 10/22/2008 p. 3, LA-UR 11-06024 SAFER Project * Project Mission - Conduct quantitative evaluation of seismic risk due to operations of Nuclear and High Hazard (DSA) Facilities at LANL operating under a Documented Safety Analysis/Safety Evaluation Report - and Non-nuclear (BOP) Facilities operating under E.O. 12941. 10/22/2008 p. 4, LA-UR 11-06024 Composition * SAFER comprised of two major efforts: - Non-nuclear Facilities termed "Balance of Plant" (BOP) Facilities

26

Materials Characterization Paper In Support of the Proposed Rulemaking Identification of Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste Construction and Demolition Materials Disaster Debris  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

winter storms, generate large amounts of debris. This poses a challenge for public officials who must manage this debris in a manner that is as efficient and cost-effective as possible. The debris resulting from natural disasters often includes building materials, sediments, vegetative debris, personal property, and other materials (EPA 2008, p. 11). Generally, this material has not been discarded. Rather, it is the product of a natural disaster. 2. Annual Quantities of Disaster Debris Generated and Used (1) Sectors that generate Disaster Debris: Disaster debris may be generated by any sector affected by a natural disaster (e.g., households, businesses, government, etc.). (2) Quantities and prices of Disaster Debris generated:

unknown authors

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

27

Microsoft PowerPoint - ECUST Centered Cooperative research efforts to reduce CO2 emission.pptx  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

research efforts research efforts d CO i i to reduce CO 2 emission Shan Shan- -Tung Tung Tu Tu East China University of Science and Technology East China University of Science and Technology sttu@ecust.edu.cn 30 30 th th of May, 2008 of May, 2008 P f Y Ji KTH d MdU (CCS) Prof. Yan Jinyue, KTH and MdU (CCS) Prof. Dahlquist Erik, MdU (BL Gasification) Prof Jin Hongguan CAS (Energy systems) Prof. Jin Hongguan, CAS (Energy systems) Prof. Liu Honglai, ECUST (Physic chemistry) Prof. Wang Fucheng, ECUST (Coal Gasification) g g, ( ) Prof. Ling Licheng, ECUST (Carbon materials) Profs. Yan Yongjie and Bao Jie, ECUST (Biomass) A/Prof. Yu Xinhai, ECUST (Biodiesel) China China- -Sweden Program Sweden Program Fundamental studies of thermophysical sciences

28

Tax Incentives for Residential Buildings | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Residential Buildings Residential Buildings Tax Incentives for Residential Buildings On this page you'll find information about the tax deductions available for purchasing and installing energy-efficient products and constructing new energy-efficient homes. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 offers tax credits for residential energy efficiency measures and renewable energy systems. Many of these credits were originally introduced in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) and amended in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343). Energy Efficiency Tax Credits for Existing Homes Homeowners are eligible for a tax credit of 30% of the cost for improvements to windows, roofing, insulation, and heating and cooling equipment. These improvements must be placed in service from January 1,

29

Seagate Crystal Reports - Rad35  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Management Activity Quantities by Date Range (RAD-3) Management Activity Quantities by Date Range (RAD-3) New Process Outputs Receipts On-Site Off-Site TBD-Site On-Site Off-Site TBD-Site Year TBD Dispositions (m3) Othe r** (m3) Ending Inventory (m3) Addition Quantity (m3)* Treatment Quantity (m3)* Disposal Quantity (m3)* Sta rting Inventory (m3)* SITE: General Atomics STATE: California WASTE TYPE: Low Level Waste YEAR RANGE:Non-Annualized & All Years PROGRAM: Office of Environmental Management PHYSICAL FORM: All Physical Forms OPERATIONS OFFICE: Oakland Operations Office 1998 (A)* 900.000 1,029.960 0.000 210.242 0.000 0.000 0.000 991.118 0.000 0.000 980.000 251.400 0.000 1999 (A)* 1,637.000 1,637.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1,637.000 0.000 0.000 1,637.000 0.000 0.000 2000 (A)* 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

30

Seagate Crystal Reports - Cm369  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Management Activity Quantities by Date Range (CM-3) Management Activity Quantities by Date Range (CM-3) New Process Outputs Receipts On-Site Off-Site TBD-Site On-Site Off-Site TBD-Site Year TBD Dispositions (m3) Othe r** (m3) Ending Inventory (m3) Addition Quantity (m3)* Treatment Quantity (m3)* Disposal Quantity (m3)* Sta rting Inventory (m3)* SITE: Energy Technology Engineering Center STATE: California WASTE TYPE: Low Level Waste YEAR RANGE:Non-Annualized & All Years PROGRAM: Office of Environmental Management PHYSICAL FORM: All Physical Forms OPERATIONS OFFICE: Oakland Operations Office 1998 (A)* 451.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 346.700 747.700 1999 (A)* 1,380.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 525.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 747.700 1,602.700 2000 (A)* 1,837.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1,970.000

31

Seagate Crystal Reports - Snf36  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Spent Nuclear Fuel Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Activities Quantities by Date Range (SNF-3) Final Disposition Activity (MTHM)*** Total Ship for Disposal Ship to Other DOE Site for Management/Storage On-Site Treatment Off-Site Receipts Total SNF Amount to be Managed (MTHM)*** Site Starting Inventory On-Site Generation STATE: California SITE: General Atomics PROGRAM: Office of Environmental Management YEAR RANGE: Non-Annualized & All Years OPERATIONS OFFICE: Oakland Operations Office 1998 (A)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0652 0.0652 0.0000 1999 (A)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0652 0.0652 0.0000 2000 (A)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0652 0.0652 0.0000 2001 (P)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0652 0.0652 0.0000 2002 (P)* 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0652 0.0652 0.0000 2003 (P)*

32

Seagate Crystal Reports - RADCM  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

and and Contaminated Media Management Activity Quantities by Date Range (RAD/CM-3) New Process Outputs Receipts On-Site Off-Site TBD-Site On-Site Off-Site TBD-Site Year TBD Dispositions (m3) Othe r** (m3) Ending Inventory (m3) Addition Quantity (m3)* Treatment Quantity (m3)* Disposal Quantity (m3)* Sta rting Inventory (m3)* SITE: Energy Technology Engineering Center STATE: California WASTE TYPE: Low Level Waste YEAR RANGE: Non-Annualized & All Years PROGRAM: Office of Environmental Management PHYSICAL FORM: All Physical Forms OPERATIONS OFFICE: Oakland Operations Office 1998 (A)* 451.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 346.700 747.700 1999 (A)* 1,380.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 525.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 747.700 1,602.700 2000 (A)* 1,837.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

33

Building Technologies Program: Tax Incentives for Residential Buildings  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Program Program Tax Incentives for Residential Buildings On this page you'll find information about the tax deductions available for purchasing and installing energy-efficient products and constructing new energy-efficient homes. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 offers tax credits for residential energy efficiency measures and renewable energy systems. Many of these credits were originally introduced in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) and amended in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343). Energy Efficiency Tax Credits for Existing Homes Homeowners are eligible for a tax credit of 30% of the cost for improvements to windows, roofing, insulation, and heating and cooling equipment. These improvements must be placed in service from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010 and there is a limit of $1,500 for all products. Improvements made in 2008 are not eligible for a tax credit. See the ENERGY STAR® Web site for a detailed listing of eligible improvements.

34

Pairing Functions, Boolean Evaluation and Binary Decision Diagrams  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

A ``pairing function'' J associates a unique natural number z to any two natural numbers x,y such that for two ``unpairing functions'' K and L, the equalities K(J(x,y))=x, L(J(x,y))=y and J(K(z),L(z))=z hold. Using pairing functions on natural number representations of truth tables, we derive an encoding for Binary Decision Diagrams with the unique property that its boolean evaluation faithfully mimics its structural conversion to a a natural number through recursive application of a matching pairing function. We then use this result to derive {\\em ranking} and {\\em unranking} functions for BDDs and reduced BDDs. The paper is organized as a self-contained literate Prolog program, available at \\url{http://logic.csci.unt.edu/tarau/research/2008/pBDD.zip}. {\\em Keywords:} logic programming and computational mathematics, pairing/unpairing functions, encodings of boolean functions, binary decision diagrams, natural number representations of truth tables

Tarau, Paul

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

35

Crystal Reports - sum2.rpt  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Annual Amounts of Waste and SNF Generation (Sum-2) Annual Amounts of Waste and SNF Generation (Sum-2) Qu an tity (m 3 ) M at e r ial T yp e 1998(A )* 1999(A ) * 2000(A )* 2001( P) * 2 002( P)* 2003(P) * 20 04( P) * 2005(P) * 20 06( P) * 2007( P) * 2008(P) * 2009( P) * 2010 ( P)* T o t a l High Level Waste 14,278.000 14,470.570 14,166.475 15,966.690 16,545.580 18,025.830 17,221.517 12,755.407 13,926.837 18,688.607 19,547.650 13,015.617 27,991.067 216,599.85 Transuranic Waste 998.521 297.820 1,620.600 2,039.510 1,642.170 1,554.400 1,558.470 470.450 460.720 374.030 378.030 371.620 372.520 12,138.86 Mixed Low Level Waste 2,706.629 2,668.677 10,834.401 2,144.869 2,289.254 2,127.613 1,906.789 1,715.407 1,348.354 2,112.011 1,890.422 2,061.712 2,337.705 36,143.84 Low Level Waste 29,375.624 31,376.469 38,911.450 35,544.059 29,808.371 25,411.205 31,463.297 28,242.351 27,887.269 89,987.848 26,378.888 26,960.786 25,941.891 447,289.51

36

Final Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2  

SciTech Connect

Pursuant to the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-414), DOE was directed to designate a facility or facilities for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States. Therefore, DOE has analyzed the storage of up to 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of elemental mercury in a facility(ies) constructed and operated in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (74 FR 31723). DOE prepared this Final Mercury Storage EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR 15001508), and DOEs NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR 1021) to evaluate reasonable alternatives for a facility(ies) for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury. This Final Mercury Storage EIS analyzes the potential environmental, human health, and socioeconomic impacts of elemental mercury storage at seven candidate locations: Grand Junction Disposal Site near Grand Junction, Colorado; Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; Hawthorne Army Depot near Hawthorne, Nevada; Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri; Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina; and Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas. As required by CEQ NEPA regulations, the No Action Alternative was also analyzed as a basis for comparison. DOE intends to decide (1) where to locate the elemental mercury storage facility(ies) and (2) whether to use existing buildings, new buildings, or a combination of existing and new buildings. DOEs Preferred Alternative for the long-term management and storage of mercury is the Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas.

Not Available

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

37

Final Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement Summary and Guide for Stakeholders  

SciTech Connect

Pursuant to the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-414), DOE was directed to designate a facility or facilities for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States. Therefore, DOE has analyzed the storage of up to 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of elemental mercury in a facility(ies) constructed and operated in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (74 FR 31723). DOE prepared this Final Mercury Storage EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR 15001508), and DOEs NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR 1021) to evaluate reasonable alternatives for a facility(ies) for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury. This Final Mercury Storage EIS analyzes the potential environmental, human health, and socioeconomic impacts of elemental mercury storage at seven candidate locations: Grand Junction Disposal Site near Grand Junction, Colorado; Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; Hawthorne Army Depot near Hawthorne, Nevada; Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri; Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina; and Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas. As required by CEQ NEPA regulations, the No Action Alternative was also analyzed as a basis for comparison. DOE intends to decide (1) where to locate the elemental mercury storage facility(ies) and (2) whether to use existing buildings, new buildings, or a combination of existing and new buildings. DOEs Preferred Alternative for the long-term management and storage of mercury is the Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas.

Not Available

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

38

Final Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement Volume1  

SciTech Connect

Pursuant to the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-414), DOE was directed to designate a facility or facilities for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States. Therefore, DOE has analyzed the storage of up to 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of elemental mercury in a facility(ies) constructed and operated in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (74 FR 31723).DOE prepared this Final Mercury Storage EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR 15001508), and DOEs NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR 1021) to evaluate reasonable alternatives for a facility(ies) for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury. This Final Mercury Storage EIS analyzes the potential environmental, human health, and socioeconomic impacts of elemental mercury storage at seven candidate locations:Grand Junction Disposal Site near Grand Junction, Colorado; Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; Hawthorne Army Depot near Hawthorne, Nevada; Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho;Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri; Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina; and Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas. As required by CEQ NEPA regulations, the No Action Alternative was also analyzed as a basis for comparison. DOE intends to decide (1) where to locate the elemental mercury storage facility(ies) and (2) whether to use existing buildings, new buildings, or a combination of existing and new buildings. DOEs Preferred Alternative for the long-term management and storage of mercury is the Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas.

Not Available

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

39

EOS, TRANSACTIONS, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION Nutrient Enrichment Drives  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

During most summers over the past 30 years, bottom dissolved oxygen across a large area of the Louisiana and upper Texas continental shelf declined to concentrations too low (hypoxia) for most fish and large invertebrate animals to survive. This area is one of the best known dead zones proliferating around the world [Diaz and Rosenberg, 2008]. During July 2008, hypoxic bottom waters extended across 20,720 square kilometers (Figure 1), but they were probably even more extensive because winds from Hurricane Dolly mixed the waters off Texas before the survey could be completed. Increased inputs of nutrients (principally nitrogen and phosphorus) from the U.S. agricultural heartland within the Mississippi- Atchafalaya River Basin ( MARB) are implicated in the development and spread of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Consequently, the causes of, and solutions for, hypoxia have been subjects of extensive debate and analysis. An integrated scientific assessment led to a 2001 Action Plan [Mississippi River / Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, 2001] with a goal of reducing the area of the hypoxic zone to less than 5000 square kilometers by reducing nitrogen loading [Rabalais et al., 2007]. are primarily related to nutrient fluxes from the MARB [SAB, 2008, p. 2]. The reconfirmed consensus is that anthropogenic nutrients stimulate the production of planktonic organic matter, the decomposition of which depletes dissolved oxygen in bottom waters on the seasonally stratified inner shelf. Despite these two major scientific assessments supporting this consensus, skeptics [Dagg et al., 2007; Bianchi et al., 2008] have suggested alternative causes of hypoxia, including (1) oxidation of organic matter not derived from phytoplankton production, (2) physical processes affecting water column stability, and (3) coastal wetland loss and river controls. This article addresses these criticisms and demonstrates why they do not challenge the consensus on nutrient enrichment. Organic Matter Sources Seasonally recurring hypoxia developed on the shelf from the 1970s through the 1990s, coinciding with a tripling of nitrate

Gulf Of Mexico Hypoxia

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

40

Spatial consistency of Chinook salmon redd distribution within and among years in the Cowlitz River, Washington  

SciTech Connect

We investigated the spawning patterns of Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha on the lower Cowlitz River, Washington (USA) using a unique set of fine- and coarse-scale 35 temporal and spatial data collected during bi-weekly aerial surveys conducted in 1991-2009 (500 m to 28 km resolution) and 2008-2009 (100-500 m resolution). Redd locations were mapped from a helicopter during 2008 and 2009 with a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) synchronized with in-flight audio recordings. We examined spatial patterns of Chinook salmon redd reoccupation among and within years in relation to segment-scale geomorphic features. Chinook salmon spawned in the same sections each year with little variation among years. On a coarse scale, five years (1993, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2009) were compared for reoccupation. Redd locations were highly correlated among years resulting in a minimum correlation coefficient of 0.90 (adjusted P = 0.002). Comparisons on a fine scale (500 m) between 2008 and 2009 also revealed a high degree of consistency among redd locations (P < 0.001). On a finer temporal scale, we observed that salmon spawned in the same sections during the first and last week (2008: P < 0.02; and 2009: P < 0.001). Redds were clustered in both 2008 and 2009 (P < 0.001). Regression analysis with a generalized linear model at the 500-m scale indicated that river kilometer and channel bifurcation were positively associated with redd density, whereas sinuosity was negatively associated with redd density. Collecting data on specific redd locations with a GPS during aerial surveys was logistically feasible and cost effective and greatly enhanced the spatial precision of Chinook salmon spawning surveys.

Klett, Katherine J.; Torgersen, Christian; Henning, Julie; Murray, Christopher J.

2013-04-28T23:59:59.000Z