Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BP West Coast Products, LLC (BP or the Applicant) proposes to construct and operate a nominal 720-megawatt (MW), natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle cogeneration facility next to the existing BP Cherry Point Refinery in Whatcom County, Washington. The Applicant also owns and operates the refinery, but the cogeneration facility and the refinery would be operated as separate business units. The cogeneration facility and its ancillary infrastructure would provide steam and 85 MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. The proposed cogeneration facility would be located between Ferndale and Blaine in northwestern Whatcom County, Washington. The Canadian border is approximately 8 miles north of the proposed project site. The Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) has jurisdiction over the evaluation of major energy facilities including the proposed project. As such, EFSEC will recommend approval or denial of the proposed cogeneration facility to the governor of Washington after an environmental review. On June 3, 2002, the Applicant filed an Application for Site Certification (ASC No. 2002-01) with EFSEC in accordance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 463-42. On April 22, 2003, the Applicant submitted an amended ASC that included, among other things, a change from air to water cooling. With the submission of the ASC and in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 463-47), EFSEC is evaluating the siting of the proposed project and conducting an environmental review with this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Because the proposed project requires federal agency approvals and permits, this EIS is intended to meet the requirements under both SEPA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) also will use this EIS as part of their respective decision-making processes associated with the Applicant's request to interconnect to Bonneville's transmission system and proposed location of the project within wetland areas. Therefore, this Draft EIS serves as the environmental review document for SEPA and for NEPA as required by Bonneville for the interconnection and the Corps for its 404 individual permit. The EIS addresses direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project, and potential mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant, as well as measures recommended by EFSEC. The information and resulting analysis presented in this Draft EIS are based primarily on information provided by the Applicant in the ASC No. 2002-01 (BP 2002). Where additional information was used to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the proposed action, that information has been referenced. EFSEC's environmental consultant, Shapiro and Associates, Inc., did not perform additional studies during the preparation of this Draft EIS.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,032 | 0,014 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».