"... In PAGE 4: ...Wealsoim- plement a simple Logistic Regression (LR) based classifier in order to demonstrate the performance improvement obtained by capturing label relationships. As shown in Table1 , TCRF achieves significant improvement over the LR based classi- fier which considers only local image statistics into account. Figure 4 shows some the results obtained by our model.... ..."

"... In PAGE 49: ...39 comparing the hazards identified in this document with those identified by an actual risk assessment for field trials of HT canola using a checklist based approach (OGTR, 2002b). Table1 compares the hazards identified in the risk assessment, and those implied but not specifically identified, with the hazards identified in the HHM analysis. Overall the checklist based approach identifies (or implies) 31% of the hazards identified by the HHM analysis.... ..."

"... In PAGE 38: ...a second level local search, nodes are exchanged within the same tour. Table3 summarises the comparison between man-made and computer-generated tours over a testing period of two weeks. A noticeable improvement in the efficiency is shown.... ..."

"... In PAGE 39: ... The source term is provided in Table 6-1. Table6 -1. Source Term for F Basin Fuel Elements.... In PAGE 39: ... The calculated fuel elements drop scenario dose for a ground-level release with F class atmospheric stability and a 1 m/sec wind speed is 67 mrem at 100 m (328 ft), which indicates that this hazard is below an Alert Emergency. Table6 -2 identifies the consequences for several stability classes. A wind speed of 1 m/sec was used for stability classes A, D, and F.... In PAGE 40: ...Rev. 0 6-3 Table6 -2. 105-F FSB Fuel Elements Drop Scenario.... In PAGE 41: ...29.8 m3) / (335.5 m3) = 0.09. The source term is provided in Table6 -3. The ARF obtained from the DOE RF Handbook (DOE 1992) for the combustion of contaminated flammable waste is 5E-04, with an RF of 1.... In PAGE 41: ... The ARF obtained from the DOE RF Handbook (DOE 1992) for the combustion of contaminated flammable waste is 5E-04, with an RF of 1.0 ( Table6 -10 shows the source calculation). The consequences and protection action guide distances are shown in Table 6-11.... In PAGE 41: ...0 (Table 6-10 shows the source calculation). The consequences and protection action guide distances are shown in Table6 -11. The consequence calculation assumed a ground-level release.... In PAGE 41: ...5 m/sec wind speed to represent approximately average meteorology. Table6 -3. Waste Fire Scenario Source Term.... In PAGE 42: ... 0 6-5 The calculated waste fire scenario dose for a ground-level release with F class atmospheric stability and a 1 m/sec wind speed is 700 mrem at 100 m (328 ft), which indicates that this hazard is an Alert Emergency. Table6 -4 identifies the consequences for several stability classes. A wind speed of 1 m/sec was used for stability classes A, D, and F.... In PAGE 42: ...5 m/sec wind speed to represent average meteorology. Table6 -4. Waste Fire Scenario Consequence.... In PAGE 43: ... The source term for the high wind event is provided in Table 6-5. Table6 -5. Source Term for F Basin Soil Subject to Wind Erosion.... In PAGE 43: ...27E-01 Sum of fractions 8.68E-01 As shown in Table6 -5, the 105-F FSB inventory for soil subject to wind erosion is below the emergency preparedness screening criteria. No quantitative hazards assessment is required for... In PAGE 44: ...oncluded that 0.001% of the radioactivity in the graphite would be released. This analysis uses the same fraction and also conservatively applies it to the entire inventory, including the activation products in the shields and to the estimated process tube scale. Table6 -6 shows the 105-F reactor block source terms using the RF 1E-05 (as the 105-F reactor block has the largest inventory of the reactors undergoing ISS, its doses will be bounding). The dose consequences are summarized in Table 6-7.... In PAGE 44: ... The dose consequences are summarized in Table 6-7. Table6 -6. 105-F Building Reactor Earthquake Source Term.... In PAGE 45: ...Rev. 0 6-8 Table6 -6. 105-F Building Reactor Earthquake Source Term.... In PAGE 45: ...20E-06 aThe source term for the 105-F reactor block was obtained from Table 3-1. Table6 -7. Bounding Natural Event 105-DR Reactor Block Consequence.... In PAGE 46: ...Rev. 0 6-9 Table6 -7 shows that the calculated natural event impact to the bounding 105-F Reactor dose for a ground-level release with F class atmospheric stability and a 1 m/sec wind speed is 75 mrem at 100 m (328 ft). Though this falls under the radiological release criteria for an Alert Emergency class, an Alert Emergency will be declared.... In PAGE 47: ...The calculated bounding man-made event dose for a ground-level release with F class atmospheric stability and a 1 m/sec wind speed is 450 mrem at 100 m (328 ft), which indicates that this hazard is an Alert Emergency. Table6 -9 identifies the consequences for several stability classes. A wind speed of 1 m/sec was used for stability classes A, D, and F.... In PAGE 47: ...5 m/sec wind speed to represent average meteorology. As shown in Table6 -9, the protective action distances are less than 100 m (328 ft)... In PAGE 48: ...Rev. 0 6-11 Table6 -9. 105-F Building Reactor Consequence Values for Bounding Man-Made Event.... In PAGE 49: ....8 x (22.7 kg) x 0.25 = 4.54 kg. This total quantity of soil is then multiplied with the radionuclide concentrations identified in Table B-1 to determine the source term. The source term is presented in Table6 -10. Table 6-10.... In PAGE 49: ... The source term is presented in Table 6-10. Table6 -10. Source Term for Bounding Catastrophic Event (Human Caused) at the 105-F Fuel Storage Basin.... In PAGE 50: ... Likewise, this layer of soil and debris is assumed to insulate potential fuel elements from the blast such that any potential releases would be mitigated. Table6 -11 identifies the consequences for several stability classes. A wind speed of 1 m/sec was used for stability classes A, D, and F.... In PAGE 50: ... The calculated bounding man-made event dose at the 105-F FSB for a ground- level release with F class atmospheric stability and a 1 m/sec wind speed is 160 mrem at 100 m (328 ft), which indicates that this hazard is an Alert Emergency. Table6 -11. 105-F Fuel Storage Basin Consequence Values for Bounding Human-Caused Event.... ..."

"... In PAGE 39: ... The source term is provided in Table 6-1. Table6 -1. Source Term for F Basin Fuel Elements.... In PAGE 39: ... The calculated fuel elements drop scenario dose for a ground-level release with F class atmospheric stability and a 1 m/sec wind speed is 67 mrem at 100 m (328 ft), which indicates that this hazard is below an Alert Emergency. Table6 -2 identifies the consequences for several stability classes. A wind speed of 1 m/sec was used for stability classes A, D, and F.... In PAGE 40: ...Rev. 0 6-3 Table6 -2. 105-F FSB Fuel Elements Drop Scenario.... In PAGE 41: ...29.8 m3) / (335.5 m3) = 0.09. The source term is provided in Table6 -3. The ARF obtained from the DOE RF Handbook (DOE 1992) for the combustion of contaminated flammable waste is 5E-04, with an RF of 1.... In PAGE 41: ... The ARF obtained from the DOE RF Handbook (DOE 1992) for the combustion of contaminated flammable waste is 5E-04, with an RF of 1.0 ( Table6 -10 shows the source calculation). The consequences and protection action guide distances are shown in Table 6-11.... In PAGE 41: ...0 (Table 6-10 shows the source calculation). The consequences and protection action guide distances are shown in Table6 -11. The consequence calculation assumed a ground-level release.... In PAGE 41: ...5 m/sec wind speed to represent approximately average meteorology. Table6 -3. Waste Fire Scenario Source Term.... In PAGE 42: ... 0 6-5 The calculated waste fire scenario dose for a ground-level release with F class atmospheric stability and a 1 m/sec wind speed is 700 mrem at 100 m (328 ft), which indicates that this hazard is an Alert Emergency. Table6 -4 identifies the consequences for several stability classes. A wind speed of 1 m/sec was used for stability classes A, D, and F.... In PAGE 42: ...5 m/sec wind speed to represent average meteorology. Table6 -4. Waste Fire Scenario Consequence.... In PAGE 43: ... The source term for the high wind event is provided in Table 6-5. Table6 -5. Source Term for F Basin Soil Subject to Wind Erosion.... In PAGE 43: ...27E-01 Sum of fractions 8.68E-01 As shown in Table6 -5, the 105-F FSB inventory for soil subject to wind erosion is below the emergency preparedness screening criteria. No quantitative hazards assessment is required for... In PAGE 44: ...oncluded that 0.001% of the radioactivity in the graphite would be released. This analysis uses the same fraction and also conservatively applies it to the entire inventory, including the activation products in the shields and to the estimated process tube scale. Table6 -6 shows the 105-F reactor block source terms using the RF 1E-05 (as the 105-F reactor block has the largest inventory of the reactors undergoing ISS, its doses will be bounding). The dose consequences are summarized in Table 6-7.... In PAGE 44: ... The dose consequences are summarized in Table 6-7. Table6 -6. 105-F Building Reactor Earthquake Source Term.... In PAGE 45: ...Rev. 0 6-8 Table6 -6. 105-F Building Reactor Earthquake Source Term.... In PAGE 45: ...20E-06 aThe source term for the 105-F reactor block was obtained from Table 3-1. Table6 -7. Bounding Natural Event 105-DR Reactor Block Consequence.... In PAGE 46: ...Rev. 0 6-9 Table6 -7 shows that the calculated natural event impact to the bounding 105-F Reactor dose for a ground-level release with F class atmospheric stability and a 1 m/sec wind speed is 75 mrem at 100 m (328 ft). Though this falls under the radiological release criteria for an Alert Emergency class, an Alert Emergency will be declared.... In PAGE 47: ...Rev. 0 6-10 Table6 -8. 105-F Reactor Blocks Bounding Source Terms (Man-Made Event).... In PAGE 47: ...52E-05 The calculated bounding man-made event dose for a ground-level release with F class atmospheric stability and a 1 m/sec wind speed is 450 mrem at 100 m (328 ft), which indicates that this hazard is an Alert Emergency. Table6 -9 identifies the consequences for several stability classes. A wind speed of 1 m/sec was used for stability classes A, D, and F.... In PAGE 47: ...5 m/sec wind speed to represent average meteorology. As shown in Table6 -9, the protective action distances are less than 100 m (328 ft)... In PAGE 49: ....8 x (22.7 kg) x 0.25 = 4.54 kg. This total quantity of soil is then multiplied with the radionuclide concentrations identified in Table B-1 to determine the source term. The source term is presented in Table6 -10. Table 6-10.... In PAGE 49: ... The source term is presented in Table 6-10. Table6 -10. Source Term for Bounding Catastrophic Event (Human Caused) at the 105-F Fuel Storage Basin.... In PAGE 50: ... Likewise, this layer of soil and debris is assumed to insulate potential fuel elements from the blast such that any potential releases would be mitigated. Table6 -11 identifies the consequences for several stability classes. A wind speed of 1 m/sec was used for stability classes A, D, and F.... In PAGE 50: ... The calculated bounding man-made event dose at the 105-F FSB for a ground- level release with F class atmospheric stability and a 1 m/sec wind speed is 160 mrem at 100 m (328 ft), which indicates that this hazard is an Alert Emergency. Table6 -11. 105-F Fuel Storage Basin Consequence Values for Bounding Human-Caused Event.... ..."

"... In PAGE 49: ...39 comparing the hazards identified in this document with those identified by an actual risk assessment for field trials of HT canola using a checklist based approach (OGTR, 2002b). Table1 compares the hazards identified in the risk assessment, and those implied but not specifically identified, with the hazards identified in the HHM analysis. Overall the checklist based approach identifies (or implies) 31% of the hazards identified by the HHM analysis.... ..."

"... In PAGE 49: ...39 comparing the hazards identified in this document with those identified by an actual risk assessment for field trials of HT canola using a checklist based approach (OGTR, 2002b). Table1 compares the hazards identified in the risk assessment, and those implied but not specifically identified, with the hazards identified in the HHM analysis. Overall the checklist based approach identifies (or implies) 31% of the hazards identified by the HHM analysis.... ..."

"... In PAGE 49: ...39 comparing the hazards identified in this document with those identified by an actual risk assessment for field trials of HT canola using a checklist based approach (OGTR, 2002b). Table1 compares the hazards identified in the risk assessment, and those implied but not specifically identified, with the hazards identified in the HHM analysis. Overall the checklist based approach identifies (or implies) 31% of the hazards identified by the HHM analysis.... ..."

"... In PAGE 49: ...39 comparing the hazards identified in this document with those identified by an actual risk assessment for field trials of HT canola using a checklist based approach (OGTR, 2002b). Table1 compares the hazards identified in the risk assessment, and those implied but not specifically identified, with the hazards identified in the HHM analysis. Overall the checklist based approach identifies (or implies) 31% of the hazards identified by the HHM analysis.... ..."

"... In PAGE 49: ...39 comparing the hazards identified in this document with those identified by an actual risk assessment for field trials of HT canola using a checklist based approach (OGTR, 2002b). Table1 compares the hazards identified in the risk assessment, and those implied but not specifically identified, with the hazards identified in the HHM analysis. Overall the checklist based approach identifies (or implies) 31% of the hazards identified by the HHM analysis.... ..."