RS-14-029, Employment and Land Requirements for Alternatives to Byron Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood Units 1 and 2 - Lr Chapter 7 Energy Alternatives
Text
6-ea;d- &-33 License Renewal Application Employment and Land Requirements Calculation Package Employment and Land Requirements for
.Alternatives to Byron Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood Units 1 and 2 LR Chapter 7 Energy Alternatives September 18, 2012 Prepared for:
Exelon Nuclear Prepared by:
Chuck Conrad Tetra Tech Aiken, South Carolina
License Renewal Application Employment and Land Requirements Calculation Package Approval Page Employment and Land Requirements for Alternatives to Byron Units I and 2 and Braidwood Units I and 2 September 18, 2012 Author: Date:
tQm&~'~- lO2a~L Reviewed Bn:
i/gA VrPoject Manger:.
License Renewal Application Employment and Land Requirements Calculation Package Employment and Land Requirements for Alternatives to Byron Units I and 2 and Braidwood Units I and 2 This discussion supports the alternatives analysis in Chapter 7 of the Environmental Report.
Spreadsheets were used to estimate (1) the number of full time employees needed for construction and operation of hypothetical coal- and gas-fired and nuclear electric generation units that could be built to provide the same net generating capacity as the existing units (rounded up to 2,400 megawatts electric (MWe) to be the same for both Byron and Braidwood), (2) the amount of land required for a variety of alternative electric generation technologies (e.g. coal- and gas- fired electric generation units, nuclear, hydropower, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, and geothermal) that could provide approximately the same net generating capacity as the existing units. For the coal- and gas-fired alternatives the net generating capacity was based on available standard-size units (four 600 MW units for coal and six 400 MW units for gas).
All estimates are based on data from recent studies and projects constructed within the past eight years. The available data was normalized by determining the amount per MW for each alternative technology. To estimate the number of employees or amount of land needed, the analyst inputs the size (in MW) of the alternative technology into the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet multiplies the size of the plant by the amount per MW and enters the result in a summary table. Figure 1 is the summary table from the spreadsheet. Figure 2 shows the calculations for the gas-fired alternative. Figure 3 show the calculations for the pulverized coal-fired alternative. Figure 4 shows the calculations for the new nuclear power alternative. Figure 5 shows the land requirement calculations for renewable alternatives (e.g., hydropower, solar, wind, and geothermal technologies).
3
Assumed Facility Characteristics Renewable Fueled Land Requirements 0
Square miles reqirdwo tomptace capaciry Fossil Fueled Employment and Site Characteristics I I Ararqiedt elcecpct Full Tim m I Rulred Peak Constructioni Workcforce 11,7831 Average Construction Workftorce 1 991 1 Acres Required for Facllity New Nuclear Employment and Site Characteristics Main page
Figure 2 - Gas-Fired Alternative Combinea Cycle Natural Gas Full time Acres Acres per Peak Peak Const. Average Ave. Const Full time employees required for MW for Construction workers per Construction workers per Facility Net MWe employees per MW facility facility workers MW workers MW Deer Creek Station (DOE 2010) 300 30 0.100 40 0.133 360 1.200 - -
Chouteau Power Plant (AECI 2009) 540 33 0.061 22 0.041 340 0.630 225 0.417 McIntosh Peaking (PSEC 2009) 360 - - 12 0.033 120 0.333 100 0.278 Jack County Power Plant (PBS&J 2008) 600 10.9 0.018 Hardin County (GDS 2007a) 150 2.7 0.018 100 0.667 75 0.500 San Jacinto (GDS 2007b) 150 - - 3.2 0.021 100 0.667 75 0.500 Toquop Energy Project (BLM 2007) 1100 25 0.023 50 0.045 1200 1.091 500 0.455 Chula Vista Upgrade (CH2MHiII 2007) 100 2 0.020 3.8 0.038 147 1.470 79 0.790 Vernon Power (COV 2006) 914 20 0.022 13.7 0.015 499 0.546 266 0.291 South Bay Project (LSPSB 2006) 620 22 0.035 12.9 0.021 401 0.647 193 0.311 Wellton-Mohawk (DOI 2005) 620 25 0.040 23 0.037 300 0.484 - -
West County Energy Center (FPL 2005) 2200 50 0.023 82 0.037 1000 0.455 350 0.159 COB Energy Facility (BPA 2004) 1160 30 0.026 50.6 0.044 543 0.468 352 0.303 Wanapa Energy Center (DOI 2004) 1200 30 0.025 47 0.039 600 0.500 --
BP Cherry Point (EFSEC 2004) 720 30 0.042 33 0.046 706 0.981 372 0.517 Catoctin Power (Golder 2004) 600 25 0.042 20 0.033 450 0.750 175 0.292 Faribault Energy Park (MEQB 2004) 250 13 0.052 12 0.048 250 1.000 138 0.552 Average 0.039 0.039 0.743 0.413 Calculations Desired Net Output 2,400 MWe Gross Capacity (assume 4% used on site) 2,500 MWe 2500 MWe x 0.039 Employees/MW = 94 Employees 2500 MWe x 0.039 Acres/MW = 93.600 Acres 2500 MWe x 0.743 Cons. Workers/MW = 1,783 Peak Construction workers 2500 MWe x 0.413 Cons. Workers/MW = 991 Ave. Construction workers CC N. Gas
Pulverized Coal Boilers Peak Average Full time Acres Acres per Peak Construction Average Construction Net Full time employees required for MW for Construction workers per Construction workers per Facility MWe employees per MW facility facility workers MW workers MW Ely Energy Center (DOI 2008) 1500 214 0.143 694 0.463 2342 1.561 1221 0.814 Nelson Dewey (ACE 2008) 300 26 0.087 30 0.100 425 1.417 - -
Highwood Generatoin Station (USDA 2007a) 250 65 0.260 14.8 0.059 550 2.200 350 1.400 Mesaba Energy (NETL 2007) 1212 185 0.153 200 0.165 1617 1.334 1078 0.889 Toquop Energy Project (BLM 2007) 750 110 0.147 132 0.176 1100 1.467 450 0.600 White Pine Energy Station (DOI 2007) 1590 135 0.085 239 0.150 1200 0.755 760 0.478 Desert Rock Energy (SGP 2007) 1410 200 0.142 149 0.106 1700 1.206 1100 0.780 AECI Carroll County (USDA 2007b) 660 139 0.211 165.3 0.250 1281 - 1.941 444 0.673 Jamestown (JBPU 2006) 43 6 0.140 7.1 0.165 200 4.651 120 2.791 Dry Fork Station (EDAW 2006) 385 75 0.195 31.8 0.083 1019 2.647 496 1.288 Seminole Generating Station (Golder 2006) 750 50 0.067 96 0.128 1500 2.000 600 0.800 Pee Dee Station (MACTEC 2006) 1200 200 0.167 128.1 0.107 1400 1.167 - -
Cliffside Project (Duke 2005) 1600 80 0.050 - 1000 0.625 - -
Big Stone II (OTPC 2005) 600 35 0.058 67 0.112 1400 2.333 625 1.042 Average 0.136 0.159 1.807 1.050 Calculations Desired Net Output 2,400 MW Gross Capacity (assume 6% used on site) 2,550 MWe 2550 MW x 0.136 Employees/MW = 326 Employees 2550 MW x 0.159 Acres/MW = 382 Acres 2550 MW x 1.807 Cons. Workers/MW = 4,337 Peak Construction workers 2550 MWe x 1.05 Cons. Workers/MW = 2,520 Ave. Construction workers Pulverized Coal 0 -
Nuclear Generation Units Peak Average Full time Acres Acres per Peak Construction Average Construction Net Full time employees required for MW for Construction workers per Construction workers per Facility MWe employees per MW facility facility workers MW workers MW Turkey Point (FPL 2012) 2200 806 0.366 218 0.099 3950 1.795 2184 0.993 South Texas Project (STPNOC 2011) 2600 888 0.342 300 0.115 5950 2.288 3340 1.285 Comanche Peak (LGC 2011) 3200 412 0.129 400 0.125 4953 1.548 1906 0.596 Fermi (DTE 2011) 1585 900 0.568 123 0.078 2900 1.830 - -
Calvert Cliffs (UniStar 2011) 1562 363 0.232 320 0.205 3950 2.529 2727 1.746 Shearon Harris (PEC 2011) 2399 773 0.322 118 0.049 3150 1.313 - -
Vogtle (SN 2011) 2234 660 0.295 376 0.168 4400 1.970 3152 1.411 V.C. Summer (SCE&G 2011) 2214 800 0.361 240 0.108 3600 1.626 2120 0.958 North Anna (Dominion 2010) 1500 500 0.333 128.5 0.086 2500 1.667 - -
PSEG (PSE&G 2010) 2214 600 0.271 240 0.108 3600 1.626 2120 0.958 Bell Bend (UniStar 2010) 1600 363 0.227 178.9 0.112 3950 2.469 2727 1.704 Levy County (PEF 2009) 2399 773 0.322 300 0.125 3300 1.376 1794 0.748 William States Lee III(DE 2009) 2399 957 0.399 141 0.059 4512 1.881 2000 0.834 Average 0.321 0.111 1.840 1.123 Calculations Desired Net Output 2,400 MW Gross Capacity (assume 6% used on site) 2,540 MWe 2540 MW x 0.321 Employees/MW = 770 Employees 2540 MW x 0.111 Acres/MW = 266 Acres 2540 MW x 1.84 Cons. Workers/MW = 4,416 Peak Construction workers 2540 MWe x 1.123 Cons. Workers/MW - 2,695 Ave. Construction workers Nuclear
Figure 4 - Combination of Gas and Coal Alternatives Combination of Gas and Coal Coal fired portion 1,200 MWe x 0.159 Acres = 190.8 acres MWe 1,200 MWe x 0.136 Employees = 163 Employees MWe Gas fired portion 0.039 Acres 1,200 MWe x = 46.8 acres MWe 1,200 MWe x 0.039 Employees = 47 Employees MWe Total Acres = 190.8 acres (coal) + 46.8 acres (gas) = 237.6 acres Total employees = 163 Employees (coal) + 47 Employees (gas) = 210 Employees Combination is
Figure 5 - Land Requirements for Renewable Technologies and Oil Hydropower Sources: Sl units 2,400 MWe x 1,544 square miles = 3,707 square miles (NRC 1996b) 9,600 square kilometers 1,000 MWe (NRC 1996b)
Solar Photovoltaic 2,400 MWe x 5.40 acres x 0.90 nuclear capacity factor = 30,695 acres 12,422 hectares 1 MWe 0.38 solar capacity factor (PMJ, 2010) 30,695 acres x 0.00156 square miles = 48 square miles 124 square kilometers acre Solar Thermal 2,400 MWe x 9.40 acres x 0.90 nuclear capacity factor = 53,432 acres 21,623 hectares 1 MWe 0.38 solar capacity factor (PMJ, 2010) 53,432 acres x 0.00156 square miles = 83 square miles 216 square kilometers acre Wind (present capacity factor)
Total Area Occupied 2,400 MWe x 29.9 acres x 0.90 nuclear capacity factor = 439,347 acres (NREL 2009) 177,798 hectares 1 MWe 0.147 wind capacity factor (MISO 2011 b)
Structure Footprint 2,400 MWe x 0.25 acres x 0.90 nuclear capacity factor = 3,673 acres (NREL 2009) 1,487 hectares 1 MWe 0.147 wind capacity factor (MISO 2011 b)
Wind (future capacity factor)
Total Area Occupied 2,400 MWe x 29.9 acres x 0.90 nuclear capacity factor = 131,804 acres (NREL 2009) 53,339 hectares 1 MWe 0.49 wind capacity factor (DOE 2008a)
Structure Footprint 2,400 MWe x 0.25 acres x 0.90 nuclear capacity factor = 1,102 acres (NREL 2009) 446 hectares 1 MWe 0.49 wind capacity factor (DOE 2008a)
Geothermal 2,400 MWe a 4.5 acre x 0.90 nuclear capacity factor = 10,232 acres (Shibaki 2003) 4,141 hectares 1 MWe 0.95 geo capacity factor (NRRI2007) 10,232 acres x 0.00156 square miles = 16 square miles 41 square kilometers acre Renewables
Land/
electricity Solar Radiation available (acre/MWe)
(kWhr/m 21day) [hectares/MlWe]
ROI: IL, IN, IA, MI, MO, WI PV Average 5.4 4.06 4.49 [2.2]
4.92 Thermal 9.4 3.25 3.91 [3.8]
4.56 Source: NREL 2012 Southwestern US PV Average 4.0 5.79 6.29 [1.6]
6.78 Thermal 5.7 5.24 6.45 [2.3]
7.65 Source: NREL 2012 Source: DOE 2012 The average solar radiation available for the ROI as well as for Southern California (where solar technologies are most promising) was derived from NREL maps of solar photovoltaics (PV) resource potential and concentrating solar power (CSP) resource potential for the United States. The land requirement per MWe was used to calculate the land requirement for a solar plant.
Solar acre per MW
References:
References numbers are for Byron - same references for Braidwood Natural Gas Combined Cycle 266 AECI (Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.) 2009, Environmental Assessment, Proposed Combined-Cycle Power Plant, Mayes County, Oklahoma, March, Available at http://vw.rurdev.usda.gov/UWP-EA-AssociatedElectricCoop.html 267 BCW (Benton County, Washington) 2003. Final EIS Plymouth Generating Facility Plymouth. Washington. June 2003.
268 SLM(Bureau of Land Management) 2007. Toquop Energy Praject DEIS. Ely Field Office, Nevada, October 2007.
269 BPA(Bonneville Power Administration) 2004. FinalEISforCOBfEnergyFacility DOE/EIS-0343. June 2004.
270 CEC (California Energy Commission) 2003. Pico Power Project:Application For Certification (02-AFC-3) Santa Clara County. September 2003.
271 CH2MHiII2007 Application for Certification: Chula Vista Energy Upgrade Project August 2007.
272 COV (City of Vernon) 2006. Application for Certification: Vernon Power Plant. Docket Number 06-AFC-4. Jun 30, 2005.
DOE (Department of Energy) 2010 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Deer Creek Station Energy Facility Project, 273 Brookings County, South Dakota, DOEIEIS-0415, January, Available at http:l/.wwrurdev.usda.gov/UWP-0 Deer /%20Creek%20Power.html 274 DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) 2004. Wanapa Energy Center FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0342, December 2004.
275 DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) 2005. Weliton-Mohawk Generating Facility Draft EIS. DOEJEIS-0358. July 2005.
276 EFSEC (Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council) 2004. BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Praject: Volume 1- Final EIS.
DDE/EIS-0349. August 2004.
279 FPL (Florida Power & Light) 2003. Turkey Point Expansion Project Volume 1 of 3. November 2003.
280 FPL (Florida Power & Light) 2005. Site Certification Application for West County Energy Center April 2005.
281 GDS Associates, Inc, 2007a, Rural Utilities Services, Hardin County Peaking Facility Enviommental Assessment, December, Availiable at http://w.rurdev.usda.gov/UWP-East-Texas-Electric-Hardin.html 282 GDOS Associates, Inc, 2007b, Rural Utilities Services, San Jacinto County Peaking Facility Enviornmental Assessment, December, Availiable at hftp://wwwmrdev.usda.gov/UWP-East-Texas-Electric-SanJacinto.html Golder (Golder Associates) 2004. Sempra Energy Resources Environmental Report in Support of OPCN Application 284 Catoctin Power Project Frederick County, Maryland. February 2004.
278 LSPSB (L.S. Power South Bay LLC) 2006 Application for Certification:South Bay Replacement Project. Docket Number 06-AFC-3. June 30, 2006.
283 MEQB (Minnesota Environmental Quality Board) 2004. Draft EIS FaPrbaultEnergy Park Project EQB Docket Number 02-48-PPS-FEP. February 2004.
284 PBS&J 2008. Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Jack County Power Plant Expansion Project. Jack County, Texas, June, Available at hntp:lfiww.mrdev.usda govlUWP-Brazos-Electric-Assessm.html 285 PSEC (PowerSouth Energy Cooperative), 2009, Environmental Assessment Proposed Peaking Load Generation Unit, McIntosh, Alabama, March, Available at http:l/wrurdev.usda.gov/UWP-EA-PowerSouthEnergy.html Pulverized Coal ACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) 2008, WP&L 300 MWPower Plant Volume 1 FEIS, July, Available at 249 http:/lpsc.wi.gov/apps35/ert_search/content/SearchResult.aspx 250 BLM(Bureau of Land Management) 2007. Toquop Energy Project DEIS. Ely Field Office, Nevada, October 2007.
DOI (U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management) 2007. Draft EIS for the White Pine Energy Station 251 Project April2007 Available at http:llww.blm'gov/nv/stlen/f/tyjely-eo ffice/blm programs/energy/egarý_energy-prmjectstwhite-pineý-energyO/white-pi ne_energy0.html DOI(Department of the Interior) 2008, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the ElyEnergy Center, NV-040-09-001 252 EIS,December, Available at http://wwwblm'govlnv/st/en/fo/ely-ield-officeblbm-programs/energy/orn-line-_transmission/ely-energy-center'html Duke (Duke Power) 2005. Preliminary Application For Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Cliffside 257 Project May 2005.
253 EDAW (EDAW Platte) 2006. Request for Waiver of Permit Application for the Dry Fork Station. Prepared for Wyoming department of Environmental Quality Industrial Siting Division. May 2006.
277 Golder (Golder Associates Inc.) 2006. Site Certification Application for Seminole Generating Station Unit 3. March.
JBPU (Jamestown Board of Public Utilities) 2006, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Jamestown Clean Coal 255 Project, Jamestown, Chautauqua County, New York, October, Available at http:/www.jamestownbpu.corVdeis/Jamestown%20CIean%2OCoal`%2Project%20DEIS-Section%205.pdf 256 MACTEC (MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.) 2006. Draft EIS Santee Cooper Pee Dee Electrical Generating Station. October 31, 2006.
261 MDEQ(Montana Department of Environmental Quality) 2002. Roundup Power Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. November 15, 2002.
References
NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory) 2007, Mesaba Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 262 Vol 1, DOEiEIS-0382D, November, Available at http:l/ww.netL.doe.govltechnologieslcoalpowerlcctclEISleis_mesaba.htmi 258 OTPC (Otter Tail Power Company) 2005. Application for an Energy Conversion Facility Sibng Permit Big Stone It Project. July 2005.
259 PSCW (Public Service Commission of Wisconsin) 2003. FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement Elm Road Generating Station. Docket 05-CE-130. July 2003.
263 SGP (Sithe Global Power LLC) 2007 Desert Rock Energy Project Draft EIS. May 2007.
264 USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) 2007a, Final Environmental Impact Statement Highwood Generating Station, January, Available at htp:/ltw .rurdev.usda.gov/UWP-Southern-Montana-Electric.html USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development) 2007b. Final EIS Proposed Baseload Power Plant 265 Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. July 2007.
Nuclear 286 DE 2009 Duke Energy, William States Lee Ill, Units 1 & 2 COLA, April, Available at http:l/ww.nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactorslcollleeldocuments.html#application Dominion 2010, Dominion Virginia Power, North Anna Unit 3 COLA, Part 3, Environmental Report, Rev 3, June, Available at http:/www.nrc.govlreactorstnew-reactorsfcotnorth-anna/documents.html~application 053 DTE 2011 Detroit Edison Company, Fermi 3 COLA, Part 3, Environmental Report, Rev 2, March, Available at http:li .nrc.govlreactors/new-reactorslcollfermitdocuments.html#application 287 STPNOC 2011 STP Nuclear Operating Company, South Texas Project Units 3 and 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Available at http:llpbadupws.nrc.govldocslML1 103/ML110340962.html 288 FPL 2012 Florida Power & Light, Turkey Point Plant, Units 6 & 7, COL Application, Part 3, Rev 3, January, Available at http://w .nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactorslcol/turkey-point/documents.html LGC 2011 Luminant Generation Company LLC , Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4, COL Application, 289 Part 3 Environmental Report, Available at http:llwww.nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactorslcollcomanche-peakldocuments.html#application 290 PEC 2011 Progress Energy Carolinas, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, COL Application, Part 3, Environmental Report, June, Available at http:ll// .nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactors/col/harris/documents.html#application PEF 2009 Progress Energy Florida Levy Units 1 and 2 COLA, Part 3, Rev 1 Available at 261 http:ll/w.nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactorslcolllevyldocuments.html#application 054 PSE&G 2010 Public Service Electric and Gas Company, PSEG ESP Application, Part 3, Environmental Report, Rev 0, June, Available at http:llm.nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactorslesplpseg.html 292 SCG&E 2011 South Carolina Gas & Electric, V.C. Summer COL Application, Part 3, Environmental Report, Rev 2, August, Available at http:liwww.nrc.govlreactorslnew-reactorslcollsummerldocuments.html#application 293 SN 2011 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report, Available at http://l.nrc govlreactors/new-reactors/colvogtle/documents.html#application 057 UniStar 2010, UniStar Nuclear, Bell Send Nuclear Power Plant, COLA, Part 3 Environmental Report, Rev 2, July, 05 Available at http:lww.nrc.govlreactors/new-reactrslcUbell-bend/documents.html#application 294 UniStar 2011, UniStar Nuclear, Calvert Cliffs Power Plant Unit 3 COLA, Part 3 Environmental Report, Rev 7, January, Available at http:llý.nrc.gov/reactrs/new-reactrscoVtcavert-cliffs/documents.htmWapplication Renewables 062 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2012. SunShot Vision Study, Chapter 7, "Solar Power Environmental Impacts and Siting Challenges." Available at http:/Iw l.eere.energy.gov/solarlsunshotlvisionstudy.html.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) 2009, Denholm, P., M. Hand, M. Jackson, and S. Ong. 2009. Land-Use 205 Requirements of Modem Wind Power Plants in the United States, Technical Report NRELITP-6A2-45834. August.
Available at http:ll/I.nrel.govldocs/fyO9ostil45834.pdf DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008a. 20% Wind Energy by 2030, Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S.
206 Electricity Supply. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. DOE/GO-102008-2567. July. Available at http:llww.nrel.govldocslfyO~osti/41869.pdf MISO (Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator) 201 lb, Wind Capacity Credit Update with CPnode Results, Item 2 LOLEWG, November, Available at https://w.midwestiso.orgLibrary/Repository/Meeting%2OMateriaVStakeholder/LOLEWG/2011120111109/20111109%2 0LOLEWG%201tem%2002%20%2OWind%2OCapecity%2OCredit.pdf NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 1996b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 167 Nuclear Plants. NUREG 1437. Washington, DC. May.
199 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2012. Solar Maps, Available at http:llm.nrel.govlgislsolar.htmi NRRI (National Regulatory Research Institute) 2007. What Generation Mix Suits Your State? Tools for Comparing 240 Fourteen Technologies across Nine Criteria. Febmary 14, 2007. Available at http://vl .nrri.ohio-state.edu/dspacelhandle/2068/1045.
PJM (PJM Interconnection, LLC). 2010. PJM Manual 21, Rules and Procedures for Determination of Generating 244 Capability. Revision: 09. May. Available at http:llpjm.coml-lmedia/documentslmanualslm2l.ashx Shibaki, Masashi, 2003. Geothermal Energy for Electric Power, Renewable Energy Policy Project, Washington, D.C.,
296 December 2003.
References