alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Analyzing Operator Actions During Loss of AC Power Accident with Subsequent Loss of Secondary Heat Sink (NUREG/IA-0225)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0225 (PDF 1.41 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2004**Date Published:** April 2010

**Prepared by:** Iztok Parzer1, Božidar Krajnc2, Borut Mavko1

1Jožef Stefan Institute Jamova cesta 39 SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

2NPP Krško Vrbina 12 S1-8270 Krško, Slovenia

Antony Calvo, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange Under the Thermal-Hydraulic Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

**Prepared for:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The thermo-hydraulic analysis of plant response on total loss of AC power is very demanding and challenging job due to a number of phenomena included. Such an analysis becomes even more complicated and interesting if we include also the assumption of total loss of secondary heat sink.

In this paper we are presenting the NPP Krško specific analysis of complete loss of AC power with subsequent total loss of secondary heat sink and influence of specific operator actions. The aim of this analysis is to verify if emergency operating (EOP) or severe accident management guidelines (SAMG) procedures should be changed and if design change on pressurizer pressure relief valves (PORV) should be implemented to be able to cope with this kind of accidents better.

The analyses were performed with three different state of the art codes used at NPP Krško and IJS: RELAP5/MOD3.3, ANTHEM and MAAP4. The last two codes are used in the NPP Krško plant specific full scope simulator, one for the simulation of the design bases transients and accidents and the second for simulation of the severe accidents.

This type of analyses has been done also for the simulator validation, performed during vendor and site acceptance testing.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Floyd McGriff, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 969]

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: County Court should have granted the motion of defendant to sever his trial from that of his codefendant. Defendant and the codefendant were charged with possession of a controlled substance in the third degree based upon the seizure of two bags containing crack cocaine from a vehicle they occupied when it was stopped by police. When the cocaine was seized at the scene of the stop, the codefendant immediately stated that the drugs were not his. The court was informed that defendant and the codefendant would assert antagonistic factual positions at trial, and they did. Defendant testified that the codefendant possessed the drugs and that, when the police started to pull the vehicle over, the codefendant took the bags from his pocket and threw them toward defendant. The codefendant, on the other hand, testified that defendant removed the drugs from his pocket and threw them at the codefendant. Thus, the core of each defense was in irreconcilable conflict *(see, People v Mahboubian,*74 NY2d 174, 184). Moreover, as the proof was presented at trial, the conflict prejudiced defendant. Prosecution witnesses testified that the codefendant immediately protested that the drugs seized from the car were not his and a prosecution witness testified that he had observed defendant throwing white bags in the direction of the passenger. That evidence supported the codefendant’s version and led to an infer*830ence of defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Mahboubian, supra,*at 184). Defendant was further prejudiced by the conduct of codefendant’s counsel in aggressively cross-examining defendant, which effectively made codefendant’s counsel a second prosecutor *(see, People v Cardwell,*78 NY2d 996).

We reject defendant’s contention that the stop of the vehicle was pretextual. The police may stop a vehicle for the traffic infraction of excessively tinted windows *(People v Osborne,*158 AD2d 740, *lv denied*75 NY2d 968; *People v Daguilar,*158 AD2d 857). The fact that the officer who has observed the tinted windows also is aware that the vehicle matches a description of a vehicle involved in unrelated criminal activity does not render the stop pretextual *(see, People v Woods,*189 AD2d 838). The court credited the officer’s testimony that the officer stopped the vehicle for the infraction of excessively tinted windows and concluded that the stop was justified. The court refused to suppress the physical evidence and there is no basis in this record to disturb that determination *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Law-ton, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
#### City of Milwaukee, Respondent, vs. Froelich, Appellant.

*May 12*

June *18, 1928.*

*Samuel E. Gross*of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

For the respondent there was a brief by *John M. Niven,*city attorney, and *Andrew W. Brunhart,*assistant city attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. Brunhart.*

Rosenberry, J.

Sec. 1369.125 of the Milwaukee Code of 1914, relating to the regulation of taxicabs in the city of Milwaukee, reads as follows:

> “It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to drive or operate a taxicab, livery vehicle or sight-seeing bus or to obtain a license therefor,” unless such person, firm, *445or corporation shall have given a bond provided for “conditioned that the owner, operator or driver of said taxicab, livery vehicle or sight-seeing bus for which a license has been applied will pay any final judgment rendered against said owner, operator or driver of said taxicab, livery vehicle or sight-seeing bus within the limits herein provided,” etc.

The defendant owns and operates a rent-a-car establishment. The manner of operation of such an establishment is that the proprietor keeps on hand certain automotive vehicles ; the customer rents by the hour or upon some other agreed basis the vehicle for which he pays the agreed compensation. The person leasing the vehicle then drives the leased vehicle upon the streets himself and returns it to the custody of the person from whom he leased it.

The question is whether the owner of the rented vehicle is required to procure a license under the provisions of sec. 1369.125. It is argued that because the vehicle is a livery vehicle and is leased by the owner, the owner should provide the bond required by the section. It is considered that the situation of the parties is not within the purview of the ordinance. If a person leases an automobile and thereafter drives it upon the streets and by reason of his negligent operations injuries result, the lessee and not the lessor is liable for the damages sustained by reason of such negligent operation. A lease is nothing more nor less than a term ownership, and where the lessee operates the vehicle for his own purposes and is in fact a lessee, the lessor is not liable for his tortious acts. The lessor is not the driver or operator of the vehicle within the meaning of the ordinance.

*By the Court.*— Judgment appealed from is reversed, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                 [GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC. LETTERHEAD]

                                 March 29, 2002

Bankers Trust Company
Corporate Trust Office
1761 East St. Andrew Place
Santa Ana, CA 92705

Financial Guaranty Insurance Corporation
115 Broadway
New York, NY  10006

Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
99 Church Street
New York, NY  10004

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc.
55 Water Street
New York, NY  10041
Attn: Asset-Backed Surveillance Department

Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.
600 Steamboat Road
Greenwich, CT  06830


                  RE:      GreenPoint Home Equity Loan Trust (Series 2000-3);
                           Annual Statement as to Compliance by the Issuer
                           -----------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Pursuant to Section 3.9 of the Indenture with respect to the
above-referenced offering and in compliance with the requirements of TIA Section
314(a)(4), the undersigned officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (as
"Manager") hereby certifies as to the following:

         1.       a review of the activities of the Issuer and its performance
                  under the Indenture during the preceding fiscal year since the
                  inception of the trust has been made under the direct
                  supervision of the undersigned officer; and

         2.       to the best knowledge of the undersigned officer, based on
                  such review, the Issuer has fulfilled all of its material
                  obligations under the Indenture throughout the applicable
                  period, and there has been no known default in the fulfillment
                  of the Issuer's material obligations throughout such period.

                          [Signature on Following Page]

<PAGE>

                                        Very truly yours
                                        GREENPOINT HOME EQUITY
                                        LOAN TRUST (Series 2000-3);

                                        By:  GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.,
                                        as Manager

                                          /s/ Nathan Hieter
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Nathan Hieter
                                        Vice President
.,.,H>"YP .•r·~j··· ., , 1':1.7.: . • ht A •. .. ,C't .. . , .... •.. ,. ·. 1 .·t.(i.JriH tVItr\ I {)f ,_ rrr~g · ·. ·· zr oervzce, n(;:~;~~~~~:ftftTAlJQN ., Post Office Box 60142 • Fairbanks, Alaska 99706 ' '·.n\! .. i u. cril\t IO~J.) (907) 474·0502 

bbur~.i~J@alaska.nct lDfl 1: 35 l 0 tr:::> l .. 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

EAS@dot.gov. 

July 2, 2012 

Attn: Kevin Adams 

202-366~1047 

Kevin.Adams@dot.gov 

,· Proposal to Provide Essential Air Serviceat Lake ~inchumina, Alaska, 

Docket DOT-2008-0237t/ .. · .. ' · . 

The following proposal includes two service options: 

Option 1 

Wright Air Service, Inc. would provide one non-stop round trip per week year-round between 

Lake Minchumina and Fairbanks. 

Service would be provided with a nine-seat LF.R. certified Cessna 208 Caravan aircraft or an 

LF.R. certified Piper PA-31 twin-engine aircraft. • , ~'" ._. .. 

Annual subsidy amount requested Option 1: $74;360., 

,. 

Option 2 

Wright Air Service, Inc. would provide two non-stop round trips per week year-round between 

Lake Minchumina and Fairbanks. 

In addition to service previously stated in option 1, service would also be provided one time per 

week in a four-seat Cessna 206 or Beechcraft Bonanza A36 single-engine aircraft. 

Additional Annual subsidy amount requested $27,940. 

TOTAL Annual Subsidy amount requested Option 2: $102,300.
No: 19-021 May 7, 2019

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8205

NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Denies Evidentiary Hearing on

Holtec International’s Proposed Spent Fuel Storage Facility in New Mexico

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has denied requests

by several petitioners to hold an evidentiary hearing challenging Holtec International’s license 

application to construct and operate a consolidated interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in 

southeastern New Mexico.

The three-judge board held oral arguments in Albuquerque in January on the standing of the 

various petitioners and the admissibility of their proposed contentions under NRC regulations. 

While the judges agreed that some of the six petitioners met the qualifications for standing, they 

concluded the nearly 50 contentions raised were not admissible for an evidentiary hearing. The 

judges held that the contentions either were not relevant to the application or did not establish a 

genuine dispute with aspects of the application.

The NRC’s hearing process allows interested parties who might be affected by a proposed 

licensing action to challenge the application on technical (safety) or environmental grounds. Most 

hearings are conducted by licensing boards appointed from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, a group of administrative judges independent of the NRC staff. Board rulings may be 

appealed to the Commission.

Holtec, a vendor of dry cask storage systems, has proposed to store spent nuclear fuel from 

the nation’s commercial nuclear power plants at a facility in Lea County, in the southeastern corner 

of New Mexico. Hearing petitions were filed by Beyond Nuclear, the Sierra Club and the Fasken 

Land and Minerals and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners, which were granted standing. 

Two other petitioners – a coalition of several different organizations and NAC International, a rival 

dry storage cask vendor – were denied standing. The standing of a sixth petitioner, the Alliance for 

Environmental Strategies, was not decided.

The board’s ruling, issued May 7, is available on the NRC’s Electronic Hearing Docket on 

the agency website, under Holtec International 72-1051.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, Levy Gerzberg, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zoran Corporation;

 

2.             Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with a respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

(a)           designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b)           evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           disclosedin this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

 

(a)           allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport information; and

 

(b)           anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Dated:  May 14, 2004

 
|   | /s/ Levy  Gerzberg       |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Levy  Gerzberg           |
|   | President  and           |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
No: II-19-008 March 19, 2019

Contact: Roger Hannah, 404-997-4417

 Joey Ledford, 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss

Performance of Catawba Nuclear Power Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for March 27 to 

provide information and answer questions about the safety performance of the Catawba nuclear power 

plant, including the recent annual assessment letter covering all of 2018.

The open house will run from 5:30-6:30 p.m., at the Rock Hill City Hall, 

155 West Johnston Street, Rock Hill, S.C. NRC employees responsible for plant inspections, including 

the resident inspectors based full-time at the site, will be available at the open house.

The two-unit Catawba plant, operated by Duke Energy, is located about 18 miles south of 

Charlotte.

The NRC concluded that the Catawba plant operated in a manner that preserved public health 

and safety during 2018. At the end of the year, all inspection findings and performance indicators were 

green or of low safety significance. As a result, the two Catawba units remain under the NRC’s normal 

level of oversight, which entails thousands of hours of inspection each year.

The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses color-coded inspection findings and indicators to 

measure plant performance. The colors start at green and increase to white, yellow or red, 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Inspection findings or performance

indicators with more than very low safety significance trigger increased NRC oversight.

Inspections are performed by the NRC resident inspectors and inspection specialists from the

NRC Region II office in Atlanta.

The annual assessment letter, as well as the meeting notice, are available on the NRC website. 

Current performance information for Catawba Unit 1 and Unit 2 is also on the website and is updated 

on a quarterly basis.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 3978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01387]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-15-006]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: February 5, 2015 at 2 p.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-458 and 731-TA-1154 (Review) (Certain 
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from China). The Commission is 
currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views 
of the Commission on February 24, 2015.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

     Issued: January 21, 2015.

    By order of the Commission.
 William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-01387 Filed 1-22-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
EXHIBIT 32.2 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In
connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) by HASCO Medical, Inc. (the Registrant), I, Mark B. Lucky, Chief
Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that: 1.
 The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and2.
 The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of Registrant.  /s/ Mark B.
 LuckyName: Mark
 B. LuckyTitle: Chief
 Financial Officer, principal financial and accounting officer Dated: February 11, 2011 A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to
the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-109-CR

KIRK VINCENTE CHAVEZ	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and sentenced to twenty years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine.  In an unpublished opinion, this court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial.  Chavez v. State, No. 2-01-00345-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 16, 2003, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication).  On remand, appellant pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain, and on November 19, 2003, the trial court sentenced him to eight years’ confinement in accordance with the plea bargain.  Appellant did not file a motion for new trial.  On March 10, 2004, he filed a notice of appeal.

	On March 18, 2004, we sent appellant a letter explaining our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over his appeal and informing him that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed on or before March 29, 2004 a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.  We received in response a “Motion to Give Reason for Out of Time Appeal or Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment” in which appellant contends that Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division records show that he is serving both the twenty- year and eight-year sentences for the aggravated assault, rather than just the eight-year sentence that he plea-bargained for on remand.

	Appellant’s response does not state grounds indicating that this court has jurisdiction over his appeal.  Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on or before December 19, 2003.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).  Because appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal.  See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

									PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	LIVINGSTON, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and WALKER, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P.  47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  May 27, 2004
Order entered November 20, 2012

In The

Court of $[ppeals

 i tri t of Texas at

No. 05-12-00819-CV

JULIUS HOLMES, ANTONIO SPENCER AND ALL OCCUPANTS OF

3320 PECAN SHADOW WAY, DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellants

Vo

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., ASSET-BACKED

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-R2, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-08781-D

ORDER

The Court has before it appellee’s November 6, 2012 motion to dismiss appeal as moot.

The Court ORDERS appellant to file a response to the motion within ten days of the date of this

order. If appellant does not do so, this appeal may be dismissed without further notice.

MOLLY

JUSTICE