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

# Assessment Study of RELAP5/MOD2, CYCLE 36.04 Based on Spray Start-up Test for DOEL-4 (NUREG/IA-0020)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0020 (PDF 22.7 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** July 1989

**Prepared by:** P. Moeyaert, E. Stubbe

TRACTEBEL B-1040 Brussels, Belgium

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Application Program (ICAP)

**Published by:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report presents an assessment study for the code RELAP-5 M0D-2 based on a pressurizer spray start-up test of the Doel-4 power plant.

Doel-4 is a three loop WESTINGHOUSE PWR plant ordered by the ESES utility with a nominal power rating of 1000 MWe and equipped with preheater type E steam generators.

A large series of commissionning tests are normally performed on new plants, of which the so called pressurizer spray and heater test (SU-PR-01) was performed on February 2nd 1985. TRACTEBEL, being the Architect-Engineer for this plant was closeiy involved with all start-up tests and was responsible for the :inal approval of the tests.

This particular start-up test has been selected as the first code assessment study for this plant, as it can be considered as a kind of separate effect test, principally involving the phenomena in one plant component i.e. the pressurizer. The pressurizer plays a vital role in determining the plant behaviour during operational transients and accidents. Hence a correct simulation of the pressurizer (including surge line, spray- and heater control) is essential in trying to simulate the plant behaviour under off- normal conditions. Although the pressurizer spray and heater systems do not strictly have a safety function, they have a large impact on the operational flexibility of the plant (i.e. plant pressure control). The code used for assessment is RELAP-5 MOD-2 CYCLE 36.04, which was installed on a CYBER 176 comouter.

This pressurizer spray test involves the following important features for code assessment:
        - Full scale
        - Pressurizer thermalhydrau!ics : which involves the thermal non equilibrium phenomena leading to condensation (by spray) and evaporation (by heaters).
        - Surgeline thermalhydraulics : form loss factors and counter current flow behaviour.
        - Structural heat from pressurizer shell and heaters.
        - Assymmetric loop behaviour when one or two reactor coolant pumps are tripped, leading to reversed loop flow.
        - Single phase pump behaviour (coastdown).

This code assessment work is performed by TRACTEBEL and is based on the plant recorded data for this test.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases

# NRC Special Inspection Team Sent to Songs

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, February 04, 2021
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1632 

To prohibit the use of Federal money for print, radio, television or any 

other media advertisement, campaign, or form of publicity against the 

use of a food or beverage that is lawfully marketed under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2017 

Mr. DESJARLAIS (for himself, Mr. BARR, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, and Mr. 

ROE of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal money for print, radio, television or any other media advertisement, campaign, or 

form of publicity against the use of a food or beverage 

that is lawfully marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Foods and 

5 Beverages from Government Attack Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1632 IH

1 SEC. 2. FUNDING RESTRICTION. 

2 No part of any appropriation contained in any Act 

3 may be used for print, radio, television or any other media 

4 advertisement, campaign, or form of publicity against the 

5 use of a food or beverage that is lawfully marketed under 

6 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 

7 et seq.). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# Note to Editors: NRC Has Received a Report from its Advisory Committee onReactor Safeguards Following Meetings on September 2-4 and September 30-October2

----

----

No. 98-187

October 14, 1998

**NOTE TO EDITORS:**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received a report from its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards following the Committee's meetings September 2-4 and September 30-October 2. The report, in the form of a letter, provides comments on the impact of probabilistic risk assessment results and insights on the regulatory system.

Copies of the report are available through the NRC's Office of Public Affairs, the NRC's Internet homepage (http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW) and the Public Document Room in Washington, D.C.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Hydrogen-Steam Jet-Flame Facility and Experiments (NUREG/CR-3638,  SAND84-0060)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-3638 (PDF - 4.84 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed**: October 1984****Date Published****: May 1985

**Prepared by:** Joseph E. Shepherd Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer Division 1512 Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque. New Mexico 87185 Operated by Sandia Corporation  for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract No. DE-AC04-76DP00789 

**Prepared for**: Division of Engineering Technology  and Division of Accident Evaluation Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555-0001 

Under Memorandum of Understanding DOE-40-550-75

NRC FIN A-1246, A-1336

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report provides results from an in-depth analysis of twenty-one of the twenty-four premixed large-scale combustion experiments sponsored by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and conducted by EG&G at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). These experiments were performed in a 2048 cubic meter spherical vessel (hydrogen dewar) with mixtures of hydrogen, steam, and air ignited by glow plugs or heated resistance coils. Hydrogen concentrations ranged from 5 to 13% (by volume) and steam concentrations from 4 to 40%. Several tests also incorporated spray systems and/or fans which enhanced the combustion rate and significantly altered the postcombustion gas cooling.

In this work, data provided by EPRI from instrumentation designed to characterize the tlhermal environment in the dewar during and following combustion have been evaluated. The data reduction package SMOKE has been used to process data from thin-film gauges, Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter heat flux gauges, capacitance calorimeters, gas and wall thermocouples, and pressure sensors. Local measurements of the heat transfer are provided from the calorimetry, and global averages are inferred from the pressure. Instrumentation "goodness" for each test is assessed based on the raw data and on comparisons-of local and global results. Graphical and tabular results are provided for each test, and trends observed from the results are reported. This information should be useful for benchmarking existing computer codes used in modeling nuclear containment and associated safety-related equipment response to degraded-core accidents and for improving combustion and heat transfer models currently used in these computer simulations.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
No: II-19-014 April 15, 2019

Contact: Roger Hannah, 404-997-4417

 Joey Ledford, 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss

Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant Performance

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for April 24 to 

provide information and answer questions regarding the safety performance of the Brunswick

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

The open house will run from 5-6 p.m. at the Southport Community Building, 

223 E. Bay St., Southport, N.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 Brunswick plant, operated by Duke Energy, is located near Southport, 

approximately 20 miles south of Wilmington.

The NRC concluded that the Brunswick plant operated safely 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 Brunswick 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, which includes upcoming inspection plans for the plant, is 

available on the NRC website. Current performance information for Brunswick Unit 1 and Unit 2 is 

also on the website and is updated on a quarterly basis.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 29, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00493

- CV

Bruce Lee BECKER

, Appellant

v.

Pedro BECKER and Manuela Becker,

Appellees

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CV

- 04644

Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Appellant’s first amended motion to stay proceedings filed on December 18, 2017, is

DENIED

.

It is so ORDERED on December 29, 2017.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

__________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Analysis with TRACE Code of PKL III Tests G1.2. Study on Heat Transfer Mechanisms in the SG in Presence of Nitrogen, Steam and Water as a Function of the Primary Coolant Inventory in Double Loop Operation (NUREG/IA-0521)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0521 (PDF – 1.91 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** August 2019**Date Published:** November 2020

**Prepared by:**A. Julbe, C. Berna, A. Escrivá & J.L. Muñoz-Cobo

Instituto de Ingeniería EnergéticaUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaCamino de Vera 14, 46022 València.Spain.

K. Tien, NRC Project Manager

Division of Systems AnalysisOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

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

**Published by:**U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The goal of this report is to explain the main results obtained in the simulations performed with the consolidated thermal-hydraulic code TRACE regarding tests PKL III G1.2. The G1 test series are composed of G1.1, G1.1a and G1.2 tests, all of them are focused on the occurrence of boron dilution processes following the loss of Residual Heat Removal System (RHRS) during ¾-loop operation (primary circuit still closed). Main objective was to provide a data basis for thermal-hydraulics codes for a better understanding of the heat transfer mechanisms in the Steam Generator in presence of Nitrogen, steam and water in the U-tubes and of the coolant transport phenomena observed inside the U-tubes. The differences among G1.1/G1.1a and G1.2 test series are the coolant drain-injections sequences and the loop configuration, 1 loop or 2 loops in operation respectively. The main goal of this report is to analyse the capacity of TRACE V5.0p2 code to precisely simulate thermal stratification and natural circulation of both single and two-phase fluxes inside the whole primary circuit, as well as accurately predicting boron concentration variations.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC Schedules Meeting in Moab, Utah

----

----

No. 98-156

September 3, 1998

**NRC SCHEDULES MEETING IN MOAB, UTAH**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting September 16 in Moab, Utah, to discuss the status of the agency's review of Atlas Corporation's proposal for cleanup of uranium mill tailings at its site near Moab.

The meeting will be at the Grand County High School, 439 S. 400 East, beginning at 7:30 p.m.

Atlas, an NRC licensee, has submitted a plan to stabilize its mill tailings on site. The NRC has not yet made a final determination on the acceptability of this plan.

The NRC staff will make a presentation at the beginning of the meeting to provide background on NRC's regulatory review process and the progress of the review since the last public meeting held in Moab in February 1996. The meeting will then be open for members of the public to ask questions.

Earlier on September 16, at 9:00 a.m., NRC staff members will tour the Atlas tailings site. A limited number of persons may accompany the tour by contacting Richard Blubaugh, Atlas Corporation, 303/629-2436.

The NRC will also view a location along the Colorado River to examine erosion. For information on accompanying the boat, please contact Mike Fliegel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 301/415-6629.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1850 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 907 Fourth Avenue in Lake Odessa, Michigan, 

as the ‘‘Donna Sauers Besko Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1850 EH

1 SECTION 1. DONNA SAUERS BESKO POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 907 Fourth Avenue in Lake 

4 Odessa, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Donna Sauers Besko Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Donna Sauers Besko 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 

2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1850 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Odessa, Michigan, as the ‘‘Donna Sauers Besko al Service located at 907 Fourth Avenue in Lake
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0635 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-SW-081-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### In re SANDY RIDGE OIL CO., INC., Debtor. SANDY RIDGE OIL CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CENTERRE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, and Halliburton Services, a Division of Halliburton Company, Defendant-Appellant, and Official Unsecured Creditors Committee, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 86-1414.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Sept. 16, 1986.

Question Certified Dec. 3, 1986.

Submitted July 29, 1987.

Decided Aug. 25, 1987.

Before BAUER, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Sandy Ridge Oil Company (“Sandy Ridge”), a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession, seeks to avoid a mortgage on several of its oil wells under § 544(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. Halliburton Services (“Halliburton”), the holder of the mortgage, argues that Sandy Ridge cannot avoid the mortgage, because Sandy Ridge had both actual and constructive notice of the encumbrance. In a previous opinion, *In re Sandy Ridge Oil Co.,*807 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir.1986), we rejected Halliburton’s actual notice argument, but certified the question of constructive notice to the Indiana Supreme Court. That court’s decision, which is published at 510 N.E.2d 667, requires the bankruptcy court to enter judgment in favor of Halliburton.

Section 544(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) (1984), permits a trustee to avoid any transfer of the debtor’s property if the transfer would be voidable by a bona fide purchaser of the property. The mortgage at issue in this case was defectively recorded under Indiana law, because the name of the preparer of the instrument was not indicated at the end of the document, as required by Ind.Code § 36-2-ll-15(b) (1982). Sandy Ridge argues that because the mortgage was defec*76tively recorded, it provides no constructive notice to a bona fide purchaser, and therefore Sandy Ridge may avoid the transfer under § 544(a)(3). *See In re Sandy Ridge,*807 F.2d at 1336. The question of whether a mortgage recorded in violation of Ind. Code § 36-2-ll-15(b) gives constructive notice to a bona fide purchaser determined the outcome of this appeal, and there was no clear controlling Indiana Supreme Court precedent. We therefore certified the following question to the Indiana Supreme Court under Rule 15(0) of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure:

> Does a recorded instrument conveying, creating, encumbering, assigning, or otherwise disposing of an interest in or lien on property that does not disclose the name of the preparer as required by Ind. Code § 36-2-ll-15(b) nevertheless impart constructive notice to a bona fide purchaser?

*In re Sandy Ridge,*807 F.2d at 1338.

The Indiana Supreme Court has answered our question in the affirmative. Accordingly, we hold that Sandy Ridge may not avoid the mortgage under § 544(a)(3). The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded to the bankruptcy court with instructions to grant judgment to Halliburton.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                     109,835,075
<SECURITIES>                                11,794,190
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,238,402
<ALLOWANCES>                                   317,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           174,452,874
<PP&E>                                      69,872,064
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,572,812
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             268,065,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,358,665
<BONDS>                                    144,340,146
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       260,551
<OTHER-SE>                                 102,015,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               268,065,355
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            54,419,066
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               46,435,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (511,464)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,647,911
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,846,694
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,599,603
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,247,091
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,247,091
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>