alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Recommendations on the Credit for Cooling Time in PWR Burnup Credit Analyses (NUREG/CR-6781)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6781 (PDF - 2.94 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2002**Date Published:** January 2003

**Prepared by:** J.C. Wagner and C.V. Parks

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Managed by UT-Battelle, LLC Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6370

R. Y. Lee, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Code W6479

**Prepared for**: Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's guidance on burnup credit for pressurized-water-reactor (PWR) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) recommends that analyses be based on a cooling time of five years. This recommendation eliminates assemblies with shorter cooling times from cask loading and limits the allowable credit for reactivity reduction associated with cooling time. This report examines reactivity behavior as a function of cooling time to assess the possibility of expanding the current cooling time recommendation for SNF storage and transportation. The effect of cooling time on reactivity for various initial enrichments, burnups, and selected nuclide sets is shown and discussed. Further, the benefits of additional credit for cooling time are quantified based on a realistic high-capacity rail-type cask designed for burnup credit. While this report is primarily focused on cask storage and transportation, analyses are extended out to 100,000 years to understand the relevant concerns associated with long-term disposal and their possible influence on storage and transportation practice. The report concludes with a discussion on the issues for consideration and recommendations for expanded allowance of credit for cooling time in criticality safety analyses using burnup credit for cask storage and transportation.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Data Analyses for Nevada Test Site (NTS) Premixed Combustion Tests (NUREG/CR-4138, SAND85-0135)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-4138 (PDF - 9.73 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed**: April 1985**Date Published:**May 1985

**Prepared by:** A.C. Ratzel, III Organization 1513 Sandia National Laboratories  Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 Operated by Sandia Corporation  for the U.S. Department of Energy

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

NRC FIN A-1246, A-1270

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 thermal 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, arid 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 Wednesday, March 24, 2021
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1858 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 16, 2017 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4514 Williamson Trail in Liberty, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Ryan Scott Ostrom Post 

Office’’. 

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


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1858 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT RYAN SCOTT OSTROM POST 

2 OFFICE. 

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

4 Postal Service located at 4514 Williamson Trail in Lib5 erty, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Staff Sergeant Ryan Scott Ostrom Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Ryan 

11 Scott Ostrom Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 

2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1750 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand certain exceptions 

to the private activity bond rules for first-time farmers, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2017 

Mr. YOUNG of Iowa (for himself, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. 

PETERSON, Mr. BLUM, and Mr. LAHOOD) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

certain exceptions to the private activity bond rules for 

first-time farmers, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Facilitating Farmers’ 

5 Access to Resources and Machinery Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRI7 VATE ACTIVITY BOND RULES FOR FIRST8 TIME FARMERS. 

9 (a) INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMITATION.— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1750 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 147(c)(2)(A) of the 

2 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik3 ing ‘‘$450,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$524,200’’. 

4 (2) REPEAL OF SEPARATE LOWER DOLLAR LIM5 ITATION ON USED FARM EQUIPMENT.—Section 

6 147(c)(2) of such Code is amended by striking sub7 paragraph (F) and by redesignating subparagraphs 

8 (G) and (H) as subparagraphs (F) and (G), respec9 tively. 

10 (3) QUALIFIED SMALL ISSUE BOND LIMITATION

11 CONFORMED TO INCREASED DOLLAR LIMITATION.— 

12 Section 144(a)(11)(A) of such Code is amended by 

13 striking ‘‘$250,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$524,200’’. 

14 (4) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 

15 (A) IN GENERAL.—Section 147(c)(2)(G) of 

16 such Code, as redesignated by paragraph (2), is 

17 amended— 

18 (i) by striking ‘‘after 2008, the dollar 

19 amount in subparagraph (A) shall be in20 creased’’ and inserting ‘‘after 2018, the 

21 dollar amounts in subparagraph (A) and 

22 section 144(a)(11)(A) shall each be in23 creased’’, and 

24 (ii) by striking ‘‘2007’’ in clause (ii) 

25 and inserting ‘‘2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1750 IH

1 (B) CROSS-REFERENCE.—Section 

2 144(a)(11) of such Code is amended by adding 

3 at the end the following new subparagraph: 

4 ‘‘(D) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—For infla5 tion adjustment of dollar amount contained in 

6 subparagraph (A), see section 147(c)(2)(G).’’. 

7 (b) SUBSTANTIAL FARMLAND DETERMINED ON

8 BASIS OF AVERAGE RATHER THAN MEDIAN FARM

9 SIZE.—Section 147(c)(2)(E) of such Code is amended by 

10 striking ‘‘median’’ and inserting ‘‘average’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to bonds issued after the date of 

13 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7687

WILBERT DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden, Maryland House of Correction; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-2059-AW) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilbert Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Jason Frederick Trumpbour, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on November 8, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on November 9, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Wilbert Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Davis v. Hutchinson , No. CA-99- 2059-AW (D. Md. Nov. 9, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument and deny Davis’s motion for the appointment of counsel because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 99.1
 REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 To the Participants of the Accenture Ltd 2001 Employee Share Purchase Plan and the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of Accenture Ltd:
    /s/ KPMG LLP




---



##### 



ACCENTURE LTD 2001 EMPLOYEE SHARE PURCHASE PLAN
 STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
August 31, 2007 and 2006
 2007
    
    
    2006Contributions receivable
    
    $
    55,882,722
    
    
    $
    49,934,071Plan equity
    
    $
    55,882,722
    
    
    $
    49,934,071




---



##### 



ACCENTURE LTD 2001 EMPLOYEE SHARE PURCHASE PLAN
 STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGES IN PLAN EQUITY
 For the Years Ended August 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
 2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005Participant contributions
    
    $
    169,036,366
    
    
    $
    158,250,884
    
    
    $
    180,516,283Participant withdrawals
    
    
    (8,216,345
    )
    
    
    (9,573,269
    )
    
    
    (9,315,040
    )Purchases of Accenture Ltd Class A common shares
    
    
    (154,871,370
    )
    
    
    (150,885,517
    )
    
    
    (168,639,514
    )Net additions/(reductions)
    
    $
    5,948,651
    
    
    $
    (2,207,902
    )
    
    $
    2,561,729Plan equity at beginning of year
    
    
    49,934,071
    
    
    
    52,141,973
    
    
    
    49,580,244Plan equity at end of year
    
    $
    55,882,722
    
    
    $
    49,934,071
    
    
    $
    52,141,973




---



##### 



ACCENTURE LTD 2001 EMPLOYEE SHARE PURCHASE PLAN
 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
 1.            PLAN DESCRIPTION
  General
     Contributions




---



##### 



ACCENTURE LTD 2001 EMPLOYEE SHARE PURCHASE PLAN
 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
  Share Purchases
  Number ofNumber of
    
    Shares
    
    PurchaseOffering Period Ended
    
    Participants
    
    Purchased
    
    PriceMay 1, 2007
    
    27,360
    
    2,454,341
    
    $
    33.15November 1, 2006
    
    27,169
    
    2,625,844
    
    $
    27.99May 1, 2006
    
    27,849
    
    2,961,370
    
    $
    24.99November 1, 2005
    
    28,301
    
    3,445,071
    
    $
    22.31May 1, 2005
    
    30,318
    
    5,098,542
    
    $
    18.48November 1, 2004
    
    26,252
    
    3,686,297
    
    $
    20.18
 Withdrawal
  Adjustments
  Plan Amendment and Termination




---



##### 



ACCENTURE LTD 2001 EMPLOYEE SHARE PURCHASE PLAN
 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
  2.            BASIS OF PRESENTATION
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Reactor Trip Analysis at Krško Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG/IA-0221)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0221 (PDF 2.21 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** July 2007**Date Published:** January 2010

**Prepared by:**Andrej Prošek, Borut Mavko

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

A. 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)

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The reactor trip, which occurred at the Krško Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), on April 10, 2005, has been analyzed with the RELAP5/MOD3.3 Patch 03 computer code, the most current version released. The analysis was performed by the Jožef Stefan Institute, Reactor Engineering Division. The RELAP5 input model delivered by the Krško NPP was used. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the RELAP5 computer code against plant-measured data and validate the RELAP5 input model for the Krško NPP, which is a two-loop Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor. The event analyzed was a malfunction, which occurred during a power reduction sequence when regular, periodic testing of the turbine valves was performed. The malfunction led to a plant trip. All of the plant's safety systems responded according to the design specification, so the event caused no hazard to the environment or the plant staff and did not challenge the plant's safety. The RELAP5/MOD3.3 Patch 03 calculations agree very well with the plant-measured data, when operator actions are modeled properly. The analysis found that the long-term transient evolution is very sensitive to the steamflow after reactor trip. However, the calculation showed that the measured steamflow was larger than the calculated steam generated by available decay heat and therefore measurement of steamflow after reactor trip was not reliable. Therefore, the steamflow was tuned to obtain as good a match to the measured SG pressure as possible. The value of steamflow was physically reasonable but it is not known if this value reflects the reality of the transient.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
SUSANA MARTINEZ

GOVERNOR

JOHN A. SANCHEZ

LIEUTENANTGOVERNOR

April 19, 2011

State ofNew Mexico

ENVIRONMENT DEPARTf!f{(t}lI:.(j- SF UL.

AirQualityBureau·ANN1NG SEC

1301 Siler Road, Building1lf APR 26 PH 5: 26

Santa Fe, NM 87507·3113

Telephone (505) 476·4300

Fax (505) 476·4375

www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb

DAVE MARTIN

CABINETSECRETARY

RAJ SOLOMON, PE

DEPUTY SECRETARY

Mr. Guy Donaldson

Chief, Air Planning Section

Region VI (6PD-L)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Dear Guy,

This letter serves to clarify the State of New Mexico's prior letters of certification dated

December 10, 2007 and March 3, 2008. In those letters, the State of New Mexico through the

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) certified that it satisfied the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) infrastructure requirements contained in Section IIO(a)(I) and (2) of

the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but that it did not satisfy all the

requirements contained in Section IIO(a)(I) and (2) for the PM2.5 NAAQS. This letter serves

two purposes:

1.) Clarifies that the following portions of the December 10, 2007, March 3, 2008 and

June II, 2009 submittals are, in part, the infrastructure SIP component in front of EPA for

action:

1997 Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS: The infrastructure SIP for implementation of

the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS as submitted to EPA now satisfy the infrastructure

requirements contained in Section 11O(a)(I) and (2) of the CAA.

Adequate Resources: The resources for portions of the PSD program related to

greenhouse gases which are before EPA as part of the infrastructure SIP submittal, consisting of

those portions which remained approved after the promulgation of EPA's PSD SIP Narrowing

Rule (See 75 FR 82536), are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 11O(a)(2)(E).

PSD and Visibility Protection: The portions of the PSD program related to

greenhouse gases which are before EPA as part of the infrastructure SIP submittal, consisting of

those portions which remained approved after the promulgation of EPA's PSD SIP Narrowing

Rule (See 75 FR 82536), satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J).
Mr. Guy Donaldson

April 19, 2011

Page 2

2.) Clarifies that the following element is part of the infrastructure SIP submittal in front

of EPA for action:

Programs for Prevention of Significant Deterioration: The portions of the PSD program

related to greenhouse gas permitting which remained approved after the promulgation of EPA's

PSD SIP Narrowing Rule (See 75 FR 82536) satisfy the requirements of section llO(a)(2)(C).

Sincerely,

~h~-Wcf Air Quality Bureau
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the LCA-Vision Inc.
condensed consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 1999, and the related
condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended March
31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statement.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001003130
<NAME> LCA-VISION INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                0.00001
<CASH>                                            7199
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1839
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1153
<INVENTORY>                                         63
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9523
<PP&E>                                           16933
<DEPRECIATION>                                    7882
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   31840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5481
<BONDS>                                            642
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       2501
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                       23107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     31840
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 13867
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     8571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3682
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  93
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1714
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1630
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1630
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1579

AMARA CAMARA, Petitioner,

v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 27, 2008 Decided: October 22, 2008 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey L. Menkin, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* Camara claims that the Board erred in declining to consider evidence he submitted with his appeal brief. We find no error in the Board’s ruling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (2008). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Amara Camara, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal. Camara first challenges the determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Camara fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Camara cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. * Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Next, we uphold the finding below that Camara failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Guinea. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Camara’s challenge to the Board’s finding that he did not meet his burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he filed his asylum application within- 3 - one year of his entry into the United States. See8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006); Niang v. Gonzales , 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART