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

# Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG/BR-0521, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Overview

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0521, Revision 1 (PDF – 3.74 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** June 2017

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

## Overview

When a power company decides to close a nuclear power plant permanently, the facility must be decommissioned by safely removing it from service and reducing residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property and termination of the operating license. The NRC has strict rules governing nuclear power plant decommissioning, involving cleanup of radioactively contaminated plant systems and structures and removal of the radioactive fuel. These requirements protect workers and the public during the entire decommissioning process and protect the public after the license is terminated.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-28-1997
<CASH>                                             85,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      32,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                        41,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  193,900
<PP&E>                                            671,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                    394,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    570,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             201,000
<BONDS>                                           408,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (98,400)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      570,600
<SALES>                                           263,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  263,100
<CGS>                                              77,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     261,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  9,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (7,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (2,800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (4,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (4,300)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
No. 91-672.

#### New York City Health *&*Hospitals Corporation et al. *v.*Ezekwo.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                       |                                     |                               |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| DATE:                  March 28, 2008 | By:                            | /s/                  Cris M. Neely |
|                                  | Cris                  M. Neely           |
|                                  | Chief                  Financial Officer |

----
#### Herman Weiss Company, Respondent, vs. Goodrich & Martineau Company, Appellant.

*February 11*

March *9, 1926.*

*Mayfield Woolen Mills v. Goodrich & Martineau Co., ante,*p. 406, followed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Oconto county: W. B. Quinlan, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

The appeal is from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor.

For the appellant there was a brief by *Classon, Whitcomb & Kuzenski*of Oconto, and oral argument by *Walter F. Kuzenski*and *Allan V. Classon.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Megan & Megan*of Oconto, and oral argument by *Giles Megan.*

Doerfler, J.

This case is ruled by the case of *Mayfield Woolen Mills v. Goodrich & Martineau Co., ante,*p. 406, 207 N. W. 954.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion in. the *Mayfield Woolen Mills Case, supra.*
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Toward a More Risk-Informedand Performance-Based Framework for the Regulation of the Seismic Safety of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG/CR-7214)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7214 (PDF – 2.38 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 2013**Date Published:** May 2016

**Prepared by:** Robert J. Budnitz Energy Geosciences Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of California Berkeley, CA 94720

Michael W. Mieler* Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California Berkeley, CA 94720

*Now at Department of Civil Engineering Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218

NRC Technical Monitors Scott P. Stovall Richard F. Rivera-Lugo Annie Kammerer

NRC Job Code V6159

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Dozens of seismic probabilistic risk assessments (SPRAs) exist that have analyzed large nuclear power plants (NPPs). A major insight from these SPRAs is that, although generally the plants are adequately safe against earthquake threats, the way the industry and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) currently design, build, operate, analyze, and regulate seismic NPP safety may not be optimal. This suboptimal situation means that for both operating NPPs and new NPP designs not yet built, they may fail to take advantage of possible additional safety insights and improvements, may be more difficult to analyze and to regulate than they need to be, and may cost more than they otherwise would. There is room for improvement in several areas. The major topics covered herein are the variations in residual seismic risk from plant to plant; the unbalanced risk profiles and incomplete defense in depth achieved at many plants; the impact of structures and components being designed individually for seismic performance rather than taking a systems approach; the variations in margin that exist among the industry consensus codes and standards for seismic design and analysis; and the observation that the design codes and the NRC regulations do not work together well. Each of these topics is analyzed in detail, and case-study examples based on the seismic risk profiles of two operating plants are used to illustrate the issues. Suggestions are presented that would improve the seismic framework in each of these areas.

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

# Probabilistic Models for the Behavior of Compartment Fires (NUREG/CR-2269)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-2269 (PDF - 30.9 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**November 1980**Date Published:**August 1981

**Prepared by:** Nathan O. Siu School of Engineering and Applied Science University of California Los Angeles, CA 90024 

**Prepared for:** Risk Methodology and Data Branch Division of Risk Analysis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC FIN B-6284

Availability Notice

## Abstract

 Physical models which predict the thermal hazards (including temperatures and heat fluxes) during a compartment fire as functions of space and time are developed. Since large uncertainties are inherent to the analysis the models are probabilistic.

 General models are constructed for the periods of fire growth and fully developed burning. These models are used in sample-analyses to estimate the fire hazard in particular compartments.

 The overall methodology requires the synthesis of a deterministic physical model from information available in the literature. Uncertainties in the input parameters required by the deterministic model are assessed and are incorporated with. the uncertainties in the model itself to form state of knowledge distributions for the thermal hazards.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Available in Adams

# Publications Available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) – 2010

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1980-1996

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Search NUREG Pubs

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Exhibit 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Colin L. Masters, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Prana
         Biotechnology Limited;

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

3.       [Intentionally omitted]

4.       [Intentionally omitted]

5.       [Intentionally omitted]

Date:  8 April, 2004

/s/Colin L. Masters*
-------------------
Colin L. Masters
Chief Financial Officer

* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT  TO SECTION  906 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT OF
2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of TX Holdings, Inc., a Georgia corporation
(the "Company"),  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2007, as filed
with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),   Michael  A.
Cederstrom,  Chief  Financial  Officer,  of the  Company,  does hereby  certify,
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that
to his knowledge:

   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
       of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

   (2) The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
       respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
       Company.


/s/ Michael A. Cederstrom
--------------------------
Michael A. Cederstrom
Chief Financial Officer
December 28, 2007

[A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to TX  Holdings,  Inc.  and will be retained by TX  Holdings,  Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       79
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffStandard Review Plan for Transportation Packages for Spent Nuclear Fuel (NUREG-1617)

# Standard Review Plan for Transportation Packages for MOX Spent Nuclear Fuel (NUREG-1617, Supplement 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1617, Supplement 1(PDF - 186 KB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed**: September 2005**Date Published**: September 2005

**Prepared by**:R.S. Hafner, G.C. Mok, J. Hovingh,C.K. Syn, E.W. Russell, S.C. Keaton,J.L. Boles, D.K. Vogt, P. Prassinos

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory7000 East AvenueLivermore, CA 94550-9234

J.A. Smith, NRC Project Manager

Spent Fuel Project OfficeOffice of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555-0001NRC Job Code A0291

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The NRC contracted with LLNL to compile this supplement to NUREG-1617 to incorporate additional information specific to mixed uranium-plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel. This supplement provides details on package review guidance resulting from significant differences between spent nuclear fuel from irradiated LEU fuel and that from irradiated MOX fuel. The information presented is not to be construed as having the force and effect of NRC regulations (except where regulations are cited), or as indicating that applications supported by safety analyses and prepared in accordance with Regulatory Guide 7.9 will necessarily be approved, or as relieving anyone from the requirements of any pertinent regulations. The principal purpose of this supplement is to ensure the quality and uniformity of staff reviews of packagings intended for transport of MOX fuel assemblies irradiated in thermal reactors only. It is also the intent of this plan to make information about regulatory matters widely available, and improve communications between NRC, interested members of the public, and the nuclear industry, thereby increasing the understanding of the NRC staff review process. In particular, this supplemental guidance, together with NUREG-1617, assists potential applicants by indicating one or more acceptable means of demonstrating compliance with the applicable regulations.

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

# Temperature Dependence of Weibull Stress Parameters: Studies Using the Euro-Material Similar to ASME A508 Class-3 Steel (NUREG/CR-6930)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6930 (PDF - 2.28 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**January 2007**Date Published:**March 2007

**Prepared by:** B. Wasiluk, J.P. Petti and R.H. Dodds, Jr.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 205 N. Mathews Avenue Urbana, IL 61801

S.N.M. Malik, NRC Project Manager

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

NRC Job Code Y6951

Availability Notice

## Abstract

 The so-called Beremin model describes the stochastic effects of the cleavage fracture process in ferritic steels at the metallurgical scale. The Beremin model, coupled with large-scale finite element analyses, can be used to understand the effects of constraint loss on the macroscale toughness measured in laboratory test specimens and in full-scale pressure vessels. This process provides the basis for the quantitative transferability of fracture toughness measured with a variety of test specimens to structures. The Beremin model leads to a quantity termed the Weibull stress which depends on a number of model parameters. This work demonstrates the temperature invariance of the Weibull stress modulus, m, for a 22NiMoCr37 pressure vessel steel through calibrations at two extreme temperatures of the ductile-to-brittle transition. This temperature invariance reflects the characterization of microcrack size distribution in the material described by the Weibull modulus. The calibrations performed here also demonstrate the clear dependence of the Weibull stress scale parameter, σu, on temperature. The increase of σu with temperature reflects the increase in microscale toughness of ferritic steels. The calibration procedure employs a three parameter Weibull stress model, which includes the effects of a minimum (threshold) toughness, Kmin. The calibrations suggest that Kmin increases gradually with temperature. Finally, an engineering procedure is presented to enable practical applications of the Weibull stress model for defect assessments. This procedure combines the demonstrated temperature invariance of m, a recently developed method for predicting the variation of σu with temperature using the ASTM E-1921 Master Curve, and the calibration of the Weibull stress parameters at one temperature. The (calibrated) temperature invariant m and the estimated σu as a function of temperature are used to predict the cumulative probability of fracture for several large datasets without direct calibration.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
No. 90-6231.

#### Holland *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1890 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to strengthen equal pay 

requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2017 

Mr. KNIGHT (for himself, Ms. JENKINS of Kansas, and Mr. YOUNG of Iowa) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 

strengthen equal pay requirements. 

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 ‘‘Workplace Advance5 ment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL PAY ACT RE7 QUIREMENTS. 

8 Section 15(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 

9 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215(a)) is amended— 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1890 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and 

2 inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(6) to discharge or in any other manner retali5 ate against any employee because such employee has 

6 inquired about, discussed, or disclosed comparative 

7 compensation information for the purpose of deter8 mining whether the employer is compensating an 

9 employee in a manner that provides equal pay for 

10 equal work, except that this paragraph shall not 

11 apply to instances in which an employee who has ac12 cess to the wage information of other employees as 

13 a part of such employee’s job functions discloses the 

14 wages of such other employees to an individual who 

15 does not otherwise have access to such information, 

16 unless such disclosure is in response to a charge or 

17 complaint or in furtherance of an investigation, pro18 ceeding, hearing, or action under section 6(d), in19 cluding an investigation conducted by the employer. 

20 Nothing in paragraph (6) shall be construed to limit the 

21 rights of an employee provided under any other provision 

22 of law.’’. 

23 SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

24 It is the sense of Congress that— 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1890 IH

1 (1) gender-based discrimination in wages or 

2 compensation violates existing law; and 

3 (2) Congress recommits itself to the principles 

4 of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in section 

5 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 

6 U.S.C. 206(d); commonly referred to as the ‘‘Equal 

7 Pay Act of 1963’’) and title VII of the Civil Rights 

8 Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.). 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED FOR THE QUARTER ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,461
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,073
<PP&E>                                         333,265
<DEPRECIATION>                                 138,929
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 238,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          122,262
<BONDS>                                        178,075
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,173
<OTHER-SE>                                    (133,932)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   238,420
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,670
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,041
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (135)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,935
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,945
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,484
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,461
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,461
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        

</TABLE>