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

# 10 CFR Part 52 Construction Inspection Program Framework Document (NUREG-1789)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1789 (PDF - 5.07 MB)

## Publication Information

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

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-00011

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The information contained in the Construction Inspection Program Framework Document, NUREG-1789, details the overall philosophy and approach that the NRC will use to inspect new nuclear power reactors being licensed and built under 10 CFR Part 52. The information detailed in this NUREG about the construction of new reactors will guide the development of inspection manual chapters and inspection procedures that will be used to implement the construction inspection program.

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

# Technical Basis for the Containment Protection and Release Reduction Rulemaking for Boiling Water Reactors with Mark I and Mark II Containments (NUREG-2206)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG–2206 (PDF – 12.1 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2016**Date Published:** March 2018

**Prepared By:** Jonathan Barr, Sudhamay Basu, Hossein Esmaili, and Martin Stutzke

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The work documented in this report focused on developing the technical basis for a potential rulemaking action on containment protection and release reduction (CPRR) strategies for boiling water reactors with Mark I and Mark II containments. The work covered three areas of analyses: (1) accident sequence analysis (event tree development) to identify accident sequences initiated by extended loss of ac power (ELAP) due to internal events and seismic events deemed to be the most significant risk contributors; (2) accident progression analysis of these sequences and assessment of radiological source terms; and (3) analysis of offsite consequences including individual early fatality risk and latent cancer fatality risk, land contamination, and economic consequences. The calculated offsite consequences were weighted by accident frequency to assess relative public health risk reduction associated with various CPRR strategies. Important findings and key insights from the work are delineated. 

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

# Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Butte County, Idaho (NUREG-1773)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1773 (PDF - 19.24 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**January 2004**Date Published:**January 2004

Division of Waste ManagementOffice of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has contracted with Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (FWENC) to design, construct, and operate the proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Storage Facility that would repackage and store spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive material from the Peach Bottom Unit 1 High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor, the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, and various Training, Research, and Isotope reactors built by General Atomics (TRIGA reactors). The proposed facility would be located at the DOE Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The proposed facility is part of a Settlement Agreement, dated October 17, 1995, between the DOE, the U.S. Navy, and the State of Idaho regarding waste removal and environmental cleanup at the INEEL. Additionally, the proposed facility would be licensed as an independent spent fuel storage installation in accordance with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations found at 10 CFR Part 72.

This environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the NRC regulations for implementing NEPA, and the guidance provided by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA. This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and its reasonable alternatives, describes the environment potentially affected by the proposal, presents and compares the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action and its alternatives, and describes mitigation measures.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin Ericksteen, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2001 of
Cable Net, Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

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

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure  that
          material  information  relating  to  the  registrant,   including  its
          consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those
          entities,  particularly  during the period in which this annual report
          is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented   in  this   annual   report  our   conclusions   about  the
          effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: October 31, 2003
/s/ Kevin Ericksteen
-------------------------
By: Kevin Ericksteen, CFO
# L_2015033EN.01003701.xml

| 10.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 33/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 33/37

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2015/202

of 9 February 2015

amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP (1).

| (2) | A derogation from the prohibition on the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression should be introduced in order to enable the sale, supply, transfer or export of certain items solely for civilian use in mining or infrastructure projects. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A derogation from the prohibition on the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression should be introduced in order to enable the sale, supply, transfer or export of certain items solely for civilian use in mining or infrastructure projects.

| (3) | Further action by the Union is necessary in order to implement that measure, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Further action by the Union is necessary in order to implement that measure,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Decision 2010/656/CFSP, the following Article is inserted:

‘Article 1a

Article 1 shall not apply to the sale, supply, transfer or export of certain equipment which might be used for internal repression where the equipment is solely for civilian use in mining or infrastructure projects, subject to authorisation on a case by case basis by the competent authorities of the exporting Member State.’

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 9 February 2015.

For the Council

The President

F. MOGHERINI

---

(1)  Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ L 285, 30.10.2010, p. 28).

1

---
p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

172)IV-E-45 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:56 PM Sheet 172 of 242 
P.2 

'I" 

P'S? -1% 

$ -f% \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ^~ '^ 

i^U^ / ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

V «/ 

'«t PRO* 0 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Results of Request for Comments on Draft Contract 

Work Assignment 

FROM: Paul M. Laing, Chemical Engineer fv,^ n

}

 -ty„,.„. 

Standards Development and Support Branch ' • ' 

TO: Public Docket A-87-11 

THRU: Glenn W. Passavant, Senior Project Manager /LU-^-.-^te*-!***^ 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Chester j. France, Chief 

Standards Development and Support Branch ^tkltUH^ Ea4CVV^#L 

As a follow up to EPA's previous onboard safety analysis, 

EPA prepared a Scope of Work for a contract work assignment 

entitled "Vehicle Fuel System Comparative Risk Assessment." 

The purpose of this work assignment is to assess the safety 

aspects and potential risks of various onboard control 

approaches in comparison to design features found in current 

fuel system configurations. On March 1, 1988, EPA sent this 

draft Scope of Work for comment to the following four safety 

organizations: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), 

Center for Auto Safety (CAS), National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB), and the Office of Motor Carrier Safety (OMCS) of 

the Department of Transportation. As of March 31, 1988 only 

IIHS had responded to this request for comment. To determine 

if the other three organizations also intended to respond, on 

March 31st and April 4th, I followed up with phone calls to 

NTSB, CAS, and OMCS. This memo summarizes the responses I 

received. 
P.3 

First, I tried to contact Dr. Merritt Birkey of NTSB. 

However, he was not available, and a follow-up phone call on 

April 14, 1988 was also unsuccessful. Contact was finally made 

with Dr. Birkey on April 19, 1988, but he was not able to 

commit to providing us with comments. Second, I contacted 

Clarence Ditlow of CAS. Mr Ditlow informed me that CAS has 

devoted most of their effort in the past six months to 

completing a study on vehicle fires and their causes. Due to 

this higher priority work, CAS has not yet had time to review 

the scope of work. He added that he might get the chance to 

review the document in a week or two and would possibly provide 

comments at that time. Finally, I contacted Jim Britell of 

OMCS. Mr. Britell's general comment was that the assessment 

seemed fine for light-duty vehicles, but he expressed concern 

about its extension to heavy-duty vehicles. He also mentioned 

that he would follow up with a few written comments. To date, 

no comments have been received from any of these three 

organizations.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 12
- 00256
- CR CLAYTON EUGENE TURNE R , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 18th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. F45450

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain, Clayton Eugene Turner pled guilty to the felony
offense of assault

- family violence, enhanced and sentenced to 10 years in prison. See
T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.01(b)(2)(A) (West 2011 ). His sentence was suspended and he was placed on community supervision for five years. After Turner committed new offenses and was unsuccessfully discharged from an intermediate sanction facility, the
trial court revoked Turne r’s community supervision and sentenced him to 10 years inTurner v. State Page 2

prison. Because Turner’s issues are not preserved for review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. In two issues, Turner complains that the trial court’s sentence of 10 years violates
the 8th Am endment’s prohibition to cruel and unusual punishments because it was grossly disproportionate to the crime (issue one) and the 14th Amendment’s due process provision because the trial court failed to consider the full range of punishment and assessed a pr edetermined sentence on revocation (issue two). See U.S. C ONST
. amends. VIII & XIV. However, Turner never objected to the sentence he received nor
did he file a motion for new trial on the basis that his sentence violated the 8th or 14 th
Amendments. Acc ordingly, we find that Turner’s complaints were not presented to the trial court and are not preserved for our review. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 33.1(a)(1)(A); Wilson v.
State , 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Broxton v. State , 909 S.W.2d 912, 918 (Tex. C rim. App. 1995) (reviewing court will not consider errors, even of constitutional magnitude, not called to the trial court's attention). See also Rhoades v. State , 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that complaint relating to constitution al prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was waived when no objection on this basis was made in trial court); Hull v. State , 67 S.W.3d 215, 216

- 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (same regarding due process complaint). Because Turner’s issues are not
p reserved, they are overruled.Turner v. State Page 3

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed September 12, 2013 Do not publish [CR25]
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1817 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1817

   To prohibit the use of the poisons sodium fluoroacetate (known as 
      ``Compound 1080'') and sodium cyanide for predator control.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 2017

 Mr. DeFazio (for himself and Mr. Blumenauer) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the use of the poisons sodium fluoroacetate (known as 
      ``Compound 1080'') and sodium cyanide for predator control.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chemical Poisons Reduction Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this Act is to restrict the use of the poisons 
sodium fluoroacetate (known as ``Compound 1080'') and sodium cyanide to 
kill predatory animals given the risks posed by such poisons to--
            (1) public safety;
            (2) national security;
            (3) the environment; and
            (4) persons and other animals that come into accidental 
        contact with such poisons.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF CERTAIN POISONS FOR PREDATOR CONTROL.

    (a) Prohibited Act.--Sodium fluoroacetate (known as ``Compound 
1080'') and sodium cyanide may not be used in a predator control 
device.
    (b) Penalty.--Whoever uses sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide 
in a predator control device shall be fined under title 18, United 
States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
    (c) Predator Control Device Defined.--In this section, the term 
``predator control device'' means--
            (1) a dispenser designed to propel sodium fluoroacetate or 
        sodium cyanide when activated by an animal;
            (2) a livestock protection collar designed to release 
        sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide when punctured by an 
        animal;
            (3) a gas cartridge or other pyrotechnic device designed to 
        emit sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide fumes; and
            (4) any other means of dispensing sodium fluoroacetate or 
        sodium cyanide, including in the form of capsules, for wildlife 
        management or other animal control purposes.
                                 <all>
```
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Ultrasonic Modeling and Simulation for Nuclear Nondestructive Evaluation (NUREG/CR-7301, PNNL-33732)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7301 (PDF – 8.77 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** November 2022**Date Published: **January 2023

**Prepared by:**R.E. JacobA.A. DiazPacific Northwest National Laboratory902 Battelle Blvd, Richland, WA 99354Carol A. Nove, NRC Project ManagerOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The guidance and conclusions provided in this report are the result of a multi-year effort to understand the potential role of modeling and simulation in improving the efficiency and efficacy of ultrasonic inspections of nuclear power plant components. Conclusions are coalesced from previous work, and strategies and best practices are suggested for successful implementation of modeling and assessment of simulation outcomes. An overview of challenges in modeling and simulation is given, along with strategies for overcoming these challenges. Methods of validation and verification are outlined to help assure that models and simulation outcomes are reliable. Specific direction for implementing the models is provided as well as guidance for assessing the outcomes. In addition, key takeaways and lessons learned for different modeling scenarios are listed. The guidance and conclusions summarized in this report are intended to form the technical framework for development of a nondestructive evaluation modeling and simulation best practices document that will support standardization of modeling practices across the commercial nuclear power industry.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, January 23, 2023
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Human Factors in Nondestructive Examination (NUREG/CR-7295, PNNL-32505)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7295 (PDF – 1.63 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** October 2021**Date Published:** March 2022

**Prepared by:**T. Sanquist, Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryS. Morrow, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionJ. Harrison, Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryC. Nove, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Carol Nove, NRC Contracting Officer Representative

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory902 Battelle Blvd, Richland, WA 99354

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report summarizes key findings from a five-year research program investigating the different ways human factors influence nondestructive examination (NDE) outcomes. The research team reviewed specific incidents and events involving manual and encoded ultrasonic testing and conducted detailed interview studies with NDE examiners. The results from these studies reveal a range of organizational, group, environmental, task, and individual factors that combine to influence NDE reliability. The research team integrated these findings with contemporary concepts of latent organizational error to illustrate how multiple interacting factors can lead to suboptimal outcomes when performing qualified examinations. This information provides a technical basis for understanding the precipitating factors that can lead to human error in NDE and various system-level and person-level interventions that can mitigate errors. System-level mitigations include organizational approaches to information accuracy, inspection scheduling, data review and interpretation, workforce skill development, and change management. Person-level mitigations include shift scheduling to avoid fatigue, reducing distraction and time pressure, individual skill development through training and practice, knowledgeable team composition, cognitive aiding, and individual data review processes. Human error is a systems problem, which can be reduced by various interventions to manage the inherent variability in organizational processes and cognitive functions at the individual level.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, April 04, 2022
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**The Board of Directors and ShareholdersAccenture Ltd:     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements (Nos.333-127248,333-112854 and333-104628) onForm S-3 and(No. 333-65376) onForm S-8 ofAccenture Ltd of our reports dated October 18, 2006, withrespect to the consolidated balance sheets of Accenture Ltd asof August 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidatedstatements of income, shareholders’ equity andcomprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years inthe three-year period ended August 31, 2006,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of August 31, 2006 andthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingas of August 31, 2006, which reports appear in theAugust 31, 2006 annual report onForm 10-K ofAccenture Ltd.     Our report states that the Company, as of September 1, 2005, changed its method of accounting for share-basedcompensation awards.     /s/ KPMG LLP    Chicago, Illinois October 18, 2006