alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffReport to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences (NUREG-0090)

# Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences – Fiscal Year 2018 (NUREG-0090, Volume 41)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-0090, Volume 41 (PDF – 948 KB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** June 2019**Date Published:** June 2019

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (Public Law 93-438), defines an abnormal occurrence (AO) as an unscheduled incident or event that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determines to be significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-66) modified the AO reporting frequency from quarterly to annually.

This report describes three events involving NRC licensees that the agency identified as AOs in fiscal year (FY) 2018 based on the criteria defined in Appendix A, "Abnormal Occurrence Criteria and Guidelines for Other Events of Interest," to this report. Two AOs were medical events as defined in Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 35, "Medical Use of Byproduct Material." The third AO event involved a category 2 source, as defined in Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 37, "Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material." During this reporting period, the NRC did not identify any events at commercial nuclear power plants in the United States as AOs.

This report also describes eight AOs that occurred in Agreement States (AS) and that were identified as AOs during FY 2018 based on the criteria defined in Appendix A. Seven were medical events, as defined in 10 CFR Part 35, and one event involved radiography operations. AS are those States that have entered into formal agreements with the NRC, in accordance with Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) (Public Law 83-703), to regulate certain quantities of AEA material at facilities located within the States' borders. Currently, there are 38 AS.

Appendix A to this report presents the NRC's criteria for identifying AOs. No events were identified for inclusion in Appendix B, "Other Events of Interest," for this reporting period. Appendix C, "Updates of Previously Reported Abnormal Occurrences," provides updated information for one event that was identified in "Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2017" (NUREG-0090, Volume 40), issued May 2018. Appendix D, "Glossary," defines terms used throughout this report. Appendix E, "Conversion Table," presents conversions commonly used when calculating doses.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
FILE COPY

THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Post Office Box 12248

Austin, Texas 78711

!&>v (512)463-1312

September 30, 2013

Mr. Steven Rade Guy

The Norman Law Firm

215 East Commerce St, 2nd Floor

Jacksonville, TX 75766-1870

Mr. Gregory Lee West

Cherokee County Jail

272 Underwood St.

Rusk, TX 75785

RE: Case Number: 13-0760

Court of Appeals Number:

Trial Court Number: 2011 -02-0106

Style: IN RE GREGORY LEE WEST

Ms. Kelley Denney Peacock

Cherokee County District Attorney

PO Box 839

Linden, TX 75563

RLE T OF APPEALS

12th Court of Appeals District

SEP 3 0 2013

Vt LER TEXAS

CATHY 3. LUSK, CLERK

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued the enclosed abatement order in the abovereferenced case.

Sincerely,

cc: Ms. Laverne Lusk

Ms. Cathy S. Lusk

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
FILE COPY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

No. 13-0760

In Re Gregory Lee West, Relator

V.

, Real Party in Interest

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

RLED IN COURT OFAPPEALS

•\2Xh C•y-'fi.ci Apneais District

TYLER TE

CATHY S, '

ORDER

1. The motion to abate appeal, filed on , is granted, and this case is ABATED to allow

the parties to proceed with settlement negotiations.

2. This case is removed from the Court's active docket until, by which time the parties

must file either a status report or a motion to dismiss. The parties shall immediately notify this

Court about any changes in status in the settlement proceedings.

Done at the City of Austin, this 30 day of September, 20.

ft^, VW>j5:SKi^_^*-

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Assessment of RELAP5/MOD2, Cycle 36.04 Against FIX-II Guillotine Break Experiment No. 5061 (NUREG/IA-0016)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0016 (PDF 2.73 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** July 1989

**Prepared by:** J. Eriksson

Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate S-102 52 Stockholm, Sweden

**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

The FIX-II guillotine break experiment No. 5061 has been analyzed using the RELAP5/Mod2 code. The code version used, Cycle 36.04, is a frozen version of the code.

Four different calculations were carried out to study the sensitivity of initial coolant mass, junction options and break discharge line .nodalization. The differences between the calculations and the experiment have been quantified over intervals in real time for a number of variables available from the measurements during the experiment.

The break mass flows were generally underpredicted at the same time as the depressurization rate was overpredicted.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Order filed, November 1 5 , 2016.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 16

- 00374

- CV

____________

MISHA FERGUSON ET AL , Appellant

V.

QIAO ZHOU ET AL , Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at La w No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1073353



### ORDER

Appellant is proceed ing in this appeal without prepayment of costs. See Tex.

R. App. P. 20.1. The reporter’s record in this case was due June 27, 2016

. See

Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On Sept ember 29 , 2016, this court ordered the court reporter

to file the record within 30 days. The record has not been filed with the court.

Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following

order.We order Lisa Moody Fort , the of ficial court reporter, to file the record in

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. No further extension will be

entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are

jointly responsible for ensuring that the app ellate record is timely filed. See Tex.

R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Lisa Moody Fort does not timely file the record as ordered,

we may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine

the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
No: III-19-007 April 23, 2019

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663

NRC to Hold Open House to Discuss

2018 Performance of Fermi Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will discuss the 2018 safety performance of the Fermi 

Power Plant, operated by DTE Energy Company during an open house on April 30, in Monroe, 

Mich.

The open house, which will be held at the Monroe County Courthouse, the Board of 

Commissioners Chambers, 125 E. Second St., will run from 6-7 p.m., EDT. NRC employees 

responsible for plant inspections, including the resident inspectors based full-time at the site, will be 

available to discuss the plant’s performance.

Fermi operated safely during 2018. At the end of the year, all inspection findings and 

performance indicators were of very low safety significance. As a result, it remains 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 two NRC resident inspectors and inspection specialists from 

the Region III office located in Lisle, Ill.

The annual assessment letter for Fermi as well as the notice for the open house, are available 

on the NRC website. Current performance information is also available.
I 

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. 

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 ‘‘Chemical Poisons Re5 duction Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

7 The purpose of this Act is to restrict the use of the 

8 poisons sodium fluoroacetate (known as ‘‘Compound 

9 1080’’) and sodium cyanide to kill predatory animals given 

10 the risks posed by such poisons to— 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1817 IH

1 (1) public safety; 

2 (2) national security; 

3 (3) the environment; and 

4 (4) persons and other animals that come into 

5 accidental contact with such poisons. 

6 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF CERTAIN POISONS FOR 

7 PREDATOR CONTROL. 

8 (a) PROHIBITED ACT.—Sodium fluoroacetate (known 

9 as ‘‘Compound 1080’’) and sodium cyanide may not be 

10 used in a predator control device. 

11 (b) PENALTY.—Whoever uses sodium fluoroacetate 

12 or sodium cyanide in a predator control device shall be 

13 fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned 

14 not more than 2 years, or both. 

15 (c) PREDATOR CONTROL DEVICE DEFINED.—In this 

16 section, the term ‘‘predator control device’’ means— 

17 (1) a dispenser designed to propel sodium 

18 fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide when activated by 

19 an animal; 

20 (2) a livestock protection collar designed to re21 lease sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide when 

22 punctured by an animal; 

23 (3) a gas cartridge or other pyrotechnic device 

24 designed to emit sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cy25 anide fumes; and 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1817 IH

1 (4) any other means of dispensing sodium 

2 fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide, including in the 

3 form of capsules, for wildlife management or other 

4 animal control purposes. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Assessment of RELAP5/MOD2, Cycle 36.04 Against LOFT Small Break Experiment L3-5 (NUREG/IA-0037)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0037 (PDF 3.15 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** March 1992

**Prepared by:** J. Eriksson

Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate S-61182 Nykoping Sweden

**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

The LOFT small break experiment L3-5 has been analyzed using the RELAP5/MOD2 code. The code version used, Cycle 36.04, is a frozen version of the code.

Three calculations were carried out in order to study the sensitivity to changes of steam generator modelling and of core bypass flow. The differences between the calculations and the experiment have been quantified over intervals in real time for a number of variables available from the experiment.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1373 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1373

To prohibit the use of eminent domain in carrying out certain projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2017

  Mr. Womack (for himself, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Westerman, and Mr. Hill) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of eminent domain in carrying out certain projects.

    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 ``Assuring Private Property Rights 
Over Vast Access to Land Act'' or the ``APPROVAL Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.

    Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16421) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (d) through (g) as 
        subsections (f) through (i), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
    ``(d) Prohibition on Eminent Domain.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law (including regulations), the Secretary, SWPA, and WAPA 
may not carry out any Project under this section through the use of 
eminent domain, unless the use of eminent domain is explicitly 
authorized by--
            ``(1) the Governor and the head of each applicable public 
        utility commission or public service commission of the affected 
        State; and
            ``(2) the head of the governing body of each Indian tribe 
        the land of which would be affected.
    ``(e) Siting Requirement.--To the maximum extent practicable, a 
Project carried out under this section shall be sited on--
            ``(1) an existing Federal right-of-way; or
            ``(2) Federal land managed by--
                    ``(A) the Bureau of Land Management;
                    ``(B) the Forest Service;
                    ``(C) the Bureau of Reclamation; or
                    ``(D) the Corps of Engineers.''.
                                 <all>
```
3Yc:rb66 

RECEIVED 

OPPT care 

2012 NOV -5 Arl 6: 0 I 

102 Old Mill Road SE 

P.O. Box 2470 

Cartersville, Georgia 

30120-1692 

Phone: 770-382-2144 

Fax: 770-386-6053 

Chentical 

Products 

Corporation NO \j O 8 2 012 e-mail: jcook@cpc-us.com 

October 26, 2012 

Document Control Office (7407M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Taxies (OPPT) 

En vi ron menta I Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460-0001 

(Attention: TSCA section 4 test ru I e) JIIJJJIJIJJIIJIJJJIIIIIJJJIIJIIIIJIIIIJJJIIJJJIIJIIIIJIJJIJJJIIJ 

40130000008 

Subject: Request for Extension submitted by Chemical Products 

Corp. and WEGA Chemical Corp. 

TSCA Section 4 

40 CFR 799.5089; 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531 

9,10 Anthracenedione, CAS # 84-65-1 

Dear Madam or Sir; 

Chemical Products Corporation and Wego Chemical 

Corporation request an extension of the time limit for submitting 

data for 9,10-Anthracenedione, CASRN 84-65-1, required by the 

final rule published in the january 7, 2011 Federal Register, 

Volume 76, Number 5, at pages 1067 through 1093 entitled 

"Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals, Second 

Group of Chemicals", docketed under EPA docket ID number EPAHQ-OPPT-2007 -0531. 

Page 1 of2 CONTAINS NO CBI 
Olemical Products Corporation 

This request for additional time is necessitated by a number 

of difficulties encountered while attempting to conduct the 

required testing of this compound. We have had numerous EPA 

reviews of analytical methods and consultations with EPA 

technical staff regarding the testing itself. This has resulted in 

delays in finding a lab qualified to do this testing and the 

associated analytical chemistry and in scheduling the testing. 

Our dialog with the EPA continues as of the date of this letter. We 

request an extension of the date for submission of the results of 

testing until june 30, 2013. 

This extension is requested for testing requirement Aquatic 

Toxicity, Test Symbol C6, Toxicity to Plants (Algae). 

If I can answer any questions concerning this letter, please 

telephone me at 770-382-2144 Ext. 272 or 770-714-3806 (cell), or 

email me at jcook@cpc-us.com. 

Sincerely, 

h4~ 

jerry A. Cook 

Technical Director 

Page2 of2 
Jerry A. Cook 7006 3450 0001 5974 1569 PLACE STICKER AT TOP Qt: ENVELOPE TO THE RIGHT 

OF THE RETURN ADDRESS, FOLD AT DOTTED liNE Chemical Products Corporation 

P.O. Box 2470 

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

II Cartersville, GA 30120-1692 .• ·, . # I .....,...f-:, CERTIFIED MAILM I I I Ill 

7006 3450 0001 5974 1569 

.. ' 

-

-

Document Control Office (7407M) 

z l' ' 

::> 

02 1P 

0004430

MAILED F

Office of Pollution Prevention and Taxies (O

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460-0001 

2i:i4E:i:i:t:i:ii:n:i i laal.lllaualaalallullaullu,llaaallauualllutll 
Contains No CBI
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Comparison of Irradiation-Induced Shifts of KJc and Charpy Impact Toughness for Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels (NUREG/CR-6609)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6609 (PDF - 4.76 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** February 1999**Date Published:** November 2000

**Prepared by:** M. A. Sokolov, R. K. Nanstad

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Co. Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6151

C. J. Fairbanks, NRC Project Manager

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

NRC Job Code W6953

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The current provisions for determination of the upward temperature shift of the lower-bound static fracture toughness curve due to irradiation of reactor pressure vessel steels are based on the assumption that they are the same as for the Charpy 41 -J shifts as a consequence of irradiation. The objective of this report by the Heavy-Section Steel Irradiation Program is to evaluate this assumption relative to data reported in open literature. Depending on the specific source, different sizes of fracture toughness specimens, procedures for the determination of KJc, and fitting functions were used. It was anticipated that data scatter might be reduced by using a consistent approach to analyze the published data. A method employing Weibull statistics was applied to analyze original fracture toughness data of unirradiated and irradiated pressure vessel steels. The master curve concept was used to determine shifts of fracture toughness transition curves. A hyperbolic tangent function was used to fit Charpy absorbed energy data. The fracture toughness shifts were compared with Charpy impact shifts evaluated with various criteria. Linear regression analysis showed that for weld metals, on average, the fracture toughness shift is the same as the Charpy 41 -J temperature shift, while for base metals, on average, the fracture toughness shift at 41 J is 16% greater than the shift of the Charpy 41 -J transition temperature, with both correlations having relatively large (95%) confidence intervals of ±26°C and ±36°C, respectively.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
LLL Coverage 

 Linero, Alvaro 

 to: 

 Keith Barnett 

 01/12/2006 09:36 AM 

 Show Details 

Attached 
Below is a diagram of a typical cement facility. The basic raw materials such as crushed 

limestone, clay, and sand from mining are generally stored in the Raw Materials Storage Areausually it is the Raw Materials Storage Building (RMSB) and is typically a closed or semienclosed building encompassing several acres. It often provides cover as well for raw 

material additives such as iron ore, mill scale, shale, bauxite, coal power ash, etc. The RMSB is 

the point designated as “01” and typically contains limestone, clay, and sand. Initial 

proportioning of limestone, clay and sand can be done in the RMSB followed by blending of 

additives (iron ore, mill scale, etc.) from storage “03” through bins “02”. For reference, the 

ground product from the raw mill at “04” is further homogenized at “05” and is the raw meal that 

is actually fed to the pyroprocessing steps beginning at “06”. The only non-metallic mining 

activities subject to the NSPS Subpart OOO are obviously at point “00”, i.e. the quarry and 

crusher. 

We have always understood the raw materials storage to be the mentioned very large RMSB 

(such as “01”) and not the much smaller additives storage “03”or bins “02” or raw mix storage 

associated with the raw mill building shown as “04”. The alternative to EPA’s interpretation 

would shield “02 and “03” and the conveyors from “01” and “03” to “02” from Subpart LLL and 

not even include them in Subpart OOO. 
In addition, often “01” and “03” are consolidated. The left hand side of the following figure 

shows “00” and “01”. The right hand side is a scheme that includes “01” through the conveyor 

between “05” and “06”. It is clear that several steps characteristic of cement manufacturing 

rather than non-metallic mining are accomplished that would not be included in Subpart LLL 

under the alternative interpretation. Of note are the “on-line” measurement devices such as 

cross-belt neutron analyzers that are used in the preblending and proportioning steps. 

Clearly the raw mix fed to the raw mill is the product of the very careful instrumentally-aided 

proportioning and blending operation that is one the most important series of steps in the cement 

manufacturing process. We are not aware of any company in claiming that proportioning, 

blending and conveyance to the raw mill building are steps outside of Subpart LLL. 

It is understandable that an untrained person could identify the RMSB, the additives storage 

and bins, or even the homogenizing silo as raw material storage. However, based on numerous 

site inspections and discussions with plant personnel, there has never been any ambiguity about 

what and where is the raw material storage referred in Subpart LLL.
No. 82-5734.

#### Stone *v.*New York.

Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.