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

# Instructions and Guidance for Completing Physical Inventory Summary Reports (NRC Form 327) (NUREG/BR-0096)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Purpose and Scope

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0096 (PDF - 2.69 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**October 1992

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

## Purpose and Scope

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations [as specified in 10 CFR 74.17(a), (b), and (c)] require that certain licensees use NRC Form 327 to report inventory differences (IDs), and associated information needed to evaluate IDs, resulting from any physical inventory required by 10 CFR 70.51(e)(3), 74.31(c)(5), 74.33(c)(4), or 74.59(f).

The use of Form 327 is intended to:
        -  (1) eliminate the need for a licensee to report the same information more than once, by informal means, to different NRC organizational units; 
        -  (2) standardize the type of information and format used in reporting physical inventory results; and 
        -  (3) allow a more efficient and meaningful evaluation of ID results. 

The initial Form 327, which was initiated in October 1986, was found to be confusing in several regards, such as (1) the proper use of "+" and "-" signs; (2) the exact meaning and determination of "Net Sum of Biases"; and (3) the exact meaning and determination of "Prior-Period Adjustments"'. The initial Form 327 also needed to be expanded to incorporate the terminology and data reporting requirements associated with 10 CFR 74.59, which became effective in January 1990, and with the new 10 CFR 74.33 material control and accounting (MC&A) requirements for low enriched uranium (LEU) enrichment facilities. Thus, NRC has decided to revise Form 327 and to issue this NUREG document to provide more specific guidance and instructions with respect to completing the form.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, January 26, 2022
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 3982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01298]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Pharmacore, 
Inc.

ACTION: Notice of registration.

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

SUMMARY: Pharmacore, Inc. applied to be registered as a manufacturer of 
a basic class of controlled substance. The DEA grants Pharmacore, Inc. 
registration as a manufacturer of this controlled substance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice dated May 28, 2014, and published 
in the Federal Register on June 3, 2014, 79 FR 31987, Pharmacore, Inc., 
4180 Mendenhall Oaks Parkway, High Point, North Carolina 27265, applied 
to be registered as a manufacturer of a certain basic class of 
controlled substance. No comments or objections were submitted to this 
notice.
    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the 
factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Pharmacore, Inc. to manufacture this basic class of controlled 
substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States 
obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in 
effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance 
of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the 
company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and 
history.
    Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 
CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of Noroxymorphone (9668), a basic class of controlled 
substance listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance as 
an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) for clinical trials.

    Dated: January 9, 2015.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-01298 Filed 1-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
PBT Profiler_PMN TETA TOFA Imid Sanitized
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Validation of RELAP5/MOD3.3 Friction Loss and Heat Transfer Model for Narrow Rectangular Channels (NUREG/IA-0508)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0508 (PDF – 1.90 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** July 2018**Date Published:** March 2019

**Prepared by:** Byeonghee Lee*, Su-ki Park*, Andong Shin**, Min Ki Cho**

*Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute 111 Daedeok-daero 989 Beon-gil, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34057, Republic of Korea

**Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety 62 Gwahak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34142, Republic of Korea

K. Tien, NRC Project Manager

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

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

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The friction loss and the heat transfer models in RELAP5/MOD3.3 were assessed using CNNC experiments and KAERI OFEL tests, which are experiments for narrow rectangular channels. The test sections of the experiments were modeled with PIPE, TMDPVOL and TMDPJUN, considering the geometry and boundary conditions. Since the friction loss and heat correlations of RELAP5/MOD3.3 are supplied with a form of "geometry set", the default set for circular geometry and a narrow rectangular set were compared to find an adequate set which properly simulated the experiments. 

The assessments included the friction coefficients of the isothermal and non-isothermal channels, and the heat transfer coefficients of forced convection in the channel. The friction and pressure drop in the isothermal channel were well reproduced by RELAP5/MOD3.3 over the whole flow range in the experiments, but a proper shape factor in the laminar flow region was necessary. Also, the non-isothermal friction coefficients matched the experimental results well with the proper viscosity ratio exponent. The heat transfer coefficients in the turbulent flow region matched well with the 101 set, whereas the 102 set tended to overpredict the heat transfer coefficient in the high Re region. The heat transfer coefficients in the low Re region were overpredicted by RELAP5/MOD3.3 due to its internal logic, which simply selects the highest heat transfer coefficient among those of laminar, turbulent, and natural convection. After modifying that logic, the RELAP5/MOD3.3 showed good agreement with the experimental data.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Result of BETHSY Test 9.1.b Using RELAP5/MOD3 (NUREG/IA-0141)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0141 (PDF 3.53 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** August 1998

**Prepared by:** S. Petelin, B. Mavko, O. Gortnar, I. Ravnikar, G. Cerne

University of Ljubljana "Jožef Stefan" Institute Ljubljana, Slovenia

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

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

RELAP5 computer code was used to simulate an experiment designated 9.1.b, (2" Cold Leg Break without HPSI and with Delayed Ultimate Procedure) performed on BETHSY integral test facility. This test is characterized as beyond design transients scenarios with unavailability of some safety and protection systems. The calculations which have been completed using the computer Sun Sparcstation 20 aim to evidence the difference between experimental and computed data. Generally, an agreement of major transient treads is shown to be obtained in the simulation.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(b) or

RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

(AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE

SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002, AS AMENDED)



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350
(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended), the undersigned officer of TX Holdings, Inc.,
a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the
year ended September 30, 2015 (the “Report”), of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: January 5, 2016 | Signed: | /s/Jose Fuentes        
|--------------------- | ------- | -----------------------
|                      | Name:   | Jose Fuentes           
|                      | Title:  | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      16,287,676              16,287,676
<SECURITIES>                                34,094,386              34,094,386
<RECEIVABLES>                               33,454,314              33,454,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,806,120               4,806,120
<INVENTORY>                                  1,850,212               1,850,212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            83,998,272              83,998,272
<PP&E>                                      33,652,190              33,652,190
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,944,018               6,944,018
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             139,404,742             139,404,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,072,986              13,072,986
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        43,015                  43,015
<OTHER-SE>                                 119,891,562             119,891,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               139,404,742             139,404,742
<SALES>                                     20,845,738              37,815,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,845,738              37,815,890
<CGS>                                        7,518,756              13,699,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,565,992              32,012,824
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             242,858                 414,012
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,828,985               6,852,048
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,531,594               2,764,594
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,297,391               4,087,454
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,297,391               4,087,454
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.29                    0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28                    0.50


</TABLE>
The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, United States District Judge for the 1

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2797

___________

Robert J. Jones, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Jack Helin, City Administrator, City * Appeal from the United States

Hall, Central City, NE; Cal Lepp, * District Court for the

Mayor, Central City, NE; Dennis * District of Nebraska.

Wagner, Chief of Police, Central City, *

NE; Cliff Mesner, City Attorney, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Central City, NE; City of Central City, *

City Council; Unknown Does, 1 to 99, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: January 7, 1998

 Filed: January 12, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert J. Jones appeals from the district court&s

1

dismissal of his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
-2-

Procedure 12(b)(1). After careful review of the record

and the
-3-

parties’ briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND
      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the accompanying Yearly Report On Form 10-KSB of New Life
      Scientific, Inc. for the Year Ended December 31, 2005, I, Henry Val, Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of New Life Scientific, Inc.
      hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
      and
      belief, that:





1.
             Such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the
      year ended December 31, 2005, 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 such Yearly
      Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      New
      Life Scientific, Inc.







Dated:
                March 30,
                2006





**NEW
      LIFE SCIENTIFIC, INC.**





By:
            */s/
                Henry Val*


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Office
July 12, 1968

Wade Opinion NO. M-256 District Attorney of Dallas County Dallas County Government Center Re: Dallas, Texas 75202 Authority of Dallas County Hospital District, pursuant toArticle 4494n, Vernon's Civil Statutes, to expend funds for building and operating a "Crime Dear Mr. Wade: Lab."

You have requested an opinion as towhether the Board of Managers of the Dallas County Hospital District has the authority to expend funds of thedistrict for thepurpose of building,equipping and operating a crime laboratory. You state in your request that itsprimary purpose would be to aid in crime detection and topresent evidence in connection with theprosecution of criminal cases: itsbetter known andmore common functions relate to thedetermination of alcohol and drug content of blood samples, ballistic and firearms identification, analysis and identification of narcotics, marijuana anddangerous drugs, analysis and comparison of hair, skin, poisons and other substances obtained in criminal investigations, and theuse of various chemicals and apparatus in connection with crime detection.

Section 4ofArticle IXof the Constitution of Texas, andArticle 4494n, Vernon's Civil Statutes, direct that hospital districts created thereunder shall assume full responsibility for providing medical and hospital care to theneedy inhabitants of the county. In Bexar County Hospital District v. Crosby, 160 Tex. 116, 327 S.W.2d 445 (1959), itwas held that theprovisions of Section 4ofArticle IX limited the expenditure of taxes levied for hospital purposes to the limited use provided for in the Constitution.

The purpose ofbuilding, equipping and operating a crime laboratory toperform the functions outlined inyour request is for apurpose other than toprovide medical aid and hospital care toneedy persons residing in the district. We can findno constitutional or statutory authority authorizing the hospital district toperform such purpose. Therefore ,we agree with you that the Dallas County Hospital District has no authority to expend its funds for suchpurposes, laudable as such aims and purposes may be.

-1241-Hon. Henry Wade, page 2 (M-256)

SUMMARY - The Dallas County Hospital District has no' authority tobuild, maintain and operate a crime laboratory since such expenditure isnot for the purpose of furnishing medical aid and hospital
care toneedy individuals residing in the district. Article IX, Section 4,Tex.Const.; Bexar County Hospital District v. Crosby, 160Tex. 116, 327 S.W.Zd 445 (1959). /P



# ?iEkq;g@*<

Attorn y General of Texas Prepared by John Reeves Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE

Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman Kerns Taylor, Co-Chairman John Fainter Brock Jones Thomas Mack Jo Betsy Lewallen

A. J. CARUBBI, JR. Executive Assistant 

# lj

-1242-
#### THE STATE *vs.*WILLIAM REEVES.

A precept from a single justice of the peace, endorsed on a magistrate’s, judgment, and directed to the sheriff, commanding him“ to take the body” of the defendant “ and him safely keep until he is discharged as the law directs,” though an informal, is yet a valid *ca. sa.*and will justify the sheriff in making an arrest under it.

This was an indictment for an assault upon an officer while in the execution of process, tried at Bladen, on the last circuit, before his Honor Judge Pearson.

It was in evidence that the sheriff had a *capias ad satis-faciendum*against the defendant, and informed him of it; whereupon bn refused to be taken, and attempted to strike the sheriff with a hammer. The process under which the officer acted was written upon the back of a paper which contained a magistrate’s warrant and judgment in the regular form.' On the same paper was also endorsed a *fieri facias,*to which the return of “no goods,” was regularly made; and then followed the process in question, in the following words:

“ To tlie Sheriff of Bladen County. You are hereby commanded to take the body of William Reeves, and him safely keep, until he is discharged as the law directs.

JOHN MELVIN, J. P.

July 11, 1838.”

The defendant’s counsel insisted that this was not a *ca. sa.*and did not protect the officer in making the arrest. The Court charged that the precept, although not in the usual form of aca. *sa.,*was sufficient to protect the officer in mak*188ing the arrest. The defendant was found guilty, and, after an i-neiFectual motion for a new trial, appealed.

June 1839

*Strange*for the defendant. .

*The Attorney General*for'the’ State.

Gaston, Judge.

The writ upon which the sheriff undertook to arrest the defendant, is so very defective, that with every disposition to view with indulgence the process of magistrates in the exercise of their civil jurisdiction, we should have great difficulty in sustaining it as an execution, were it not for the principles established in former adjudications. But after it has been long *settled,*that a mandate from a magistrate, endorsed upon a judgment “execute and sell the defendant’s property according to law,” is a valid *fieri facias*to make the amount of that judgment out of the goods and chattels of the defendant, and for want of such, to levy upon his lands, we do not see how we can hold that the mandate in this case is not a valid *capias ad satisfaciendum.*It is endorsed on the judgment — is addressed to the proper officer — orders1 the seizure of the defendant’s person according to law — and if it be not a *ca. sa.*neither is nor resembles any thing else. Perhaps it might have been better, had a less latitudinous interpretation been originally put upon these acts of magisterial power; but we cannot now do so, without, throwing the law into confusion.

This opinion is to be certified to the court below, with directions to proceed to judgment againbt Jhe defendant accordingly; and there must be judgment against him here for costs.

Per Curiam. Judgment to *be*affirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Assessment of RELAP5/MOD3.2-NPA3.4 Against an Inadvertent Closure of all Three MSIV's in VANDELLOS-II Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG/IA-0197)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0197 (PDF 2.54 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** January 2001

**Prepared by:** C. Llopis, A. Tanarro, R.M. Fanegas

TECNATOM Avda. Montes de Oca, 1, San Sebastian de los Reyes 28700-Madrid SPAIN

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Code Application and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The work consists in reproducing an actual inadvertent manual closure of all three main steam isolation valves transient that occurred at Vandellós II Nuclear Power Plant (Tarragona, Spain), by means of the RELAP 5/MOD 3.2 code, thus becoming part of an assessment type exercise.

The calculations have been performed by the plant technical support staff and TECNATOM S.A. in a jointly effort. Vandellós NPP input model for RELAP 5/MOD 3.2, has been developed, starting from the input model for the former versions RELAP 5/MOD 2 and MOD 2.5, by the licensee technical services department. The model was provided to TECNATOM S.A., along with the plant data, transient available records and associated information in order to perform the transient calculation and sensitivity studies. Finally, the results and conclusions were discussed and presented jointly by both organizations.

The present report is mainly focused to the steady state and transient calculations and the findings and conclusions derived from them. The general purpose model provided by. the licensee, along with some little modifications implemented for the specific transient calculation, are described. A thorough description of the model build-up process is not included.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 184 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the excise tax on medical devices. 

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

•HR 184 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Medical Inno3 vation Act of 2018’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MEDICAL DEVICE EXCISE TAX. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 32 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subchapter E. 

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

8 (1) Subsection (a) of section 4221 of such Code 

9 is amended by striking the last sentence. 

10 (2) Paragraph (2) of section 6416(b) of such 

11 Code is amended by striking the last sentence. 

12 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sub13 chapters for chapter 32 of such Code is amended by strik14 ing the item relating to subchapter E. 

15 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to sales after December 31, 2019. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 184 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

repeal the excise tax on medical devices.