alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# The Ultimate Response Guideline Simulation and Study for Lungmen (ABWR) Nuclear Power Plant Using RELAP5/SNAP (NUREG/IA-0493)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0493 (PDF – 1.85 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** October 2017 **Date Published:**February 2019 

**Prepared by:** Chunkuan Shih, Jong-Rong Wang, Wen-Shu Huang, Shao-Wen Chen, Ting-Yi Wang*, Tzu-Yao Yu*, Hsien-Lang Chiu* 

Nuclear and New Energy Education and Research Foundation; Institute of Nuclear Engineering  and Science, National Tsing Hua University  101 Section 2, Kuang Fu Rd., HsinChu, Taiwan

*Department of Nuclear Safety, Taiwan Power Company 242, Section 3, Roosevelt Rd., Zhongzheng District, Taipei, Taiwan

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 RELAP5/SNAP model for Lungmen ABWR nuclear power plant (NPP) was established for the simulation and study of the URG (ultimate response guideline). The main actions of the URG are the depressurization and low pressure water injection of the reactor and the venting of the containment. Therefore, this research focuses to assess the URG utility of Lunemgn NPP under Fukushima-like conditions. Two steps are in this study. The first step is the establishment of RELAP5/SNAP model using the system and operating data, startup tests reports and FSAR of Lungmen NPP. The second step is the simulation and study of the URG under Fukushima-like conditions by using the above RELAP5/SNAP model. In this step, the case without URG was also performed to evaluate the URG effectiveness for Lungmen NPP. According to RELAP5 analysis results, the URG can keep the peak cladding temperature (PCT) below the failure criteria (1088.7 K) under Fukushima-like conditions. It indicates that Lungmen NPP can be controlled in a safe situation.

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

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 59119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24546]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: Vol. 76, No. 179, 
Thursday September 15, 2011, page 57025.

ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATES OF OPEN MEETING: 9 a.m.-12 p.m., Wednesday, 
September 21, 2011.

CHANGES TO OPEN MEETING: Time change to 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

REVISED AGENDA: Matters To Be Considered: Briefing Matter: Table Saws--
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. (The Decisional Matter: 
Unblockable Drains, has been deferred to a later meeting.)

ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF CLOSED MEETING: 2-3 p.m., Wednesday, 
September 21, 2011.

CLOSED MEETING CANCELLED. For a recorded message containing the latest 
agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of 
the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-
7923.

    Dated: September 20, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24546 Filed 9-21-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
---

|M E D I C U R E   I N T E R N A T I O N A L   I
      N C .
|-----------------------------------------------------------

July 4, 2006

MEDICURE INTERNATIONAL INC., a corporation
incorporated under the laws of Barbados, (hereinafter referred to as
"Medicure"),

- and -

CanAm Bioresearch Inc.a corporation incorporated
under the laws of Canada, (hereinafter referred to as "Research Co").

Re: Amendment to the Development Agreement (the
Agreement)

This letter, once executed, will constitute an amendment to the
Agreement dated June 1, 2000. The wording of Section 3.1 (b) of the Agreement,
dated June 1, 2000 and subsequently amended on August 7, 2003 and July 8, 2005
is hereby replaced with the following:

The aggregate of all Expenditure Limits under all Research
Schedules entered into pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed thirty
million dollars ($30,000,000) (the Aggregate Expenditures).

In addition the Expenditure Limit as defined in Schedule B of
the Agreement is increased to $30,000,000 and the Required Completion Date is
extended from 5 years to 10 years from the Commencement Date.

All other terms, covenants and conditions remain in force in
accordance with the original agreement as dated January 1, 2000 and subsequent
amendment on August 7, 2003 and July 8, 2005.

Upon execution of the agreement, please return one original to
  our office and retain the other for your files.

MEDICURE INTERNATIONAL INC.
      
      CANAM BIORESEARCH INC.Per:
      /s/ Trevor Hassell
      
      Per:
      /s/ Marcus EnnsName: Trevor Hassell
      
      
      Name: Marcus EnnsPosition: Director
      
      
      Position: PresidentMEDICURE INTERNATIONAL INC.Per:
      /s/ Kirk CyrusName: Kirk CyrusPosition: Treasurer


---
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Katy Murray, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Taleo Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theregistrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial report to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:March 16, 2007/s/ Katy Murray
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 8, 2015

No. 04-15-00182-CR

EX PARTE Juan TORRES

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-04-12006-CR

The Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT 

OF JURISDICTION. 

It is so ORDERED on July 8, 2015.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of July, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at December 31, 1999 (Unaudited)
and the Consolidated Statement of Income for the six months ended December 31,
1999 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          75,155
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,007
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,162
<PP&E>                                          53,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 327,567
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,610,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          289,824
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        97,746
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,218,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,610,814
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               113,670
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,419
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (116,089)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (116,089)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.003
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.003


</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Analysis of Public Comments on the Revised License Renewal Guidance Documents (NUREG-1832)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1832 (PDF - 2.60 MB)

## Publication Information

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

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report contains the staff's analysis of the comments received on the draft license renewal guidance (LRG) documents. These LRG documents consist of:
        - Draft Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report (NUREG-1801), Revision 1;
        - Draft Standard Review Plan for License Renewal (NUREG-1800), Revision 1; and
        - Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1104, "Standard Format and Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.";

The staff proposed to update these LRG documents, which were previously published in 2001 (each of which is referred to as Revision 0). The draft revisions of these LRG documents were issued for public comment on February 1, 2005 (70 FR 5254).

The staff's analysis of these comments is presented in a tabular format and contained in the following appendices:
        - Appendix A addresses comments submitted by NEI;
        - Appendix B addresses comments from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety;
        - Appendix C addresses comments from the participants at the license renewal public workshop held on March 2, 2005;
        - Appendix D addresses comments submitted by various stakeholders, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, utilities, and private citizens; and
        - Appendix E is a comparison of unique aging management review (AMR) line-items in the September 2005 revision of the GALL Report, to that presented in the January 2005 Draft Revision of the GALL Report issued for public comment. 

No comments were received on DG-1140, "Standard Format and Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses," dated January 2005.

The September 2005 version of these LRG documents (referred to as Revision 1) incorporated changes to the draft revision based on the information contained in this report.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRegulatory Guides (by Division)

# NRC Regulatory Guides - Power Reactors (Division 1)

This page lists the number, title, publication date, and revisions for each regulatory guide in Division 1, "Power Reactors," with references to draft guides and related documents (where applicable).

See also Draft Regulatory Guides for Public Comment.

See NRC Regulatory Guides for more general information.

## Power Reactors (Division 1)

        - Guides 1.1 – 1.20
        - Guides 1.21 – 1.40
        - Guides 1.41 – 1.60
        - Guides 1.61 – 1.80
        - Guides 1.81 – 1.100
        - Guides 1.101 – 1.120
        - Guides 1.121 – 1.140
        - Guides 1.141 – 1.160
        - Guides 1.161 – 1.180
        - Guides 1.181 – 1.200
        - Guides 1.201 – 1.220
        - Guides 1.221 – 1.240
        - Guides 1.241 – 1.253

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 3, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Division 1 - Power Reactors
          - Division 2 Research and Test Reactors
          - Division 3 - Fuels and Materials Facilities
          - Division 4 - Environmental and Siting
          - Division 5 - Materials and Plant Protection
          - Division 6 - Products
          - Division 7 - Transportation
          - Division 8 - Occupational Health
          - Division 9 - Antitrust and Financial Review
          - Division 10 - General

#### 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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 3, 2024
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1999

# NRC Finds Performance 'Acceptable' at Perry Nuclear Plant in Latest Review

----

----

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-13 March 31, 1999

 

**NRC FINDS PERFORMANCE 'ACCEPTABLE' AT PERRY NUCLEAR PLANT IN LATEST REVIEW**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has found that safety performance remains acceptable in the NRC's latest plant performance review at the Perry Nuclear Power Station, located at Perry, Ohio.

The review covered the time period from March of last year through January 31.

In a letter to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, which operates the plant, Geoff Grant, Division Director in the NRC's Region III Office, said, "Overall, performance at Perry was acceptable. Progress continued to be made in enhancing station performance."

He continued, "Some recurring balance of plant [non-nuclear] material condition issues exist but the maintenance department has been effective in maintaining the overall good material condition of the plant. Engineering support to other organizations continued to be good. Plant support performance remained good and no major weaknesses exist in this functional area."

Grant added, "Although there is a low threshold for problem identification and the corrective action program received close management attention, some recent failures to adequately implement the program have been identified. Some human performance and procedural adherence issues occurred during the period and improvement is needed in these areas."

The text of the plant performance review letter is available from the NRC Region III Office of Public Affairs and on the NRC web site.

NRC reviews safety performance twice a year at every licensed nuclear power plant in the nation. These reviews give the agency staff an integrated assessment of plant performance and provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

Plant performance reviews are an interim measure NRC is using to monitor nuclear power plant safety. The agency began using it for this purpose after suspending the Systematic Assessment of License Performance (SALP) process until a new assessment program is developed. Previously, SALP reports were issued every 12 to 24 months.

The new reactor oversight and assessment program being developed will provide quarterly performance reports, based on a number of performance indicators and on inspection findings. This program will be tested at eight plants beginning in June and will be extended to all plants next January. A full description of the new program is available on the NRC web site.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
[Cite as State v. Samples, 124 Ohio St.3d 120, 2009-Ohio-6542.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . S AMPLES , A PPELLANT . [Cite as State v. Samples, 124 Ohio St.3d 120, 2009-Ohio-6542.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Lester. (No. 2009-0699

— Submitted September 30, 2009

— Decided December 17, 2009.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 2008 CA 00027,
2009-Ohio-1043.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority
of State v. Lester , 123 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-4225, 916 N.E.2d 1038

. M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ John D. Ferrero, Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kathleen O. Tatarsky, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defe nder, and Spencer Cahoon, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

______________________
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Weld Residual Stress Finite Element Analysis Validation: Part 1 – Data Development Effort (NUREG-2162)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-2162 (PDF - 12.83 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** February 2014**Date Published:**March 2014

**Prepared by:** Michael Benson, David Rudland, and Aladar Csontos

Michael Benson, NRC Project Manager

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report is aimed at prediction of weld residual stress (WRS) in safety-related nuclear components. WRS is a significant driving force for primary water stress corrosion cracking. As such, it is an important input to deterministic and probabilistic flaw growth calculations. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s objectives for this work include:
        - Validate axisymmetric finite element modeling as a predictive tool for WRS, using robust experimental methods.
        - Support the development of appropriate WRS/flaw evaluation review guidelines.
        - Perform independent confirmatory research on industry guidance for executing WRS analysis.
        - Assess and evaluate the adequacy of industry’s mitigation activities where WRS minimization is necessary.
        - Improve WRS finite element analysis predictive methodologies.
        - Determine estimates for WRS uncertainty distributions, which are needed in probabilistic analyses.

This report describes WRS measurement methods and finite element modeling techniques for predicting WRS. The measurement and modeling efforts were performed on both small-scale scientific specimens and on large-scale prototypic mockups of in-service nuclear plant components. For example, Chapter 4 describes results from a double-blind finite element round robin, where international participants completed finite element models of a prototype pressurizer surge nozzle without access to the measurement data. Validation criteria for WRS models will be developed in future research efforts.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-11024

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MALCOLM CHRISTOPHER BARROW,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-156-ALL-G

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Malcolm

Christopher Barrow has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed

a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Barrow has not filed a response.

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issues in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein. The appeal is DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131782 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131782 COA: 267062 Kent CC: 02-002860-FC JACOB STAR MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 22, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2006

Clerk