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

# Assessment of Eddy Current Testing for the Detection of Cracks in Cast Stainless Steel Reactor Piping Components (NUREG/CR-6929)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6929 (PDF - 8.89MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**November 2006**Date Published:**February 2007

**Prepared by:** A.A. Diaz, R.A. Mathews, J. Hixon1, S.R. Doctor

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA 99352

D.A. Jackson and W.E. Norris, NRC Project Managers

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

NRC Job Code Y6604

1Visiting Intern - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Fuel, Engineering and Radiological Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Studies conducted at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in Richland, Washington, have focused on assessing the effectiveness and reliability of novel approaches to nondestructive examination (NDE) for inspecting coarse-grained, cast stainless steel reactor components. The primary objective of this work is to provide information to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the utility, effectiveness, and reliability of advanced NDE methods as related to the inservice inspection of primary piping components in pressurized water reactors. This report describes progress, recent developments, and results from the assessment of eddy current testing (ET) for detection of surface-breaking cracks in cast stainless steel (CSS) reactor piping components from the inside surface of the pipe wall. In assessing the ET inspection technique, PNNL used a range of specimens from four different sources:
        - cast stainless steel pipe segments with thermal and mechanical fatigue cracks (Westinghouse Owners Group)
        - specimens containing thermal fatigue cracks (PNNL)
        - a blank spool piece from a Spanish nuclear plant (loaned by the Electric Power Research Institute NDE Center)
        - three smaller segments of highly coarse-grained blank spool pieces (Southwest Research Institute) 
        - a blank spool piece of vintage cast stainless steel on loan from Westinghouse 
        - a blank spool piece of vintage cast stainless steel on loan from IHI Southwest Technologies Inc.

 Eddy current studies were conducted on the inner-diameter surface of piping using a Zetec MIZ-27SI eddy current instrument and a Zetec C Z0000857-1 plus-point spot probe with an operating frequency of 250 kHz. To reduce noise effects, a subset of the CSS specimens was degaussed, resulting in noticeable improvements. In this report, results from laboratory studies for assessing detection, localization, and length sizing effectiveness are provided, and issues and anticipated future work are discussed.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Email from CA regarding monthly inspections

From: "Laura Fisher" <lfisher@waterboards.ca.gov>

To: Paul Miller/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/30/2010 12:20 PM

Subject: Re: Question for you about monthly inspections associated with the designated operator program

Hi Paul, 

Good to hear from you, hope all is well.

We have been told by many inspectors and various folks in the industry that 

the monthly inspections have increased compliance (not necessarily SOC, but 

the number of violations found), reduced the frequency and duration leak 

detection systems are in alarm, prompted better record keeping, and overall 

better operations.

Laura

>>> <Miller.Paul@epamail.epa.gov> 04/30/10 5:40 AM >>>

Laura - Happy Friday! How's it going in the great state of California?

I've got a question about the monthly inspections CA requires that are

associated with the designated operator program. Are there any

qualitative or quantitative benefits that you are seeing from requiring

these monthly inspections? Any information or insight you might be

able to provide would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

Paul
#### Smith and another, Respondents, vs. Brown, Appellant.

*June 9*

July *8, 1922.*

*Hospitals: Services rendered: Compensation.*

In an action to recover hospital charges for treatment of a minor employed by the defendant, a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs are affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Sauk county: James O’Neill, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Defendant, a farmer, had in his employ one Squires, a minor, who was badly injured by accident while so employed. Defendant took the boy to a hospital operated by plaintiffs for treatment. Plaintiffs claim that defendant became responsible for the hospital charges, which defendant denies.

The testimony of the plaintiff *Smith*was to the effect that *648defendant brought the boy to the hospital, and after he had been given first aid defendant said to plaintiff, “Take good care of the patient; give him everything he requires, and I will pay the expenses.” There was corroborating testimony to the same effect. Plaintiffs, relying on such statement, rendered bills to defendant, on which he made payments in January, February, March, and May. Later a bill was rendered for the balance of such charges, which the defendant refused to pay, and the plaintiffs brought this action. Case tried before a court and jury, special verdict finding for plaintiffs, and judgment entered thereon accordingly.

*V. H. Cady*of Baraboo, for the appellant.

For the respondents there was a brief by *Grotophorst & Quale*of Baraboo, and oral argument by *Norman Quale.*

Crownhart, J.

Defendant assigns as errors: admission of improper evidence, and rejection of evidence offered by the defendant; in the form of special verdict submitted to the jury, and in the charge to the jury. Other formal errors are assigned.

We have examined the case and briefs of counsel with care, and conclude that the case was properly submitted to the jury, and that the finding of the jury and the judgment thereon cannot be disturbed.

There are no questions involved, treatment of which would specially serve the profession, and for this reason we content ourselves with affirmance of the judgment.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsResearch Information Letters

# Research Information Letters – 1976

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, June 10, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984
          - 1983
          - 1982
          - 1981
          - 1980
          - 1979
          - 1978
          - 1977
          - 1976
          - 1974
          - Contact Us About Research Information Letters

#### 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, June 10, 2020
LOG OF MEETING

DIRECTORATE FOR ENGINEERING SCIENCES

SUBJECT: ASTM Bassinet Stability

DATE OF MEETING: January 3 , 2012
PLACE OF MEETING: Via Phone Conference

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Patricia Edwards

COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Patricia Edwards

NON

- COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Contact ASTM for attendee list

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

The removable bassinet bed stability requirement, as reviewed during the last ASTM meeting in October 2012, and proposed as part of the Commission’s NPR

on bassinets/cradles was discussed.

Comments were as follows:

• Does the visual indicator option add any safety?

• The collapse/20 degree tilt requirements, could they contribute to the unintended consequences of a child in the bassinet bed falling to the

floor ?

• 20 degrees

– is that foot/toe or side to side? Foot/toe could mimic an inclined sleeper allowing consumers to think it is an intended use position.

Ideas that were shared:

• Combine some of the requirements: the auto lock requirement with the collapse/20 degrees. In other words, the ba ssinet must auto lock on the

stand or it falls off. Would bassinets then be designed so that consumers would be much less likely to drop or let go of the bassinet bed when placing it on the stand (A frame type of stand)?

• The goal is to have the bassinet in any foreseeable use position to be stable (i.e., pass the stability requirement), thus auto locks that are

redundant features should be still allowed.

• Clarify the requirement by focusing on the test procedure and how each requirement should be tested , le aving the requirements as broad as possible.

• Increasing the 20 degrees to 30 to match other standards, and/ or add a

side to side condition to make it more obvious that it is not an intended use position.

Draft wording will be pulled together by the task group chair and the subcommittee chair, so that the task group has a new starting point to work from. The comments and ideas expressed during the conference call will be shared with the rest of the subcommittee at the January 7, 2013 meeting.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Numerical Modeling of Local Intense Precipitation Processes (NUREG/CR-7287)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7287 (PDF – 448.22 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** July 2023**Date Published:** July 2023

**Prepared by:**M. Levent KavvasM. Mure-ravaudA. DibK. Ishida

Hydrologic Research LaboratoryDepartment of Civil & Environmental EngineeringUniversity of California, Davis1 Shields AvenueDavis, CA 95616

Elena Yegorova, NRC Project Manager

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Tropical Cyclones (TCs) and Mesoscale Convective Systems (MCSs) are recognized for their ability to generate intense precipitation that may in turn create disastrous floods. In this study, the suitability of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model to simulate local intense precipitation processes within severe MCSs and TCs was first assessed. Simulation results were compared with observations from the Stage IV precipitation dataset. Under an appropriate choice of the model’s options, the model could reproduce the location, intensity, and structure of the intense precipitation fields. Second, physically-based storm transposition methods for the storm transpositions of MCSs and TCs were developed and applied to one MCS and four TCs. In each case, the objective was to find the amount of shift which maximizes the precipitation depth over a target area. Finally, future conditions from a General Circulation Model were downscaled over two regions (one for MCSs and one for TCs). The most intense future MCS and TC were then transposed to maximize the precipitation depth over the target area.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, August 01, 2023
**Exhibit 32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Philip
      McDermott, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
      of AltiGen Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
      March 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of AltiGen
      Communications, Inc.




Date:
                May 14, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Philip M. McDermottName:
            Philip
                M. McDermottTitle:
            Chief
                Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-456 and 731-TA-1151-1152 (Review)]

# AGENCY:

United States International Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# DATES:

Effective Date: January 26, 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Joanna Lo, 202-205-1888, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (                        *http://www.usitc.gov*). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at                         *http://edis.usitc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On November 5, 2014, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of these five-year reviews (79 FR 68299, November 14, 2014). The Commission is revising its schedule.

The Commission's new schedule for these reviews is as follows: The hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on March 26, 2015; the Commission will make its final release of information on May 7, 2015; and final party comments are due on May 11, 2015.

For further information concerning these reviews, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Authority:These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: January 29, 2015

Lisa R. Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2015-02077 Filed 2-2-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Valde Connections, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen W. Carnes, President, Director and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

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

(2)

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

\s\          Stephen W. CarnesStephen W. CarnesPresident

April 23, 2003

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CLARENCE A. GOLDSMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 287 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of September, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### Zolandek, Appellant, vs. First National Bank of Stevens Point, Respondent.

*September 15*

October *10, 1933.*

*633For the appellant there was a brief by *Wehe & Landry*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Waldemar C. Wehe.*

For the respondent there was a brief by Fisher, *Cashin & Reinholdt*of Stevens Point, and oral argument by *William E. Fisher.*

Owen, J.

The plaintiff acquired title to the property in Stevens Point, described in his complaint, and which will hereinafter be referred to as the Union street property, in the year 1907. He occupied said premises continually from that time until May 13, 1929. Some time prior to May 13, 1929, plaintiff’s wife, as the heir of her mother, acquired title to certain premises located on Fourth avenue, in Stevens Point. On the 13th day of May, 1929, plaintiff, his wife and family, moved from the property described in the complaint to the Fourth avenue property. They did this after spending some $6,000 in the repair of the dwelling located on the Fourth avenue property. The repairs so made were of a permanent nature and included, among other things, the laying of new floors, taking out partitions, installing entirely new plumbing, and putting in a new tile bath room. Plaintiff and his wife lived there until July 12, 1930, when they returned to the Union street property. The judgment which is claimed to be a lien on the premises was rendered on the 17th day of May, 1930.

*634The trial court held that the plaintiff abandoned the Union street property as his homestead when he moved with his wife to the Fourth avenue property, and that the Union street property is subject to the lien of the judgment.

The judgment of the lower court cannot be disturbed by this court unless the findings are against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. The question of intent is to be determined by all surrounding facts and circumstances. It will be - unnecessary for us to review the evidence at length. Suffice it to say that it amply supports the finding that plaintiff removed from the Union street property with the intention of making the Fourth avenue property his future permanent home. We discover no reason for disturbing the judgment of the circuit court, and it must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— So ordered.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,568,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,452,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,964,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   230,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,843,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,975,000
<PP&E>                                       2,945,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,055,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,346,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,406,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,143,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,741,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,346,000
<SALES>                                      2,515,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,515 000
<CGS>                                        1,270,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,270,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (80,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                179,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    66,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            113,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   113,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>