alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fishpond Management (Ac.) (399) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Fishpond Management (Ac.) (399) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Fishpond Management (Ac.) (399).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Fishpond Management (Ac.) (399) (7/2022) Standard Document(93.93 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Fishpond Management (Ac.) (399) Overview(310.38 KB)

Fishpond Management (Ac.) (399) CPPE(24.33 KB)

Fishpond Management (Ac.) (399) Network Diagram(96.56 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffFinal Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the Economic Simplified Boiling-Water

# Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor Standard Design (NUREG-1966, Supplement 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1966, Supplement 1 (PDF - 2.28 MB)

For information about how the NRC handles your comments, see our Privacy Policy.

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 2014**Date Published:** September 2014

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report supplements the final safety evaluation report (FSER) for the Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR) standard plant design. The FSER was issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as NUREG-1966 in April 2014 to document the NRC staff's technical review of the ESBWR design. The application for the ESBWR design was submitted on August 24, 2005, by General Electric-Hitachi (GEH) in accordance with Subpart B, "Standard Design Certifications," of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 52. This supplement documents the NRC staff's review of GEH's changes to the ESBWR design documentation in the design control document (DCD) since the issuance of the FSER. On the basis of the evaluation described in the ESBWR FSER (NUREG-1966) and this report, the NRC staff concludes that the changes to the DCD (up to and including Revision 10 to the ESBWR DCD) are acceptable and that GEH's application for design certification meets the requirements of Subpart B to 10 CFR Part 52 that are applicable and technically relevant to the ESBWR standard Plant design.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRegulatory Guides (by Division)Division 1 - Power Reactors

# Power Reactors (Division 1): Regulatory Guides 1.61 - 1.80

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.

Regulatory Guides are reviewed about every 10 years, although a guide may be reviewed more frequently if the staff believes an emerging issue affects the guide. The NRC began these reviews in 2010, and began posting the results of its reviews on this site in 2013. The review dates are hyperlinked to the review memorandum, which provide useful information about the status and any known issues with the associated regulatory guide.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 3, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

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

#### 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
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

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

**ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO**

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

**FOR      THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006**

| (1)                  | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the                Company. |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Clive              Kabatznik                                                          |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Clive                KabatznikChief                Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) Chief                Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting                Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                  |
No. 86-6007.

#### Delaney *v.*Oregon.

Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ore. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
#### Simon, Administratrix, Respondent, vs. Gauthier and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Jlougen, Brady & Murphy*of Mani-towoc.

For the respondent: *Jerome F. Treis,*attorney, and *John S. Barry*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*—

Judgment affirmed.
HomeRadioactive WasteStorage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

# Resource estimates for common licensing and oversight activities in Storage and Transportation

The table below offers resource estimates for many of the common licensing and oversight activities for storage and transportation of nuclear material. This information is being offered to enhance stakeholder awareness of the costs associated with these activities. It will also aid licensees and applicants in the planning and budgeting of future applications. The licensing action information is based on a sampling of representative actions completed in the past few years. The inspection information is based on the resource estimates provided in inspection procedures. Actual costs may vary from these estimates depending on the specific circumstances. Some estimates are based on a small number of licensing actions, and future costs are expected to be lower. An example of this is in the renewal of independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) licenses. The NRC encourages licensees and applicants to engage early in the process when submitting new actions. Licensees are encouraged to work with their NRC project manager to discuss details of any specific application. The table will be updated on a biennial basis.

The estimated hours shown in this chart represent NRC professional staff hours associated with project management, licensing, and oversight activities. The distribution of time among professional staff members working on a project vary within each activity and from project to project. However, a single professional hourly rate is applied to all hours regardless of which professional staff contributed these hours. Indirect costs are included in the applied hourly rate as published in the current NRC Fee Rule. The average, high, and low estimates of hours shown in this chart are only intended to provide an approximate estimate of the total cost of NRC work on a billable activity based upon historical data.

In addition, contractors are used to assist the NRC to complete projects. Contractors can be used to supplement NRC staff or provide a particular expertise required for the project. Similar to the hourly estimates, the average, high, and low estimates for contractor costs shown here are only intended to provide an approximate estimate of total contractor billable costs on an activity based upon historical data.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, May 01, 2023
# Soil Texture Calculator

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Soil Texture Calculator 

Learn how to calculate a single point texture class based on percent sand, silt, and clay. Including the optional sand fractions will refine the calculation.

This is a Microsoft Excel Macro-enabled tool to calculate and plot multiple texture classes based on percent sand, silt, and clay. Includes the optional sand fractions used with sandy loam, loamy sand, and sand textures.

Download Multi-Point Texture Triangle Excel Version(780.39 KB)

This is a Microsoft Excel Macro-enabled spreadsheet to develop total sand, silt, and clay low, representative, and high values based on known textures which can be further refined using sand, silt, and clay limits. It uses an interactive texture triangle with textures that toggle on and off. Can also be used to determine control section sand, silt, and clay.

Download Interactive Texture Triangle Excel Version(6.11 MB)
EXHIBIT 99.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles Mottley,
President & Chief Executive Officer, 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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.


                                         /s/ Charles Mottley
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Charles Mottley
                                         President & Chief Executive Officer
                                         April 15, 2003


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO EL CAPITAN PRECIOUS METALS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND WILL BE
RETAINED BY EL CAPITAN PRECIOUS METALS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND FURNISHED TO
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Technical Evaluation Report on the Content of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Repository License Application – Administrative and Programmatic Volume (NUREG-2109)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-2109 (PDF - 802 KB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 2011**Date Published:** September 2011

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This "Technical Evaluation Report on the Content of the U.S. Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain License Application; Administrative and Programmatic Volume" (TER Administrative and Programmatic Volume) presents information on the NRC staff's review of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Safety Analysis Report (SAR), provided on June 3, 2008, as updated on February 19, 2009. The NRC staff also reviewed information DOE provided in response to NRC staff requests for additional information and other information that DOE provided related to the SAR. In particular, this report provides information on the NRC staff's evaluation of DOE's proposed administrative and programmatic activities regarding the following:
        - Research and Development Program to resolve safety question
        -  Performance Confirmation Program
        - Quality Assurance Program
        - Records, reports, tests, and inspections
        - DOE organizational structure
        - Key positions assigned responsibility for safety and operations
        - Personnel qualifications and training
        - Plans for startup activities and testing
        - Plans for conduct of normal activities
        - Emergency planning
        - Controls to restrict access and regulate land uses
        - Uses of geologic repository operations area for purposes other than disposal ofradioactive wastes

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC ContractorsRadioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG/CR-2907)

# Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants: Annual Report 2014 (NUREG/CR-2907, Volume 20)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-2907, Volume 20 (PDF – 1.65 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2018**Date Published:** November 2018

**Prepared by:** J. Davis

Oak Ridge Associated Universities 1299 Bethel Valley Road, SC-200, MS-21 Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Steven Garry and Micheal Smith, NRC Project Managers

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

In 2014, there were 100 commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) licensed to operate on 62 sites in the United States (U.S.) regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In 2013, 4 NPPs (San Onofre Units 2 and 3, Crystal River Unit 3 and Kewaunee) permanently shut down and are not included in this analysis of radioactive effluents from operating reactors (see Section 1.2). Each year, each power reactor sends a report to the NRC that identifies the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents discharged from the facility. In 2014, these effluent reports comprised about 10,000 pages of information, which described the radioactive materials discharged, as well as the resulting radiation doses to the general public. This report summarizes that information and presents the information in a format intended for both nuclear professionals and the general public.

The reader can use this report to quickly characterize the radioactive discharges from any U.S. NPP in 2014. The radioactive effluents from one reactor can be compared with other reactors. The results can also be compared with typical (or median) effluents for the industry, including short-term trends and long-term trends.

Reference information is included so the reader can compare the doses from NPP effluents with the doses the general public receives from other sources of radiation, such as medical procedures, industrial devices, and natural materials in the environment.

Although all operating NPPs released some radioactive materials in 2014, all effluents discharged were within the NRC's and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) public dose limits, and NRC "as low as is reasonable achievable" (ALARA) criteria. Additionally, the doses from radioactive effluents were much less than the doses from other sources of natural radiation that are commonly considered safe. This indicates radioactive effluents from NPPs in 2014 had no significant impact on the health and safety of the public or the environment.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 6:28 PM

To: Wayland, Robertj Subject: RE: OMB Briefing Materials

Thanks Bob!

From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 6:03 PM

To: Higgins, Cortney Subject: OMB Briefing Materials

Cortney -

Peter's still working to get these cleared, so it might be mid-morning tomorrow before I can send these over to you. I just wanted to give y ou a heads-up regarding the delay ... and apologize again for being late! :-)

If I can get these to you tonight, I will send them as soon as I'm given the green light!

bob Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243-01 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709

Office: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

***************************************** DRAFT/Deliberative Document - FOIA EXEMPT *****************************************
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffState-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Report (NUREG-1935)

# State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Report: Part 1 (NUREG-1935)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1935, Part 1 (PDF - 39.26 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** June 2012**Date Published:** November 2012

**Prepared by:**

Richard Chang, Jason Schaperow, Tina Ghosh, Jonathan Barr, Charles Tinkler, and Martin Stutzke

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Accident phenomena and offsite consequences of severe reactor accidents have been the subjects of considerable research over the last several decades by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). As a consequence of this research focus, analyses of severe accidents at nuclear power reactors are more detailed, integrated, and realistic than at any time in the past. A desire to leverage this capability to address conservative aspects of previous reactor accident analyses was a major motivating factor in the genesis of the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) project. By applying modern analysis tools and techniques, the SOARCA project developed a body of knowledge regarding the realistic outcomes of select severe nuclear reactor accidents. To accomplish this objective, the SOARCA project’s integrated modeling of accident progression and offsite consequences used both state-of-the-art computational analysis tools and best modeling practices drawn from the collective wisdom of the severe accident analysis community. This study has focused on providing a realistic evaluation of accident progression, source term, and offsite consequences for select scenarios for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station and Surry Power Station. By using the most current emergency preparedness practices and plant capabilities, as well as the best available modeling, these analyses are more realistic than past analyses. These analyses also consider mitigative measures (e.g., emergency operating procedures, severe accident management guidelines, and Title 10 to the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) 50. 54(hh) measures), contributing to a more realistic evaluation.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
#### L. L. Rogers *vs.*Harry Brown et al.

Waldo County.

Decided December 17, 1921.

*Dunton & Morse,*for plaintiff.

*Arthur Ritchie,*for defendants.

This case comes up on motion by defendant to set aside the verdict. No exceptions were taken and the presumption is that every issue raised in the course of the trial was properly submitted to the jury. The case, accordingly, presents a pure question of fact upon which the jury have passed. The only question therefore is whether there was any adequate evidence upon which they were authorized to base their verdict. A careful consideration of the evidence discloses ample evidence for the verdict, if they believed it, and credibility is always a question for the jury. We are unable to discover any legal ground upon which the verdict can be disturbed. Motion overruled.
HomeRadioactive WasteDecommissioningFinancial Assurance

# Decommissioning Funding Status Reports

NRC regulations require licensees of nuclear power plants to submit data every two years, and annually in some cases on the status of funds to be put aside to cover the cost of decommissioning their nuclear plants (known as the Decommissioning Funding Status (DFS) Report). The NRC staff independently analyzes each of these reports to determine whether the agency has reasonable assurance the licensees are providing sufficient funding for radiological decommissioning of the reactor when it is permanently shut down. This assurance is referred to as "decommissioning funding assurance (DFA)."

A summary of the DFS report for operating reactors is provided to the Commission on a biennial basis in the form of a SECY paper. A partial list of these reports are:

More information on the decommissioning process is available on the NRC Web site. See our Fact Sheet on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants and an NRC statement regarding recent media coverage of Decommissioning Funding Assurance.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 28, 2024