alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Prescribed Grazing.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# U.S. Operating Experience with Thermally Treated Alloy 600 Steam Generator Tubes Through December 2013(NUREG-2188)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG–2188 (PDF – 14.2 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 2015**Date Published:** February 2016

**Prepared by:** K. J. Karwoski

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Steam generators placed in service in the 1960s and 1970s primarily had mill-annealed Alloy 600 tubes. Over time, this material proved to be susceptible to stress corrosion cracking in the highly pure primary and secondary water chemistry environments of pressurized-water reactors. The corrosion ultimately led to the replacement of steam generators at many facilities, with the first U.S. replacement occurring in 1980. Many of the steam generators placed into service in the 1980s used tubes fabricated from thermally treated Alloy 600. This tube material was thought to be less susceptible to corrosion. NUREG-1771, "U.S. Operating Experience with Thermally Treated Alloy 600 Steam Generator Tubes," documented the operating experience associated with thermally treated Alloy 600 steam generator tubes as of December 2001. This document builds upon the information in NUREG-1771 and summarizes the operating experience with thermally treated Alloy 600 tubes through December 2013, with some information from 2014 included.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### STATE *ex. rel.*ROSETTA BIGGS v. ABNER BENNETT.

The defendant on the trial of issues in a Bastardy Proceeding, offered to prove that just nine months previous to the birth of the child, the prose-cutrix had illicit intercourse with another man; and that on one occasion, about that time, they were caught in the act, which evidence, his Honor, the presiding Judge, ruledout: *Held,*that there was no error in his Honor’s ruling; and that the evidence offered did not tend to rebut the presumption of paternity, which the statute, Bat. Rev., chap. 9, sec. 4, creates upon the oath of the woman.

PROCEEDING in Bastardy, tried before Moore, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of Martin Superior Court.

The defendant offered to prove that just nine months prior to the birth of the child, the prosecutrix had illicit intercourse with another man, and that on one occasion about that time they were caught in the act.

The State objecting to the evidence, it was ruled out by the court, and the defendant excepted.

There was a verdict and judgment against the defendant, and thereupon he appealed.

*Attorney General Hargrove,*for the State.

*Mullen & Moore*and *Walter Clark,*for the defendant.

Rodman, J.

The only question is, did the evidence offered tend to rebut the presumption of paternity, which the statute creates upon the oath of the woman ? Bat. Rev., chap. 9, sec. 4. If it did not, it was irrelevant. We think it did not. Taken in connection with the oath of the woman, it would only tend to prove the physiological fact that two men may have connexion with a woman about the same time, and one of them get her with child. It would not tend to rebut the presumption that the defendant was the one. If the defendant had further proposed to prove that he had had no connexion with the woman during the time *306in which, according to the course of nature, the child must have been begotten, the presumption would have been rebutted. But this he did not offer to do. The proceeding in bastardy is not a criminal action, and the paternity need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no error. Judgment below affirmed, and case remanded to be proceeded in, &e. Let this opinion be certified.

Pee Cuexam. Judgment affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 8260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-2821]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

[Document Identifier CMS-10421]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request

Correction

    In notice document 2012-2821 appearing on pages 6123-6124 in the 
issue of February 7, 2012, make the following correction:
    On page 6124, in the first column, in the last line, ``April 9, 
2012'' should read ``April 3, 2012''.
[FR Doc. C1-2012-2821 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
#### Van de Wege and another, Copartners, Respondents, vs. Koerner (Edwin O.), Appellant: Koerner (Barney) and others, Defendants.

For the appellant: *Edwin 0. Koerner*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents and defendants: *Puhr & Van de Water, Werner, Clemens •& Fessler, Bassuener & Humke, Charles A. Copp,*and *Bowler, Bowler & Currie,*all of She-boygan.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE QUARTERLY  PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1996,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFRENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                              74,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      941,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        10,000
<INVENTORY>                                      7,917,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,072,000
<PP&E>                                           1,809,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     675,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,726,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,797,000
<BONDS>                                          6,714,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           297,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,426,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,726,000
<SALES>                                          1,186,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,186,000
<CGS>                                              741,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      741,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   786,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 498,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (85,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (85,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .06
        

</TABLE>
* 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. 01-40064

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KENNETH WAYNE THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:00-CR-25-4

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

August 28, 2002

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Wayne Thomas appeals the sentence that he received

following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to manufacture

methamphetamine. He asserts that the four-year term of

supervised release that he received was excessive in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because the

indictment did not allege a drug quantity. Because Thomas did

not raise his challenge in the district court, review is for
No. 01-40064

-2-

plain error. See United States v. Cotton, 122 S. Ct. 1781, 1785

(2002). Because the “essentially uncontroverted” evidence

presented during the plea proceedings and in the factual resume

supports the higher supervised-release term, no plain error

occurred. See id. at 1786-87; United States v. Longoria, 

___ F.3d ___, 2002 WL 1497184 at *5 (5th Cir. July 12, 2002, 

No. 00-50405)(en banc). Consequently, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, James S. Pak, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, Vie Financial Group, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended June 30, 2003 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 materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of Vie Financial Group, Inc. 

 

|          |              |   |             |                          |
|---------------|-------------------|--------|------------------|-------------------------------|
| *Date:*  | *August 14, 2003* |   | *By:* **    | */s/ JAMES S. PAK*            |
|          |              |   |             |                               |
|          |              |   | *Name:* **  | ***James S. Pak***            |
|          |              |   | *Title:* ** | ***Chief Financial Officer*** |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Vie Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by Vie Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



                       SUBSIDIARIES OF RYERSON TULL, INC.
                       ----------------------------------


The subsidiaries of Ryerson Tull, Inc. (other than certain subsidiaries which,
considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, do not constitute a
significant subsidiary), one of which is incorporated in the State of Delaware
and one of which is incorporated in the State of Georgia, as noted below, and
each of which is wholly owned by Ryerson Tull, Inc., are as follows:



          Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc.
          (a Delaware corporation)



          J. M. Tull Metals Company, Inc.
          (a Georgia corporation)
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 10.2


                                 PROMISSORY NOTE



$674,900.00                                                       Minnetonka, MN


         For Value Received, Maurice R. Taylor ("Maker") hereby promises to pay
to the order of MEDgenesis Inc. ("Holder") the principal sum of Six Hundred
Seventy-four Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($674,900.00), together with interest
accrued as provided herein, on December 31, 2001. Maker shall pay Holder
interest on the unpaid principal balance due at a rate equal to the US Bank
Minneapolis reference rate, as published by US Bank Minneapolis from time to
time, plus one-half percent (1/2 %), with interest to begin accruing upon the
date of execution hereof. Maker shall pay Holder installments of principal in
the amount of $25,000.00 and accrued interest on a quarterly basis, with the
first payment of principal and accrued interest to be paid on October 31, 2000.

         Maker may prepay this Promissory Note in part or in whole without
penalty at any time and any prepayments shall be applied first to outstanding
interest due before the reduction of principal.

         Maker hereby waives presentment, dishonor, notice of dishonor, and
protest. Any failure of Holder to promptly pursue its remedies herein shall not
discharge Maker of any liabilities. Any event of default herein shall entitle
the Holder to accelerate and receive payment of all outstanding principal and
interest.

         In the event that Holder shall deem it necessary and take any
collection action Maker shall be liable for all costs of collection,
specifically including reasonable attorney fees.



By: /s/ Maurice R. Taylor                       Date: July 24, 2000
# C_2004217EN.01000302.xml

| 28.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 1 July 2004

in Case C-295/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): Gisela Gerken v Amt für Agrarstruktur Verden (1)

1

(Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92 and (EC) No 2419/2001 - Applications for ‘livestock’ aid - Irregularities - Reduction in the amount of aid - Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Retroactive application of a less stringent provision)

(2004/C 217/05)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-295/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Gisela Gerken and Amt für Agrarstruktur Verden — on the interpretation of Article 10(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36), Articles 44, 53 and 54 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 1992 L 327, p. 11), and Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the financial interests of the European Communities (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it has ruled:

Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the financial interests of the European Communities is to be interpreted as meaning that where, in an application for ‘livestock’ aid covered ratione temporis by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, there is an irregularity giving rise to a penalty under Article 10(2)(a) of that regulation, the competent authorities must apply retroactively the provisions of Article 44(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, on the ground that those provisions are less severe as regards the conduct in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

1

---
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON A S PRECEDENT IN ANY P ROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED B Y RULE 268(d)(2) , SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH C AROLINA In The Supreme Court

The State, Respondent,

v.

William Holmes, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2021

- 001018

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal f rom Charleston County R. Markley Dennis Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No. 2023

- MO

- 006 Heard December 13, 2022

– Filed March 1, 2023

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

Jason T homas Yonge, of Williams, Stitely & Brink, PC, of Lexington, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert
M ichael Dudek, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General Mark R eynolds Farthing, bothof Columbia, and Solicitor Scarlett A nne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM : We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in State v. Holmes

, Op. No. 2021

- UP

- 249 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 30, 2021) . We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. 1

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.

1 Counsel for Petitioner handled this appeal as part of the Appellate Practice Project. We applaud the professional ability of counsel and admire his willingness to volunteer his time and efforts in representing Petitioner.
# C_2004239EN.01000502.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/5

---

Action brought on 15 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-256/04)

(2004/C 239/09)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Arnaud Bordes and Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1) | declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/89/EC (1) of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1)

declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/89/EC (1) of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2) | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 31 October 2002.

---

(1)  OJ L 316, 1.12.2001, p. 5.

1

---
# C_2004217EN.01003901.xml

| 28.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/39

---

(2004/C 217/71)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
  Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 201, 7.8.2004

Past publications

OJ C 190, 24.7.2004

OJ C 179, 10.7.2004

OJ C 168, 26.6.2004

OJ C 156, 12.6.2004

OJ C 146, 29.5.2004

OJ C 106, 30.4.2004

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex

---
May 2019

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Combustion_System_Improvement (Code 372) 

Replace, repower, or retrofit an agricultural combustion

system and related components or devices. 

Practice Information 

Combustion system improvement can be used to reduce

emissions of particulate matter (PM) and/or oxides of

nitrogen (NOx). This standard can also be used to reduce

the energy use of an agricultural combustion system by

increasing the combustion system energy efficiency. 

Agricultural combustion systems are stationary (e.g., engines, heaters, etc.) or mobile (e.g., tractors,

etc.) power units that combust fuels. Replacement and repowered systems must be either noncombustion units or result in less emissions or energy usage. 

Design criteria for this practice include proper sizing and use of the replacement or repowered

combustion system, requirements for proper disposal of replaced or removed combustion systems

and parts, and expected air emissions and/or energy usage from the existing and replacement,

repowered, or retrofitted combustion system. 

There is a requirement to identify and describe the existing combustion system and the changes to be

made to that system in order to reduce air emissions or energy use. The methodologies and analyses

used to estimate air emissions or energy use reductions will be documented. Records of

improvements and operation needed to document reductions in air emissions or energy use are

required to be kept throughout the practice lifespan. 

Common Associated Practices 

Combustion System Improvement (372) is commonly applied as a stand-alone practice, although

certain improvements to combustion systems associated with a pumping plant are to be made with

Pumping Plant (533). Additionally, other energy improvement practices, such as Building Envelope

Improvement (672) or Farmstead Energy Improvement (374) may also be applied with this practice. 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.