alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter World Currency Fund L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      23,947,604
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,578<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,446,337<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,446,337<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,049,141<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               863,722
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,185,419
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,185,419
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,185,419
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $71,502 and due from
DWR of $29,076.
<F2)In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized loss on open contracts of $601,845.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $377,092, accrued
management fees of $58,543, and accrued administrative expenses of
$29,221.
<F4>Total revenues include realized trading revenue of $1,112,347, net
change in unrealized of $499,595 and interest income of $437,199.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Notes f rom Follow
- Up C orrespondence with We Energies Regarding Data Submittal

Th is summary documents EPA’s follow

- up correspondence with We Energ ies regarding the data that We E nerg ies submitted to EPA on September 20, 2013 in their comments on the proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Category ( EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A2 and EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A3 ) and on February 10, 2014 (DCN SE04666) in response to EPA’s Januar y 17, 2014 data request to We Energies ( DCN SE 046 59 ). All data submitted by We Energies relate to the FGD wastewater data from the Pleasant Prairie Power Plant (herein referred to as Pleasant Prairie).
On Ma y 28 , 2014, EPA provided We Energies with a list of 17 follow

- up questions related to the Pleasant Prairie FGD data (DCN SE04328A1)

. EPA, ERG, and Westat participated in a call with We Energies on June 4, 2014 to discuss these questions. The following people participated in the call:
EPA Per sonnel We Energies Personnel ERG Personnel Westat Personnel Ron Jordan Dave Lee TJ Finseth Yan Zhuang Phillip Flanders Kevin Howard Dan

- Tam Nguyen Cuc Schroeder Alison Castronovo

Prior to the call, We Energies had prepared written responses to EPA’s list of questions. We Energies discussed their written responses during the call and noted that they would be sending the written responses to EPA following the call

. On June 11, 2014, EPA received these responses from We Energies

. EPA followed up v ia email with We Energies on one of their written responses on June 16, 2014. We Energies responded via email. The following i s a list of We Energies’ correspondence with EPA (with associated DCNs ) :

 Email to Ron Jordan from Alison Castronovo after follow

- u p discussion (DCN SE0 4328 A 2 );

 We Energies written responses to EPA ’s follow

- up questions (DCN SE0 4328 A 3 ) ;
 Email to Ron Jordan from Alison Castronovo responding to additional follow

- up question (DCN SE04328A 4 )

.
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 3339 Not in labor force Number in thousands 35 to 39 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value**LNU05024934Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, 35-39 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:08:59 PM)
#### § 136.151 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf if, or for the use of the Agency shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR 101-19.600—101-19.607, apply to buildings covered by this section.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         326,846
<SECURITIES>                                19,117,413
<RECEIVABLES>                                  391,002
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,542
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,856,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          373,376
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,483,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,856,803
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               615,673
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,392
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   550,281
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-431

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-04 January 9, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $8,000 FINE AGAINST 3M

FOR UNATTENDED OPERATION OF IRRADIATOR

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$8,000 fine against the 3M facility in Brookings, South Dakota,

for operating an irradiator without an operator in attendance.

The company's corporate office is located in St. Paul, Minnesota.

During an inspection in October of last year NRC inspectors

noted two instances when an irradiator was left operating for

several hours without a trained operator present. NRC requires

an irradiator operator to be in attendance when the irradiator is

in use. Two additional instances of operator absence for several

hours were identified by the company during an audit conducted

following NRC's inspection.

The company is licensed to use cobalt-60 in an irradiator

for the sterilization of medical products. The irradiator

operates as part of an automatic conveyor system.

During two of the operator absences, the conveyor jammed and

stopped operating. When the conveyor stopped, the irradiator's

cobalt-60 source, as designed, withdrew into its underwater

holder, preventing any radiation exposure.

Following the NRC inspection, the company updated its

operator training manual, developed additional procedures,

committed to add at least two additional operators and instituted

a weekly audit conducted by the Radiation Safety Officer.

"The NRC is particularly concerned that your staff either

did not know or did not understand the operator attendance

requirement, and your audit program failed to identify the

problem," said NRC Regional Administrator A. Bill Beach in his

letter informing the company of the fine. "Failure to assure

operator attendance during irradiator use rendered inoperable the

managerial control system designed to ensure safe irradiator

operation."

3M has until February 6 to pay the fine or to protest it.

If the fine is proposed and subsequently imposed by the NRC

staff, the company may request a hearing.
####
### Part C—Youth Training Program
### §2642. Analysis of imported merchandise

The Court of International Trade may order an analysis of imported merchandise and reports thereon by laboratories or agencies of the United States or laboratories accredited by the Customs Service under section 499(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

(Added Pub. L. 96–417, title III, §301, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1737; amended Pub. L. 103–182, title VI, §684(a)(5), Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2219.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 499(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in text, is classified to section 1499(b) of Title 19, Customs Duties.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2642, act May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §123, 63 Stat. 106, authorized the Customs Court under its rules and in its discretion to permit the amendment of protests, appeals and pleadings, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 91–271, title I, §121, June 2, 1970, 84 Stat. 281. See section 2633(b) of this title.

#### Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–182 inserted before period at end "or laboratories accredited by the Customs Service under section 499(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Application of 1993 Amendment

For purposes of applying amendment by Pub. L. 103–182, any decision or order of Customs Service denying, suspending, or revoking accreditation of a private laboratory on or after Dec. 8, 1993, and before regulations to implement 19 U.S.C. 1499(b) are issued to be treated as having been denied, suspended, or revoked under such section 1499(b), see section 684(b) of Pub. L. 103–182, formerly set out as a note under section 1581 of this title.

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the United States Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury, including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 203(1), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6. For establishment of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security, treated as if included in Pub. L. 107–296 as of Nov. 25, 2002, see section 211 of Title 6, as amended generally by Pub. L. 114–125, and section 802(b) of Pub. L. 114–125, set out as a note under section 211 of Title 6.
### §1925. Admiralty and maritime cases

Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the allowance and taxation of costs in admiralty and maritime cases shall be prescribed by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 957.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

This section was drafted to make possible the promulgation of comprehensive and uniform rules governing costs in admiralty. Various enactments of Congress, all over 100 years old, relate to particular features of such matter, but do not set forth any comprehensive and uniform procedure. See, for example, sections 818, 826, and 827 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-269

December 23, 1999

PANEL RECOMMENDS NRC’S NEW REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROCESS

BE USED FOR ALL PLANTS

An independent panel has recommended that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s new

reactor oversight program, now being tested at 13 nuclear power plants, be employed industrywide.

The NRC began a pilot program to test the new oversight program on May 30, and

created an independent panel to evaluate the program and consider whether any changes should

be made before it is expanded to include all 103 operating reactors. The panel used 19 criteria to

evaluate the results of the pilot program.

The Pilot Program Evaluation Panel included NRC staff from headquarters and regional

offices, together with representatives of the Nuclear Energy Institute, participating nuclear power

plant licensees, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety.

“The overall conclusion of the panel is that the framework provides a more objective,

clear, and risk-informed approach to the oversight of nuclear reactors,” the panel said in a report

prepared for the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

The report identifies several issues to be addressed before the program is applied to all

plants, currently scheduled for next April. This includes some issues relating to the accuracy and

timeliness of plant performance data supplied by industry to NRC. The report says additional

refinements can be made during the first year of expanded application.

Copies of the panel’s final report, as well as transcripts of previous meetings, are

available through the NRC's Public Document Room and at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/overview.html on the NRC's home page.

The NRC staff will hold a public workshop on the oversight process in Washington, D.C.

January 10–13, and provide a report with recommendations to the Commission in February. The

Commission is expected to provide additional guidance to the staff prior to expanding its use at

all sites.

##
#### William J. Bryan, Respondent, v. Richard Deeves & Son, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 16th day of March, 1914, on the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered on the same day denying a motion for a new trial.

Per Curiam:

The verdict of the jury, in so far as it found that there had been any removal of the plank, was against the weight of evidence. The judgment and order appealed from are, therefore, reversed anda new trial ordered,-with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Present— Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. Judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event. Order to be settled on notice.
#### Isaac Fishman, Appellant, v. William Baumstein, Respondent.

Determination 'affirmed, with costs, and judgment to be entered under the stipulation dismissing complaint, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-1319V
Filed: June 15, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

RICHARD BRANDELL,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Infl uenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Jenifer Marie Placzek, Placzek Winget & Pl aczek, Springfield, MO, for petitioner. Kathryn Ann Robinette, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On September 25, 2017, Richard Brandel l (“petitioner”) fil ed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Inju ry Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered GuillainBarre syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 27, 2014. Petition at 1, 4. The ca se was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 15, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent concludes “that petitioner’s allege d injury meets the requirement of the Vaccine Injury table for GBS following the seasonal influenza

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 vaccination... Petitioner had the onset of GBS within three to forty-two days of receiving the flu vaccine, the diagnosis is not in di spute, and no other cause for his GBS have

been identified.” Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that “petitioner’s records show that he suffered sequela of his injury for more than six months after vaccination.” Id.

In view of respondent’s positio n and the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Virgin Islands National Park 

https://www.nps.gov/viis/planyourvisit/virgin-islands-marine-visitor-use-information.htm

https://www.nps.gov/viis/planyourvisit/virgin-islands-marine-visitor-use-information.htm

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Virgin Islands National Park 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Virgin Islands National Park 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Virgin Islands National Park
### §1585. Powers in law and equity

The Court of International Trade shall possess all the powers in law and equity of, or as conferred by statute upon, a district court of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 96–417, title II, §201, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1730.)
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) for Potentially Contaminated Oil

## HPPOS-221 PDR-9111220112

See the memorandum from F. J. Congel to D. M. Collins dated January 30, 1985.

For cases in which no release of radioactive material is authorized, the appropriate lower limit of detection (LLD) is the "operational state of the art" value used for laboratory measurements of environmental samples. This is the LLD value given in the standard Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) for environmental samples.

The health physics position was written in the context of 10 CFR 20.302, but it also applies to "new" 10 CFR 20.2002. HPPOS-071 and HPPOS-072 contain related topics.

Region II requested that licensee guidance be developed for acceptable surveys of potentially contaminated oils and referred to IE Circular No. 81-07 (see HPPOS-071) as espousing the use of operational state-of-the-art measurements for release of materials. However, IE Circular No. 81-07 does not establish criteria for releasing radioactively contaminated materials from restricted areas for unrestricted use (see HPPOS-072).

The regulations applicable to nuclear power reactor licensees do not provide for the release of materials that are known to be radioactively contaminated at any level. Authorization for disposal of specific radioactively contaminated materials may be requested as specified in 10 CFR 20.302 [or 10 CFR 20.2002].

The intent of the above IE circular was to provide guidance on acceptable limits of detection of portable survey equipment, thus defining "how hard you have to look" for the case in which no release of radioactive material is authorized. When no release of radioactive material is authorized, the appropriate LLD is the "operational state-of-the-art" value used for laboratory measurements of environmental samples.

This is the LLD given in the standard RETS for environmental samples (e.g., 15 pCi/L, or 1.5 x 10-8 micro-Ci/ml for Co-58, Co-60 and Cs-134). 49 FR 36653, PRM-20-15 states that the measured radioactivity for major sources of waste oil at BWRs and PWRs are typically 1 x 10-7 to 1 x 10-6 micro-Ci/ml.

For cases in which disposal of radioactively contaminated oil has been authorized by the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302 [or 10 CFR 20.2002], the necessary LLD need only be sufficiently low to ensure that the particular limits are not exceeded.

Therefore, these LLDs may be substantially above the technical specification environmental LLD if the NRC authorized release limits correspond to radioactivity concentrations substantially above these levels. Since the release limits authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302 [or 10 CFR 20.2002] are established on a case-by-case basis, the corresponding LLDs necessary to ensure that the release limits are not exceeded will vary accordingly.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 20.302, 10 CFR 20.2002

**Subject codes:** 3.6, 6.8, 7.6, 12.8

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, October 18, 2017