alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-96-82 December 17, 1996

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH PENN STATE OFFICIALS

TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF NRC REQUIREMENTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials of the

Pennsylvania State University on Friday, December 20, to discuss apparent

violations of NRC requirements.

The pre-decisional enforcement conference, which is open to the public

for observation, will be held in the NRC's regional office in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

An NRC inspection of the University's radiation protection program,

conducted from November 18 through 20 at the school's University Park Campus

and surrounding areas, included a review of the organization and scope of the

program and management oversight, equipment and instrumentation, training,

surveys and contamination control, radiation protection and radioactive waste

management.

Seven apparent violations were found, including: failure to secure from

unauthorized removal or limit access to licensed materials that are stored in

controlled or unrestricted areas; storage of licensed material at an

unauthorized location; failure to provide dosimetry to a worker whose exposure

exceeded 1 microcurie/hour/week; and failure to perform an annual review of

the radiation protection program content and implementation.

The decision to hold a pre-decisional enforcement conference does not

mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that

enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to discuss apparent

violations, their causes and safety significance; to provide the licensee an

opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its proposed

corrective actions. No decision on the apparent violations will be made at

this conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials at a

later time.

#
**Exhibit 32.0**

**CertificationsPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

The certification setforth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/Afor the fiscal quarter ended March 27, 2004 (the “Report”) for the purposeof complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

AnthonyJ. Cuti, the Chief Executive Officer and John K. Henry, the Chief FinancialOfficer of Duane Reade Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.                theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Exchange Act; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Duane Reade Inc.
|                         | /s/ ANTHONY  J. CUTI      |
|-------------------------|---------------------------|
|                    | Anthony J. Cuti           |
|                    | *Chief Executive Officer* |
|                    | /s/ JOHN K. HENRY         |
|                    | John K. Henry             |
| Date: May 16, 2005 | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Duane Reade Inc. and will be retainedby Duane Reade Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 214

**Question 214:**
> 
(a) If the individual had not been monitored at his previous employer while receiving an occupational dose (i.e., the dose there had been determined not likely to exceed 10% of the limits), and the current employer, Licensee Z, determines in advance that the worker's annual dose for both licensees will exceed 10% (although the dose at Licensee Z will not exceed 10%), must Licensee Z monitor for external dose? 

(b) If the individual worked for several previous employers during the year, some who badged and some who did not, and Licensee Z makes a prospective determination that its own activities will result in a dose less than 10%, must Licensee Z monitor for external dose?

**Answer:**
> 
(a) No. The criteria to determine whether monitoring is required is independent of exposures received at any other place of employment prior to or subsequent to employment with Licensee Z.

(b) No. 

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1502, 10 CFR 20.2104, Regulatory Guide 8.34)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, November 24, 2017
### §517. Interests of United States in pending suits

The Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a State, or to attend to any other interest of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 613.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 316. | R.S. §367. |

Statutes at Large
#### Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund, Appellants, v. Cauldwell-Wingate Company, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present—Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
```

[108th Congress Public Law 472]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ472.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 3896]]

Public Law 108-472
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
560 Bay Isles Road in Longboat Key, Florida, as the ``Lieutenant General 
      James V. Edmundson Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 
                         2004 -  [H.R. 4847]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 560 Bay 
Isles Road in Longboat Key, Florida, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Lieutenant General James V. Edmundson Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lieutenant General James V. 
Edmundson Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 21, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4847:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
            Oct. 6, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 7, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
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. 96-58 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, April 15, 1996)

NRC'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

TO MEET MAY 15-16

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on

Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has scheduled a technical meeting May 15-16

in Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will begin at 8:30

a.m. each day in Room 2B3 of the NRC Two White Flint North

Building at 11545 Rockville Pike.

Although meetings of the ACNW are open, they are not part of

the NRC's public hearing process. The ACNW was established in

March 1988 to advise the Commission on all aspects of nuclear

waste management. While anyone may attend the meeting, the

committee will consider only oral or written statements arranged

in advance and limited to specific matters set forth in a Notice

of Meeting published in the Federal Register on April 11.

Discussions scheduled at the meeting include:

--Paralleling long-term behavior of a naturally occurring

mineral in the ground and nuclear waste disposed in a repository.

--Progress at the proposed waste repository at Yucca

Mountain (Nevada).

--Current status of nuclear waste related research.

--Preparation of ACNW reports to the NRC, including elements

of an adequate low-level waste program.

--Future ACNW activities.

Persons wishing to submit a statement regarding an agenda

subject may do so by providing a readily reproducible copy to the

committee at the beginning of the meeting or by mailing it in
advanced to the Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

(ACNW schedules are subject to change. Anyone planning to

attend should confirm the schedule the day before the meeting by

calling 301/415-5024.)

#

(NOTE TO EDITORS: The use of self-contained tape recorders in

the meeting room is permitted during open portions of the meeting

when a transcript is being kept. The use of still, motion

picture and television cameras--the physical installation and

presence of which will not interfere with the course of the

meeting--will be permitted both before and after the meeting,

during any recess, and, at the discretion of the committee

chairman, while the meeting is in session.)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-96-65 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663 October 23, 1996

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $50,000 FINE AGAINST CENTERIOR SERVICE COMPANY

FOR FIRE PROTECTION VIOLATIONS AT DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER

STATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$50,000 fine against Centerior Service Company for failing to

take actions to adequately protect certain equipment from

possible damage which might result from a fire in the control

room at its Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.

The plant is located near Port Clinton, Ohio.

In 1992, the NRC issued an Information Notice to all nuclear

power plant licensees that certain motor-operated valves could

possibly be damaged because of electrical shorts in the control

circuits during a fire in a plant's control room. The electrical

short could damage the valve mechanism, placing it in a stalled

condition. This condition would prevent reactor operators from

being able to perform some shutdown functions manually.

In response to NRC's notice, the Davis-Besse plant staff

conducted an initial evaluation of the affected motor-operated

valves in 1994 and concluded that no action was necessary based

on the low probability of a fire occurring in the control room.

An NRC inspection in March of this year reviewed the

utility's evaluation and determined that the decision to take no

action was unacceptable. The plant staff then conducted further

evaluations and implemented corrective actions. These actions

included modifications to the valve circuitry and procedural

changes such that alternative valves would be used for safe

shutdown of the reactor.

An subsequent NRC inspection June through August evaluated

the utility's handling of the issue and reviewed the corrective

actions taken.

"While the probability of a fire occurring as described in

NRC regulations is low, the consequences of such an event

occurring at Davis-Besse could have been high," said NRC Regional

Administrator A. Bill Beach in notifying the utility of the
proposed fine. "The ability to maintain the plant in safe

shutdown condition, as required by fire protection regulations,

could only have been achieved by significant operator actions,

troubleshooting, and repair activities to compensate for the

design deficiencies."

A predecisional enforcement conference, open to the public,

was held between the utility and the NRC staff on September 26 to

consider this violation and a second violation, involving

inadequate radiant energy shields for electrical cables in the

reactor containment. A Notice of Violation was issued for this

second violation, but no fine was proposed.

Centerior Service Company has until November 21 to pay the

fine or to protest it. If the fine is protested and subsequently

imposed by the NRC staff, the utility may request a hearing.

####
### §1394. Application of plan amendments; exception

(a) No plan rule or amendment adopted after January 31, 1981, under section 1389 or 1391(c) of this title may be applied without the employer's consent with respect to liability for a withdrawal or partial withdrawal which occurred before the date on which the rule or amendment was adopted.

(b) All plan rules and amendments authorized under this part shall operate and be applied uniformly with respect to each employer, except that special provisions may be made to take into account the creditworthiness of an employer. The plan sponsor shall give notice to all employers who have an obligation to contribute under the plan and to all employee organizations representing employees covered under the plan of any plan rules or amendments adopted pursuant to this section.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, §4214, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, §104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1234.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          43,333
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,333
<PP&E>                                     148,566,663
<DEPRECIATION>                              72,592,710
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              66,017,286
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          177,417
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,839,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                66,017,286
<SALES>                                     10,179,169
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,215,053
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  418,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,796,842
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,796,842
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-5013 September Term, 2021

1:21-cv-02583-UNA

Filed On: March 22, 2022

David Hall Crum,

Appellant

v.

United States,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Tatel and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit 

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to

clarify, which the court construes as a motion for remand, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed November 3,

2021 be affirmed and the motion for remand be denied. Appellant has not identified

any error in the district court’s dismissal of his petition for injunctive relief. To the extent

appellant seeks to challenge a sentence imposed by the District of Columbia Superior

Court, the appropriate avenue is by way of a motion in that court pursuant to D.C. Code

§ 23-110. Appellant has not demonstrated that his remedy under D.C. Code § 23-110

is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his sentence. See D.C. Code § 23-

110(g); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C. Cir. 1998). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk
### §5176. New or renewed bonds

#### (a) General

New bonds shall be required under sections 5173 and 5175 in case of insolvency or removal of any surety, and may, at the discretion of the Secretary, be required in any other contingency affecting the validity or impairing the efficiency of such bond.

#### (b) Bonds

If the proprietor of a distilled spirits plant fails or refuses to furnish a bond required under paragraph (1) of section 5173(a) or to renew the same, and neglects to immediately withdraw the spirits and pay the tax thereon, the Secretary shall proceed to collect the tax.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1353; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 96–39, title VIII, §807(a)(16), July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 282.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5176(c), act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 629, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising subsec. (a) of this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

Prior section 5176(a), (b), (d), (e), related to distiller's bond: form and approval; additional bond; exemption from survey requirements; and cross references, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859. See sections 5173(a), (b), 5174(a)(1) and 5177 of this title.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 5232(c), act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 643, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

1979—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–39, §807(a)(16)(A), struck out ", 5174," after "sections 5173".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–39, §807(a)(16)(A), substituted reference to paragraph (1) of section 5173(a) for reference to section 5173(c) and struck out provisions relating to failure or refusal of the proprietor of a distilled spirits plant to withdraw any spirits from storage on bonded premises before the expiration of the time limited on the bond and pay the tax thereon.

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.

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

#### Effective Date of 1979 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–39 effective Jan. 1, 1980, see section 810 of Pub. L. 96–39, set out as a note under section 5001 of this title.

#### Continuation of Distiller's Notice and Bond

Authority to waive requirements for filing notice and executing new bond on May 1, 1959, if distiller and surety have executed consent to continuation of the terms of existing bond to cover operations from May 1, 1959 to June 30, 1959, see section 210(f) of Pub. L. 85–859, set out as a note under section 5175 of this title.
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 99-34 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson October 13, 1999

OFFICE: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

E-Mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC Region IV Issues Mid-Cycle Plant Performance Review Results

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is making its mid-cycle Plant Performance

Reviews (PPRs) for nuclear power plants available on the NRC web site. PPRs are an interim

measure the NRC is using to assess nuclear power plant safety. The agency began using it for

this purpose after suspending the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) in

1998 while it developed a revised reactor oversight process. The text of each mid-cycle PPR

letter is available from the NRC Region IV Office of Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr. As additional PPR letters are issued, they will be made available

in the same manner.

Full scale PPRs, which consisted of an in-depth, integrated assessment of overall plant

performance were conducted approximately six months ago. The results of those PPRs were

communicated to each power reactor licensee and provided performance information similar to

that previously contained in SALP reports. The recently conducted mid-cycle PPRs did not

entail the same level of assessment effort. The primary purpose of these reviews was to evaluate

safety performance information from the past six months to identify any changes in performance

from that described in the last PPRs in order to allocate inspection resources appropriately.

In most instances, the region will continue to execute inspection plans consisting of core

and regional initiative inspections, commensurate with the level of performance described in the

PPRs issued last spring. However, as a result of the staff’s recent evaluation of licensee

performance, the inspection activity at some plants will be adjusted in certain areas.

-More-
An important element of the previous SALP process was the public meeting the NRC

would have with the licensee to discuss the assessment results. During the interim process, the

staff has continued its practice of meeting with licensees periodically to discuss its performance

assessment. Most plants have had public meetings in the recent past and therefore few meetings

are scheduled as a result of the PPRs. These meetings are announced in advance and are open to

the public.

The revised reactor oversight process is currently undergoing a pilot evaluation at nine

plants and is scheduled for full implementation next spring. Under the revised process, the staff

will conduct quarterly performance reviews based on a number of performance indicators and

inspection findings. A full description of the revised program is available on the NRC web site

at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm or http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/index.html .

###