alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. 97-130 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, September 8, 1997)

NRC PROPOSES CHANGES IN DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING RULE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its

regulations on decommissioning funding to reflect conditions

expected from deregulation of the electric power industry.

NRC is seeking public comment on the proposed rule change,

which would amend the current regulation which was adopted in

1988 before the current moves for deregulation began. Comments

will be due 75 days after the proposed rule is published shortly

in the Federal Register.

The amended rule would:

ˇ Revise the definition of an "electric utility" to

reflect changes caused by restructuring within the

industry.

ˇ Define a "Federal licensee" as any licensee which has

the full faith and credit backing of the United States

government. Only such licensees could use statements

of intent to meet decommissioning financial assurance

requirements for power reactors.

ˇ Require nuclear power plant licensees to report to NRC

on the status of their decommissioning funds at least

once every three years and annually within five years

of the planned end of operation. NRC's present rule

contains no such requirement because state and Federal

rate-regulating bodies actively monitor these funds. A

deregulated nuclear utility would have no such

monitoring.

ˇ Permit nuclear licensees to take credit on earnings for

prepaid decommissioning trust funds and external

sinking funds from the time the funds are set aside

through the end of the decommissioning period. The

present rule does not permit such credit because it is

assumed that inflation and taxes would erode any

investment return. NRC has decided, however, that this

position is not borne out by historical performance of
inflation-adjusted funds invested in U.S. Treasury

instruments.

Further details will be available in the forthcoming Federal

Register notice. Comments should be mailed to: The Secretary

of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Docketing and Service

Branch. Comments also may be delivered to NRC's headquarters

offices at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between

7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

In preparing this proposed rule amendment, NRC has

considered 650 comments received in response to an advance notice

of proposed rulemaking on this subject published in April of last

year.

###
#### In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Emeline T. Allis, as Administratrix, etc., of Seth Thompson, Deceased, Appellant. Frederick Thompson and Others, Respondents.

Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs.
### §472. Development and implementation of a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan

(a) The civil justice expense and delay reduction plan implemented by a district court shall be developed or selected, as the case may be, after consideration of the recommendations of an advisory group appointed in accordance with section 478 of this title.

(b) The advisory group of a United States district court shall submit to the court a report, which shall be made available to the public and which shall include—

(1) an assessment of the matters referred to in subsection (c)(1);

(2) the basis for its recommendation that the district court develop a plan or select a model plan;

(3) recommended measures, rules and programs; and

(4) an explanation of the manner in which the recommended plan complies with section 473 of this title.

(c)(1) In developing its recommendations, the advisory group of a district court shall promptly complete a thorough assessment of the state of the court's civil and criminal dockets. In performing the assessment for a district court, the advisory group shall—

(A) determine the condition of the civil and criminal dockets;

(B) identify trends in case filings and in the demands being placed on the court's resources;

(C) identify the principal causes of cost and delay in civil litigation, giving consideration to such potential causes as court procedures and the ways in which litigants and their attorneys approach and conduct litigation; and

(D) examine the extent to which costs and delays could be reduced by a better assessment of the impact of new legislation on the courts.

(2) In developing its recommendations, the advisory group of a district court shall take into account the particular needs and circumstances of the district court, litigants in such court, and the litigants' attorneys.

(3) The advisory group of a district court shall ensure that its recommended actions include significant contributions to be made by the court, the litigants, and the litigants' attorneys toward reducing cost and delay and thereby facilitating access to the courts.

(d) The chief judge of the district court shall transmit a copy of the plan implemented in accordance with subsection (a) and the report prepared in accordance with subsection (b) of this section to—

(1) the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts;

(2) the judicial council of the circuit in which the district court is located; and

(3) the chief judge of each of the other United States district courts located in such circuit.

(Added Pub. L. 101–650, title I, §103(a), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5090.)
(No. 901

Claimant awarded $398.75 with interest.)

#### Robert O. Butz, Theodore C. Butz and Herbert R. Butz, Executors of the Last Will of Otto C. Butz, Deceased, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 1, 1925.*

Inheritance *tax*— when *claimant entitled to refund. Sec. 25.*Where an inheritance tax has been assessed and paid, under Sec. 25, Inheritance Tax Law, and afterwards, upon proper proceedings, the estate was reassessed by the county court, and the court finds that claimants are entitled to a refund, an award will be made for the excess tax paid.

Butz, Von Ammon & Marx, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the,opinion of the court:

The claimants, Robert O- Butz et al., brings this suit to procure from the State, a refund of inheritance tax in the sum of $398.74 with 3% interest per annum from October 28, 1920, under Section 25 of the Inheritance Tax Laws of Illinois.

Otto Butz died testate in Cook county, Illinois, and claimants were appointed by will executors therein, and afterwards duly qualified as executors.

The inheritance taxes were fixed and order made by county judge of said county; and on the 28th day of October, 1920, paid the taxes then shown by order'of the court to be due to-wit: $19,306.08, less 5% discount allowed by statute in such case made and provided making a net tax so paid $1.8,-340.78.

Application was made in due time, to the county court of said county and by order of the county court the estate was *reassessed;*that upon such- *reassessment*the executors, as shown by order of said county court, the claimants became and are entitled to a refund under Section 25 of said act in the sum of $398.74. Certified copies of will, letters, assessments and orders of the county court are filed and considered herein in evidence and same prove the claimant’s demand, to which the Attorney General makes no objection, but consents in writing to the allowance of said sum.

The court accordingly awards claimants, executors of said estate, the sum of $398.74 with 3% interest per annum thereon from October 28, 1920, to this date.
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. 96-101 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tel. 301-415-8200 (Monday, July 15, 1996)

NRC EXTENDS LICENSE TERM

FOR SOME MILL LICENSEES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is extending to ten years

from five the license term for some uranium and thorium mill

licensees.

The extension will reduce the administrative burden

associated with the license renewal process for both NRC and

licensee staffs. It also is expected to reduce licensee fees,

bring mill license terms into line with other major material

licenses, and support NRC's goal of streamlining the licensing

process.

Mills would qualify for license extension if they have

performed well, had successful inspections with only limited

violations, and had no serious operational problems over the

previous two years. Currently the following nine licensees could

potentially qualify (the facilities marked with an asterisk are

currently on stand-by and require NRC authorization to restart):

ˇ Quivera Ambrosia Lake, Grants, New Mexico;

ˇ Crow Butte Resources, Crawford, Nebraska;

ˇ Power Resources, Inc. Highlands, South Powder River,

Wyoming;

ˇ COGEMA Irigaray/Christensen Ranch, North Powder River,

Wyoming;

ˇ Energy Fuels Nuclear White Mesa, Blanding, Utah;

ˇ *Kennecott Sweetwater, Red Desert, Wyoming;

ˇ *Plateau Resources, Inc. Shootaring Canyon, Ticaboo,

Utah;

ˇ *Pathfinder North Butte, Pumpkin Butte, Wyoming;

ˇ *Rio Algom Smith Ranch, South Powder River, Wyoming.

Licenses will not be extended for 17 other NRC-licensed

uranium mills that are currently undergoing reclamation, because

their possession-only licenses do not have a specific expiration

date.

#
**Exhibit
32.1**
 
 Certification
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 Quarterly Report of PLM Equipment Growth & Income Fund
VII (the “Partnership”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), the undersigned, the President of the General Partner and of the
Partnership, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
 
 (1)  the
Report of the Partnership filed today 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 results of operations of the
Partnership.
 
 
 
 /s/
James A. Coyne
 James A.
Coyne
 President
of PLM Financial Services, Inc.
 November
11, 2005
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. 99-203

September 23, 1999

NRC REVISES ITS REGULATIONS

FOR MAKING CHANGES TO LICENSED FACILITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending several sections of its rules that

define the conditions under which nuclear power plants and facilities for independent storage of

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste may make physical changes to their facilities

or procedures, or conduct tests and experiments without prior NRC approval.

Current NRC regulations (Parts 50.59 and 72.48 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations) permit such licensees to make these changes and to conduct such tests if they do

not present what the regulations call an "unreviewed safety question" or require a change in the

technical specifications of the facility's license.

The rule change came about as the result of an NRC staff review of existing regulatory

processes, directed by the Commission because of concerns about so-called "50.59" changes

at some plants. The staff concluded from this review that, although existing regulations have

generally given licensees needed flexibility, problems have arisen from differing rule

interpretations by the NRC staff and the nuclear industry.

In drafting the changes, the NRC staff has considered public comments received in

response to a proposed rule published last October. The amendments will clarify specifically

which changes, tests or experiments require evaluation, and revise the criteria that determine

when NRC approval is needed before such changes can be made. The rule also adds

definitions for terms that have been subject to differing interpretations.

The new rule for Part 50 licensees will become effective 90 days following approval of

final regulatory guidance. The implementation date will be established by a future Federal

Register notice that will announce the availability of the guidance. For Part 72 facilities and

certificate holders, the revised rule will become effective 18 months from publication of the rule

in the Federal Register. A copy of the rule will be posted on the NRC homepage at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/rule.html.

##
§ 351.25 The Department of Transportation. ( a ) Assist FEMA, along with NRC, in the preparation and promulgation of guidance to State and local governments for their use in developing the transportation portions of radiological emergency plans.
( b ) Assist FEMA in its review and approval of State and local radiological emergency plans and in the evaluation of exercises to test such plans.
( c ) Provide guidance and materials for use in training emergency services and other response personnel for transportation accidents involving radioactive materials and participate in interagency planning for such training.
( d ) Provide representation to and support for the FRPCC and the RACs.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. (Historicalpurposes)
**Title:****FY ... annual report[electronic resource].**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc:ID 1.27:N 56/2/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000637421
 
October 27, 2017
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 68

**Question 68:** This question concerns demonstration of compliance with the dose limits for individual members of the public. Section 20.1302 (b), in the revised 10 CFR Part 20, permits the licensee to demonstrate compliance by:

1 "Demonstrating by measurement or calculation that the total effective dose equivalent to the individual likely to receive the highest dose from the licensed operation does not exceed the annual dose limit; or

2 Demonstrating that: (i) the annual average concentrations of radioactive material released in gaseous and liquid effluents at the boundary of the unrestricted area do not exceed the values specified in Table 2 of Appendix B to §§20.1001 - 20.2401; and

(ii) if an individual were continually present in an unrestricted area, the dose from external sources would not exceed 0.002 rem (0.02 mSv) in an hour and 0.05 rem (0.5 mSv) in a year."

Option (1) above would require the utility to demonstrate compliance with the 100 mrem in a year specified in Section 20.1301 and the limits to a member of the public specified in 40 CFR 190. This option allows for the use of occupancy factors. However, the 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C - General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions Conforming Amendments, provides an example of a Severity IV violation based on option '2' above which does not account for occupancy factors.

It can be interpreted that the enforcement examples have been written more conservatively than the rule revision. This unnecessary restriction could severely limit availability of power, particularly at BWRs operating with hydrogen water chemistry, without a corresponding reduction in actual dose to the public. It is requested that these examples of violations be clarified to ensure consistency with the regulation.

**Answer:** The enforcement examples in question are consistent with the corresponding regulations. "Option 2" [10 CFR 20.1301 (b) (2)] does not allow for use of occupancy factors other than unity. 10 CFR 20.1302 (b) (2) (i) concerns effluent concentrations, which do not involve occupancy, and 10 CFR 20.1302 (b) (2) (ii) involves the assumption that an individual is continually present in the area or, in other, words, 10 CFR 20.1302 (b) (2) (ii) requires the assumption of an occupancy factor of 1.0.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1302)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, December 13, 2017
#### Paul Lomaur et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Lomaur Clothes, et al., Respondents, v. Theo-Dor Realty Corp. et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 1, 2015

Order 

Clerk

September 1, 2015

149599(104)

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 149599

v COA: 307756

Oakland CC: 2010-112606-CK

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE

COMPANY, PATRIOT TITLE AGENCY, KIRK

D. SCHIEB, WESTMINSTER ABSTRACT

COMPANY, WESTMINSTER TITLE AGENCY,

INC., PRIME FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,

VALENTINO M. TRABUCCHI, PAMELA S.

NOTTURNO, f/k/a PAMELA S. SIIRA, 

DOUGLAS K. SMITH, JOSHUA J. GRIGGS,

STATE VALUE APPRAISALS, LLC, NATHAN

B. HOGAN, and CHRISTINE D. MAYS,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and

FRED MATSON, MICHAEL LYNETT, JO KAY

JAMES, and PAUL SMITH,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant for leave to file a 

second supplemental authority letter is GRANTED. The second supplemental authority 

letter submitted on August 24, 2015, is accepted for filing.
. 

    - Recipient's Name: 
    - Date:
(No. 37213.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, *vs.*John Frenchwood, Plaintiff in Error.

*Opinion filed March 25, 1963.*

*413Herbert B. Olfson, of Chicago, appointed by the court, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O’Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and Edward J. Hladis and Edwin J. Belz, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. Justice House

delivered the opinion of the court:

John Frenchwood was found guilty of armed robbery in the criminal court of Cook County and sentenced by the court for a term of 20 to 40 years confinement in the penitentiary. He seeks a review of this conviction.

On the evening of March 22, 1957, defendant, his brother Jim Frenchwood and Robert Smith entered a drug store on South Racine Avenue in Chicago, carrying two loaded guns. The owners and two part-time clerks were present. The men took various funds from the cash registers and the store personnel. During the robbery the store owner pushed an alarm and the police responded to the call. The three men fled to the basement of the store from which there was no exit. The police ordered the men up from the basement and they emerged one at a time. The police went into the basement and found the two guns.

No evidence was offered on defendant’s behalf and he does not contend that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The gist of his first argument is that the jury was not informed of the essential elements of the crime of robbery, despite the fact that the court instructed the jury on robbery in the language of the statute. A similar assertion was made in *People*v. *Scarbak,*245 Ill. 435, and rejected. This court there stated: “The definition as contained in the statute does not omit any essential element of the crime of robbery as it existed at common law, and the definition of the crime by the statute being complete, it was *414not error to give this instruction in the language of the statute.” (245 Ill. 435, 438.) The jury was not therefore given the responsibility of determining the essential elements of the crime of robbery. *People*v. *Harrison,*395 Ill. 463, *People*v. *Scarbak,*245 Ill. 435.

The court instructed the jury to return a verdict of guilty of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon or a verdict of not guilt)'. From the evidence adduced at the trial it was proper to submit only these two forms of verdict to the jury. *(People*v. *Gerdy,*362 Ill. 130.) Defendant argues, however, that the jury should have been specifically instructed that it was necessary to find that defendant or his confederates were armed with a dangerous weapon in order to justify the guilty verdict. That such a finding was necessary is implicit in the form of verdict given by the court.

We have examined all the instructions and are of the opinion that the jury was properly instructed. The judgment of the criminal court of Cook County is accordingly affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### In re Roddy Mac STEWART and Deborah B. Stewart, also known as Debbie Stewart, also known as Debbie B. Stewart, Debtors, The Cadle Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roddy Mac Stewart and Deborah B. Stewart, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-3229.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 23, 2002.

Before SEYMOUR, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant The Cadle Company appeals from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the Tenth Circuit affirming the district court’s order that, in turn, affirmed the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas’s judgment granted in favor of appellees Roddy Mac and Deborah B. Stewart. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we affirm.

The BAP opinion fully sets out the relevant facts and issues raised in this appeal and we need not repeat them here. *See The Cadle Co. v. Stewart (In re Stewart),*263 B.R. 608 (10th Cn\BAP2001). On appeal from either a district court’s decision in its capacity as a bankruptcy appellate court or a BAP’s opinion affirming the district court, we independently review the *812bankruptcy court’s decision, applying a “clearly erroneous” standard to the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact and a “de novo” standard to its conclusions of law. *Phillips v. White (In re White),*25 F.3d 931, 933 (10th Cir.1994) (appeal from district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court); *In re Albrecht,*233 F.3d 1258, 1260 (10th Cir.2000) (appeal from BAP’s opinion). The parties did not question the applicable law below.

We have carefully considered the record, the applicable law, and the arguments of the parties. For substantially the same reasons stated in the BAP opinion filed June 20, 2001, we conclude that the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. The appellees’ request for attorney fees and costs on appeal is DENIED.

The judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel is AFFIRMED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.