alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

61 Forsyth Street SW

Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-12 February 9, 2000

CONTACT: Kenneth M. Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $5,500 IN FINES AGAINST WEST VIRGINIA

COMPANY FOR VIOLATIONS OF NRC REGULATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed $5,500 in civil penalties against

Allegheny Wireline Services of Weston, West Virginia, for deliberate violations of NRC requirements

at its Elderton, Pennsylvania, facility related to the use of radioactive materials in well logging.

Well logging is a technique used in oil and gas exploration to help predict the commercial

viability of new or existing wells. It involves lowering a well-logging tool, including a sealed source

of radioactive material, into a well on a wire. This device sends data on the well’s underground

characteristics to the surface, where it is plotted on a chart.

An NRC inspection and investigation determined that on numerous occasions prior to July 15,

1998, radiological surveys of well sites were not being performed, yet records indicated that they were

conducted. In addition, the Radiation Safety Officer knew surveys were not being performed and that

records were not accurate. The radiological surveys are required during well logging activities to

promptly identify a missing or damaged source. The company has informed the NRC that corrective

actions have been taken to address the violations and prevent recurrence.

The company has 30 days from receipt of the Notice of Violation to either pay the fines or

protest their imposition.

#####
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateCRGR ReviewsResults of Previous CRGR Reviews

# Results of Previous CRGR Reviews – 2022

For more information, Contact Us About The Committee To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR).

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 6, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 6, 2024
§ 333.33 Types of allocation orders. There are three types of allocation orders available for communicating allocation actions. ( a ) *Set-aside.* A set-aside is an official action that requires a person to reserve materials, services, or facilities capacity in anticipation of the receipt of rated orders.
( b ) *Directive.* A directive is an official action that requires a person to take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with its provisions. For example, a directive can require a person to: Stop or reduce production of an item; prohibit the use of selected materials, services, or facilities; or divert the use of materials, services, or facilities from one purpose to another.
( c ) *Allotment.* An allotment is an official action that specifies the maximum quantity of a material, service, or facility authorized for a specific use to promote the national defense.
AO 441 (Rev. 07/10) Summons on Third-Party Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant, Third-party plaintiff

v.

Third-party defendant

SUMMONS ON A THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

To: (Third-party defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against defendant , who as third-party plaintiff is making

this claim against you to pay part or all of what the defendant may owe to the plaintiff .

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff and on the defendant an answer to the attached complaint or a

motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the defendant or

defendant’s attorney, whose name and address are:

It must also be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: 

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the third-party

complaint. You also must file the answer or motion with the court and serve it on any other parties. 

A copy of the plaintiff’s complaint is also attached. You may – but are not required to – respond to it. 

Date:

CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:20-cv-22977-UU Document 17-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 1 of 2
AO 441 (Rev. 07/10) Summons on Third-Party Complaint (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 1:20-cv-22977-UU Document 17-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### § 315.15 Affirmative findings.

Whenever the International Trade Commission makes an affirmative finding under section 202(b) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252) that increased imports are a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof with respect to an industry, EDA will notify the TAACs and provide expedited review of petitions and Adjustment Proposals from Firms within the specified industry.
#### § 63.4 Property not covered.

Benefits under section 1306(c) of the Act do not include compensation for items excluded under the provisions of the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP).
No: III-23-016 June 7, 2023

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662 

 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663 

NRC to Conduct Open House to Discuss 

2022 Performance of Clinton Nuclear Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will be available to discuss the 2022 safety performance of the 

Clinton nuclear power plant during an in-person open house scheduled for June 14. The plant, operated by 

Constellation Energy Generation, is located in Clinton, Illinois, approximately 23 miles south of 

Bloomington. 

The open house will be held from 5-6 p.m. Central time at the Clinton City Hall Council Chambers, 

118 W. Washington Street in Clinton. NRC staff responsible for plant inspection and oversight, including the 

resident inspectors based full-time at the site, will participate in the discussion.

The NRC determined that Clinton operated safely during 2022. All inspection findings and 

performance indicators were green, or very low safety significance. As a result, Clinton remains under the 

NRC’s baseline level of oversight, which entails thousands of hours of inspection each year. 

The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses color-coded inspection findings and indicators to measure 

plant performance. The colors start at green and increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the 

safety significance of the issues involved. Inspection findings or performance indicators with more than very 

low safety significance trigger increased NRC oversight. 

Plant inspections are performed by two NRC resident inspectors and other specialist inspectors from 

the agency’s Region III office in Lisle, Illinois, and NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. 

The annual assessment letter for Clinton is available on the NRC website. Current performance 

information for the plant is also available on NRC’s website and updated quarterly.
EX-10.6







 Exhibit 10.6 

 

					
	March 19, 2018	 	 Page
 1
 of 2	 	            

  

 CONFIDENTIAL 

Mr. Peter Radovich 
 Senior Vice President, Operations 

Global Blood Therapeutics Inc. 
  

	Re:	 Rain Therapeutics Inc. (“Rain Therapeutics”) Board of Directors 



Dear Mr. Radovich: 
 This letter is to
confirm Rain Therapeutics’ understanding regarding your role as an independent member of its Board of Directors (“Board”). We are pleased that you have agreed to share your expertise with our Company. 

Presently, the Company plans to have the Board meet approximately four (4) times per year, at times convenient to its members, generally
in the San Francisco Bay Area. We hope that you will be able to attend all such meetings, if not in person, then by teleconference. The Company will reimburse you for all reasonable travel expenses incurred in attending meetings or performing other
services on its behalf. 
 As a participant in the activities of the Company as a member of the Board, the Company, upon approval by a
resolution of the Board of Directors, will issue you cash payments and options to purchase shares of the Company’s Common Stock, in an amount commensurate with comparable companies in the biotechnology sector. The exercise price for options
will be determined to be at fair market value of such Common Stock as determined by the Board. In general, such shares will be subject to a standard vesting schedule to be determined by the Board. In addition, any shares purchased will be subject to
a right of first refusal in favor of the Company, and any unvested shares purchased shall be subject to repurchase by the Company if you cease providing services to the Company. 

As a Director of the Company, you will likely be provided with access to the Company’s proprietary information, which will at all times
remain the property of the Company and its assigns. You agree that you will keep all of the Company’s proprietary information confidential, unless and only if agreed to otherwise in writing by a representative of the Company. 

We hope that this letter agreement does not, in any way, conflict with any other agreement and/or commitment on your part which would prohibit
you from performing your responsibilities hereunder. Please be sure to determine whether your employer has required that you execute any document which might present such a conflict. If you believe that a conflict might exist, please call me to
discuss how we can beneficially resolve any such potential issue. 















					
	March 19, 2018	 	 Page
 2
 of 2	 	            

  

 If the foregoing represents your understanding of our agreement and we you have resolved any
potential confidentiality issues, please sign below and return one copy to the attention of Mr. Avanish Vellanki at the Company. The other copy is for your files. 

 

					
	Very truly yours
	
	RAIN THERAPEUTICS INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Avanish Vellanki
		 	Name:	 	Avanish Vellanki
		 	Title:	 	Chairman and CEO


 ACCEPTED AND AGREED: 
  

	
	/s/ Peter Radovich
	Name: Peter Radovich
	Date:   22 – Mar – 2018
### §1367. Supplemental jurisdiction

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.

(b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if—

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,

(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,

(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or

(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

(d) The period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a), and for any other claim in the same action that is voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of the claim under subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.

(e) As used in this section, the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §310(a), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5113.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §310(c), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5114, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [enacting this section] shall apply to civil actions commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 1, 1990]."
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-98-35 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Monday, May 11, 1998)

NRC OFFICIALS SEND INSPECTION TEAM TO CATAWBA

Augmented Inspection Team Will Inspect and Assess Recent Event

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials today dispatched an Augmented Inspection Team to

the two-unit Catawba nuclear power plant, operated by Duke Energy Company near Rock Hill, South

Carolina. The team will assess the circumstances of an event on May 7 which left the Catawba Unit 1

auxiliary feedwater system in a condition different from its design.

NRC officials said no accident occurred. Duke engineers told the agency the plant suffered no

adverse effects. NRC’s interest is in learning how a failure in the unit’s non safety-related, secondary

condensate system resulted in operators declaring inoperable all trains of the safety-related auxiliary

feedwater system.

Catawba has a primary and secondary water system. The primary system cools the reactor by

circulating water directly through the core. It then passes through thousands of tubes into a large

cylindrical tank known as a steam generator. The steam generator is filled with water supplied by the

secondary system. This secondary system water serves two functions: (1) it absorbs heat from the

primary reactor cooling system, and (2) it produces steam which turns turbines to generate electricity.

After turning the turbines, this steam is condensed back into water and normally recirculates through the

feedwater system to produce more steam. The auxiliary feedwater system serves as a backup to the

feedwater system.

On May 7, plant operators determined that, following a planned power reduction, tanks which

hold water for use in the auxiliary feedwater system registered a water temperature in excess of system

design limits. The operators declared three auxiliary feedwater pumps inoperable due to uncertainty

related to their operation under higher water temperatures. Duke attributed the cause to an improper

setting on a pump recirculation valve. This erroneous set point, the company believes, resulted in a

higher than normal flow of water during the power reduction, diverting some of the hotter water to the

auxiliary feedwater system tank.

Operators returned water temperatures to normal and declared the auxiliary feedwater system

operable. Permanent corrective actions are being evaluated.

NRC officials said members of the inspection team will arrive at the site Monday afternoon and

Tuesday morning. Team leader Kerry Landis, a branch chief in the NRC Atlanta regional office’s

Division of Reactor Projects, will be available to discuss preliminary team findings with the public and

the press at the conclusion of the inspection.
Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 1 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 2 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 3 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 4 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 5 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 6 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 7 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 8 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 9 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 10 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 11 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 12 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 13 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 14 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 15 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 16 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 17 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 18 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 19 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 20 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 21 of 22

Case 1:20-cv-22746-AMC   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021   Page 22 of 22
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-51 June 4, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $13,750 FINE AGAINST

MALLINCKRODT MEDICAL, INC. FOR A SHIPPING VIOLATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$13,750 fine against Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc., Maryland

Heights, Missouri, for a shipment of radioactive pharmaceuticals

which exceeded federal transportation limits on radiation levels.

On December 31 of last year, Mallinckrodt shipped a

generator from its manufacturing plant in Maryland Heights,

Missouri, to its nuclear pharmacy in Saginaw, Michigan. The

generator produces radioactive technetium-99m that is used in

medical diagnostic procedures. Upon arrival, the package

containing the generator was surveyed and radiation levels on the

surface were found to be 210 millirem per hour, exceeding the

U.S. Department of Transportation limit of 200 millirem/hour.

(For comparison, the average person in the United States

receives about 300 millirems per year from natural background

radiation.)

NRC inspectors during a January inspection at the plant,

noted that on the day the generator package was shipped to the

pharmacy, surveys indicated radiation levels of 27 millirem per

hour on the surface. There was no damage to the generator or to

the package during the shipment and the pharmacy used the

generator successfully.

Following the NRC inspection, Mallinckrodt instituted a

program for more extensive surveys of outgoing packaged

generators.

In a letter to the company, NRC's Regional Administrator, A.

Bill Beach said:

"Based on your staff's discussion of the violation at the

[April 30] predecisional enforcement conference, no root cause

was determined and the various scenarios explored in an attempt

to arrive at a cause were inconclusive. The potential safety

significance associated with the licensed material involved and

the inability to determine a root cause are of significant

concern to the NRC."
Mallinckrodt has until June 29 to pay the fine or to protest

it. If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC

staff, the company may request a hearing.

####
Exhibit 99.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-121865, 333-109817 and 333-98405 on Forms S-8 of our
reports dated April 14, 2014, relating to (1) the consolidated financial statements of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and subsidiaries (the Company) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph relating to the convenience translation of New Taiwan dollar amounts into U.S. dollar amounts) and (2) the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2013.









|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche
|Taipei, Taiwan       
|The Republic of China

April 14, 2014
#### Marie L. Nasca, as Administratrix of the Estate of Philip M. Nasca, Deceased, Appellant, v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. (The judgment dismisses the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case, in a railroad negligence action.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.