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 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-99-36 April 13, 1999

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC STAFF ISSUES LATEST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF LIMERICK

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff, in its latest assessment of performance at

the Limerick nuclear power plant, has found that safety performance remains acceptable at the

Limerick, Pa., facility. The two-unit site is operated by PECO Nuclear Corp.

In a letter to PECO outlining the results of the review, Curtis J. Cowgill, chief of the

NRC Region I Division of Reactor Projects branch responsible for inspecting Limerick, wrote

that both units were operated safely with no automatic shutdowns or significant unplanned

reactor power changes. “Station management,” he said, “continued to focus on safety and

demonstrated strong oversight of station operations.”

The overall condition of plant equipment was very good, which contributed to reliable

plant operation, Cowgill said. He also noted improvement in the area of operability

determinations as a result of effective changes initiated by management.

The NRC plans to carry out the normal inspection program in the areas of operations,

maintenance, engineering and plant support during the next evaluation period. In addition, a

special security inspection, called an operational safeguards response evaluation, is planned.

This inspection is part of a national program to assess security at all commercial reactor sites.

The Plant Performance Review (PPR) letter is available from the NRC Region I Office

of Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr.

NRC reviews safety performance twice a year at every licensed nuclear power plant

in the nation. These reviews give the agency staff an integrated assessment of plant

performance and provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

PPRs are an interim measure the NRC is using to monitor nuclear power plant safety.

The agency began using it for this purpose after suspending the Systematic Assessment of

License Performance (SALP) process until a new oversight and assessment program is

developed. Previously, SALP reports were issued every 12 to 24 months.

The new reactor oversight and assessment program being developed will provide

quarterly performance reports, based on a number of performance indicators and on inspection

findings. This program will be tested at eight sites beginning in June and will be extended to all

plants next January. A full description of the new program is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.
#
### §507. Assistant Attorney General for Administration

(a) The Attorney General shall appoint, with the approval of the President, an Assistant Attorney General for Administration, who shall perform such duties as the Attorney General may prescribe.

(b) The position of Assistant Attorney General for Administration is in the competitive service.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 901 of title 31, United States Code, the Assistant Attorney General for Administration shall be the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Justice.

(Added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 612; amended Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(1) [title I, §111], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1535, 1501A–20.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | [Uncodified]. | 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §5 eff. May 24, 1950, 64 Stat. 1261. |

Statutes at Large

The title of the position was changed to "Assistant Attorney General for Administration" by §307 of the Act of Aug. 14, 1964, Pub. L. 88–426, 78 Stat. 432.

The words "competitive service" are substituted for "classified civil service" because the term "classified civil service" formerly used to designate the merit system established by the Civil Service Act of 1883 has become ambiguous due to the creation of the "classified" pay system. The term "competitive service" is now customarily used, and appears throughout title 5, United States Code, in place of "classified civil service".

The words "There shall be in the Department of Justice" are omitted as unnecessary as the title of the position and the fact of appointment by the Attorney General establish the location of the position in the Department of Justice.

The last 12 words of section 5 of the Reorganization Plan are omitted on authority of the Act of June 5, 1952, ch. 369, §1101 (3d proviso), 66 Stat. 121. The salary of the position is now fixed by §303(e) of the Act of Aug. 14, 1964, Pub. L. 88–426, 78 Stat. 420, which is codified in section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 507, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 910; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §71, 63 Stat. 100, related to duties of United States attorneys, and to supervision by the Attorney General, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), and reenactment in sections 509 and 547 of this title by section 4(c) of Pub. L. 89–554.

#### Amendments

1999—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 106–113 added subsec. (c).
#### Annie S. Duffy, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.194 Evidence of direct shipment. ( a ) *Documents constituting evidence of direct shipment.* The Center director may require that appropriate shipping papers, invoices, or other documents be submitted within 60 days of the date of entry as evidence that the articles were “imported directly”, as that term is defined in § 10.193. Any evidence of direct shipment required shall be subject to such verification as deemed necessary by the Center director.
( b ) *Waiver of evidence of direct shipment.* The Center director may waive the submission of evidence of direct shipment when otherwise satisfied, taking into consideration the kind and value of the merchandise, that the merchandise was, in fact, imported directly and that it otherwise clearly qualifies for treatment under the CBI.
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

217) IV-C-184 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:03 AM Sheet 217 of 232 
f"% 

w 

% P«J ^ 

^ 

P.2 

A-27-I I 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

NOV 2 2 1991 

Mr. Roland Robinson 

Robinson's 

R.F.D. 2, Box 29 

Alburg, VT 05440 

Dear Mr. Robinson: 

?,« 

u 

JAN I R 1992 \[ 

5 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

This is in response to your October 3, 1991 letter to EPA 

Administrator William K. Reilly regarding implementation of 

vehicle onboard refueling vapor recovery systems. We appreciate 

your interest in this rulemaking. 

EPA is proceeding with the rulemaking process for onboard 

controls as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

As part of this process, Congress directed EPA to consult with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding onboard system 

safety. This consultation is well underway. The National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is part of 

the DOT, released a study of onboard system safety in July 

1991. We are reviewing this study and have placed a copy in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. We also held a hearing on 

September 26th and 27th to solicit comments from the public on 

this issue. We are in the process of making the final 

determination on how to proceed with the rule based on DOT'S 

conclusions regarding safety risks of onboard systems and on the 

record developed during the comment period. 

Thank you again for your concern in this matter. Your 

letter will be included in the public docket. Please feel free 

to contact me if you require any additional information. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

DONALD E. ZINGER 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

cc: Public Docket A-87-11 

SDSB:Barba:Connell:2565 Plymouth Rd.:X515:11/13/91:ID#9988W 

Last Reviewed by Charles Gray:ll/21/91:Control No. UNCT-91-0890 

Reviewed by DZinger:BJR:X7647:AR-455:ll/21/91:Wang No. 2642T 

Printed on Recycled Paper
December 15, 2010

Summary of Community Water Systems in 

the Atrazine Monitoring Program
2

Current Status of the AMP

● 88 CWS are currently enrolled in the monitoring program

● Length of AMP participation (as of December 2010)

- 12 CWS: <4 years

- 5 CWS: 4.5 to 5 years

- 2 CWS: 5 to 7 years

- 69 CWS: Starting 9th season of monitoring in 2011

● No 90-day raw water rolling averages have approached or 

exceeded 37.5 ppb (atrazine + TCT)

Footer text
3

AMP – Single Maximum Total TCT Values in Raw Water

● 51 CWS in AMP have never had a single raw water sample 

exceed12.5 ppb (total TCT)

- 38 CWS have 5 or more seasons of monitoring data 

- 37 have 7 or more seasons

- 3 with 4.5 to 5 seasons of participation

- 10 with <4 years of participation
4

Classification of CWS by Raw Water Source Properties

● CWS with no single-sample total TCT value >12.5 ppb (5+ 

seasons participation)

- 41 total

- 28 static sources

- 13 flowing water bodies
5

CWS never exceeding 12.5 ppb Total TCT

● 41 CWS have never exceeded 12.5 ppb Total TCT (ATR, Sim, 

Degradates)

- 28 are Static

• All have a maximum 4 day Rolling average < 10.1 ppb (25 <7 ppb)

• All have a maximum 30 day rolling average < 8.9 ppb (25 < 

5.5ppb)

• 24 have 90 day rolling averages of <5 ppb

• 25 have > 200 samples

- 13 are Flowing

• All have a maximum 4 day Rolling average < 11.1 ppb (10 <8 ppb)

• All have a maximum 30 day rolling average < 6.53 ppb (11 < 5 

ppb)

• 12 have 90 day rolling averages < 4 ppb

• 10 have > 224 samples
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 96-25 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson April 10, 1996

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

GRAND GULF RATED 'SUPERIOR' IN THREE AREAS

'GOOD' IN ANOTHER IN LATEST NRC SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station has received an evaluation of

"Superior" in three functional areas and "Good" in the fourth in

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's latest systematic assessment

of licensee performance (SALP) report.

The report was sent March 25 to Entergy Operations, Inc.,

which operates the plant near Port Gibson, Miss. It evaluates

the plant's performance between February 27, 1994 and February 24

of this year.

NRC and Entergy officials will discuss the report during a

meeting set for 9 a.m., April 18, in the Grand Gulf Energy Center

Auditorium. The meeting will be open for public observation.

NRC officials will be available afterward to speak with

reporters, state and local officials, and members of the public.

NRC systematic assessment reports rate licensees in four

functional areas--plant operations, maintenance, engineering, and

plant support--and assign ratings of Category 1, 2, or 3 which

characterize performance as superior, good or adequate. The

report on Grand Gulf assigns ratings of "Category 1" in

operations, engineering and plant support. A "Category 2" was

assigned to the maintenance area.

In his cover letter to the report, NRC Regional

Administrator L. Joe Callan said, "Although the SALP scores

indicate continued overall strong safety performance at the Grand

Gulf Nuclear Station, declining performance was observed in the

operations and maintenance areas."

"Safety performance in the area of maintenance was

considered to be good, indicating a decline from its previous

superior rating," the letter said. An increase in plant

transients and scrams caused by undetected material failures and

maintenance craft errors was the cause.
In operations, continued strong operator performance was

noted during both routine operations and plant transient

responses, and engineering and plant support areas continued to

exhibit superior safety performance.

"The SALP Board was concerned that your self assessment and

corrective action programs were not always effective at detecting

and correcting declining performance in a timely manner," Callan

said. However, he noted improvements toward the end of the

grading period resulting from scram reduction and engineering

self-assessment initiatives. Callan also praised the utility's

"superior performance" in successfully implementing NRC Improved

Standard Technical Specifications.

####

EDITORS: A copy of the full SALP report is available from this

office on request.
### §130h. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 130h was editorially reclassified as section 5546 of this title.
Exhibit “1”

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1630-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2023 Page 1 of 2
TRANS NO PROF DATE MATTER ID CLIENT/REPORTING NAME MATTER CODE HOURS RATE FEES

6518213 GJA 6/23/2023 SFSLAW114215.032 CORRESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL FOR PARKER 

PLAINTIFFS REGARDING GJA DEPOSITION; REVIEW SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION

ASSET ANALYSIS AND RECOVERY 

(AAR)

AAR / T 0.30 $395.00 $118.50

6517188 MEY 6/26/2023 SFSLAW114215.032 DRAFTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ASSET ANALYSIS 

AND RECOVERY 

(AAR)

AAR / T 2.10 $295.00 $619.50

6517240 MEY 6/26/2023 SFSLAW114215.032 EDITING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO 

INCLUDE GJA'S SUGGESTIONS

ASSET ANALYSIS AND RECOVERY 

(AAR)

AAR / T 2.30 $295.00 $678.50

6517319 MEY 6/26/2023 SFSLAW114215.032 EDITING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PER 

GJA'S SUGGESTIONS (PARKER)

ASSET ANALYSIS AND RECOVERY 

(AAR)

AAR / T 1.20 $295.00 $354.00

6517378 MEY 6/26/2023 SFSLAW114215.032 EDITING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: 

SUBPOENA FOR FINAL TIME

ASSET ANALYSIS AND RECOVERY 

(AAR)

AAR / T 0.90 $295.00 $265.50

6519249 GJA 6/26/2023 SFSLAW114215.032 REVIEW, REVISE MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PARKER PLAINTIFFS' DEPOSITION SUBPOEN

A

ASSET ANALYSIS AND RECOVERY (AAR) 

AAR / T 1.90 $395.00 $750.50

TOTALS 8.70 $2,786.50

 6/29/2023 PAGE: 1

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1630-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2023 Page 2 of 2
### §4106. Stationery rooms of House and Senate; specification of classes of articles purchasable

The Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, respectively, shall make and issue regulations specifying the classes of articles which may be purchased by or through the stationery rooms of the House and Senate.

(May 13, 1926, ch. 294, §2, 44 Stat. 552; Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, title I, §102, 60 Stat. 814; Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §204(65), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1739.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 119 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–186 substituted "Committee on House Oversight" for "Committee on Accounts".

1946—Act Aug. 2, 1946, substituted "Committee on Rules and Administration" for "Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses".

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on House Oversight of House of Representatives changed to Committee on House Administration of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Jan. 6, 1999.

Stationery room of House of Representatives redesignated Office Supply Service.

#### Effective Date of 1946 Amendment

Act Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, title I, §142, 60 Stat. 834, provided that the amendment made by that act is effective Jan. 2, 1947.
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-35 June 13, 2000

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

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

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS IN FLORIDA JUNE 26 ON CHANGES IN

REACTOR OVERSIGHT AND LATEST ASSESSMENT OF CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled two public meetings for Monday, June 26

-- one on the latest performance review results for Florida Power Corporation’s Crystal River nuclear

power plant, and the other meeting on the NRC's reactor oversight process.

The first meeting will be held at 1:00 p.m. EDT at the Crystal River Nuclear Operations

Training Facility, 8200 W. Venable Street in Crystal River. During the meeting, NRC staff members

will discuss Crystal River’s latest plant performance review results, and will be available after the

meeting to answer any questions from media or members of the public.

The Plant Performance Reviews are used to evaluate safety performance information and

identify any changes in plant performance so the NRC can allocate inspection resources appropriately.

The text of each PPR letter, including the one on Crystal River, is available from the NRC Office of

Public Affairs and has been posted on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr.

Current performance information for the Crystal River plant is available on the NRC web site

at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CR3/cr3_chart.html.

The second meeting will begin at 7 p.m. EDT in the Best Western Resort conference room in

Crystal River. NRC officials will describe the new oversight process which began at the Crystal River

plant in April. Members of the public will have the opportunity to ask questions during the meeting.

The new oversight process uses more objective, timely, and safety-significant criteria in

assessing performance, while seeking to more effectively and efficiently regulate the industry. Under

the new process, inspections by NRC resident inspectors and regional office-based personnel are

supplemented by statistical measures of plant activities called performance indicators. These

performance indicators measure important safety aspects of plant operations, including the viability of

redundant safety systems, emergency planning, radiation protection, and security measures.

Inspection findings and performance indicators for each nuclear power plant are posted on the

NRC's web site every three months. The safety significance of each inspection finding or performance

indicator is characterized by a color -- green, white, yellow, or red.

The NRC response to the inspection findings and performance indicators will be based on the
significance of the items. A green finding receives normal NRC oversight, while white, yellow, or red

assessments receive increasing NRC involvement. Multiple red findings could result in a plant

shutdown.

A plain language summary of the reactor oversight process is available from the NRC Office of

Public Affairs or on the web site at: www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.
#### § 113.3 Liability of surety on a terminated bond.

The surety, as well as the principal, remains liable on a terminated bond for obligations incurred prior to termination.
§ 66.5 Responsibilities for consultation and coordination. ( a ) Contact shall be made with appropriate officials of a community in which a proposed investigation is undertaken, and with the state coordinating agency.
( b ) Local dissemination of the intent and nature of the investigation shall be encouraged so that interested parties will have an opportunity to bring relevant data to the attention of the community and to the Federal Insurance Administrator.
( c ) Submission of information from the community concerning the study shall be encouraged.
( d ) Appropriate officials of the community shall be fully informed of ( 1 ) The responsibilities placed on them by the Program,
( 2 ) the administrative procedures followed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
( 3 ) the community's role in establishing elevations, and
( 4 ) the responsibilities of the community if it participates or continues to participate in the Program.
( e ) Before the commencement of an initial Flood Insurance Study, the CCO or other FEMA representative, together with a representative of the organization undertaking the study, shall meet with officials of the community. The state coordinating agency shall be notified of this meeting and may attend. At this meeting, the local officials shall be informed of ( 1 ) The date when the study will commence,
( 2 ) the nature and purpose of the study,
( 3 ) areas involved,
( 4 ) the manner in which the study shall be undertaken,
( 5 ) the general principles to be applied, and
( 6 ) the intended use of the data obtained. The community shall be informed in writing if any of the six preceding items are or will be changed after this initial meeting and during the course of the ongoing study.
( f ) The community shall be informed in writing of any intended modification to the community's final flood elevation determinations or the development of new elevations in additional areas of the community as a result of a new study or restudy. Such information to the community will include the data set forth in paragraph (e) of this section. At the discretion of the Regional Administrator in each FEMA Regional Office, a meeting may be held to accomplish this requirement.
[47 FR 771, Jan. 7, 1982, as amended at 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984]
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.3



November 27, 2002

182 Main St. N.,
P.O. Box 886,
Waterdown, Ontario
L0R 2H0


Case Financial Inc.,
15060 Ventura Boulevard,
Suite 240,
Sherman Oaks, California,
91403

Attn: Eric Alden
      CEO


Dear Erice,
                            Re: Finders Fee Agreement

Mike Schaffer and John Irvine ("the finders") have introduced Case Financial
Inc. ("the company") to various entities and individuals over the course of the
last 9 months in an effort to secure funding for the companies ongoing business.
These entities are CCWIPP, Dundee Bancorp and associated & designated companies,
Clifford Evans, Ned Goodman, Standard Securities Inc., Peter Martini, Ralph
Tersigni, BoilerMakers Union, Retrocomm Funds et al. In the event that there are
any other entitities that the Finder(s) wish to introduce the Company the entity
must first be approved by the Company in writing.

The finders and the company have agreed to the following fees payable to the
finders for their efforts and success in arranging the required capital for the
company. The terms are as follows:

1.   All compensation is to be split and paid separately 1/3 to Schaffer and 2/3
     to Irvine
2.   Cash: 10% of proceeds received at closing(s) for each particular closing,
     payable in 3 equal annual installments commencing January 6, 2003 for the
     initial closing assuming it closes and in 3 equal annual installments for
     each subsequent closing, but in no case, commencing later than 30 days
     after each particular closing.
3.   Warrants: Warrants to purchase 100,000 Common Shares for each $1.0 Million
     in proceeds, four year term, exercise price of $0.50, and upon such other
     terms and conditions as the warrants to be issued in the Financing.
4.   Costs: company shall reimburse finders $25,000 in costs, less expenses
     previously advanced.
5.   Compensation is due and payable only in the event any of the aforesaid
     investors consumate a financing with the Company within twelve months from
     the date of this Agreement.



<PAGE>
                                       2


I, John Irvine certify that I am not a U.S. citizen, nor otherwise subject to
U.S. income tax or backup withholding, and that all services provided by me are
performed entirely outside the United States.

I ask that you sign and return this letter of agreement.

I trust that he above is satisfactory,

Agreed to this 27th day of November 27, 2002





/s/ John Irvine                                          /s/ Eric Alden
----------------------------                             -----------------------
John Irvine for the Finders                              Eric Alden, CEO
                                                         for Case Financial Inc.